Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Sisters of Charity purportedly gift land to the State

1468910

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ ClosedAccountFuzzy


    What I don’t get is that basically the proposed operator appears to be unable to operate the services due to ethos issues. The contracts should be torn up on that basis and a new arrangement made.

    Why are we going down the road of basically being shoehorned into yet another religious hospital, against what seems to be the mainstream political will.

    Seems the state has Stockholm Syndrome.

    From a voter and citizens’ point of view I just constantly see a state that cares about sponsors and powerful vested interests’ needs being satisfied, far more than about delivery of public services.

    It seems to be how we do health and education - check what the ‘sponsors’ want, take our taxes and sure what has it got to do with the public - the people actually paying for it?

    It’s like we have drifted into running everything in the interests of what are basically outsourcers / service providers, rather than focusing on delivery of public services.

    The tail is wagging the dog.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    What I don’t get is that basically the proposed operator appears to be unable to operate the services due to ethos issues. The contracts should be torn up on that basis and a new arrangement made.

    Why are we going down the road of basically being shoehorned into yet another religious hospital, against what seems to be the mainstream political will.

    Seems the state has Stockholm Syndrome.

    From a voter and citizens’ point of view I just constantly see a state that cares about sponsors and powerful vested interests’ needs being satisfied, far more than about delivery of public services.

    It seems to be how we do health and education - check what the ‘sponsors’ want, take our taxes and sure what has it got to do with the public - the people actually paying for it?

    It’s like we have drifted into running everything in the interests of what are basically outsourcers / service providers, rather than focusing on delivery of public services.

    The tail is wagging the dog.

    It's the integration with other medical services and procedures available at the main public hospital already on site that seem to be the reason the Dep't chose St Vincent's as the site suitable. It's a direct run down the road [approx 3 miles] from Holles St NMH & south city centre so it may have been presumed the best choice. It's on the N11 [+ access to the M50]. As a stand-alone hospital, Holles St is of uncertain worth as an NMH where facilities are concerned.

    It seems everyone thought certain other people would be reasonable where it came to providing decent modern medical care for women in terms of maternity hospital services and didn't pay proper attention to the arguments of the religious-minded where it comes to what Holles St ethos and medical practicalities would transfer with its patients & staff to the proposed new NMH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭ lazygal


    If you're in serious trouble as a patient of Holles St you're taken to St Vincent's. I know several friends referred by HS in emergency situations like this. So there is a link there already. I had chosen to have tubal ligation during a section, something St Vincent's won't do.
    There has to be some sort of ripping off of the band aid when it comes to the State funding services it doesn't control to the tune of billions of euro every year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,194 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko


    It's not a few "edge" cases though. People are routinely gouged for parking (or worse) when attending hospital, more often than not in distressing circumstances. A charge for parking is a barrier in the way of healthcare, which can be very difficult for people to afford.

    Lots of people have challenges with paying for transport. The ones who have most challenges don't have cars, and can't afford the expensive running costs associated with cars, so they travel by public transport and bikes. Do you really think it's a good idea to subsidise the transport costs of the better off segments of society at the expense of others?

    And btw, as soon as you make parking free, it gets abused and becomes largely unavailable to the intended audience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    lazygal wrote: »
    If you're in serious trouble as a patient of Holles St you're taken to St Vincent's. I know several friends referred by HS in emergency situations like this. So there is a link there already. I had chosen to have tubal ligation during a section, something St Vincent's won't do.
    There has to be some sort of ripping off of the band aid when it comes to the State funding services it doesn't control to the tune of billions of euro every year.

    On an aside, if the tubal ligation was refused on ethical and not medical grounds, I suppose vasectomies would be on the ethical NO list as well at St Vincent's public [whatever about the Private] hospital.

    Claire Byrne is about to step into the RTE input on the new NMH.

    EDIT: listening to the CB show, according to one of the guests, it seems that the order has NOT yet gifted the land to anyone or any body set up at their behest for the purpose of operating the possibly completed new NMH as part of the overall linked together hospitals on the site. Some-one else here wrote that the order had not gifted the site to anyone so that person is right. SVHG apparently does NOT own or control the site per se, yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    aloyisious wrote: »
    On an aside, if the tubal ligation was refused on ethical and not medical grounds, I suppose vasectomies would be on the ethical NO list as well at St Vincent's public [whatever about the Private] hospital.
    Catholic hospitals generally don't perform vasectomies (at least, as a contraceptive technique) for the same reason that they don't perform sterilisations on women.

    In practice this is less of an issue since the procedure is a much simpler one, routinely performed at specialist clinics. Someone looking for a vasectomy generally doesn't head off to a hospital in the first place, so the reluctance of some hospitals to provide the service doesn't present the same problems as a reluctance to perform female sterilisations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern


    aloyisious wrote: »
    It's seems they are NOT poor [in as far as wealth and being mendicant go] and the order gifted the site to the new SVHG for the purpose of running the new NMH as part of the integrated St Vincent's Hospital operating within the SVHG. The SVHG board, which will include persons appointed by the order, will be in charge of all the hospitals on the St Vincent's site AND St Michaels Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The wording in the St Vincent's letter from the board of the SVHG to the Dep't of Health [IMO] were not carelessly chosen words where it comes to the group's plans on governance at the whole hospital inclusive of the planned new on-site NMH.

    They have no wealth that would make them wealthy. Everything they own is held in common. The new SVHG board is heavily influenced by the current Vincent board whom the sisters originally built of course but it is not Catholic and its not going to be controlled by the sisters. The make of the different boards is online. You can see their credentials. Even if they wanted to make it catholic they wouldn't have the voting power. The whole saga is just charging at windmills for political gain. Sadly there is zero risk of any Catholic management at the new NMH. This is all set in stone in company law years ago.

    It is your namesakes patron day today, patron saint of plague victims.




  • I see Varadkar has called the Sisters "selfless" and has called for people to stop "demonising" them. He is right, but I question his sincerity.

    Here is my prediction; because it has now been outright stated that abortions will take place at the hospital the sisters will be unable to sell the land, even if they conceivably could have before (doubtful). His Holiness Pope Francis has recently put into place considerable reforms about the alienation of church land in order to address corruption (church land being sold at knockdown prices etc.). The Sisters already knew of the difficulty in getting permission to sell the land, never-mind to "give it away". This was the rationale for the rather convoluted "charity and lease" structure. This would have put enough distance between the sisters and the actions at the hospital for them to have "clean hands" on the matter even though unethical (in their view) procedures would take place. This approach has all but been torpedoed now. CPO is probably the only way the state will get the land now. This will be hundreds of millions more, and it looks like the NMH will now be another omnishambles like the children's hospital. I think it will be "delayed" in order for reports to be done on alternative suitable sites.

    Am I naive, or would it not have made more sense to build a massive children's and maternity hospital together?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    Even if they wanted to make it catholic they wouldn't have the voting power.

    So who does have the voting power then?

    The whole saga is just charging at windmills for political gain. Sadly there is zero risk of any Catholic management at the new NMH. This is all set in stone in company law years ago.

    I think it's apparent that you haven't a clue and are talking through your hat.

    And what's with the "sadly"? Haven't the women of Ireland suffered enough through catholic church control of reproductive health services?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    CPO is probably the only way the state will get the land now. This will be hundreds of millions more

    You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.


  • Advertisement


  • You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.
    It has been reported widely that the commercial value of the land is in the region of 100/200 million. CPO must pay the market value of the site, and anyway can only be done if it can be established that it is necessary and proportionate. Good luck proving that in an instance where free use of the land is being offered.



    I would also suggest that "proving" that prime land in D4 is worth zero will be an uphill battle also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern


    It has been reported widely that the commercial value of the land is in the region of 100/200 million. CPO must pay the market value of the site, and anyway can only be done if it can be established that it is necessary and proportionate. Good luck proving that in an instance where free use of the land is being offered.



    I would also suggest that "proving" that prime land in D4 is worth zero will be an uphill battle also.

    If they end up CPOing it, it will be an immense failure of the last two governments. A unnecessary massive bill and a massive delay. I don't know who deserves more blame, the opposition for driving this, or the government for a massive failure in communication or the protest groups who should have thought this through.


    UOTE=Hotblack Desiato;117473938]You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.[/QUOTE]

    If it was sold for agricultural prices through CPO (I guess half a million) it is the time delay that is a killer. Takes at least a year.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    If they end up CPOing it, it will be an immense failure of the last two governments. A unnecessary massive bill and a massive delay. I don't know who deserves more blame, the opposition for driving this, or the government for a massive failure in communication or the protest groups who should have thought this through.




    If it was sold for agricultural prices through CPO (I guess half a million) it is the time delay that is a killer. Takes at least a year.

    The protest groups should have thought this through?
    I do sometimes wonder what lens you view the world through.

    Protests groups - as you term them though it does include political parties like the Soc Dems - did think this through. And from day one explained why it was a very very bad idea.
    But, as usual, when the strength of feeling becomes blinding obvious LV's FG party discover they are concerned.

    The govt who agreed this deal either didn't think it through or are so out of touch with the zeitgeist they seriously miscalculated how the majority of the Irish electorate have had enough of roseries anywhere next or near ovaries in our publicly funded healthcare system..
    The Sisters of Charity have form and their M.O. suggests they knew exactly what they were doing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    David Quinn was just on RTE Drive-time news, saying the question of whom owned the site the new NMH is proposed to be built on should be put to James Menton and one other director of the SVHG he named so people can know who the actual site owner is: the order or the SVHG. I regret there was only one mention of the name of the woman-director of SVHG and I missed the chance to note and type it here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.
    It has huge development value. It's zoned Z15, "institutional and community uses", Even without a variation that would permit the use of the land for educational institutions, retirement communities, etc, which could be commercial developments. A housing component will usually be readily approved as part of such a development, given the priority attached to providing housing in the city, so long as open spaces are also retained. So, yeah, considerable potential.

    Furthermore, if the hospital were to close (which of course it would if the state ceased to fund it) then the the Z15 zoning would be reconsidered, because it would no longer be required to facilitate the hospital.

    Basically, you can't apply or maintain restrictive zoning or planning restrictions to land with a view to diminishing its value so that you can then compulsorily acquire it more cheaply. So the state can't on the one hand say that it won't fund the hospital running on the site, and on the other hand insist on buying the land at a value which assumes it can only be used to run a hospital or similar. Any attempt to CPO on those terms would undoubtedly spend years winding its way through the courts. If the hospital closed and a rezoning application would be highly likely to succeed; that will be reflected in the compensation to be paid if the land is CPOed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭ groovyg


    Good explainer on the intermingling of church and state funds in relation to St Vincents

    Letter from Peter Boylan in the Irish Times outlining what needs to happen. He has pretty much been saying the same thing since this deal was first mooted.
    Sir, - It is just over four years since I resigned from the board of the National Maternity Hospital, detailing my concerns about the ownership of the land on which the planned new hospital will be built at Elm Park and the ownership and governance arrangements of the new hospital facility. Successive governments have been unable to resolve these core issues in a way that will both safeguard public investment and guarantee the availability of the full range of legal reproductive healthcare services, free of Catholic ethos.

    I welcome the statement by Tánaiste Leo Varadkar, in the Dáil last Thursday, that the Government has "big concerns" about these core issues. Mr Varadkar noted that the land will be owned by a private charity (St Vincent's Holdings) rather than the State, with only a 99-year lease being provided and that the Government "does not think the safeguards around that are strong enough". He also raised the problems relating to the proposed governance structure, noting that "the board will not be appointed by the government, and that's a real difficulty too, because a hospital that is fully funded by the State or almost fully funded by the State should have a significant number or majority of members of the board appointed by the government".

    In relation to the question of Catholic ethos, he called for the constitution of St Vincent's Holdings - which will own the NMH DAC, the company that will operate the new hospital - to explicitly state in its constitution and memorandum of association that the new hospital will provide abortion, IVF, contraception and other services which are absolutely prohibited by Catholic teaching.

    Without the resolution of these issues, he stated that the Government has "problems, quite frankly, going forward with this project".

    As matters stand, the only way that the Government's concerns can be satisfactorily addressed is for the State to own the land on which the hospital is to be built, and for the governance and ownership arrangements of the new NMH to be revisited in full so that the NMH DAC - the company which will operate the new hospital - is not owned by St Vincent's Holdings but is fully secular and State-owned, with a board reflective of that reality.

    On the part of the State this will require the setting aside of the Mulvey report and a complete revision of the ownership and governance of the new hospital.

    On the St Vincent's side, the Religious Sisters of Charity will need to make a fresh alienation application to the Vatican, specifically to the Congregation of the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, headed by Cardinal Joao Braz de Avis. This application will need the support of the Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin; the Archbishop of Dublin, Dermot Farrell; and the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, Archbishop Jude Okolo, by way of a statement of "Nihil Obstat" (no objection) to the Order's plans to either sell the site to the State or, better still, fulfil the commitment made by the Sisters in May 2017 to "gift" the site to the "people of Ireland" in the form of the State.

    I do not believe that a compulsory purchase order of the site at Elm Park is achievable in view of several articles of the constitution. Indeed, The Irish Times reports that "the State has tried everything possible to buy the land the new hospital will be built on but has failed to do so" (News, June 18th).

    The Tánaiste has now clarified the issues that must be resolved in order for the new NMH project to proceed at St Vincent's.

    That the Irish State, in 2021, depends on a decision of the Vatican to proceed with the building of a State-funded secular maternity hospital speaks volumes about the need to separate Church and State in the provision of healthcare.

    This is an opportunity to break that connection and a test case of the State's resolve. - Yours, etc,

    Dr PETER BOYLAN,

    Dublin 6.

    As it is the NMH has its own independent board - it won't have this with the current deal negotiated with Vincents. https://twitter.com/drboylan/status/1406871231824109570


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    I would also suggest that "proving" that prime land in D4 is worth zero will be an uphill battle also.

    Nobody said it has zero value but it's certainly not like the RTE site where a developer can snap it up and get planning for hundreds of apartments with relative ease.

    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It has huge development value. It's zoned Z15, "institutional and community uses", Even without a variation that would permit the use of the land for educational institutions, retirement communities, etc, which could be commercial developments. A housing component will usually be readily approved as part of such a development, given the priority attached to providing housing in the city, so long as open spaces are also retained. So, yeah, considerable potential.

    The site literally adjoins an existing, and very much in use, hospital. So good luck with getting planning for any of the above.
    Furthermore, if the hospital were to close (which of course it would if the state ceased to fund it) then the the Z15 zoning would be reconsidered, because it would no longer be required to facilitate the hospital.

    If my auntie had balls.... in that scenario we wouldn't be looking to build a hospital on it or looking to purchase the land so the possible value in such a scenario is of no concern to the state.
    So the state can't on the one hand say that it won't fund the hospital running on the site, and on the other hand insist on buying the land at a value which assumes it can only be used to run a hospital or similar.

    But there is no hospital on the site...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    SVHG have stated that the site where the new NMH is to be built is NOT for sale. The order did not make that statement. It seems plain from that statement that SVHG totally owns the site and that the order does not own or control the site AND has totally stepped away from SVHG and the site, if one is to accept at face value that the order has no control or ability to "steer" decisions made by the SVHG board which it approved of when it set up the SVHG.

    One problem with that thesis is that the order has NOT YET gifted the site to anyone or any group. That being a legal fact one can't scoot around, it makes it obvious that the order is using the SVHG it set up as an implement to play with anyone interested in having a new NMH built and operated with the medical independence that Holles St NMH has. Even the RC archbishop of Dublin stepped away from the position he held in respect of Holles St NMH, something the order plainly does NOT intend to do if and when the new NMH is built at St Vincent's Hospital grounds. That mean's, IMO, the order is putting the medical maternal care AND SERVICES provided at Holles St NMH which is supposed to be transferred to the new NMH to be built at St Vincent's aside in place of the order's own ethics where it comes to the provision of medical maternity care.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern


    aloyisious wrote: »
    SVHG have stated that the site where the new NMH is to be built is NOT for sale. The order did not make that statement. It seems plain from that statement that SVHG totally owns the site and that the order does not own or control the site AND has totally stepped away from SVHG and the site, if one is to accept at face value that the order has no control or ability to "steer" decisions made by the SVHG board which it approved of when it set up the SVHG.

    One problem with that thesis is that the order has NOT YET gifted the site to anyone or any group. That being a legal fact one can't scoot around, it makes it obvious that the order is using the SVHG it set up as an implement to play with anyone interested in having a new NMH built and operated with the medical independence that Holles St NMH has. Even the RC archbishop of Dublin stepped away from the position he held in respect of Holles St NMH, something the order plainly does NOT intend to do if and when the new NMH is built at St Vincent's Hospital grounds. That mean's, IMO, the order is putting the medical maternal care AND SERVICES provided at Holles St NMH which is supposed to be transferred to the new NMH to be built at St Vincent's aside in place of the order's own ethics where it comes to the provision of medical maternity care.
    For that theory to be put it would mean senior doctors like Dr. Rhona Mahony who is on this board, has become a puppet of the Order. Dr. Rhona Mahony is an inlaw of Boylan and isn't known for conservative views. It is more plausible that the board, for its own strategic reasons, don't want to sell the land because they want to be in control of the NMH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern



    But there is no hospital on the site...

    Judging by RTEs plans, the site has existing hospital buildings, like old one story structures which would be demolished.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭ MrMusician18


    One thing that's puzzled me about this controversy is that the state agreed to this arrangement a few years ago, when the same faces were in power, and only now it's a problem?

    It just looks like politically its suits to kick up about this now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    For that theory to be put it would mean senior doctors like Dr. Rhona Mahony who is on this board, has become a puppet of the Order. Dr. Rhona Mahony is an inlaw of Boylan and isn't known for conservative views. It is more plausible that the board, for its own strategic reasons, don't want to sell the land because they want to be in control of the NMH.

    As the order has not yet gifted the site to anyone, just talked about that being a possibility [to apparently enable Holles St NMH move to the proposed new NMH there] the SVHG would have no apparent right to try sell on the site in its own right as it does not legally own or have charge of the site from the order.

    Re Dr Mahony, it has been reported in various Irish papers over the past few years that she had a falling-out with Dr Boylan over the issue of SVHG and the proposed building of the new NMH at St Vincent's Elm Park campus. Both doctors do not see eye to eye on the plan. Dr Mahony would probably, from her time as master at Holles ST NMH and being aware of the failings of that old building, have the best interests of women's maternal care in mind where a new modern NMH is concerned. I don't see her putting other interests above her duties to women there.

    So much mention has been made of the SVHG control and and not selling the site that people seem to be taken it as a fact that it controls the site. Even today, according to RTE, the health minister talked about talks with St Vincent Healthcare Group and not St Vincent Hospital Group.

    The latter group was set up in 2001 to strive to maintain excellence in clinical, multi-disciplinary care, education and research alongside it's other hospitals and with responsibilities to the wider Irish healthcare system, the former group seems to have disappeared from the internet when a search is started for it despite it being in existence very recently. It's possible it's been assimilated by the 2001 SVHG, for clarity purposes when it comes to the SVHG acronym.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,809 ✭✭✭ donspeekinglesh


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Re Dr Mahony, it has been reported in various Irish papers over the past few years that she had a falling-out with Dr Boylan over the issue of SVHG and the proposed building of the new NMH at St Vincent's Elm Park campus. Both doctors do not see eye to eye on the plan. Dr Mahony would probably, from her time as master at Holles ST NMH and being aware of the failings of that old building, have the best interests of women's maternal care in mind where a new modern NMH is concerned. I don't see her putting other interests above her duties to women there.

    Dr Boylan is also a former Master of Holles Street - 1991–1997
    He also worked there for a decade before becoming Master - delivering 6000 babies according to this profile, including me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,955 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    One thing that's puzzled me about this controversy is that the state agreed to this arrangement a few years ago, when the same faces were in power, and only now it's a problem?

    It just looks like politically its suits to kick up about this now.

    The deal was worked out after an intermediary [Kieran Mulvey] experienced in working out deals between reluctant partners was asked to look into the matter of arranging a workable deal between Holles St NMH and the SVHG.

    Corporate responsibility for the new NMH seems to be at the centre of the row, what the term means in the real-time, running of the hospital down to non-medical ethics or just running the hospital as a working medical hospital. The nuns and the SVHG kicking up a political row, perish the thought.

    On an aside, mention was made today on behalf of the SVHG that tubal ligation surgeries are now carried out in the hospitals run by the group.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/national-maternity-hospital-agreement-3358407-Apr2017/


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭ MrMusician18


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The deal was worked out after an intermediary [Kieran Mulvey] experienced in working out deals between reluctant partners was asked to look into the matter of arranging a workable deal between Holles St NMH and the SVHG.

    Corporate responsibility for the new NMH seems to be at the centre of the row, what the term means in the real-time, running of the hospital down to non-medical ethics or just running the hospital as a working medical hospital. The nuns and the SVHG kicking up a political row, perish the thought.

    On an aside, mention was made today on behalf of the SVHG that tubal ligation surgeries are now carried out in the hospitals run by the group.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/national-maternity-hospital-agreement-3358407-Apr2017/

    The Nuns and SVHG are hardly the ones kicking up about it since they are happy with the agreement. It's the government that's now unhappy with what they signed up to a few years ago. The same faces too.

    It suited everyone politically to press ahead with the agreement then. What has changed?

    In fact if the state is now unhappy with the terms, let them CPO part of elm park golf club for the new NMH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern


    aloyisious wrote: »
    As the order has not yet gifted the site to anyone, just talked about that being a possibility [to apparently enable Holles St NMH move to the proposed new NMH there] the SVHG would have no apparent right to try sell on the site in its own right as it does not legally own or have charge of the site from the order.

    Re Dr Mahony, it has been reported in various Irish papers over the past few years that she had a falling-out with Dr Boylan over the issue of SVHG and the proposed building of the new NMH at St Vincent's Elm Park campus. Both doctors do not see eye to eye on the plan. Dr Mahony would probably, from her time as master at Holles ST NMH and being aware of the failings of that old building, have the best interests of women's maternal care in mind where a new modern NMH is concerned. I don't see her putting other interests above her duties to women there.

    So much mention has been made of the SVHG control and and not selling the site that people seem to be taken it as a fact that it controls the site. Even today, according to RTE, the health minister talked about talks with St Vincent Healthcare Group and not St Vincent Hospital Group.

    The latter group was set up in 2001 to strive to maintain excellence in clinical, multi-disciplinary care, education and research alongside it's other hospitals and with responsibilities to the wider Irish healthcare system, the former group seems to have disappeared from the internet when a search is started for it despite it being in existence very recently. It's possible it's been assimilated by the 2001 SVHG, for clarity purposes when it comes to the SVHG acronym.

    She probably doesn't see it so black and white. I imagine she and the other board believe healthcare is best serviced with the original plan. They say this on yesterdays letter. I just wish they were better at communicating it. TD Alan Kelly didn't do himself any favours repeating old myths on that interview. It seems that no one really knows who knows the land and even if the sisters still own, it doesn't mean its not locked into some arrangement with SVHG. Quinn's interview is by far the most informative.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The protest groups should have thought this through?
    The govt who agreed this deal either didn't think it through or are so out of touch with the zeitgeist they seriously miscalculated how the majority of the Irish electorate have had enough of roseries anywhere next or near ovaries in our publicly funded healthcare system..
    Dr Rhona Mahony's rosaries?
    Our rosaries are not going anywhere but it has nothing to do with this hospital.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The deal was worked out after an intermediary [Kieran Mulvey] experienced in working out deals between reluctant partners was asked to look into the matter of arranging a workable deal between Holles St NMH and the SVHG.

    Corporate responsibility for the new NMH seems to be at the centre of the row, what the term means in the real-time, running of the hospital down to non-medical ethics or just running the hospital as a working medical hospital. The nuns and the SVHG kicking up a political row, perish the thought.

    On an aside, mention was made today on behalf of the SVHG that tubal ligation surgeries are now carried out in the hospitals run by the group.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/national-maternity-hospital-agreement-3358407-Apr2017/

    They also claim they carry out gender re-assignments which is a great big fat lie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,255 ✭✭✭✭ Spanish Eyes


    Forgive me now, but just musing here. There must be some cachet attached to Holles Street hospital moving further into South County Dublin alright. Couldn't be having it within the canals now could we?

    For example, there was a large chunk of land (Player Wills site) beside the Coombe Women's hospital that could have been used for the new maternity hospital surely? Practically on the site of the Coombe, and within a few hundred metres of St. James and the new children's hospital. No religious ethos/shenanigans involved. Makes too much sense I suppose, and maybe SOME would baulk at having to travel further into the badlands than Merrion Square or Elm Park. Instead of the land being gifted though, it would have had to be paid for. But look at what's happening now? Years more delay I reckon.

    Am I just being a bad person for thinking this? But anyway as far as I know all development land around the Coombe has been earmarked for housing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭ MrMusician18


    Forgive me now, but just musing here. There must be some cachet attached to Holles Street hospital moving further into South County Dublin alright. Couldn't be having it within the canals now could we?

    For example, there was a large chunk of land (Player Wills site) beside the Coombe Women's hospital that could have been used for the new maternity hospital surely? Practically on the site of the Coombe, and within a few hundred metres of St. James and the new children's hospital. No religious ethos/shenanigans involved. Makes too much sense I suppose, and maybe SOME would baulk at having to travel further into the badlands than Merrion Square or Elm Park. Instead of the land being gifted though, it would have had to be paid for. But look at what's happening now? Years more delay I reckon.

    Am I just being a bad person for thinking this? But anyway as far as I know all development land around the Coombe has been earmarked for housing.

    A lot of this (all of it) is politics both civil and medical, where the patient doesn't even come last - they're not even considered.

    The hospital could be built on the RTE site, right beside St. Vincent's.

    It's actually quite sickening tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭ lazygal


    I had tubal ligation in Holles Street in 2018. It was elective, during an elective section.



    Had I had an emergency requiring transfer to Vincents I was told the tubal ligation wouldn't be done during an emergency section.


Advertisement