"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

WinnyThePoo · 15-03-2017 06:40PM

Lads T.R.O.L .

smurgen · 15-03-2017 09:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

Mod: Banned

Almost nun like in your condescension

nhunter100 · 15-03-2017 09:11PM

Boggy Turf wrote:

The Rape of Lucretia would have made a great priest.

Who's to say he/she is not a member of one of those brain washing outfits? Nun/priest what's the difference.

Graces7 · 16-03-2017 10:14AM

The list from Castlepollard

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/survivors-release-list-of-deaths-at-castlepollard-mother-and-baby-home-781790.html

The frequency of "congenital delibilty"? seems it is one of those outdated terms like neurasthenia. and again maramsa, ie severe malnutrition

What does the term "informant" mean? Were nuns allowed to cerfify death and sign certs?

At least they had a burial

Graces7 · 16-03-2017 10:22AM

Was away yesterday and talked long with one of my extended family who has worked decades with abandoned babies in India, Nepal and other bleak places to be born in and who is Irish and as passionate and outraged as I am .

We talked about what can be done re the remains.

The survivors need to grieve, to find out who they are , and who is to blame, yes. TO e counselled and come to terms with it all with all the help they can be given

When it comes to identifying remains? Tiny, frail bones will by now have in many cases crumbled, and separating and identifying well nigh impossible and the effect on whoever was to do that?

I have too much imagination.

All the greater outrage and need to investigate and ensure that this is faced and that there is accountability.

And to let a little time pass to let emotions be come to terms with. Even here I have not stopped grieving .

And there are still records to come out. As we see today.

infogiver · 16-03-2017 10:22AM

Graces7 wrote: »

either from poor families and scared to stand up lest they were turned out or the upper class who despised the poor .

and they did pressurise.

The nuns and priests came from Irish families nonetheless, reared in Ireland.
They didn't drop out of the sky.

Graces7 · 16-03-2017 10:27AM

infogiver wrote: »

The nuns and priests came from Irish families nonetheless, reared in Ireland.
They didn't drop out of the sky.

Yes and pressurised into complying or OUT. I know someone to whom that happened. She objected to what was being done and out on the street she was thrown. She had family thankfully and went on to do great things in caring for the abandoned.

This is a common theme, that sisters were terrified lest they get thrown out and it happened enough to ensure that fear ruled.

still accountable.

16-03-2017 12:46PM

Graces7 wrote: »

The list from Castlepollard

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/survivors-release-list-of-deaths-at-castlepollard-mother-and-baby-home-781790.html

The frequency of "congenital delibilty"? seems it is one of those outdated terms like neurasthenia. and again maramsa, ie severe malnutrition

What does the term "informant" mean? Were nuns allowed to cerfify death and sign certs?

At least they had a burial

Agreed re: the levels of "congenital debility", it seems shockingly high. And what exactly was meant by "congenital debility" anyway?
Very high levels of respiratory disease, too, from pnuemonia to whooping cough.

One particular case caught my attention.
A diagnosis of "pyloric stenosis". It caught my attention because my daughter had it, as a baby.
It affects about 1 in 15,000 babies, so such a diagnoses suggests to me that there was a medical diagnoses. It certainly wouldn't have been commonly recognised back then, or even now!

The other thing that struck me was that they apparently managed to contain an outbreak of meningitis in 1939 or 1940 - yet they couldn't contain enteritis or gastroenteritis for years afterwards. So, they either had some isolation facilities, or the meningitis was misdiagnosed?
And presumably either the food preparation area, or the water supply was a hive of infection.

Horrible to see so many babies dying from what are easily treated diseases, nowadays.

Graces7 · 16-03-2017 01:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed re: the levels of "congenital debility", it seems shockingly high. And what exactly was meant by "congenital debility" anyway?
Very high levels of respiratory disease, too, from pnuemonia to whooping cough.

One particular case caught my attention.
A diagnosis of "pyloric stenosis". It caught my attention because my daughter had it, as a baby.
It affects about 1 in 15,000 babies, so such a diagnoses suggests to me that there was a medical diagnoses. It certainly wouldn't have been commonly recognised back then, or even now!

The other thing that struck me was that they apparently managed to contain an outbreak of meningitis in 1939 or 1940 - yet they couldn't contain enteritis or gastroenteritis for years afterwards. So, they either had some isolation facilities, or the meningitis was misdiagnosed?
And presumably either the food preparation area, or the water supply was a hive of infection.

Horrible to see so many babies dying from what are easily treated diseases, nowadays.

I have put an inquiry in to someone who knows. What worried me was was the death cert signed by a nun not a dr?

Will know tomorrow

16-03-2017 01:59PM

Graces7 wrote: »

I have put an inquiry in to someone who knows. What worried me was was the death cert signed by a nun not a dr?

Will know tomorrow

Thanks. It would be interesting to know.
The clearer the picture, the better.

I just checked, and the pyloric stenosis diagnoses as signed off on by that same nun, in 1944.

So, either she just signed off on what a doctor diagnosed, or she had medical training.

I've no idea whether nuns trained as doctors in 1944, from reading about the issue lately, I do know the nuns were trained in a lot of professions that wouldn't have been available to most women, but I've never heard of one who trained as a doctor?

Graces7 · 16-03-2017 03:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks. It would be interesting to know.
The clearer the picture, the better.

I just checked, and the pyloric stenosis diagnoses as signed off on by that same nun, in 1944.

So, either she just signed off on what a doctor diagnosed, or she had medical training.

I've no idea whether nuns trained as doctors in 1944, from reading about the issue lately, I do know the nuns were trained in a lot of professions that wouldn't have been available to most women, but I've never heard of one who trained as a doctor?

I had a GP when I was new in Ireland. She had trained while in the Medical Missionaries of Mary. Stayed NINE YEARS in the Novitiate then left when she qualified ....But they were/are a specialist order.

Oh; the Castlepollard Home was run by the Sacred Heart Sisters who also ran Bessborough .. and they ran Sean Ross Abbey also.

http://www.adoptionrightsalliance.com/castlepollard.htm

Goldengirl · 16-03-2017 05:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl · 16-03-2017 06:03PM

This post has been deleted.

Noddyholder · 16-03-2017 06:18PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And I can guarantee you, you wont see that implied on boards

:D

Goldengirl · 16-03-2017 06:42PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 16-03-2017 09:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I just checked, and the pyloric stenosis diagnoses as signed off on by that same nun, in 1944.

So, either she just signed off on what a doctor diagnosed, or she had medical training.

Or she knew enough to write something plausible, secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't be checked.

Goldengirl · 16-03-2017 10:11PM

This post has been deleted.

16-03-2017 10:16PM

I was there a little earlier today, for a memorial that was held. There was big enough crowd there. Something that struck me.. There was nothing to mark it. The area is fenced off. Nothing else. There's all this outrage in the government and yet the families themselves have to arrange to get a plaque done up for the names of babies buried there.

Something I didn't realize - there's a playground right beside where those babies lie. There was children playing, running around and having fun, mere feet away from where babies lie, who never had a chance.

It felt like such an odd juxtaposition.

Mr.Wemmick · 16-03-2017 10:34PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. Unbelievable really, in that if we can't get at the full truth now in 2017 and Catherine Corless had years of being fobbed off, met walls of silence and eventually received vague, non transparent info in dribs and drabs, what chance did Granny and Grandad have back in those darker times when they knew even less, other than they must do as they're told, bow down and not question the authority of the church and state.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 16-03-2017 10:37PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I lived through this period in Ireland and know that families dumped their daughters not caring what became of them. Hence women spent years in these institutions because their families never looked for them and had disowned them. I'm not excusing anything but families in many cases did not care; they just wanted rid of 'the problem'.

16-03-2017 10:49PM

kylith wrote: »

Or she knew enough to write something plausible, secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't be checked.

How would she know the term, though?

It took over a week for my daughter to be diagnosed in a hospital in the 90s. Granted, pyloric stenosis in girls only affects 1 in 60,000 - (in boys, it's 1 in 15,000), so that would have delayed the diagnoses.

But, in 1944? To just pluck a medical term out of thin air, and know enough to only use it once over all those years because of the rarity of the condition?

I honestly can't see how it would be possible without someone with medical training making that diagnoses.

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, why did so many Grannys and Grandads rear their Grandchild as their own, then? Without being denounced from the pulpit?

That's just too simplistic an assumption, I think.

I have no doubt some priests might have denounced people from the pulpit, but not everybody was so terrified that they felt they had no option but to put their daughter in the home.

I think the reasons were a lot more complex - ranging from poverty, to "shame", to inheritance rights, or being worried that no other man would marry their daughter, to fear of the priest, in some cases.

There were tens of thousands of women placed in these homes. It makes sense that the reasons for their being there would be varied.

Goldengirl · 16-03-2017 11:29PM

This post has been deleted.

infogiver · 16-03-2017 11:40PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

Granny's and grandad thought ther daughter would be 'looked after' by the nuns because that is what the priest told them. If they didn't put her in they would be denounced from the pulpit as amoral themselves and effectively the community of God fearing folk would be bullied into shunning the family and their livelihood would be affected which was an awful threat to anybody in those hard times.
A lot of the women were probably so demoralised and broken after they finally got out of there all they wanted to do was hide or take the boat.
Society of that time was bullied and treated like Germany under Naziism , not trying to be dramatic but the people while they may have had misgivings in general were institutionalised over decades to accept and conform, and that includes government, gardaI, teachers, and even the media.Very hard for us to understand that now .

But why did they not go back to collect their daughters afterwards? Do you not think that's a bit odd? I mean, if as you say, the parents thought that they were leaving their precious daughter into the caring discreet bosom of the Bons Secours order, then surely it was understood that the pregnancy would come to an end ( they all do) there would be a period of recovery, maybe the daughter would be required to care for her baby until an adoption had been arranged, but then the daughter would be collected, either to be returned home, or to be packed off to far flung relatives.
So many girls never saw their family again.
Incidentally my great grandfather reared his grandson, my now long dead grandfather, at home in a tiny rural village, poor working class people, and there was no reading from the pulpit at all, ever.

Goldengirl · 17-03-2017 12:01AM

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl · 17-03-2017 12:15AM

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl · 17-03-2017 01:04AM

This post has been deleted.

nhunter100 · 17-03-2017 01:06AM

infogiver wrote:

But why did they not go back to collect their daughters afterwards? Do you not think that's a bit odd? I mean, if as you say, the parents thought that they were leaving their precious daughter into the caring discreet bosom of the Bons Secours order, then surely it was understood that the pregnancy would come to an end ( they all do) there would be a period of recovery, maybe the daughter would be required to care for her baby until an adoption had been arranged, but then the daughter would be collected, either to be returned home, or to be packed off to far flung relatives. So many girls never saw their family again. Incidentally my great grandfather reared his grandson, my now long dead grandfather, at home in a tiny rural village, poor working class people, and there was no reading from the pulpit at all, ever.

Still defending the good sisters I see, spreading the blame. Keep it up.

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 06:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed re: the levels of "congenital debility", it seems shockingly high. And what exactly was meant by "congenital debility" anyway?
Very high levels of respiratory disease, too, from pnuemonia to whooping cough.

One particular case caught my attention.
A diagnosis of "pyloric stenosis". It caught my attention because my daughter had it, as a baby.
It affects about 1 in 15,000 babies, so such a diagnoses suggests to me that there was a medical diagnoses. It certainly wouldn't have been commonly recognised back then, or even now!

The other thing that struck me was that they apparently managed to contain an outbreak of meningitis in 1939 or 1940 - yet they couldn't contain enteritis or gastroenteritis for years afterwards. So, they either had some isolation facilities, or the meningitis was misdiagnosed?
And presumably either the food preparation area, or the water supply was a hive of infection.

Horrible to see so many babies dying from what are easily treated diseases, nowadays.

OK. had a long talk with someone who was in one of the orders .

I feel I have been incredibly naive; but then that was part of it. Wanting to think the best of "the establishment" , needing to trust and believe that they were really caring holy women of God.

This is hard for many of us; we need to trust. No longer can .

The death certs? Would have been signed en masse by the drs and left with the nuns. Hence the term "informant". Wondering now re Tuam. But surely Catherine Corless would have sussed that?

But that was the general way things were done. The lay signatures were either junior members of the order, not yet in Vows, or some will to this day use their secular names on official documents.

There was little and almost no medical care given to these little ones. They were just allowed to die or found dead of a morning.

The term "congenital debility" is meaningless. Even in my experience any illness that could not be immediately named was called "neurasthenia" eg M.E, M. S and a few other debilitating conditions that had no easy diagnosis.

A bucket term that sounds good :rolleyes:

no idea re the stenosis; anyone's guess, and maybe as fake as the syphilis

and spina bifida babies? Just allowed to die.

The water supply would have been fine. As it supplied the nuns as well as the babies. Hygiene a different matter. Shudder to think.

And the worst term? Marasma. That means extreme starvation. Amazed they added that but then they never thought this would all be in the open like this.

I visited Sean Ross abbey years ago, and was warmly greeted by the remaining Sisters, so hospitable... and I saw the graveyard but no one then had any idea as we trusted "the Nuns"

Whited sepulchres indeed

Tears flowing here; wish I could do more than pray. But that I can and will do

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 06:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was there a little earlier today, for a memorial that was held. There was big enough crowd there. Something that struck me.. There was nothing to mark it. The area is fenced off. Nothing else. There's all this outrage in the government and yet the families themselves have to arrange to get a plaque done up for the names of babies buried there.

Something I didn't realize - there's a playground right beside where those babies lie. There was children playing, running around and having fun, mere feet away from where babies lie, who never had a chance.

It felt like such an odd juxtaposition.

Is this Tuam you mean?

Catherine Corless is trying to get that playground area investigated as there are probably babies buried there too.

They can go in with the same sonar equipment they have used on the main site.

Ah the babies would no grudge that! That was what they would have had,

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 07:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

How would she know the term, though?

Again, why did so many Grannys and Grandads rear their Grandchild as their own, then? Without being denounced from the pulpit?

That's just too simplistic an assumption, I think.

I have no doubt some priests might have denounced people from the pulpit, but not everybody was so terrified that they felt they had no option but to put their daughter in the home.

I think the reasons were a lot more complex - ranging from poverty, to "shame", to inheritance rights, or being worried that no other man would marry their daughter, to fear of the priest, in some cases.

There were tens of thousands of women placed in these homes. It makes sense that the reasons for their being there would be varied.

Have a look at the early part of "Sex in a Cold Climate" and "The Magdalene Sisters" also.

The men got away with it every time. NB both films based on real cases. They are or were on line.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments