Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuns to be given new hospital

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I see there's a petition with 50 thousand signatures so far in the journal to have this stopped. How many signatures does it take to make a politician nervous?


  • Options
    #33
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I’m coming late to this......

    So refreshing to read something from someone who has actually thought about this!

    Mind you, this is the key bit:
    Of course, much depends on the particular terms of the agreement under which the Sisters of Charity will allow the hospital to be conducted on the site. How long does it run for? Under what circumstances, and on what terms, can it be terminated? As we don’t know the answer to questions like these, we can’t say for sure how good or bad a deal this is from either party’s point of view.
    If the nuns have anything other than theoretical rights, then this is going to be a sh!tstorm (and rightly so). But if all they have is the right for the hospital to vest in them after 50-100 years, then that's effectviely just giving them the land back.


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But it’s not obviously a bad deal from the State’s point of view, financially speaking.

    Financially speaking.

    The nuns aren't doing this for money.

    They're doing this because of the potential influence it will give them in health care.

    If this was a genuine financial deal they wouldn't feel the need to appoint people to the board of the new hospital (via the board of st Vincents)?

    They can appoint four member of a nine member board. They'll only need to turn one of the other members to get a majority. The Health Minister will keep a 'golden share' but we all know how church friendly most health ministers have been in the past....


  • Options
    #35
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    We can see this by imagining whether any commercial property developer would enter into a similar deal - provide a large site in Dublin 4 at no upfront cost and for no rent, and allow a hospital to be built on it, in return for the enhancement to the site value which would come from having a vacant hospital on it when the arrangement comes to an end.
    We cant imagine a commercial developer entering into any such deal, can we?
    I can. That would certainly be a very good deal for the developer if he could subsequently sell the (state of the art) hospital to Aviva or some private healthcare provider.

    As there is nothing mentioned about any legal burden being placed on the property which would prevent the religious order from selling it at any time, we assume that they hold full and unencumbered legal title to the hospital and all its facilities.


  • Options
    #36
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    drkpower wrote: »
    ..if all they have is the right for the hospital to vest in them after 50-100 years, then that's effectivily just giving them the land back.
    Well no, they have full ownership already. They will immediately own anything else the state builds on their site.

    Even if some new clause was introduced such that they had to wait 100 years to own the proposed new hospital, it doesn't follow that the 100 year old hospital would have depreciated back to being worth merely the site value. On the contrary, its likely that the state would continue to upgrade and invest in the facility over that time, such that in 100 years time it would be worth far more than the initial build costs.


  • Options
    #38
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Talk of cost savings on this is crass. This is just a totally unacceptable situation and if we have to spend more money to avoid it then so be it.

    Harris might be too green to realise that in 100 years time he will be remembered as the guy who gave the hospital to the nuns even after we knew about the laundries and the tanks full of dead babies.

    I very much doubt anyone will mention the money he saved.


  • Options
    #39
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    outrageous considering all the issues connected with this order


  • Options
    #40
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    recedite wrote: »
    Well no, they have full ownership already. They will immediately own anything else the state builds on their site.

    Even if some new clause was introduced such that they had to wait 100 years to own the proposed new hospital, it doesn't follow that the 100 year old hospital would have depreciated back to being worth merely the site value. On the contrary, its likely that the state would continue to upgrade and invest in the facility over that time, such that in 100 years time it would be worth far more than the initial build costs.

    Possibly, possibly not.

    Temple street was built about 100 years ago; is the value today in the site or in the Hospital? (same question for the Rotunda, or indeed the NMH itself?)


  • Options
    #41
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,060 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    A large amount of money, but what percentage of the total project cost? Basically the nuns are being gifted the difference, albeit with constraints such that they can't do much with it in the short term. Surely either directly purchasing or issuing a CPO for the site and then paying the order the amount involved less the amount they owe the state through the redress scheme would make far more sense for the taxpayer.
    No, I don’t think so. The constraint is not that the nuns “can't do much with it in the short term”; it’s that they can’t do anything with it for as long as the hospital operates there. And, if the agreement is that the hospital can operate there for as long as the state is willing to fund its operation, that’s not ”the short term”; it’s likely to be many decades before the hospital building is handed back to the nuns (if it ever is). A building - particularly a high-tech building like a hospital - is a wasting asset. In (say) 2060, having a forty-year old hospital building with no hospital operating in it won’t be an enhancement to the value of the site; removing the building will just be an additional expense of developing the site for some other purpose.
    smacl wrote: »
    I think the bigger issue is whether the public want to see the clergy involved in large institutions like this going forward, where the bulk of the reaction I'm hearing seems not.
    This is the thing. What’s in this for the nuns is not a free obsolete hospital building in forty years time; it’s the opportunity to be involved in running a hospital now, since running hospitals is part of their apostolate. What they bring to the table is a site for a hospital; what they get in return is an opportunity to be involved in running a hospital.

    Why is this attractive to the state? Two reasons, I think. First, they like the whole idea of voluntary hospitals in principle. They like a mixed system, with a blend of public and voluntary hospitals. Mixed systems promote diversity, and diverse systems are generally more resilient, more flexible and more productive than uniform systems. They no more want to run all the hospitals than they want to run all the schools, or all the public transport, or all the housing. Secondly, its financially attractive; they’re getting the free use of a valuable site for as long as they want it. As already noted, I haven’t seen the details of this deal, but I’ll happily stand you a pint if it turns out that it isn’t a good deal cheaper for the state than buying a site, leasing a site or providing a site out of the State’s existing property estate.

    It might be interesting to ask the question of those who don’t want to see the clergy involved, how much extra tax are they willing to pay to avoid this?

    Interesting, but perhaps unfair. This isn’t really about money, I think, or at any rate it shouldn’t be. It’s unfortunate that this debate has revolved around site ownership, and the fact that the nuns will be “given a hospital building” because that isn’t really the important issue here. Whether and to what extent the nuns should be involved in running the hospital is probably best discussed in those terms, independent of the residual ownership of the hospital at the end of its life. If the upshot is that the nuns don’t want to be involved in running the hospital on terms that are acceptable to the state and so don’t offer a free site, well, that will result in an additional cost that the taxpayer will have to bear. But I don’t think we should start out by focussing on the cost aspect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    This is the thing. What’s in this for the nuns is not a free obsolete hospital building in forty years time; it’s the opportunity to be involved in running a hospital now, since running hospitals is part of their apostolate. What they bring to the table is a site for a hospital; what they get in return is an opportunity to be involved in running a hospital.

    This is exactly correct... and precisely why this deal is a bad one in today's Ireland.

    Long ago, nuns ran hospitals and this had advantages for the state, they provided labour and management and they had plenty of both. Of course, they also ensured that everything done in their hospital was in line with Catholic teaching but that was quite acceptable at the time.
    Those were the days when one matron could run a hospital and where her word was law and it was quite efficient.

    Today, nuns provide none of this. They don't have nuns to provide labour any more, and even if they did they would have to be employed and paid by the state. They don't have people experienced enough to fill management posts either so what element can they provide to the running of a hospital?

    Yes, you've guessed it, the 'ethos'. Influencing the 'ethos' is the only reason left why nuns would want to be involved in running this hospital.

    And that's precisely why it shouldn't be allowed.


  • Options
    #43
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    New maternity hospital should not be given to Sisters of Charity
    So let us be clear: the Sisters of Charity will be the sole owners of the new National Maternity Hospital.

    Many at the hospital are satisfied that adequate protection is provided. I am not.

    Modern maternity and gynaecological care encompasses contraception, sterilisation, IVF, gender reassignment surgery and abortion, as well as the usual day-to-day activities of a busy maternity hospital.

    Are we seriously expected to believe that if the hospital goes ahead according to the proposed arrangement it will be the only maternity hospital in the world owned by the Catholic Church, and run by a company owned by the Catholic Church, that will allow these procedures? This stretches credibility to breaking point. Indeed it would seem to be naive.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #44
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,395 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It might be interesting to ask the question of those who don’t want to see the clergy involved, how much extra tax are they willing to pay to avoid this?

    Interesting, but perhaps unfair. This isn’t really about money, I think, or at any rate it shouldn’t be.
    still, you'd have to ask the 'cui bono?' question; why are the nuns 'giving away' a significantly valuable site for a building which they will supposedly have no sway over (despite the fact they'll just be shaded into a minority on the board)?

    it's to keep their oar in on running hospitals in ireland, and especially given this is a maternity hospital, that's why so many people find this untenable.

    and this is about money in the sense that i don't mind paying tax to build hospitals, but i do object to that spend not remaining in public hands.


  • Options
    #45
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,060 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The nun's motivation is obvious. Their whole reason for existing is to do things like running hospitals, and the reason they own the land is so that they can use it to run a hospital. And offering it as a site for the NMH represents an opportunity to do exactly that.

    You might equally ask why, say, a museum spends its funds acquiring objects which they then exhibit to the public for free? How do they make any money out of that? The answer is they don't; exhibiting objects to the public is the reason they have any money in the first place, and they're happy to spend the money to do that.

    This is basically the mechanism that has driven the whole voluntary hospital system in Ireland for the past hundred years or more. Hospital foundations (many but not all religious) want to run hospitals and have funds or assets that they are happy to devote to the purpose. The state wants hospitals to be run so that citizens have access to medical care, but wants to minimise the amount of public money it has to spend to secure this. The community of interest is obvious.

    As to "the spend not remaining in public hands", I may be a minority here but I really don't think this is a material issue. A high-tech hospital building is a wasting asset. If, when vacated and handed back to them, it's twenty years old or more, it's really not an asset to them; more of a liability, since it will require enormous renovation and adaptation, or more likely demolition, before the site can be developed for a commercially attractive use.

    The real issue here, on both sides, is not the residual value of the hospital building; it's control of/influence over the operation of the hospital. In purely financial terms the contribution of the hospital site is very attractive from the point of view of public finances, but if that comes at too high a price in terms of what services the hospital will and will not provide, and on what terms, then the public interest may require the offer of the site to be rejected.

    "May", but not necessarily "must". There's a huge range of services that are only available in certain hospitals, and if you require them you are referred to the relevant hospital. In that context, there's no general principle that says that every legally permissible service must be provided at every hospital, or at the NMH in particular. What matters is that everybody in need of the service has access to a hospital where that service is provided. So there's a trade-off between the practical and financial advantages of siting the NMH at Elm Park, and the complexity, cost or inconvenience that could result if certain services are provided not at the NHM but at other hospitals.


  • Options
    #46
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There's a huge range of services that are only available in certain hospitals, and if you require them you are referred to the relevant hospital. In that context, there's no general principle that says that every legally permissible service must be provided at every hospital, or at the NMH in particular.

    But if we're going to spend 300 million euros on a new national maternity hospital, in what is realistically a once in a generation opportunity, we'd clearly like it to be able to provide a full range on gynaecological services in a manner that is unencumbered in any way by a religious ethos that proscribes a set of values relating to reproductive and sexual health that very few Irish people subscribe to. As per Delirium's post and linked article, the hospital board would appear to be based around conflicting interests from day one, and passing ownership to the nuns seems to be in direct opposition to public opinion. (That 50 thousand signatures yesterday now stands at 70 thousand). It seems patently ridiculous to make these kind of compromises without some in-depth public discussion on the matter.

    Also from the journal

    415239.JPG

    Edit: 75 thousand and counting, for those interested sign here


  • Options
    #47
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    Looks like the nuns aren't too happy with Harris's assurances that the hospital will be independent from catholic dogma. Article has some lucid quotes from John Crown.
    Earlier, well-known oncologist Prof John Crown described as “outrageous” the plan to hand over the ownership of the new national maternity hospital to an order of nuns.

    He criticised the former chairman of the Workplace Relations Commission Kieran Mulvey, who acted as a mediator between the National Maternity Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital during the negotiation process, leading to a new maternity hospital being owned by the Sisters of Charity.

    Prof Crown said it was “simply extraordinary” that Mr Mulvey could believe that the Sisters of Charity have no role in running St Vincent’s and will have no role in running the new maternity hospital on the grounds of St Vincent’s Hospital.

    Prof Crown said the board of the hospital was appointed by the nuns and acts in the interest of the nuns. “You don’t see nuns swishing around the hospital any more, but everybody who sits on the board is there because of the Sisters of Charity ultimately.”

    He also said it was “outrageous” that the State had decided to hand over the new hospital to an order of nuns who have not paid the State all the money it owes under the terms of the redress scheme.

    Prof Crown tweeted after the announcement that the new maternity hospital would be exclusively owned by the Sisters of Charity: “That the authorities in St Vincent’s have acted in a sectarian fashion is, I’m afraid, a matter of public record.”


    "Planned move of National Maternity Hospital in jeopardy"

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/planned-move-of-national-maternity-hospital-in-jeopardy-1.3056911?mode=amp


  • Options
    #48
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,395 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hmm
    http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/97535/0/


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    "Responding to the criticism, Mr Harris said on Thursday he was instructing the HSE to seek protections against “religious interference” during detailed contractual arrangements in advance of construction.

    St Vincent’s viewed this intervention as an attempt by the Minister to “unpick” an agreement he heartily approved of at the time it was announced, according to an informed source. "

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-fears-st-vincent-s-set-to-ditch-maternity-hospital-move-1.3057169


    And so it becomes clearer.... when the Minister says he doesn't want religious interference, the nuns threaten to pull out. Looks like QED.


  • Options
    #50
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    Deleted User wrote: »
    "Responding to the criticism, Mr Harris said on Thursday he was instructing the HSE to seek protections against “religious interference” during detailed contractual arrangements in advance of construction.

    St Vincent’s viewed this intervention as an attempt by the Minister to “unpick” an agreement he heartily approved of at the time it was announced, according to an informed source. "

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-fears-st-vincent-s-set-to-ditch-maternity-hospital-move-1.3057169


    And so it becomes clearer.... when the Minister says he doesn't want religious interference, the nuns threaten to pull out. Looks like QED.
    Yes, but didn't the nuns notice the minister's nod and wink at them when he was making this pronouncement?


  • Options
    #51
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,939 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Harris can't be trusted.

    And the Sisters of "Charity" certainly can't be trusted.

    So there we are.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #53
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    It really depends on the hospital and medical personnel can object to providing such procedures if it goes against their conscience. So technically while the hospital may have nothing in writing stating it doesn't provide them, it can prove impossible to get one done in practical terms.


  • Options
    #54
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,939 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    OH had a tubal ligation done during a caesarian in the Coombe, which is nominally nun-run.

    This was as a private patient though*, and probably depends on the consultant's own religious views.

    As a public patient I'd wager you could foxtrot oscar if you asked - for us it was offered free of extra charge (we were old and weary enough to not look like we wanted a family of 10)

    *We went semi-private with Child 1. Big mistake. The difference in hassle and quality of care second time around was worth ten times the extra fee. And the public ante-natal ward was like something you'd see in the third world.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #55
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,395 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Did I hear that oral contraceptives are not available in the mater pharmacy?


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What influence do these management boards have on hospital appointments?

    The nuns reps on the board only need to ensure that a very few key senior appointments conform to their views to ensure that the nuns have influence throughout the hospital.

    Would it help to be a member of Opus Dei if applying for a hospital CEO role?


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    Did I hear that oral contraceptives are not available in the mater pharmacy?

    You did. Its true.

    http://www.newstalk.com/Mater-hospital-patients-refused-contraceptive-pill


  • Options
    #58
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Definitely seems the church and minister aren't reading from the same hymn sheet.

    https://twitter.com/SiobhanFeely/status/855925977419051008

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #59
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ Link to that article is here:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bishop-says-new-hospital-must-obey-the-church-jjbgzzn86
    Kevin Doran, Bishop wrote:
    A healthcare organisation bearing the name Catholic, while offering care to all who need it, has a special responsibility . . . to Catholic teachings about the value of human life and the dignity and the ultimate destiny of the human person [...] Public funding, while it brings with it other legal and moral obligations, does not change that responsibility.
    I think the good bishop has made his organization's position clear to a useful degree.


  • Options
    #60
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,410 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Any idea what newspaper that was and when it was written?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,071 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ Link to that article is here:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bishop-says-new-hospital-must-obey-the-church-jjbgzzn86

    I think the good bishop has made his organization's position clear to a useful degree.

    I completely agree, and that statement should be distributed as widely as possible. It should really be all the information we need. It is also an argument that could be applied to schools. There is no wonder the government is dragging its heels, how much of our infrastructure 'belongs' to the Catholic Church?


Advertisement