end of the road wrote: » i'm sure they will get on fine, they will probably sell the buildings and land that they own to property developers. is the state going to pay to build new hospitals to replace them if that worst case happened? i'd doubt it. have the state being saving money via using the church to effectively bail them out via providing land and buildings? i'd very much think so. separating the church from the hospitals is correct and i personally agree with it but it's not going to be a simple exercise, and if the state is actually serious about doing it (at the moment i'm not quite so sure it is) then they need to be aware of this, and have a plan that is actually workible and which the church is going to actually agree with. because whether people like it or not, or want to hear it or not, an amicable solution is probably going to be the only outcome here, the idea of the state going full force on the church is very unlikely.
aloyisious wrote: » To encourage anyone to buy the properties, vacant possession might be needed as a draw. Thing is, would the church and religious owners risk taking such a step of shutting down medical care hospitals in the cities and towns here en-masse and turning patients out onto the streets knowing the consequences of such a step towards the health of patients presently in the hospitals, along with those due to enter hospital? It would be moral suicide for any establishment who gave the go-ahead to such a step.
aloyisious wrote: » I'd hazard a guess that if such a sale proposal got into the public domain, the Govt might well get all-round support nationally to nationalize the properties and the medical care facilities there-on for the good of the nation and population.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Just take it off them, they still owe how much over the child abuse scandal?
volchitsa wrote: » So stop funding them, see how far they get without the HSE paying the running costs, salaries, investments etc.
volchitsa wrote: » A severe case of having your cake and eating it. Catholic hospitals in America don't get massive subsidies from the tax payer to provide their Catholic medicine.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's not that simple. "The church" doesn't owe money over the child abuse scandal; selected religious orders which managed the institutions concerned do. Unless the hospital you want happens to belong to one of these religious orders, there's not much mileage in this.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Also, and maybe I'm not remember this right, but isn't the church specifically exempt in the constitution from the government seizing it's property for any reason (be it compulsory purchase order or in lieu of criminal fines)?
Peregrinus wrote: » Which is part of the reason why I have a sense that exploring ways of reducing or controllling church involvement in hospital management that don't involve buying hospital buildings is probably a more productive avenue to explore.
One of the two, Joanna Jordan, said she intends to appeal the refusal to let her bring a petition challenging the result. In that context, a stay applies until at least Friday preventing the referendum result being formally certified.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Any word of any developments in the case?
Calina wrote: » Hearing will be 17 Aug apparently. Stay in place on certification till then.
Peregrinus wrote: » No. Religious denominations (and educational institutions, whether religious or not) do enjoy some protection against seizure of property, but it's not absolute. Their property can only be taken "for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation". Running a public hospital looks like a "work of public utility", but I think there would be an argument over whether you could be said to be seizing it for the purpose of running a hospital when, in fact, there's already a hospital running in it. Whatever you're seizing it for, it would be hard to argue that you are seizing it because seizure is needed in order to run a hospital. However, if you change the terms on which hospitals are funded ("We only fund hospitals that provide abortions") and this resulted in the threatened closure of a church-linked hospital, you might then justify compulsory acquisition of the premises in order to ensure the continuation of public hospital services on the site. (The whole thing would look a bit shifty, since it would look as if your new rules for the conduct of hospitals were framed not for the purpose of effecient provision of health services but for the purpose of providing cover for the seizure of property. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court and beyond. Still, you'd have an argument. ) You'd still have to pay compensation though, so the net effect would be the transfer of squillions of public money into the pockets of churchmen's trousers in return for no great change in the provision of health services, which many of the regulars on this board might not think was an altogether brilliant outcome. Which is part of the reason why I have a sense that exploring ways of reducing or controllling church involvement in hospital management that don't involve buying hospital buildings is probably a more productive avenue to explore.
recedite wrote: » Step 1. Zone this land/buildings as "public hospital", making it impossible for anyone to use it for anything else. Step 2. Introduce new (very high) capital gains taxes for any lands/buildings in community or educational use that are being sold to private developers. Step 3. Withdraw all public funding from religiously controlled schools and hospitals. Step 4. Watch while they transfer into public ownership at a peppercorn price.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » State entitled to costs in abortion referendum legal challenge FFS :mad: fcuking chancer.
alaimacerc wrote: » i.e. "the church" morphs from a rhetorical and authoritarian singular, to a compartmentalised and legalistic plural, as suits its purposes.
Cabaal wrote: » I get the point being made but the previous claims prove the poster is being intentionally disingenuous when posting. It's hard to take anything they say seriously in any thread given their proven posting history. If they'd just properly address the issue I'm sure everyone can move on.
alaimacerc wrote: » As formal declarations of someone as a vexatious litigant seem to be unpopular, perhaps bankruptcy proceedings would be other means to similar ends? i.e., stop him doing it again, and put a semblance of manners on him.
volchitsa wrote: » Yes, this, a thousand times. The various institutions use their supposed identity as part of one universal Catholic Church to insinuate themselves into teaching and healthcare roles (both excellent earners, as religions everywhere have found to their benefit) and then when there's a problem, these links with the church suddenly become irrelevant. Their virtues are invariably due to their religious identity, while their faults are always those of the individuals, or even the responsibility of wider society for not having stopped them. Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that the whole country has been the victim of a decades-long massive scam.
end of the road wrote: » i wouldn't think so, given there are i'm sure a number of sources who would be willing to pay any future legal bills.
therefore making him bankrupt in what would be in my view, revenge for using the court system to exercise his democratic right to fair justice, would be in my view a pointless exercise.
i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.
end of the road wrote: » i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.
volchitsa wrote: » It would only look shifty if there was some notion that the referendum had been set up for the purpose of seizing hospital land. That would be too far fetched a conspiracy for all but the looniest of loons. Requiring a publicly funded hospital to provide the full range of health services that the health service requires them to provide is perfectly reasonable, OTOH.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's not reasonable unless there's a practical reason for saying that every service should be provided in every hospital. As you know, it's not currently the case that every service is provided in every hospital, and it would requires a signficant reorganisation of health services, and probable dissolution or reduction of specialist units, if that were to be adopted as a requirement.
volchitsa wrote: » Yes, this, a thousand times.
seamus wrote: » Yep. Even at a simpler level, people buy it. Criticise the church over abuse: "That was the act of sick individuals, you can't hold the whole church complicit". Suggest removing community facilities from church control: "What about all the good work done by the clergy?"The RCC has always been like the worst kind of corporate employer. Takes all the credit for the good work and good ideas of individuals, and will happily throw you or your entire department in front of the bus if necessary to protect head office.
volchitsa wrote: » That's a very dishonest version of what is going on - no-one is saying for instance that non maternity hospitals should provide maternity services, but that legal healthcare should not be refused for ideological reasons. It's not just about abortion either - the bishops have shown their hand with this document, and have said that contraception cannot be provided. For purely ideological reasons, not health ones. Are you supporting that too, on the grounds that hospitals don't have to provide all services?
