nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Calina

It is called projection. People project what they would do on to others.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

Don't know how or where you work, but in my area, there are plenty of professionals who act as professionals regardless of who's paying them. While the people most easily bought off, seem - with distressing regularity - to be the same people who manifest the greatest outrage at the idea that anybody else might be corruptible.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

That's why he is wrong.

No, that`s why I`m right. Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

For all we know the NMH may be planning to interview multiple candidates until they find one that will do it their way and of course that could mean a total whitewash. Even if they just pick a name from a hat, the people (or person) commissioned might be mindful of the possibility of repeat business in future when they issue their report. That means some serious sugarcoating.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.

Perhaps they did not like the terms of reference. Maybe the NMH had been a little to forthright and expressed a desire for the type of inquiry that would exonerate them.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

That's why he is wrong.

Kidchameleon

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.

In your opinion.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So your earlier posts

Were lies

You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?

I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.

So your earlier posts

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH. The state should appoint a judge to examine it.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

Were lies

You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?

I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So who should do the review and who should pay for it?

A judge and the department of Justice respectively.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you not bring yourself to admit that the taxpayer's will be paying for the inquiry not the NMH as you are keen in insist?

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think very highly of the Catholic Church but I understand why a lot of people feel differently. My opinions are not swayed by the media or by public opinion which is understandably swayed by decades of anti RCC vitriole. I am every bit as subservient to God`s Church as I always have been. You see, I look at all that is and was good about the Church. That is not to say I am oblivious to its sins.

My view on the EU is similar in that I think things need to change but I think we are better off in it than out of it.

Considering that you've stated on this site that anyone claiming that they were abused by the church are only doing so for money, it's pretty obvious that you don't think any abuse took place or your just trying to get a rise out of people.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewater and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

Again your wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

So who should do the review and who should pay for it?

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the reviewers will have every incentive to issue a report which is favourable to their client, the NMH. The Minister of course is well aware of this, I guess he just doesn`t care.

Can you not bring yourself to admit that the taxpayer's will be paying for the inquiry not the NMH as you are keen in insist?

Or that such inquiries in the past have been highly critical of hospitals?

For example the report carried out into the death of Savita Halappanavar by Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Professor and Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Deputy Head of Clinical Sciences at St George’s University of London and President of the International Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecology was highly critical of UHG. https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

The Lourdes Hospital Inquiry carried out by Justice Maureen Harding Clark SC was scathing in it's criticism. https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lourdes.pdf

Details of all inquiries carried out into hospitals can be found here:https://www.lenus.ie/discover - can you find one report where despite the evidence the inquiry was favourable to the 'clients'?

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is it a waste of taxpayer's money if the NMH are paying for it?

Because the reviewers will have every incentive to issue a report which is favourable to their client, the NMH. The Minister of course is well aware of this, I guess he just doesn`t care.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who funds the NMH?

I assure you the reviewers will not be thinking about the taxpayers when they present their findings. They will be thinking of their client, the NMH.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH.

How is it a waste of taxpayer's money if the NMH are paying for it?

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The difference- and it's a significant difference - is that the RCC carried out internal reports and suppressed them while maintaining a public face of 'nothing to see here' to protect itself.

The delay with the inquiry here seem to be that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK were approached to carry out an independent inquiry but declined due to lack of expertise among it's assessors. Another qualified agency is been sought - probably, as it usual, from outside the State. It is a very serious matter to claim that organizations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would risk their reputation by being 'paid off'.

The RCC did not commission, for example, the Lutheran Church of Sweden to come in and investigate as an independent body so you are making false comparisons.

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH. The state should appoint a judge to examine it.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

Who funds the NMH?

realitykeeper

Calina wrote: »

No. I think the poster is trying to undermine the NMH's review outcome by suggesting a review done today under clear terms of reference is in any way similar to Catholic Church's past practice ....

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewash and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

The difference- and it's a significant difference - is that the RCC carried out internal reports and suppressed them while maintaining a public face of 'nothing to see here' to protect itself.

The delay with the inquiry here seem to be that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK were approached to carry out an independent inquiry but declined due to lack of expertise among it's assessors. Another qualified agency is being sought - probably, as it usual, from outside the State. It is a very serious matter to claim that organizations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would risk their reputation by being 'paid off'.

The RCC did not commission, for example, the Lutheran Church of Sweden to come in and investigate as an independent body so you are making false comparisons.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

Would my senses be wrong if they were detecting a degree of sarcasm in your posts about the holy benefactor?

In this question I'm not picking a row, just trying to satisfy a feeling I have.

I think very highly of the Catholic Church but I understand why a lot of people feel differently. My opinions are not swayed by the media or by public opinion which is understandably swayed by decades of anti RCC vitriole. I am every bit as subservient to God`s Church as I always have been. You see, I look at all that is and was good about the Church. That is not to say I am oblivious to its sins.

My view on the EU is similar in that I think things need to change but I think we are better off in it than out of it.

realitykeeper

DubInMeath wrote: »

The church is a benefactor to alll, love and compassion, no your wrong again.

Health suffered and still does through religious interference in hospitals. Education was used to try and indoctrinate people.

Most advances in education in the state have been secular led, with the church attempting to dictate and hinder these changes.

It's well past the time that the church should still be allowed have any say in these areas as they are paid for by the taxpayer and not the church.

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewash and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

Calina

No. I think the poster is trying to undermine the NMH's review outcome by suggesting a review done today under clear terms of reference is in any way similar to Catholic Church's past practice of sweeping things under the carpet and demanding children never speak of their complaints again under pain of serious shaming, amongst other things. Without any advocates present for the children. The Catholic Church has never been interested in learning from mistakes. The health system, on occasionally very painfully, actively wants to.

The argument is also he who pays the piper and while there is some merit to that argument in some respects, the question arises as to who should pay? The liability would most likely remain with the health system.

I also add that a good chunk of society albeit now very minority has spent years trying to add shame and guilt to people having abortions regardless of the circumstances. That kind of conditioning is very, very hard to escape.

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.

Would my senses be wrong if they were detecting a degree of sarcasm in your posts about the holy benefactor?

In this question I'm not picking a row, just trying to satisfy a feeling I have.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.

The church is a benefactor to alll, love and compassion, no your wrong again.

Health suffered and still does through religious interference in hospitals. Education was used to try and indoctrinate people.

Most advances in education in the state have been secular led, with the church attempting to dictate and hinder these changes.

It's well past the time that the church should still be allowed have any say in these areas as they are paid for by the taxpayer and not the church.