Yellow_Fern wrote: » Can you demonstrate how the Sisters of Charity have been 'soaking the taxpayer'?
Not a single Sister of Charity was ever convicted of sexual abuse. Not a single one!
You are misinformed. They will have no operation of the hospital.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Ok, cut the funding then as Pender proposes. What next?
It is manifestly unjust when a citizen is denied healthcare due to the religious ethos of a hospital in receipt of State funding.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Despite your extensive reply you utterly failed to address my main point which was:
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » You accuse me of rhetoric when I point out a small selection of the practical problems with Pender's proposal and you respond with this? "Other countries do it, it's not fair" is not much of a reassurance to the numerous patients who would suffer under this foolish, short-sighted proposal. "At least the nuns aren't involved" will be cold comfort to the patient who has to wait much longer for a hip replacement, or travel much further for cancer treatment, or has cancer treatment options limited, because the state is banned from sending people to certain private hospitals. When the local GP can no longer accept a medical card and there is no capacity at the one GP who does several towns over, I'm sure your words will be of great comfort. Again, this is before even considering the impact on privately-owned publicly funded hospitals. Of course, if you think that the state should purchase and construct sufficient hospitals of its own and somehow find the staff, that's fair enough and a laudable goal, (although it would not address the wider issues with Pender's proposal) but if you are making such a proposal you need to explain how it will be afforded, and accomplished. That work needs to be done first, before pulling the rug out from under the health service in Ireland.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » And yes, the offer to provide the land for use for the new hospital, for free, is extremely generous.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Generously provided? They've been soaking the taxpayer since long before the establishment of this State, with very little in the way of accountability. But you are spectacularly missing the point. This thread is not about existing hospitals, but a brand new one which is to be fully built and paid for by the state, yet it seems an opaque trust established by a religious order is to have control over it. This is entirely unacceptable and TBH the sisters should be told where they can stick there far from "free" land if that is the stroke they're trying to pull.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Yet - for all your oh the RCC is vital to healthcare rhetoric the vast majority of countries with a public healthcare system manage to run it with without nuns involved in any way shape or form. It is manifestly unjust when a citizen is denied healthcare due to the religious ethos of a hospital in receipt of State funding.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » I was responding to the article you posted from our humanist friend, that was greeted here with some approval; This is effectively a call for, at the very least, publicly funded patients to be banned from numerous private hospitals. These private hospitals routinely deal with "overflow" from public hospitals for sums that are very reasonable, not only by Irish standards but certainly by international standards. Under his proposal it will be illegal for the state to send people who desperately need medical treatment to these private hospitals, meaning that they will languish for much longer on waiting lists. One cohort of patients that spring to mind are those many public cancer patients that are receiving treatment in private hospitals under agreements with the HSE. This would have to be scrapped. He also references "clinics" that treat publicly funded patients - i.e. people receiving treatment from numerous practitioners, especially G.Ps, on the medical card. So we will have whole swathes of the country where medical cardholders will be unable to access even GPs (as well as various other clinics) under Pender's proposal. It is hard enough to get a GP as things are, although this proposal may make things easier for private patients I suppose. It is a most ill-thought-out proposal that could destroy our creaking health service, and would certainly cut off access for public patients to private hospitals. I wonder does he have health insurance? Under his proposal, he will need it. That is just the private hospitals, it is unclear what the effect would be on public hospitals, one can assume it will hardly improve the health service. His proposal is the type of thing that looks nice in a letter to the Irish Times, but is nonsense really. His "easy" solution does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. And yes, the offer to provide the land for use for the new hospital, for free, is extremely generous. If the state doesn't want it, then they are free to purchase land for the new hospital - they are under no obligation to accept the offer, nor are the sisters under any obligation to make the offer. There is nothing wrong with the state saying "no thanks" and offering to buy the land outright at market rates (which the Sisters are free to reject of course) or to build the hospital elsewhere. Although those who are calling for the offer to be (in effect) rejected should offer up some realistic alternative that justifies the added expense and difficulties.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Generously provided? They've been soaking the taxpayer since long before the establishment of this State, with very little in the way of accountability.But you are spectacularly missing the point. This thread is not about existing hospitals, but a brand new one which is to be fully built and paid for by the state, yet it seems an opaque trust established by a religious order is to have control over it. This is entirely unacceptable and TBH the sisters should be told where they can stick there far from "free" land if that is the stroke they're trying to pull.
It is long overdue for the Oireachtas to legislate to the effect that publicly funded hospitals must offer and provide all medical treatments within their medical competence that are permitted by law. It should be illegal for hospitals such as St Vincent’s, the Mater, Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children and the new National Maternity Hospital not to consider or provide treatments on the grounds that they are forbidden by the Catholic Church. A Bill to this effect, which should be easy to draft, should also apply to private hospitals and clinics that treat publicly funded patients. – Yours, etc,
aloyisious wrote: » If the order has fully stepped back from involvement with the operation of the NMH within the SVH site [as is stated to be its position] there would be no need for inclusion of clauses in the deal with the state giving the order power to apply constraints on the running of the NMH in line with the orders religious ethical convictions.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » How do you propose to provide healthcare to those public patients who formally would have attended hospitals owned by the church/orders? Where will this proposed new hospital then be built? There will need to numerous other hospitals built too to replace hospitals that have either shut or gone private, how will the state afford that? (they have not exactly proven themselves capable in recent times with the construction of hospitals have they?) There is no obligation on the church or the orders to run any hospitals, either themselves or to provide their land and/or buildings for such use. Especially considering their very generous offer for the free use of prime land in this instance is proving so objectionable to some. If people are going to object to the Church and orders having a role in the provision of healthcare, even when the church generously offer and give free use of prime land that would otherwise be unaffordable, they should explain, and justify, how they propose to provide healthcare without the use of privately owned land and buildings.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Well, the obvious solution here to his problem is for public funding to hospitals that have owners that he disapproves of to cease, and for these hospitals to no longer operate as public hospitals, but rather as private ones. As the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare in the world, as well as running numerous very successful private hospitals in Ireland, the Church and Orders are quite capable of running hospitals without the state. Or failing that, the owners can do whatever else they want with their lands should private operation prove to not be economically viable. (Although I am not sure how he proposes to replace the healthcare generously facilitated and provided by the Church/Orders.)
Bannasidhe wrote: » Sounds ideal. The church can run it's private hospitals without any funds from the State in any shape or form and the State can fund public hospitals where the laws of the land and not the ethos of one religion determine healthcare provision. If the church as so capable off they trot.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Follow-up letter from HAI:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/medical-ethics-in-irish-hospitals-1.4564471
Peregrinus wrote: » The effect of CPO-ing the land is to take it out of the trust, so the use restriction no longer applies, so the state realises the full open market value of the land, and CPO compensation must be calculated accordingly.
Peregrinus wrote: » If the religious orders get full value for their land (either in cash or as an abatement to the amount owing by way of redress) then it makes no difference at all to them whether the land is subsequently used for a school or for some other purpose; continue use as a school doesn't increase the financial benefit to the religious order by one cent.
robindch wrote: » Open to correction on a legal point here, but if the land is settled into a trust which specifies that the land can only ever be used for the provision of hospital services by the state - rather than seeing it auctioned off on the open market to property developers at the market rate, where it may indeed fetch €200m - then essentially the land has no value as there is only one possible customer and it may as well be transferred for one euro.
robindch wrote: » The religious orders instituted similar schemes when transferring schools as part of the residential abuse settlement - they were paid at the market rate for their properties, or their bill was reduced by an amount equivalent to the open-market value of their properties, but the lands were settled so that the state would never be able to realize that value. Ten out of ten for cynicism and effective legal footwork on the part of the religious orders, and zero out of ten for Joe Public who got screwed.
Peregrinus wrote: » . . . but not cheaply, which may be the reason for not going down that road. If we accept the valuation quoted in the Irish Times article that you link to, it would cost €200 million to CPO the land.
robindch wrote: » Have to say that the Religious Sisters of Charity are getting first-rate, top-dollar legal advice. So far as I can make out from the incomplete picture implied by the legal terms arising, the religious orders are running rings around government lawyers who, one suspects, have been instructed to do nothing to upset them, and especially, to avoid any hint that the state could use its own power to resolve the situation easily and quickly.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » A couple of weeks old at this stage
Medical ethics in Irish hospitals Sir, – Dr Peter Boylan has once again warned that the Sisters of Charity through either St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG) or a new charitable company, St Vincent’s Holdings, are doing everything possible to gain ownership and control of the new National Maternity Hospital (“Fresh thinking on National Maternity Hospital impasse vital”, Opinion & Analysis, May 5th). If they succeed the implication is that the new hospital, as part of St Vincent’s, will be required to adhere to Catholic medical ethics. This is not a unique case. We should remember that quite a number of hospitals which are controlled by Catholic organisations require staff to adhere to Catholic medical ethics when treating patients. This has meant that many patients, mostly women, have not received medical care or advice that would be considered the most appropriate in leading non-Catholic hospitals in Ireland and worldwide. Even hospitals outside the formal control of Catholic organisations have found it difficult to avoid objections of Catholic staff to the provision of medical care not approved by the church. It is long overdue for the Oireachtas to legislate to the effect that publicly funded hospitals must offer and provide all medical treatments within their medical competence that are permitted by law. It should be illegal for hospitals such as St Vincent’s, the Mater, Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children and the new National Maternity Hospital not to consider or provide treatments on the grounds that they are forbidden by the Catholic Church. A Bill to this effect, which should be easy to draft, should also apply to private hospitals and clinics that treat publicly funded patients. – Yours, etc, AIDAN PENDER, Chairman, DAVID McCONNELL, Honorary President, The Humanist Association of Ireland, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
It is eight years since the project to co-locate the new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) at the Elm Park campus of St Vincent’s hospital was announced. Four years ago, a wave of public outrage followed the realisation, after years of dispute and mediation, that the new NMH would be owned 100 per cent by the Religious Sisters of Charity, then and still today the sole shareholders of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG). In May 2017, the Sisters announced their intention to depart their hospitals and “gift to people [sic] of Ireland lands at SVHG to the value of €200 million”. In fact, the shareholding is to be transferred for €1 into a new company called St Vincent’s Holdings which has charitable status. Assurances were given that this process would be straightforward and ensure that Catholic ethos would not impact on women’s reproductive healthcare at the new hospital. The congregation’s leader stated that the “core values” of the constitution of SVHG that mandate its Catholic ethos would be “amended and replaced”. What happened next was far from straightforward. It emerged in 2018, despite repeated denials, that Vatican permission was in fact needed for the Sisters’ shareholding transfer, called “alienation” in canon law. Last May, we learned that the Vatican had granted permission conditional on the Sisters observing specified canon laws. An earlier warning was sounded in the 2018 SVHG Annual Report which stated unambiguously that the directors of St Vincent’s Holdings must uphold into the future “the values and vision” of Mother Mary Aikenhead, the order’s founder. When the constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings was published last August, with the “core values” of the Sisters included in full, the retention of Catholic ethos was undeniable and brought into question once again the future independence of the NMH. As Róisín Shortall TD pointed out at the Oireachtas select committee on health last week, reproductive health services such as sterilisations or contraception were not provided to women at St Vincent’s hospital and it was hard to see how that situation would change under the new structure. Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly responded that no religious ethos could be imposed at the planned new maternity hospital that would impact on services under any circumstances. It was “an absolute red line”, he said. If so, then we seem to have reached it. There are other issues raised by the new structure that are a cause for concern. St Vincent’s Holdings is a company limited by guarantee. This means it does not have shareholders and is owned by its members who are also its directors. They will effectively own the three SVHG hospitals and putatively the new NMH. The company must have at least three directors and no more than 10. The power to appoint new directors lies with the existing directors. There are currently three directors, who are also directors of SVHG and no directors representing the NMH, the State or the Health Service Executive, and no guarantee of representation in the constitution. The directors have the power to sell, mortgage or dispose of any or all part of the company. This is particularly concerning given that in 2010 the Sisters mortgaged St Vincent’s University Hospital as collateral for a loan to build the private hospital. In consequence, Bank of Ireland has “a fixed charge over the entire St Vincent’s hospital site” and “a floating charge over all the undertakings, property and assets of SVHG both present and future”. As with Donnelly’s “red line” on services, the new structure is in conflict with then taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s commitment to the Dáil in November 2019 that the new NMH would be “State-owned on State land”. To date, however, St Vincent’s is offering the State no more than a 99-year lease on the land and is insisting on owning the new NMH DAC, the yet-to-be-incorporated company that will run the new hospital. This in turn falls foul of the 2019 Report on the Role of Voluntary Organisations which recommended that “where the State decides to build any new hospital or facility, it should endeavour to ensure that it owns the land on which the hospital or facility is built”. So what can be done at this late stage? As with all major capital projects costing more than €100 million, the Department for Public Expenditure and Reform must make a full financial and economic appraisal of the project, and assess matters of governance and project risks before issuing to Government for a decision. Since two of the SVHG hospitals are section 38 organisations – funded by the State and classified as public services – the HSE must approve (or not) the transfer, establishing with certainty that there is no risk of future problems with the provision of services. The Government must consider the implications for Sláintecare and the likely public reaction to the gifting of the State’s newest publicly funded hospital to a private company with stated Catholic ethos. An all-party Oireachtas group has recently been established to lobby for full State ownership and independence of the new hospital. Public interest remains high. We have reached a watershed. Could the State attempt a compulsory purchase order on the land at Elm Park? Constitutional protection conferred on religious orders makes this likely to fail. SVHG is largely publicly funded so could the Sisters transfer it to the State instead, not for €1 but with appropriate valuation of their assets? Canon law would raise serious, perhaps intractable, obstacles. What if the impasse cannot be resolved? The original rationale of the project was to provide access to acute and intensive care services for women with complicated pregnancies. Could this critical objective be met in the interim by locating a high-risk maternity unit at St James’s Hospital, giving pregnant women from all over the country access to the full range of clinical specialities, and their infants immediate access to the new National Children’s Hospital? This would achieve the gold standard of tri-location of maternity, adult and neonatal and paediatric services. Concerns that the 1930s Holles Street building was “not fit for purpose” have been significantly mitigated by ongoing investment. New operating theatres, labour rooms and a neonatal intensive care unit have been built in recent years. The postnatal wards have been refurbished and new office and teaching space has been acquired in an adjacent building. It is the only maternity hospital in the State with a dedicated MRI facility thanks to private charitable donations. The current impasse does not serve the women of Ireland. Fresh thinking is now required.
branie2 wrote: » Great thing to do.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
