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.
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.)
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » And yes, the offer to provide the land for use for the new hospital, for free, is extremely generous.
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.
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: » Ok, cut the funding then as Pender proposes. What next?
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.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Your reluctance to address the core issue is telling. I'll remind you again why so many people - a great many people - strenuously object to religious involvement in Irish healthcare and in particular the State spending millions on a National Maternity Hospital which will not be owned by the State but under the tacit control of a religious trust.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » You are reluctant to address the core issue - which is how healthcare will be provided if public funds and patients are barred from accessing healthcare in privately owned and operated hospitals and clinics. (this is before even examining the issue of publicly funded but privately owned hospitals). I, personally, do not regard the laudable commitment of healthcare providers to preserve, and not destroy, life as being something which is wrong. However, I understand that others will not see it this way and it is a fair enough argument to make that these hospitals should not get public funding. (Incidentally, if the state were to stop funding all service providers who do not subscribe to the same "ethos" and morality of the state I think this would make life very difficult for lots of people). It is also fair to examine the practical implications of them not getting funding and to ask how this gap will be filled. I have already detailed some of the practical implications of some of the private hospitals and clinics being closed to public patients. It would nigh on destroy the system, and would certainly make life much more difficult for those who are public patients. Your repetition of a slogan does not address this issue. The solution regarding the NMH is obvious, if the state does not (it appears they do however ) want to accept the generous offer of the sisters, they do not have to. The state can buy land and build the hospital elsewhere. The sisters are under no obligation to make the offer, and the state are under no obligation to accept it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Much words and an attempt to deflect yet again you fail to respond to You either agree with that statement or you do not. It may not be your core issue but it is most certainly the core issue for those who object to religious involvement in State funded healthcare.
I, personally, do not regard the laudable commitment of healthcare providers to preserve, and not destroy, life as being something which is wrong. However, I understand that others will not see it this way and it is a fair enough argument to make that these hospitals should not get public funding. (Incidentally, if the state were to stop funding all service providers who do not subscribe to the same "ethos" and morality of the state I think this would make life very difficult for lots of people).
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Every child in an industrial school, every woman and baby in one of the so-called "homes" was being paid for, in the first instance by local authorities and later by the State. There was little or no accountability as to what was done with this money (never mind the "alternative" income streams from slave labour, extorting the families of the incarcerated, and baby-selling.) Little evidence of it being spent on its intended purpose given the conditions in those places.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » (never mind the "alternative" income streams from slave labour, extorting the families of the incarcerated, and baby-selling.) Little evidence of it being spent on its intended purpose given the conditions in those places.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Why is the land being gifted to a trust and not sold for an equivalent sum to the state then? The answer is obvious. They cannot be trusted. Religious orders have run rings around victims and the State in relation to the abuse scandals, anyone who thinks they have just folded and walked away here is naive in the extreme.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Because they believe in charity and don't want money.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » I do not agree with it and said as much. I will take a leaf out of your book and try again, I'll add some emphasis to help you: Now, you might address the practical implications of public patients being barred from these hospitals and clinics, as Pender proposes with his "easy" law. It will take more than repetition of a slogan I am afraid. Or perhaps you have private health insurance so it is not really an issue for you, and you can easily repeat your slogan with no concern for the practical outcome for thousands of patients (publicly funded) who receive excellent healthcare in many privately owned hospitals? Not to mention other private clinics attended by publicly funded patients?
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Yes there is. many accounts have been forensically examined. Two independent reports found no evidence of baby selling. The only cases of incarceration were cases when girls were incarcerated by the courts. Sinead O'Connor is a famous example. Because they believe in charity and don't want money.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Yes, generations of Irish women, across the world, dedicated themselves to providing charity, healthcare and education. I have to say, it is quite sad to see modern feminists and others universally attack fellow women who did and achieved so much, on the basis of the misdeeds of a few. Venerable Mary Aikenhead is one of the great Irish people of the 19th century. Even when free use of prime land worth hundreds of millions is offered for the construction of a vitally needed hospital, with the sisters going as far out (too far in my opinion) as they possibly can to facilitate the state running the hospital, they are demonised still. It is understandable to ask of the sisters "why bother?" but of course they will respond as you have here, they are not concerned with worldly plaudits.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Then you agree the State should use tax payers money to fund healthcare providers who then evoke their religious ethos to deny procedures to tax payers. You would, I assume, have no issue with a Jehovah's Witness Dr refusing to do a blood transfusion. It's not a Republic of equal citizen's you want to live in, it's a Theocracy. That is not what Ireland is according to our Constitution. No matter how you wish to frame it, the State allowing a religious ethos to determine healthcare provision in the past was manifestly unjust, and to continue with actions that continue that practice is equally manifestly unjust.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Yes, all states that fund healthcare for the public in privately run hospitals or clinics that do not offer "healthcare" that is contrary to what their conscience and ethos will allow are theocracies. :rolleyes: But, for the sake of moving things along, lets accept your argument that no publicly funded healthcare should take place in any privately owned hospital, clinic or healthcare facility that does not satisfy your requirements. Let us deal with the reality, today, in Ireland, many publicly funded patients, right across the country, receive treatment in these facilities. You propose to stop this. How will these people, who cannot afford to go privately, get their treatment?
Peregrinus wrote: » But this is only possible because the private/religious sector is relatively small. If 80% of 90% of your hospitals are state run and provide any service that the state wants them to provide and funds them for, it's really not a problem that there are some services that 10% or 20% of your hospitals don't offer. Very few hospitals provide every imaginable service anyway; patients moving between hospitals or going to specialist hospitals for particular services is pretty routine. And if you can do this for other reasons, then it doesn't become impossible if the reason is one of conscience or ethos in a particular hospital. It's really not a big deal. But it's a problem in Ireland, because Catholic-church affiliated hospitals are such a huge part of the system. Its the same as with the schools. Preferential admission policies in Jewish schools or Presbyterian schools don't cause a problem and can be readily accommodated. But preferential admission policies in Catholic schools do, because that's 90% of schools. So I think the Catholic church faces a choice. It can contract its presence in the health service, which will give it a lot more freedom to focus on providing the services it wishes to provide with the ethos it wishes to apply to patients who want that, or it can seek to maintain its dominant position by conforming more to the expectations of the whole community, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, and the requirements of the State.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Perhaps you missed that this thread is about the not yet completed National Maternity Hospital? Not a private hospital. The State funded National Maternity Hospital paid for by tax payers but not owned by the State because they are effectively gifting it to a "charity" controlled by a religious order who had to seek permission from a foreign State to transfer ownership from the Order to the "Charity" is the topic here. Given that I have no hesitation in saying the (not yet completed) National Maternity Hospital should be completely under the control of the State from the second it is finished. I made no mention of private vs public hospitals and it is disingenuous of you to claim I did. I have rigorously stuck to the topic at hand. The National Maternity Hospital.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » How many Catholic hospitals are there and how are actually actively prolife? It doesnt seems to be a massive amount
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » A letter was published here, presumably for discussion. I offered my opinion on it, you then responded? But that never happened?
Governance will be conducted in the spirit of Catherine McAuley, Foundress of the Sisters of Mercy, and in accordance with the principles of Catholic Healthcare. In faithfulness to their tradition the Sisters of Mercy believe it is essential that the distinctive characteristics of that tradition should be as clear as possible to enable and empower lay persons in positions of leadership, responsibility and guidance, to continue the Mission Vision of Catherine McAuley in the delivery of quality healthcare to people of all faiths and none.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I responded to your opinion with reference to the topic at hand to your 'oh what would we do without the religious in our hospitals' spiel by stating the nuns can jog on if they seek to control a State Funded hospital.
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.
At no point did I say anything about public patients being 'denied' use of private hospitals as you claim. A claim which is absurd as not all private hospitals are run by religious orders.
I see no reason why a State funded University Hospital - not a private hospital - such as The Mercy in Cork is owned by a similar trust to that proposed for the National Maternity Hospital. The trust in question being affiliated with the Sister's of Mercy. It is beyond ridiculous that a teaching hospital could potentially be bound by the ethos of one religion.
It is utterly farcical if the National Maternity Hospital is potentially bound by the ethos of one religion.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » But, for the sake of moving things along, lets accept your argument that no publicly funded healthcare should take place in any privately owned hospital, clinic or healthcare facility that does not satisfy your requirements.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Well, that's not really what you said. Let's remind ourselves: Refusing to publicly fund treatment in certain private hospitals "in any shape or form" is essentially a ban on sending public patients there. This would be a massive change to what currently happens, should publicly funded patients no longer be sent to the private hospitals, or clinics, or whatever, which have an ethos you disagree with.
Bannasidhe wrote: » No. I am not playing your game of "this is essentially what you said" in which you argue against your interpretation of what I said rather than what I actually said . You have utterly failed to justify why the taxpayers of all religions and none should pay for a public National Maternity Hospital which will potentially be bound by the ethos of one religion as ownership is gifted to them. All you have is whatabout whatabout whatabout.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
