Bellbottoms wrote: » It's been some time since I've read it. But this was something that Noel Browne raised in his biography Against the tide. Something about going into Bon Secours offering to by the place on behalf of the state an what ever nun was in charge having a break down at the mere thought that poor people would be allowed receive treatment in the hospital.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Basically how dare Catholics exist in public medicine? Moments later, Catholics are such hypocrites for offering private medicine. Can't win with these lads
smacl wrote: » Interesting article from the Irish Times from 2018 in relation to church involvement in the private healthcare sector. As shown below, it asks essentially the same pertinent questions raised in this thread; The RCC clearly seem to have an agenda here which would appear to have little to do with charity.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Two ignored it. The McAleese report was a total whitewash. Should've been printed on toilet paper and flushed straight to its appropriate destination. We're now seeing that the recent mother and baby home report was a complete whitewash as well. The excuse that they had to suppress survivor testimony because they were afraid the church would sue (a) says it all about the church (b) is a ridiculously pathetic excuse. Why defend the indefensible?
The HSE 2012 documents 49. An incomplete HSE document from 2012 has been widely quoted and assumed by many to be accurate. The Commission had great difficulty in getting copies of this document even though it was frequently being quoted in the media and in other fora. The report allegedly dealt with practices in Bessborough and Tuam. In December 2015, solicitors for the HSE told the Commission that the HSE was trying to find a copy of the Bessborough report. The Commission also sought a copy of the Tuam report which was allegedly an appendix to the report on Bessborough. In April 2016, the Commission was told that the HSE was still trying to find the copy of the report that had the Tuam appendix. In March 2017, the HSE were still looking for the Tuam report. The HSE solicitor told the Commission that the Tuam appendix probably did not exist. In June 2017 Commission heard evidence from some of the HSE staff involved in compiling the report. 51. In April 2018, the HSE delivered two folders of documents which included 41 drafts of the 2012 report. The alleged Tuam appendix never materialised. 52. It appears that, in October 2012 two documents described as a file note and a draft briefing paper were circulated among senior HSE staff. It seems that these were prepared for the purposes of the McAleese Report. These documents contained a number of allegations regarding Bessborough mother and baby home and the Tuam home. 53. Among the allegations was that there was a large archive of photographs and other documentation relating to children from the Tuam home sent for adoption to the USA. It was stated that there was already a database of up to 1,000 names but it was acknowledged that it was not yet clear whether all of these related to US adoptions. The file note stated that there was more than one letter to a parent or parents asking for money for an infant who had already been discharged or who had died. 54. The draft briefing paper claimed that most women who gave birth in Bessborough were discharged to a Magdalen institution. It claimed that there were two discharge dates sometimes separated by years. There was an allegation that the homes claimed monies from the Government for these mothers and/or children once they had left the home. It claimed that both Tuam and Bessborough charged a fee to both birth parents and to adoptive parents for the upkeep of their children.55. The file note went on to speculate that children may have been kept in the homes for financial reasons. It also speculated that ‘trafficking’ of babies must have been facilitated by doctors, social workers and others, some of whom could still be working in the system. 56. The draft briefing paper noted in relation to Bessborough that ‘there are no death records whatsoever after 1953, concurrent with the introduction of adoption legislation in Ireland’. The implication appears to be that death records were falsified in order that children could be sent abroad illegally. 57. These documents made their way into the hands of a number of people including TDs, journalists and members of survivor groups. The details of the documents were repeated many times including during a Seanad debate of 17 May 2017. It appeared to be accepted by commentators and politicians that the allegations and suppositions made in these documents were statements of fact. 58. A journalist investigating mother and baby homes discussed these claims in several articles in a national newspaper and made the further claim that Bessborough authorities had over-reported infant deaths to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, as the number of deaths reported in the Bessborough Death Register was less than that in the returns to the department. The Commission has established that this was incorrect - see the Fifth Interim Report. 59. The caveats expressed by the author of the Bessborough report were not reported. The author noted that • it was based on a ‘cursory’ glance at a sample of Bessborough records; • the research was ‘not grounded in forensic analysis’; • the conclusions were ‘purely conjecture’. 60. The Bessborough records had come into the possession of the HSE only about a year before the 2012 report was compiled. The report was compiled by a person who was seeing these records for the first time and had very little time to do any analysis so it is not surprising that unwarranted conclusions were reached. What is more surprising is that this incomplete document came into the public domain and that the allegations were accepted as fact by so many people. 61. The Commission examined the claims and hypotheses put forward in relation to Bessborough and these are addressed in the relevant chapter and in the Bessborough section of Part 5. 62. In relation to Tuam, the Commission took evidence from the official who had compiled the database referred to in the file note. This official has moved to a different area of work and so spoke from memory only.
smacl wrote: » Interesting article from the Irish Times from 2018 in relation to church involvement in the private healthcare sector. As shown below, it asks essentially the same pertinent questions raised in this thread; Why are these religious congregations running hospitals and healthcare facilities that are only available to the 43 per cent in Ireland who can afford their services? How is any of this compatible with the “marginalised” beloved of Pope Francis? Or a church “which is poor and for the poor” such as he has said he longs for? Should Catholic religious congregations be involved at all in running our most expensive hospitals any more than in running our most expensive schools? And an explanation that “the rich have souls too” – as one senior cleric once put it to me – does not really wash. The RCC clearly seem to have an agenda here which would appear to have little to do with charity.
Why are these religious congregations running hospitals and healthcare facilities that are only available to the 43 per cent in Ireland who can afford their services? How is any of this compatible with the “marginalised” beloved of Pope Francis? Or a church “which is poor and for the poor” such as he has said he longs for? Should Catholic religious congregations be involved at all in running our most expensive hospitals any more than in running our most expensive schools? And an explanation that “the rich have souls too” – as one senior cleric once put it to me – does not really wash.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Two independent reports found no evidence of baby selling.
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, it's worth pointing that that the suggestion that the order will insist that "its ethical viewpoint MUST apply to the operation of the hospital" is being made by Peter Boylan, and not (so far as I know) by the order. It's worth noting that, so far as I can make out (it's complicated, but) the new SVH group won't be the operator of the hospital. It will be the owner of property in which the hospital is operated by another entity, presumably the hospital board. So SVH won't necessarily be in a great position to dictate how the hospital must be run. Also worth noting that, at the time Boylan was writing, SVH only had 3 nominated directors, all from the churchy end of things. This was one of the reasons he cited for his concerns. But that state of affairs will not continue and the concerns it gives rise to may be allayed when the other 7 directors are appointed, if they're not from the churchy end of things. Having said all that, I take Boylan's concerns very seriously, and they do have to be addressed. It's just that it may be possible to address them without having to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money to acquire a site that isn't owned by a body with any religious involvement. That's at least worth exploring. There may be more efficient ways to spend that money, if our criterion is to be spending in the most effective way to meet people's health needs. It isn't beyond the wit of humanity to run a public health service that meets secular needs properly and that has some involvement from religious voluntary bodies; they manage it in other countries. It may turn out that we can't manage it here, but given the enormous cost that will result from coming to that conclusion I wouldn't rush into it without exploring other possibilities.
aloyisious wrote: » It seems to me that the "baleful" influence is the insistence that the order's RCC ethical viewpoint MUST apply to the operating of the NMH by the new SVH group set up to "facilitate the running of the new NMH" on the land owned by the order because the new NMH is being built on said land. If the order wanted to be a true christian medical order, instead of an RCC property-owning order in the first instant and a christian medical order secondly, it could sell the land from within its property portfolio to the state. One might well have to ask if the new trust has within its rules or mindset an ethical stricture [similar to the orders ethical viewpoint] on the ethical practices of the medical staff likely to work there providing maternity healthcare for patients brought to its doors.
Peregrinus wrote: » But the Blackrock Clinic is not run by Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Charity, or the Bon Secours Sisters; it's not church-linked at all. It's owned and operated by a consortium of doctors. And so far as I know it's not a not-for-profit. Far from bolstering your argument, your selection of this example tends to suggest that you can't find a relevant example to illustrate your point. No, it's not. But, as I've already pointed out, in the Christian ethical view providing healthcare is an intrinsic good, whether free or not. The discussion we're having right now kind of refutes you; the Sisters of Charity may not provide much or any nursing care in St. Vincent's hospital any more, but they do bring a very substantial capital asset to the operation - viz, the property itself. And the value that contributes is illustrated by the debate going on right here; what would it cost the state to provide that asset if the Sisters of Charity didn't provide it? If the Sisters of Charity were really bringing nothing of value to the table, then it would be easy to cut them out of the loopp; the State could build the hospital on state-owned land and operate it itself. And nobody would be moaning about the baleful influence of the Sisters of Charity on the running of the hospital because they wouldn't have any influence. And that may well be the right thing to do. But the difficult of doing it, and the cost of doing it, is the measure of the contribution that the Sisters of Charity do in fact make.
smacl wrote: » Not buying that argument for a moment Peregrinus. I, and I guess very many others, would be of the opinion that the likes of the Blackrock clinic are first and foremost in the business of making money for their shareholders. I note, for example, its profits jumped €12.3 million in 2018.
smacl wrote: » That's not the religious orders providing free healthcare though is it?
smacl wrote: » It is the religious orders acting as a paid service provider to the state providing free health care. The charitable aspect being wholly funded by the taxpaying citizenship. In times gone by, when there were a considerable number of nuns working in the hospitals for a very modest wage, you would have had some argument in this regard. These times are long past. Seriously
Peregrinus wrote: » Seriously? You know better than this, smacl. Healing the sick is seen as not only virtuous but mandatory in the Christian ethical tradition - it's right there in the Sermon on the Mount. This isn't confined to the sick poor. The article doesn't make a lot of sense. It asks "What are the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Charity, and the Bon Secours Sisters doing in the business of private medicine?" Well, duh. If medical services are provided by voluntary bodies (religious or otherwise) that's by definition private medicine. The public hospitals are those run by the state. Why are their hospitals available only to those who can pay? Because that's the available funding model. As the article acknowledges, they used to be in the business of providing free healthcare, funded by charitable donations, but once the state got into the business of providing free healthcare, with its greater resources it can provide better healthcare that private charitably-funded institutions can.
They would no doubt happily provide free healthcare if the state would commission and pay them to do it (as happens in some other countries) but it won't. But, still, their vocation is to provide healthcare, so they find a viable space in the health system and seek to fill it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » 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.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » You said what you said. If you meant something different than what you actually wrote, well, I have no control over that.
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.
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: » 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: » 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.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » How many Catholic hospitals are there and how are actually actively prolife? It doesnt seems to be a massive amount
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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: » Because they believe in charity and don't want money.
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.
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).
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.
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: » 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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
