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.
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.
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.
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: » 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.
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: » 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.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Two independent reports found no evidence of baby selling.
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.
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; The RCC clearly seem to have an agenda here which would appear to have little to do with charity.
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
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » You have done a bit of editorializing there. If I recall, Browne said that any proposal he made (more on that in a second) was received with a look of "mystified pain" and dismissed unsmilingly. Hardly a "breakdown"?
Bellbottoms wrote: » I may well be. It has been almost two decades since I've read it. I do remember Browne being at pains to point out that the head nun was very insistent that no poor people would be allowed into the hospital. But I do remember the book have an element of score settling to it. A man more sinned against then sinned and all that. Who knows what was and wasn't said.
FuzzyThinking wrote: » I’m really getting fed up with the sense of entitlement that these organisations have. It’s public money and a public hospital. They’re a private organisation. They behave like they’re doing some charitable service while in reality they’re just glorified outsourcers who have notions. This is tax payers money and a resource we should able to see used on an entirely unbiased, comfortable and neutral basis.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Free use of land worth hundreds of millions sounds pretty charitable to me.
uptherebels wrote: » If they were really being charitable they would have gifted it to the state. :rolleyes:
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » You can't win Someone was giving out about a sense of entitlement? Are we really going to go down the road of arguing that offering prime land, for free, to be used for a hospital is not generous or charitable? If they were after a few quid they could sell it for a few hundred million. I would be interested to see what people advocate as an alternative. Should the state just buy the land at the market rate, or should they build the hospital elsewhere?
uptherebels wrote: » if it was actually for free i.e. getting nothing in return then it would be an act of charity. but thats not the case here is it. After the countless atrocities inflicted by religious institutions in this country, it should have as far away from them as possible, but it is too late now. Now the state just needs to do what it can to insulate the tax payer financed multi billion dollar asset from certain grubby claws.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Tell me, what are they getting in return? Personally I believe that should the hospital be built there it will most certainly see unethical 'healthcare' preformed there. All we are seeing here is a vague little dance from the Sisters so when the inevitable happens they can sort of say they did not think it would. Personally, I think the Sisters should not gift the land in any way, shape or form unless they can be assured that objectionable 'healthcare' such as the termination of the unborn child will not happen. But they are not getting that, or even asking for that. I would be most happy if the state decided to just buy land elsewhere.
Bannasidhe wrote: » They are getting ownership of a state of the art, publicly paid for, maternity hospital. A very valuable asset. And it's not costing them a brass farthing. It remains to be seen what they will be looking for further along the line. The State already owns land the hospital could have been built on. The fact that the powers that be thought the conditions attached to this site were acceptable shows how far we need to go in separating church and state. And if government doesn't think there will be a backlash they are even more out of touch than they appear. Catholic Ireland died in the pile of abuse committed by the clergy and covered up by the hierarchy. But some people still haven't realised that.
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » If they were after a few quid they could sell it for a few hundred million.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
