Yellow_Fern wrote: » Your opinion doesn't override the facts that the sisters have no levers enforce a Catholic ethos and never intended too. Nor will they have any ownership of the land or the hospital. There was never going to be a Catholic ethos.
smacl wrote: » It most definitely relates to the NMH as the current situation leaves a private organisation with a strong Catholic ethos in a position of influence over the future of the hospital. In my opinion, our government should not expose us to this risk, and should use an alternative site given the circumstances. While the site value is substantial, it is a very small portion of the final cost of getting the hospital up and running and public funds are such that we won't get a second chance at this. The people of this country have made it clear as to the type of healthcare they want going forward and it is incumbent on the government to deliver this. Any possibility that this could be compromised by unwanted religious interference in the future should be dealt with. I do not for a moment believe the mode in which the current site is being transferred is an act of charity, I believe it is one of opportunism.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Ok so your point is a hypothetical and isn't in relation to the national maternity hospital. Gotcha
smacl wrote: » Any and every publicly funded healthcare organisation or individual that would actively seek to limit any woman's options surrounding reproductive health. While I don't have any issue with individuals refusing to take part in such activities directly on the grounds of conscientious objection, I would take serious issue with others, who do not share that objection, being pressured or forced to behave similarly.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Which hospitals do you refer too? Or do you mean individuals doctors?
smacl wrote: » Hopefully not. Unethical healthcare in this country at this point of consists of denying women options surrounding reproductive health, that the people of this country have clearly stated they are entitled to, which a minority take issue with largely because they fall foul of an anachronistic religious belief system. The attempt by a few to limit the healthcare options of others in this manner is deeply unethical.
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.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Just for clarity and palatable for the community, the new hospital will have no catholic restrictions on the termination of 'parasitic balls of cells' that are known to grow in women and which that we as a society treat as bereavements when they die naturally. This seems to be main issue that objectors had.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » That story is a lie, they did NOT gift the land to the State. Catholic religious orders always have the best PR firms and lawyers, don't they...
Bannasidhe wrote: » My understanding of the situation is: Is the State paying? Yes. Will the State own the hospital? No. Who will own the hospital? A charity recently set up by a religious order. Are this religious order contributing to the building costs? No. How did this situation arise? As part of the contract in exchange for the use of the land, the charity would own any building erected on it but not be liable for any associated costs. Perhaps you would answer the same questions according to your understanding?
Yellow_Fern wrote: » That isn't true though. You are propagating a fake story.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Sisters call on minister to speed up new national maternity hospital deal
In a statement today (Thursday) issued by a Dublin-based PR firm
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » unethical
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » If they were after a few quid they could sell it for a few hundred million.
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: » 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.
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: » 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 they were really being charitable they would have gifted it to the state. :rolleyes:
Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: » Free use of land worth hundreds of millions sounds pretty charitable to me.
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.
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
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.
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"?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
