nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sisters of Charity purportedly gift land to the State

Bannasidhe

Just heard on Sean O Rourke (his final show) that the Sisters of Charity are gifting land at the St Vincent's site to the State and that this has received Vatican approval.

Awaiting details so caveats apply but tbh I think this is a step forward for women's healthcare in Ireland.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0508/1137261-st-vincents-hospital-sisters-of-charity/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The two body structure of the report is the commission was in no way designed by the religious orders. No one is making that claim.

And I never said it was.
However, it has been acknowledged their "push back" did influence the Commission and that is a form of dictating terms.

But you carry on parsing and cherry picking.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the contrary, I find it horrifying that once again the survivors have been let down by The State; that the Religious Orders are allowed to dictate terms; and that there are still among us those who will cherry pick, parse, and seek to diminish abuse in an effort to protect institutions who so utterly failed to protect those in their care.

It's not only terrifying imo, it's utterly repugnant.

The two body structure of the report is the commission was in no way designed by the religious orders. No one is making that claim.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Does anyone else think it is terrifying that people are trying to repudiate the findings of a Commission of Enquiry. It is worse than Trumpesque. Dont get me wrong, there are some flaws in the Commission's work but you find that in all Commissions. One part of the Ryan Report overestimated emissions 4x, a vast inaccuracy, but it is independent judiciary process. The gov shouldn't have the authority to repudiate it.

On the contrary, I find it horrifying that once again the survivors have been let down by The State; that the Religious Orders are allowed to dictate terms; and that there are still among us those who will cherry pick, parse, and seek to diminish abuse in an effort to protect institutions who so utterly failed to protect those in their care.

It's not only terrifying imo, it's utterly repugnant.

Yellow_Fern

Does anyone else think it is terrifying that people are trying to repudiate the findings of a Commission of Enquiry. It is worse than Trumpesque. Dont get me wrong, there are some flaws in the Commission's work but you find that in all Commissions. One part of the Ryan Report overestimated emissions 4x, a vast inaccuracy, but it is independent judiciary process. The gov shouldn't have the authority to repudiate it.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

From a historical point of view it is very rigorous. Just lacking testimonies that some wanted. No one wanted to have cross examine the people involved.

And yet here we are with a plethora of professional historians disagreeing enough to sign an open letter.
It's safe to say it's historiographical methodology has been slated in peer reviews.

Not to mention the plan was to destroy the testimonies - hardly the gold standard of being rigorous from a historical point of view.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reading this it's hard not to conclude the Commission of Mother and Baby Homes wasn't set up to fail from the perspective of the survivor's https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

From a historical point of view it is very rigorous. Just lacking testimonies that some wanted. No one wanted to have cross examine the people involved.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reading this it's hard not to conclude the Commission of Mother and Baby Homes wasn't set up to fail from the perspective of the survivor's https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

I can understand why factual conclusions cannot be based on unsworn and unchallenged "evidence". I don't see the issue there. But why would they bother to collect the unsworn stories at all if they are of no use? It is hard to interpret it as anything other than an ill-conceived attempt to plámás people, who, as often vulnerable and under-educated could not be expected to fully appreciate the difference between the two avenues to speak with the commission.

Who signed off on the terms of reference setting this up? They are the ones to blame, the commission seem to have got a bit of a hospital pass on this, as it should have been evident that given the nature of the report (and past legal precedent) that the report (certainly contentious bits) had to have been based on sworn and challenged testimony.

It would seem necessary now that it be reopened, and people given further opportunity to make sworn and challenged testimony.

There is a (compelling imo) argument for peoples stories to be collected as an oral history project to be released when the major parties are all dead, along the lines of the Boston College project (but done better than that shambles) or the work that was done after the tan and civil wars. But this should have been entirely separate project and separate (not instead) of a fact based inquiry.

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a bit silly to suggest building an entire service around a few unusual edge cases. This is easily addressed by the visitor when choosing their parking duration, or after the fact through a reasonable appeal process.

Or it can be addressed with a parking systems that doesn't require prepayment, so there is no scenario of being 'late'. You just pay when you're exiting.

It's not a few "edge" cases though. People are routinely gouged for parking (or worse) when attending hospital, more often than not in distressing circumstances. A charge for parking is a barrier in the way of healthcare, which can be very difficult for people to afford.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reading this it's hard not to conclude the Commission of Mother and Baby Homes wasn't set up to fail from the perspective of the survivor's https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

Rather grim reading.

smacl

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So for those people who don't have cars, are we going to fund free taxis, free bus journeys, free tram journeys, free cycle hire to ensure that hospital visiting is accessible for them, or this just a privilege for drivers?

There's rather more to the cost of running a car to and from a hospital than the cost of parking though, and yes, I'm very much of the opinion that, as a society, if are to provide free public medical care we should also make every effort that people can avail of it which extends to necessary transport. For a children's hospital in particular, parental visits aren't some kind of nicety or luxury. The same is very much true of elderly parents in hospital. It seems appalling to me that visits should be curtailed on the basis of not being able to afford parking or transport to the hospital. We do need to look at gross inefficiencies within our public healthcare system, but turning hospital carparks into cost centres doesn't really help here.

Bannasidhe

Reading this it's hard not to conclude the Commission of Mother and Baby Homes wasn't set up to fail from the perspective of the survivor's https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

[Deleted User]

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Because it is wrong for people to come out of hospital, possibly after a bereavement or other difficulty, only for their car to be clamped because their loved one took 20 minutes longer to die than expected (this has happened).

It's a bit silly to suggest building an entire service around a few unusual edge cases. This is easily addressed by the visitor when choosing their parking duration, or after the fact through a reasonable appeal process.

Or it can be addressed with a parking systems that doesn't require prepayment, so there is no scenario of being 'late'. You just pay when you're exiting.

smacl wrote: »

You could apply the same logic to any other aspect of a publicly funded health care facility, but if the goal is to provide free public health it needs to be freely accessible at minimal cost too. There are many people visiting hospitals who's health is such that they can't use public transport, other perhaps than taxi, to get to the hospital. The same goes for those caring for unwell family or friends. Hitting these people with often expensive and unavoidable parking fees seems to run contrary to this goal. Regular trips to a hospital can already be a hardship without this additional burden.

So for those people who don't have cars, are we going to fund free taxis, free bus journeys, free tram journeys, free cycle hire to ensure that hospital visiting is accessible for them, or this just a privilege for drivers?

smacl

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Is anywhere "well serviced" with public transport in Ireland? Yeah, the habit of sticking everything in Dublin is bad enough, without also sticking them in awkward to get to bits of Dublin too. But knowing Ireland if the deal doesn't go through it won't be built at all, or at least anytime soon. :rolleyes:

From my understanding of options under investigation, the cost of building outside of the M50 and laying on additional public transport infrastructure was still considerably less than options within the city. This is before looking at the issue of adding extra emergency traffic on heavily congested urban roads.

smacl

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should parking be free? There's no such thing as free parking. It costs money to provide and manage parking facilities. So the only question is whether the people who benefit from the parking pay for it, or does everyone pay for it, including those who don't use it.

You could apply the same logic to any other aspect of a publicly funded health care facility, but if the goal is to provide free public health it needs to be freely accessible at minimal cost too. There are many people visiting hospitals who's health is such that they can't use public transport, other perhaps than taxi, to get to the hospital. The same goes for those caring for unwell family or friends. Hitting these people with often expensive and unavoidable parking fees seems to run contrary to this goal. Regular trips to a hospital can already be a hardship without this additional burden.

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should parking be free? There's no such thing as free parking. It costs money to provide and manage parking facilities. So the only question is whether the people who benefit from the parking pay for it, or does everyone pay for it, including those who don't use it.

Because it is wrong for people to come out of hospital, possibly after a bereavement or other difficulty, only for their car to be clamped because their loved one took 20 minutes longer to die than expected (this has happened).

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, I think this would be the best outcome all round. The reasonable concerns raised by Peter Boylan and others are such that current solution could put the future of this hospital at risk of being subject to unwanted external interference and even claims of ownership. The site cost at current market rates makes up a small portion of the overall project cost, which has already spiraled upwards. My personal feeling is that the facility should always have been in a greenfield site, outside of the city, in an area well serviced with public transport and ample provision for free parking.

Why should parking be free? There's no such thing as free parking. It costs money to provide and manage parking facilities. So the only question is whether the people who benefit from the parking pay for it, or does everyone pay for it, including those who don't use it.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, I think this would be the best outcome all round. The reasonable concerns raised by Peter Boylan and others are such that current solution could put the future of this hospital at risk of being subject to unwanted external interference and even claims of ownership. The site cost at current market rates makes up a small portion of the overall project cost, which has already spiraled upwards. My personal feeling is that the facility should always have been in a greenfield site, outside of the city, in an area well serviced with public transport and ample provision for free parking.

Is anywhere "well serviced" with public transport in Ireland?

Yeah, the habit of sticking everything in Dublin is bad enough, without also sticking them in awkward to get to bits of Dublin too. But knowing Ireland if the deal doesn't go through it won't be built at all, or at least anytime soon. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

*mod snipped as off-topic*.

MOD.

I agree the question is valid, however I question if the question is on-topic for this thread. You have asked it elsewhere (and not been answered) and while you may wish an answer, the non-respondent is under no obligation to respond notwithstanding we can draw our own conclusions from their silence.
By repeating the question in this thread - should the non-respondent respond that will only drag this thread off topic and tbh it's too important an issue for it to become another free- rolling prove god(s) exist thread. We have many many of those already.

Can everyone please stay on topic or at least in the ball park of the topic?

Thanking you.

UPDATE

A new thread has been created where the off-topic question posed by Nozz and the equally off topic response from ex loco refugii - (which flagrantly disregarded a mod instruction to not post on that topic in this thread and is veeery luck to have escaped being sanctioned for that reason) - can be discussed https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058192111.

smacl

Bellbottoms wrote: »

Now you are trying to muddy the waters. To be frank it's disgusting.

There is a big difference in a 5 week old bundle of cells and a 38 week baby.

One is a missed or late period. The other an almost full term baby that has to be delivered.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a bad faith comparison.

Mod warning: While I realise the post you are reacting to could be considered intentionally incendiary, I would remind you to play the ball and not the man in any comments. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

I think that the state should either outright offer to buy the land at market rates, or buy land elsewhere, or build on land they already own and leave the sisters out of it.

Agreed, I think this would be the best outcome all round. The reasonable concerns raised by Peter Boylan and others is such that current solution could put the future of this hospital at risk of being subject to unwanted external interference and even claims of ownership. The site cost at current market rates makes up a small portion of the overall project cost, which has already spiraled upwards. My personal feeling is that the facility should always have been in a greenfield site, outside of the city, in an area well serviced with public transport and ample provision for free parking.

[Deleted User]

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.

A belief system which does not recognise objective morality or natural law, and reduces "ethics" to base (alleged) majoritarianism (well, when they agree with it at least, this pillar goes out the window when the "enlightened" disagree with majority opinion in their locale, don't even mention the opinions of the majority of the worlds inhabitants

) is hardly one which is progressive. Indeed, a belief system which reduces the right of a person to his/her life to such a base position that their life depends on the arbitrary decision of another is undoubtedly backwards, no matter how euphemistically it is dressed up.

In any case, the point being made was that it appears that should the hospital be built there it will operate as a state hospital, with the state deciding on how it is run. But it is revealing that some here are so worried that a proposed Maternity hospital, a type of hospital traditionally built to help save the lives of babies, may not (despite the assurances otherwise of the state and others) terminate the unborn that they feel that the hospital should be built elsewhere at much greater expense (and of course, be massively delayed).

It seems that the majority of commentary is mere hand-wringing about things, more than a little kicking of Catholics, but very little in the way of realistic proposals that will be palatable to all concerned. I think that the state should either outright offer to buy the land at market rates, or buy land elsewhere, or build on land they already own and leave the sisters out of it. As for the Sisters, should their over-generous offer be declined, I think they should probably sell the land and use the funds in the developing world where they are much needed, or to expand hospice care in Ireland.

smacl

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That isn't true though. You are propagating a fake story.

Mod:Carded for beach of charter. You are essentially calling another poster a liar here. Any response via PM only. Please read and understand the charter before posting here again

aloyisious

I frankly don't understand what “ecclesiastical property” has to do with the order or the transfer of the order's property to a non-church body such as the SVHG as the property is NOT church property. Likewise for more mention of what a bishop said to a newspaper.

Bellbottoms

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I believe to avoid competing clinical and corporate governance with St Vincent's.

I am a bit confused, can you explain like I am five if you don't mind l.

Yellow_Fern

Bellbottoms wrote: »

If the sisters don't want to have any influence on the new hospital, then why not gift the land to the state. Or use part of the lands value to offset what they owe from the redress scheme.

They dont owe anything. If it is us who owe them. They were entitled to millions in legal fees from the redress scheme which they waivered.

Bellbottoms wrote: »

then why not gift the land to the state

I believe to avoid competing clinical and corporate governance with St Vincent's.

Bellbottoms

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.

Now you are trying to muddy the waters. To be frank it's disgusting.

There is a big difference in a 5 week old bundle of cells and a 38 week baby.

One is a missed or late period. The other an almost full term baby that has to be delivered.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a bad faith comparison.

Bellbottoms

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. Nether will they sit on the board. Even if they sat on the board, it wouldn't give them power over the NMH. The protests on this matter achieved nothing. The protests on this matter were a frenzy of misinformation led by an opportunistic media. There was never going to be a Catholic ethos.

To quote Simon Harris responding to Deputy Brid Smith on questions she had raised about the independence of the new National Maternity Hospital. “no matter how often I say it, the deputy will never be convinced or accept it because she wants to be in the politics of protest”.

If the sisters don't want to have any influence on the new hospital, then why not gift the land to the state. Or use part of the lands value to offset what they owe from the redress scheme.

Yellow_Fern

aloyisious wrote: »

The SVHG was set up to facilitate the handover of the orders property and the building of the new NMH there. It seems to me that the order would have had ethical problems with abortion prior to any deal and to the Bishop Doran interview with the Times newspaper.

It seems to be your opinion that the order would have had no ethical problem with disposing of its SVH property rights to SVHG regardless of what was to be built there under the deal with the HSE [Govt and state] via SVHG, regardless of Bishop Doran having opined in a major newspaper that [Roman] Catholics would have to be [Roman] Catholics. One would have to presume the bishop was referring to the order when he mentioned [Roman] Catholics in relation to the new NMH and the SVHG as neither the NMH or SVHG were likely to have any such ethical problems with any abortion procedures carried out there.

At some level yes Doran was referring to Sisters of Charity, but he said in relation to “ecclesiastical property”, the land isnt “ecclesiastical property” and Doran didn't claim it was. He said he didnt know in the interview. Even if the NMH is “ecclesiastical property” good luck getting an Irish court to enforce canon law.

aloyisious

The SVHG was set up to facilitate the handover of the orders property and the building of the new NMH there. It seems to me that the order would have had ethical problems with abortion prior to any deal and to the Bishop Doran interview with the Times newspaper.

It seems to be your opinion that the order would have had no ethical problem with disposing of its SVH property rights to SVHG regardless of what was to be built there under the deal with the HSE [Govt and state] via SVHG, regardless of Bishop Doran having opined in a major newspaper that [Roman] Catholics would have to be [Roman] Catholics. One would have to presume the bishop was referring to the order when he mentioned [Roman] Catholics in relation to the new NMH and the SVHG as neither the NMH or SVHG were likely to have any such ethical problems with any abortion procedures carried out there.

Yellow_Fern

aloyisious wrote: »

Does this mean that you are of the opinion that the nuns were never under an RC ethical obligation to the RC Church and faith to have absolutely nothing to do with a hospital providing an abortion-service to women on the SVH grounds they own AND that the order would have no objections at all to such operations taking place on their property where SVH is located?

As I understand they would totally be opposed to abortion, but were long winding down active management of St Vincents and their desire to help the mothers of Ireland have a first rate hospital as soon as possible, took precedence over any desire to fight to reduce abortion, which would be probably unwinnable. The idea that Catholic law requires no abortions to take place in NMH is a theory forwarded by Dr. Peter Boylan. It isn't correct. The land transfer that took place under company law, not canon law. H eisnt a lawyer, let alone a canon lawyer.

aloyisious wrote: »

Is it your opinion that the reports of clashes between the RC anti-abortion ethics they were bound to by their faith and the Vatican as against the stated intent of the master of the new NMH to continue the abortion service provided to women at the Holles St NMH were all fake reports?

If that was what reported, it was grossly false. I think it is based on what Bishop Doran said in 2017 in a famous Times interview where he said catholics have to be catholics? The bishop however, prefaced his comments in the same interview with

"the NMH is not in his diocese and he was unfamiliar with the legal relationship between the Sisters of Charity and St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG)."

So yeah the elements of the media exaggerated and manipulates the situation to sell papers. Church bashing sells papers, the truth often doesn't.