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

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.

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.

[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?

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/

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

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: »

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

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: »

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: »

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.

The terms were by the gov. The extent that pushback influenced the findings is highly unclear and is based on a single vague statement.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The terms were by the gov. The extent that pushback influenced the findings is highly unclear and is based on a single vague statement.

Was there a commission of inquiry into the SVHG and the deal involving the order or is some other thread topic being referenced above?

aloyisious

Brid Smith spoke in the Dail today on the issue of SVHG and claimed that the order can appoint directors to the SVHG, despite their walking away from the running of ST Vincent's. Leo Varadkar replied by saying the handing over of it to a private charity which would lease it to the state for 99 years was not handing it over to the state. Brid replied by repeating her point that the nuns can appoint directors to the new SVHG. Leo replied that the old and new hospitals will be physically linked and that he had not been aware that some women's health procedures might not be provided there as they were provided in other hospitals.

Hotblack Desiato

Fk sake Leo, campaign groups have only been telling you this for several years now

aloyisious

RTE had it's usual mention of what's in the papers a few minutes ago and mentioned an article on the NMH. According to RTE's mention of the article [which I have not yet seen or read] the nuns say they have never been approached by anyone and asked if they would sell the land to anyone. It seems tomorrows RTE 1's ONE PM news/interview/discussion programme will also have the NMH up for discussion by the people on it's panel.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

The only thing I can conclude is either the state is shockingly naïve, or wants to give a large donation to the convent.

handlemaster

What of the redress board and compension thst was agreed to be paid by religious orders ... why is this issue still going around in circles. The state the people the tax payers should have this land no strings. I am sure if you look about it was given free initially by the people to the order as was most religious land.

aloyisious

The Irish Times article has the order denying any contact at any point with either the state or the government to discuss the purchase of the site. Separately the St Vincent's Hospital Group [the Co set up in order for the deal between the order and the state to proceed to fruition for a new NMH or the health of Irish Women] said "at no stage was any proposal or approach to sell the land, meaningful or otherwise, received or considered by the board of SVHG.

However the article says the Dep't of Health is in possession of a letter sent from St Vincent's suggests a sale had been broached. A section of the St Vincent's letter of May 2017, states separation of ownership or governance would disrupt care for patients. "this is why St Vincent's Hospital Group cannot countenance any any sale or lease of part of the land on site, or any separate ownership of a hospital on site. It states its concerns on ownership stem from the operation of a "safe, integrated system of governance and medical protocols".

The two separate items in the letter, Governance AND Medical Protocols, are worth keeping in mind seeing as how the order has the right to appoint its own directors to the St Vincent's Hospital Group Board, despite it apparently having taken steps away from the way the new NMH would be operated [which even people debating here from the orders POV have said is the position of the order].

I looked for details of the other hospital on the site [St Vincent's Private Hospital] curious to see if it had separate governance and protocols and found it was founded in '74 by the order and is listed as part of the SVHG. Mention is made of a St Vincent's Healthcare Group as running the main St Vincent's hospital as well as the private hospital. I don't know if this earlier [2002] SVHG is still in existence or has any legal connection with the newer St Vincent's Hospital Group connected with the NMH deal. Acronym's, being similar, can be useful in hiding things.

[Deleted User]

Varadkar is taking people for fools. How he gets away with pretending to be shocked about something he has know about for years and his government and party was involved in/responsible for is beyond me. He keeps commenting about things as if he was some third party spectator and not a central character. Why does the media let him away with it?

ClosedAccountFuzzy

Considering the absolute mess they made of the National Children’s Hospital planning and development, nothing would surprise me about the level of ability to walk into brick walls and be unaware of impending problems.

However, if the state doesn’t stand strong on this, it will be letting a lot of people down very badly. I don’t think they quite comprehend how fed people are with this church-state corporatism nonsense.

It will definitely impact how I vote.

Yellow_Fern

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE had it's usual mention of what's in the papers a few minutes ago and mentioned an article on the NMH. According to RTE's mention of the article [which I have not yet seen or read] the nuns say they have never been approached by anyone and asked if they would sell the land to anyone. It seems tomorrows RTE 1's ONE PM news/interview/discussion programme will also have the NMH up for discussion by the people on it's panel.

Of course they haven't. Because the accountants and doctors who run St Vincent's wouldn't want that. If the land was given directly to the state than they would lose this important new hospital. It is not that the sisters want to have influence, its the management of St Vincent's want to have influence, whether it is logical on health and economics grounds I do not know but it is certainly nothing to do with the poor sisters, who have been unfairly blamed. This was all reported extensively in the press but the press stopped discussing it when far fetched ideas about Catholic conspiracy started to reach a zenith.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Of course they haven't. Because the accountants and doctors who run St Vincent's wouldn't want that. If the land was given directly to the state than they would lose this important new hospital. It is not that the sisters want to have influence, its the management of St Vincent's want to have influence, whether it is logical on health and economics grounds I do not know but it is certainly nothing to do with the poor sisters, who have been unfairly blamed. This was all reported extensively in the press but the press stopped discussing it when far fetched ideas about Catholic conspiracy started to reach a zenith.

Well that's certainly an interesting spin.

"It's not the (not actually poor but quite wealthy) poor sisters who are clinging on to the land originally either donated to them or purchased out of donations it's the management of Vincent's put in place by... who did put them in place? I seem to recall high ranking clerics have some say in that.

But never mind who appointed them, the story is the nuns would gift int tomorrow but the bean pushers won't let them because the books take precedence over charity even for the Sisters of .. um... Charity. "

Not the stunning defence you seem to think it is

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well that's certainly an interesting spin.

"It's not the (not actually poor but quite wealthy) poor sisters who are clinging on to the land originally either donated to them or purchased out of donations it's the management of Vincent's put in place by... who did put them in place? I seem to recall high ranking clerics have some say in that.

But never mind who appointed them, the story is the nuns would gift int tomorrow but the bean pushers won't let them because the books take precedence over charity even for the Sisters of .. um... Charity. "

Not the stunning defence you seem to think it is

Well they live by a vow of poverty actually so they are poor although that is not their their title. As far as I understand St Vincent’s Holdings CLG has no sisters on the board, so I dont think they have any power to gift it anymore or wont have the power soon. I suspect even before they only had limited power.

aloyisious

Leo has mentioned the St Vincent's letter in his RTE news interview about the sale of the land, saying he's aware of it but he's open to discussion of buying the site where the new NMH is to be built on from either the order or the SVHG. He said the governance issue is important and [separately] that the Gov't would like to have a director appointed to represent it/the state on the new SVHG board [in different words used by him - go to RTE podcast for the precise wording]. .He also intimated that the new NMH being built on the St Vincent's site is not a certainty. Catherine Murphy is speaking right now on RTE news about the ownership of the new NMH site.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

Would it be cheaper and more logical to just build it at a HSE owned site?

I don’t see this fight ending.

If you look at what was done with CUMH in Cork, that should be possible in Dublin, but isn’t due to the dominance of religious hospitals, or at least it isn’t because the Department of Health is engaging with them rather than just building the damn hospital itself.

Why not just put it at Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown? As far as I’m aware that is owned by the HSE.

Or, would Tallaght or Beaumont be more appropriate if ethos is going to be a problem?

Both seem to have much more space?

It looks to me like we’ll have wasted money and prevented services from happening in a timely manner by pursuing this battle at all.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Well they live by a vow of poverty actually so they are poor although that is not their their title. As far as I understand St Vincent’s Holdings CLG has no sisters on the board, so I dont think they have any power to gift it anymore or wont have the power soon. I suspect even before they only had limited power.

It's seems they are NOT poor [in as far as wealth and being mendicant go] and the order gifted the site to the new SVHG for the purpose of running the new NMH as part of the integrated St Vincent's Hospital operating within the SVHG. The SVHG board, which will include persons appointed by the order, will be in charge of all the hospitals on the St Vincent's site AND St Michaels Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The wording in the St Vincent's letter from the board of the SVHG to the Dep't of Health [IMO] were not carelessly chosen words where it comes to the group's plans on governance at the whole hospital inclusive of the planned new on-site NMH.