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

donspeekinglesh

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Forgive me now, but just musing here. There must be some cachet attached to Holles Street hospital moving further into South County Dublin alright. Couldn't be having it within the canals now could we?

For example, there was a large chunk of land (Player Wills site) beside the Coombe Women's hospital that could have been used for the new maternity hospital surely? Practically on the site of the Coombe, and within a few hundred metres of St. James and the new children's hospital. No religious ethos/shenanigans involved. Makes too much sense I suppose, and maybe SOME would baulk at having to travel further into the badlands than Merrion Square or Elm Park. Instead of the land being gifted though, it would have had to be paid for. But look at what's happening now? Years more delay I reckon.

Am I just being a bad person for thinking this? But anyway as far as I know all development land around the Coombe has been earmarked for housing.

I have it in my head that the plan was to eventually co-locate all 3 maternity hospitals with an adult hospital. I think the Coombe was to move closer to James after the Children's Hospital is done. (And I think the Rotunda was to move to the Mater, but I not sure exactly were, not like there's much free space.)

donspeekinglesh

lazygal wrote: »

Had I had an emergency requiring transfer to Vincents I was told the tubal ligation wouldn't be done during an emergency section.

I'm guessing a transfer would only have been in the case of a serious risk to your health/life. They do emergency sections in Holles Street if there's no complications for the mother - my eldest was one (it was an "we need to deliver very soon" emergency, we were delayed getting to theater by a "we need to deliver right now" emergency).

lazygal

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

I'm guessing a transfer would only have been in the case of a serious risk to your health/life. They do emergency sections in Holles Street if there's no complications for the mother - my eldest was one (it was an "we need to deliver very soon" emergency, we were delayed getting to theater by a "we need to deliver right now" emergency).

Yes I know but the point is that Vincent's doesn't provide it. If I was pregnant now I'd ask for referral to another hospital to be stated on my chart given the religious limitations on care in Vincent's.

Call me Al

lazygal wrote: »

Yes I know but the point is that Vincent's doesn't provide it. If I was pregnant now I'd ask for referral to another hospital to be stated on my chart given the religious limitations on care in Vincent's.

Not to be argumentative LG but they're clearly stating in recent press releases that they do provide tubal ligation ivf etc. but then I read that they won't prescribe contraception.
They either do or they don't. This type of treatment and care is basic bread and butter of gynaecology and maternity care in a 1st world country.

And yet I doubt them as i don't know where the truth is anymore.

Edit this type of medicine really shouldn't be the orbit and gift of any religious organisation in a publicly funded hospital.(and ironically pretty much none of whom will ever require its services).

lazygal

Call me Al wrote: »

Not to be argumentative LG but they're clearly stating in recent press releases that they do provide tubal ligation ivf etc. but then I read that they won't prescribe contraception.
They either do or they don't. This type of treatment and care is basic bread and butter of gynaecology and maternity care in a 1st world country.

And yet I doubt them as i don't know where the truth is anymore.

We know we can't trust a word they say.

'Gifting the land to the people of Ireland' was a deliberately muddy statement.

Bellbottoms

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The Nuns and SVHG are hardly the ones kicking up about it since they are happy with the agreement. It's the government that's now unhappy with what they signed up to a few years ago. The same faces too.

It suited everyone politically to press ahead with the agreement then. What has changed?

In fact if the state is now unhappy with the terms, let them CPO part of elm park golf club for the new NMH.

Nah fup that. CPO the nuns land and build it were it needs to be.

[Deleted User]

Why do people seem to think that a CPO is straightforward? It will not be. It might not even be possible.

MrMusician18

lazygal wrote: »

We know we can't trust a word they say.

'Gifting the land to the people of Ireland' was a deliberately muddy statement.

While that is a muddy statement for public consumption, the details of the agreement would've set out clearly to government what the structure of governance and ownership was going to be. Why this is a surprise and a controversy now is surprising to me at least.

Has government explained why this agreement was ok a few years ago and not now? Are they really trying to get us to believe the nuns pulled the wool over their eyes?

MrMusician18

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Why do people seem to think that a CPO is straightforward? It will not be. It might not even be possible.

You're probably right. CPO is generally used where no alternative reasonably exists, preventing the one holdout landowner preventing a road project going ahead and the like.

Alternatives exist at Elm Park, The golf club, RTE and the nuns site would all be reasonable locations for the hospital. Government (and all parties) should abide by the terms it's agreed or go elsewhere.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

She probably doesn't see it so black and white. I imagine she and the other board believe healthcare is best serviced with the original plan. They say this on yesterdays letter. I just wish they were better at communicating it.

One might have a moment of conjecture that doctors wishing to practice their chosen branch/s of medicine at the SVHG hospitals at Elm Park are not showing their hands on their personal medical-based ethics in case their requests to practice there would be declined by the SVHG.

Peter Boylan is on RTE now mentioning a meeting he claims he had with the last Minister for Health Simon Harris during which Dr Boylan claims SH mentioned a Plan B option of the new NMH being built at Tallaght. I will wait for any response from SH to that as RTE will be duty-bound to offer him a chance to respond to Dr Boylan's statement. Dr Boylan has stated that there is no way the order would be able to sell the site as the Vatican would say this is not on. The Vatican has been mentioned time and again in that light by Dr Boylan for some years now.

RTE is covering all the angles of buying, selling etc of the site, including a clip of Dr Mahony's position several years ago on that issue.

Beechwoodspark

I really think RTÉ and the “woke” crew are just jumping on this as the latest crusade

I get the sense it Doesn’t matter who owns the land it’s who is running the hospital is the main thing

Beechwoodspark

This idea of gifting the land to the state was never a runner

What’s to stop the state getting the land and then going ah no lads ya know what we won’t build the hospital here

we will sell the land on to the highest bidder for example Johnny Ronan and let him build a skyscraper there ...

Call me Al

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I really think RTÉ and the “woke” crew are just jumping on this as the latest crusade

I get the sense it Doesn’t matter who owns the land it’s who is running the hospital is the main thing

I think the issue is very much about who owns the land.
If it is under the ownership of the RCC, directly or indirectly, then Boylan says they will forbid treatment outside of their ethical guidelines, and this is in keeping with what some say are their operating guidelines in Vincent's currently wrt gynaecological services.

Call me Al

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

This idea of gifting the land to the state was never a runner

What’s to stop the state getting the land and then going ah no lads ya know what we won’t build the hospital here

we will sell the land on to the highest bidder for example Johnny Ronan and let him build a skyscraper there ...

But but but...

They said!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/extra.ie/2020/05/08/news/irish-news/sisters-of-charity-gift-hospital-land-worth-e200-million-to-the-irish-state/amp

This is where the Irish State is actually a charity called St Vincent's Holding CLG

lazygal

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Why do people seem to think that a CPO is straightforward? It will not be. It might not even be possible.

No one thinks it is, or will be.
But I think a lot of people would rather deal with these difficulties than hand a health care asset to a private company controlled by a religious cult that won't provide a full range of reproductive health care.

Bannasidhe

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I really think RTÉ and the “woke” crew are just jumping on this as the latest crusade

I get the sense it Doesn’t matter who owns the land it’s who is running the hospital is the main thing

I really think you have completely missed the fact that a sizable portion of the Irish population - or as you term them the "woke brigade" - understand the importance of preventing the State from continuing to gift valuable assets to religious organisations.

It absolutely matters who owns the National Maternity Hospital.

Beechwoodspark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I really think you have completely missed the fact that a sizable portion of the Irish population - or as you term them the "woke brigade" - understand the importance of preventing the State from continuing to gift valuable assets to religious organisations.

It absolutely matters who owns the National Maternity Hospital.

I think the important thing is the running of the hospital not who owns the actual land

Beechwoodspark

For example I don’t know who owns the land that the dept of health is on

Presumably some private land Lord

But it doesn’t matter regarding the running of the department of health

It’s not like the land Lord is in there giving orders

lazygal

The landlord presumably isn't loyal to and acting solely in the interests of another state with a vast property empire and questions to answer about covering up child abuse.

Bannasidhe

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I think the important thing is the running of the hospital not who owns the actual land

And a great many people disagree with you.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

The landlord presumably isn't loyal to and acting solely in the interests of another state with a vast property empire and questions to answer about covering up child abuse.

Although this being Ireland the landlord could possibly owe the state millions.

Beechwoodspark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And a great many people disagree with you.

Yeah but why

Explain it to me like?

It’s not like the Vatican are going to be running the hospital ?

lazygal

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yeah but why

Explain it to me like?

It’s not like the Vatican are going to be running the hospital ?

St Vincent's Hospital already mortgaged their public hospital site to build a private health care asset. Its controlled by a religous order that is now basically a Catholic asset management agency. Why would we hand a private asset management company a State health care asset costing nearly a billion euro? And then not have any control over it when it decides all promises are mental reservations so they don't count?

Bannasidhe

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yeah but why

Explain it to me like?

It’s not like the Vatican are going to be running the hospital ?

It's not at all clear who is going to be running the hospital.

But the Irish State is preparing to spend hundreds of millions on building a state of the art medical facility - and given our history of spiralling costs who knows what the final figure would be - plus pay for all the staff, all the equipment and then agree a 99 year lease with the owner - that might be extended for a further 25 years.
At then end of that time period the asset reverts to the owners of the land.

Now, do you think they will be getting a hospital with 99 (or 124) year old equipment/facilities or do you think over that time things will constantly be updated?

There are still hospital buildings built over 124 years ago fully in operation in Ireland now. The building is just the shell that holds the facilities - and the taxpayer of Ireland will be constantly paying for the upgrade of those facilities.

What you are saying you see no issue with is equivalent to a tenant paying for a house to be built, paying all upkeep, paying for all upgrades, and at the end of the lease the whole lot reverts to the landlord and the tenant has nothing.

And in this case there could also be small print declaring the tenant may not do anything that conflicts with the landlords personal ethos.

Any tenant who agreed to that is a fool.

Beechwoodspark

lazygal wrote: »

St Vincent's Hospital already mortgaged their public hospital site to build a private health care asset. Its controlled by a religous order that is now basically a Catholic asset management agency. Why would we hand a private asset management company a State health care asset costing nearly a billion euro? And then not have any control over it when it decides all promises are mental reservations so they don't count?

Well then build it someplace else?

Its their land like, I don’t get why they should “gift” it to ireland inc.

MrMusician18

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Well then build it someplace else?

Its their land like, I don’t get why they should “gift” it to ireland inc.

Indeed, maybe they'll build it in Tallaght (the plan b) now.
I'd say the objections to Vincent's will be dropped fairly sharpish if that starts to get traction.

robindch

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

For example I don’t know who owns the land that the dept of health is on. It’s not like the land Lord is in there giving orders

And that's the difference with the National Maternity Hospital where religious will necessarily be involved.

Still can't understand why this is a matter for discussion in the year the Mother and Baby Home report came out. I mean, who in their right minds actually wants religious anywhere near mothers and babies after what the religious did and caused?

It's beyond obscene.

Beechwoodspark

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed, maybe they'll build it in Tallaght (the plan b) now.
I'd say the objections to Vincent's will be dropped fairly sharpish if that starts to get traction.

And why what’s wrong with tallaght

aloyisious

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed, maybe they'll build it in Tallaght (the plan b) now.
I'd say the objections to Vincent's will be dropped fairly sharpish if that starts to get traction.

Possibly a result if plan B is the state's response to the sleight of hand trick the order is currently trying on with it's SVHG "independent" board saying it will not sell the site to the state. There's no real point in anyone arguing that the SVHG board are NOT working hand in glove with the owners of the site anymore. The interests of the new NMH and any women who would be patients there have no relevance to the order, period.

The amount of money spent by whomever is funding the new car park being built at the Elm Park campus will be sorely lost if there are no new customers to use it.

Spanish Eyes

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

And why what’s wrong with tallaght

It is not Merrion Square or South County Dublin, for starters. The soon to be yummy mummies would have to travel to TALLAGHT along with the Gods, sorry consultants. Tongue in cheek there BTW.

Anyway it makes more sense to have a new maternity unit in an area where there is population growth and a lot of house building going on. Blanchardstown would be another bet.