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

groovyg

This interview on Drivetime recently on governance structures of the new NMH raised a few questions about how the NMH will operate within the SVHG. The structures and set up are all very confusing and yet the clinicians who signed the letter are all confident everything will be fine!

If the State are going to be funding this hospital they should own and control it
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21971100

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Garibaldi's suggestion that the Rotunda had a ward dedicated to the purpose is quite wrong; the number of women seeking hospital treatment for post-termination complications was nowhere near enough to require a dedicated ward. Women in this situation were treated along with patients who had, e.g., suffered a miscarriage and needed treatment in connection with that.

It may be that it was similar to the 'Honda Ward' in the old Orthopedic Hosp in Cork. It wasn't really called the Honda ward - it was so nicknamed because anyone who had a serious motorbike accident tended to end up there.

"Where's Stitchey?"
"He's up in the Honda Ward bai"

We all knew what that meant.

From that answer we can deduce Stitchey is male, has had a fairly serious motorbike related accident, and is in the Orthopaedic hosp.

The ward wasn't dedicated to motorbike accidents - it was one of the male public wards where the male victims of motorbike accidents tended to be treated.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But of course abortion only became legal in the UK in 1967

Before that, and probably for a while after, it would have been backstreet abortions in Ireland.

Yes. And I suspect that at that time if a woman had complications from a back-street abortion she might have been too ashamed, or to scared, to seek hospital treatment. So I don't know if the Rotunda has acquired a reputation as the hospital where you would go.

But it was certainly filling that role in the 1980s. Rightly or wrongly, there was a perception that a woman in this situation would get a more sympathetic reception in the Rotunda than in the Coombe or Holles St.

Garibaldi's suggestion that the Rotunda had a ward dedicated to the purpose is quite wrong; the number of women seeking hospital treatment for post-termination complications was nowhere near enough to require a dedicated ward. Women in this situation were treated along with patients who had, e.g., suffered a miscarriage and needed treatment in connection with that.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Back in the day, if you went to the UK for an abortion, returned to Ireland, and then had complications which required investigation or treatment in hospital, you generally went to the Rotunda for that.

But of course abortion only became legal in the UK in 1967

Before that, and probably for a while after, it would have been backstreet abortions in Ireland.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

This claim isnt compatible with the evidence. Doran didnt even did not specifically mention the National Maternity Hospital in his comments to the newspaper and that he was speaking “in general terms” as 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).

I sincerely don't think he was trying to prevent anything. Although if his comments mean the state doesn't get the land then I think that is a great outcome but I wish there wasnt his pointless and wasteful delay.

There is a reason why the letter didnt call for private ownership

This is the ?-marked sentence you wrote about the doctors: But the doctors don't want to hand it over to the State?

Handing it over to the state is not handing it over to private ownership. The order handing it over to SVHG would be keeping the property in private ownership.

Ref Bishop Doran and his interview with the paper: it doesn't take any shade of bias to understand that Bishop Doran meant his words for a particular audience outside his diocese.

Yellow_Fern

aloyisious wrote: »

The bishop helpful to whom? The bishops "advice" on their ethical obligations to the RC church left the order in a cleft stick situation around the time the papers revealed details of the deal being done between the NMH and the order. The advice was clearly meant to prevent the order from going ahead with the deal and allowing medical abortion to happen in a hospital built on lands the order owned.

This claim isnt compatible with the evidence. Doran didnt even did not specifically mention the National Maternity Hospital in his comments to the newspaper and that he was speaking “in general terms” as 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).

I sincerely don't think he was trying to prevent anything. Although if his comments mean the state doesn't get the land then I think that is a great outcome but I wish there wasnt his pointless and wasteful delay.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure why there is a ?-mark after your mention of what the doctors want to do. The doctor quoted in the article-link above has made it clear that religious ethics will have no part as far as she is concerned where it comes to making medical decisions on the healthcare she and other doctors would provide at the planned new NMH at St Vincent's Healthcare Group on the Elm Park campus.

There is a reason why the letter didnt call for private ownership

aloyisious

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

What this exercise has revealed that it would in fact be unethical (by their standards) of the Sisters to allow the land to be used for such purposes. It seemed to me that this was being set up so the sisters could have "clean hands" when abortions took place at the hospital because it was all somewhat vague and hidden behind euphemism. But this has come down to basically the sisters having to defend the proposed transfer by saying "don't worry, abortions will happen". Would not be surprised for them to be pressured to pull out of the deal, it's not as if they have gotten any thanks for it anyway.

True enough, Bishop Doran landed them in hot water with his reminder in the newspapers to them of their RC ethical obligations, leaving them without even a fig-leaf to cover themselves. I cant imagine them giving him thanks for his intentions.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

But the doctors dont want to hand it over to the State? Bishop Doran's comments were not unhelpful. What was helpful was certain journalists presenting his words as he has some kind of control over the site.

I'm not exactly sure why there is a ?-mark after your mention of what the doctors want to do. The doctor quoted in the article-link above has made it clear that religious ethics will have no part as far as she is concerned where it comes to making medical decisions on the healthcare she and other doctors would provide at the planned new NMH at St Vincent's Healthcare Group on the Elm Park campus.

The bishop helpful to whom? The bishops "advice" on their ethical obligations to the RC church left the order in a cleft stick situation around the time the papers revealed details of the deal being done between the NMH and the order. The advice was clearly meant to prevent the order from going ahead with the deal and allowing medical abortion to happen in a hospital built on lands the order owned.

Maybe the bishop was worried about the nuns eternal souls when he reminded them of their ethical obligations to mother church and what it stood for, as against the medical obligations of the NMH doctors to their present and future patients which would transfer to the new NMH with the same doctors. The bishop is from another diocese to the one the NMH is in and he has no control whatever over the order or the present NMH and future NMH at the Elm Park campus owned by the order.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would you go to a maternity hospital for gender reassignment surgery? It draws mainly on the specialisms of endocrinology and plastic surgery, and in the UK the NHS provides it in general hospitals, not maternity hospitals.

I read the consultants letter as saying that the NMH currently offers transgender reproductive services, not gender reassignment surgery.

The unavailability of gender reassignment surgery in Ireland may be a problem that needs fixing, but trying to connect it to the row over the construction and control of the new maternity hospital is probably not going to be a very productive way of getting it fixed.

They are the one's who referred to gender reassignment procedures.

All medical procedures, in accordance with the laws of the land, are available in SVHG hospitals, including pregnancy termination, tubal ligation and gender reassignment procedures.

https://www.stvincents.ie/briefing-documents-on-national-maternity-hospital-at-elm-park-dac/

I am merely pointing out that currently no hospital in Ireland carries these out so it's disingenuous of St Vincent's to even introduce the topic in their "look how absolutely un Catholicy we are" statement.

They are not currently carrying out gender reassignment procedures. That claim is a lie.

[Deleted User]

What this exercise has revealed that it would in fact be unethical (by their standards) of the Sisters to allow the land to be used for such purposes. It seemed to me that this was being set up so the sisters could have "clean hands" when abortions took place at the hospital because it was all somewhat vague and hidden behind euphemism. But this has come down to basically the sisters having to defend the proposed transfer by saying "don't worry, abortions will happen". Would not be surprised for them to be pressured to pull out of the deal, it's not as if they have gotten any thanks for it anyway.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet the Transgender community in Ireland is adamant that no hospital in Ireland carries out gender reassignment surgery which is why those wishing to avail of it have to travel. Risking all the post-surgical complications that entails.

Someone is not telling the whole truth.

Would you go to a maternity hospital for gender reassignment surgery? It draws mainly on the specialisms of endocrinology and plastic surgery, and in the UK the NHS provides it in general hospitals, not maternity hospitals.

I read the consultants letter as saying that the NMH currently offers transgender reproductive services, not gender reassignment surgery.

The unavailability of gender reassignment surgery in Ireland may be a problem that needs fixing, but trying to connect it to the row over the construction and control of the new maternity hospital is probably not going to be a very productive way of getting it fixed.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet the Transgender community in Ireland is adamant that no hospital in Ireland carries out gender reassignment surgery which is why those wishing to avail of it have to travel. Risking all the post-surgical complications that entails.

Someone is not telling the whole truth.

There are many non religious objections to trans surgeries and treatments and these approaches are fraught with controversy in the medical community.

Yellow_Fern

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems to me the ethical problem facing the order to handing over control of the site would be removed if the church [Vatican] gave the nuns notice that no blame would be apportioned to it if it irrevocably free of charge handed over the site the new NMH was to be built on to the board of the existing NMH. With the Gov't stating it would provide the required sum of money set aside for the building of the architecturally planned new NMH, there would be no need for further debate about the medical procedural ethics to be practiced there.

If the unhelpful bishop had kept his reminder on ethics to the order to himself, the present problem would not have arisen for all the parties involved.

But the doctors dont want to hand it over to the State? Bishop Doran's comments were not unhelpful. What was helpful was certain journalists presenting his words as he has some kind of control over the site.

aloyisious

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Read full thing here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-national-maternity-hospital-1.4604869

Irish Times report on letter:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-maternity-hospital-doctors-fear-misinformation-could-delay-move-1.4605139

It seems to me the ethical problem facing the order to handing over control of the site would be removed if the church [Vatican] gave the nuns notice that no blame would be apportioned to it if it irrevocably free of charge handed over the site the new NMH was to be built on to the board of the existing NMH. With the Gov't stating it would provide the required sum of money set aside for the building of the architecturally planned new NMH, there would be no need for further debate about the medical procedural ethics to be practiced there.

If the unhelpful bishop had kept his reminder on ethics to the order to himself, the present problem would not have arisen for all the parties involved.

Call me Al

TheChizler wrote: »

Still don't get it but I may be interpreting too literally.

Yes I think you may be.

TheChizler

Call me Al wrote: »

It'd be a weekend abortion so that they'd be back at work on Monday morning nobody any the wiser.

Still don't get it but I may be interpreting too literally.

Bannasidhe

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Read full thing here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-national-maternity-hospital-1.4604869

Irish Times report on letter:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-maternity-hospital-doctors-fear-misinformation-could-delay-move-1.4605139

And yet the Transgender community in Ireland is adamant that no hospital in Ireland carries out gender reassignment surgery which is why those wishing to avail of it have to travel. Risking all the post-surgical complications that entails.

Someone is not telling the whole truth.

[Deleted User]

Sir, – We, the consultants of the National Maternity Hospital, are concerned by the potential for misinformation and misunderstanding to delay a vital project to create a world-class maternity hospital for the women and babies of Ireland.

The misinformation that services at the new maternity hospital will be curtailed by any religious ethos is particularly troubling given its inaccuracy.

We want to reassure women and their families that all obstetric, neonatal and gynaecological care within Irish law is currently being provided at Holles Street, and will be provided in the new hospital. This will include terminations, tubal ligation, transgender and assisted reproduction services.

Read full thing here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-national-maternity-hospital-1.4604869

Irish Times report on letter:

A group of 42 senior clinicians at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) has expressed concern that “misinformation” and “misunderstanding” around the planned relocation of the hospital could delay the move.

In a letter, published in today’s Irish Times, the consultants say that all procedures will be available should the hospital move from Holles Street to a site on the St Vincent’s campus at Elm Park, including terminations and tubal ligation and transgender and assisted reproduction services.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-maternity-hospital-doctors-fear-misinformation-could-delay-move-1.4605139

Call me Al

TheChizler wrote: »

What's the significance of getting paid on a Friday?

It'd be a weekend abortion so that they'd be back at work on Monday morning nobody any the wiser.

TheChizler

What's the significance of getting paid on a Friday?

Peregrinus

Garibaldi? wrote: »

"the Rotunda had a ward for the girls who got paid on a Friday and had their abortions and then needed a doctor no questions asked" As a person who was born in the Rotunda I'm intrigued by this statement.What does it mean?

Back in the day, if you went to the UK for an abortion, returned to Ireland, and then had complications which required investigation or treatment in hospital, you generally went to the Rotunda for that.

It wasn't a matter of "no questions asked"; doctors always want to take a full history. it was never illegal in Ireland for a woman to have had an abortion in the UK and, even if it had been, hospitals don't generally report patients to the police if the medical history they give discloses unlawful activities. They would not wish to encourage patients suffering from complications of a termination from concealing or denying the fact that they had had a termination; that would compromise the quality of the medical treatment.

Garibaldi?

lazygal wrote: »

For decades women in Dublin would trade stories about avoiding Holles St and going to the Rotunda if possible because HS was baby first and the Rotunda had a ward for the girls who got paid on a Friday and had their abortions and then needed a doctor no questions asked.
I would avoid any hospital with a religous ethos. Unfortunately many people don't have a choice of hospital to attend especially in an emergency. We avoided catholic schools for similar reasons. No way did we want our children subject to catholic control over sex ed and the teaching of RSE.

"the Rotunda had a ward for the girls who got paid on a Friday and had their abortions and then needed a doctor no questions asked" As a person who was born in the Rotunda I'm intrigued by this statement.What does it mean?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Given this is a facility for which the country has an ongoing need, it will be maintained for as long as economically feasible, rebuilt piecemeal or rebuilt entirely over time. Given the location is currently attractive, it would seem likely as not that this would happen on the same site.

Quite possibly, but that would involve a renegotiation of the lease. No tenant pays for major capital expenditure on a property he has rented unless he is satisfied that the length and other terms of his lease mean that he gets the benefit of his expenditure, rather than it accruing to the landlord. At any time when the lease has less than 50 years to run, the hospital will not be rebuilt on the same site without an extension of the lease having been secured.

Seriously, the issue here is not to whom the residual value of the hospital building will ultimate accrue. That really is not important; if anything, it's a distraction. What matters is who will control the operation of the hospital while it's operating in the building, not who gets the building after the hospital is finished with it.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bottom line: if this lease expires in 149, 0r even 99, years, the landowner obtains vacant possession of the buildings. But their residual value at that time is likely to be low or nil.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Given this is a facility for which the country has an ongoing need, it will be maintained for as long as economically feasible, rebuilt piecemeal or rebuilt entirely over time. Given the location is currently attractive, it would seem likely as not that this would happen on the same site.

Peregrinus

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Who is going to take control in 10 or 30 years or 99 years down the line?

IIRC the proposal is for 99-year lease with a renewal option (i.e. the state has the right to renew) for a further 50 years.

Assuming the renewal option is exercised, then in 149 years if the parties do not negotiate another renewal the lease expires, and the owner of the land retakes possession.

However it's unlikely that, by then, the building about to be built now will still be standing and, if it is, it won't be in use as a hospital; it will be obsolete long before that. Or, it will have been replaced, either with a new building on the same site, which will involve the renegotiation of the lease, or with a building on a new site.

Modern institutional buildings are rated for about 50 years. After that, they require more and more renewal and eventual replacement.

The building in Holles St that the NMH is leaving for Elm Park is a purpose-built hospital around 90 years old, with major extensions that are around 60 years old. They're leaving because it's not fit for purpose.

Bottom line: if this lease expires in 149, 0r even 99, years, the landowner obtains vacant possession of the buildings. But their residual value at that time is likely to be low or nil.

aloyisious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Who is going to take control in 10 or 30 years or 99 years down the line?

Excepting the present owners of the ground [and the NMH itself - if it is built there and owned by the SVHG] who do you think the ownership would credibly revert to when the lease ran out?

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If that is true and you can show that, you should write it up and send it into the Irish Times. It would attract enormous interest.

MOD

Given you are already on a sticky wicket due to your posting style in this forum- you should consider before submitting if what you are about to say is contributing to the discussion. If not, as per above example, and the best you can do is pointless sarcasm you may wish to reconsider.

Flinty997

Is there a reason they can't just cpo the whole lot.

Yellow_Fern

If that is true and you can show that, you should write it up and send it into the Irish Times. It would attract enormous interest.

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Who is going to take control in 10 or 30 years or 99 years down the line?

As things stand, the Vatican.