Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

Little CuChulainn · 11-06-2014 12:50PM

Elektronske wrote: »

What are they doing about the records they have since 1961 ?

Why did they do nothing about them ?

Why did the members of Galway county council and the minister of the environment and health allow these homes to operate the way they did ?

They requested the nuns to run the home, they funded them, and Galway county council health committee met regularly to discuss the funding and performance of the home.

Also Galway county council is the authority responsible for burial ground permissions.

I want to see the nuns that are still alive today answer the question why the children were malnourished ? How did they bury the children and where ?

Why do you think current members would have any explanation as to why stuff was done fifty years ago? You are personifying their positions too much. Are there really any of those questions that you don't already know the answer to?

Elektronske · 11-06-2014 01:00PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why do you think current members would have any explanation as to why stuff was done fifty years ago? You are personifying their positions too much. Are there really any of those questions that you don't already know the answer to?

By that excuse then no one has responsibility for anything just because " it was 50 years ago."
They cannot evade their responsibility as state and public bodies.
The state authorities have a big part to play in all of this.
These records are all in the possession of the state, minutes of health commitee meetings etc, funding etc.
The state certified the deaths, the council authorised and are responsible for monitoring burial grounds under the sanitary services act.

brooke 2 · 11-06-2014 01:01PM

Elektronske wrote: »

If its the crime scene for an investigation, why has the graveyard not been cordoned off ?

Also the developer and construction workers of the estate in the 70's/80's have a lot of questions to answer, what graves and remains did they find and did they bulldoze them into the old tank ?

I agree re the developers who were building estates nearby. Did they disturb remains?

Elektronske · 11-06-2014 01:05PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

I agree re the developers who were building estates nearby. Did they disturb remains?

Given that the whole area was a burial ground back to famine times and the famine workhouse, it would be impossible not to, especially when laying pipes and services and building foundations for the boundary walls, houses, etc.

Muise... · 11-06-2014 01:59PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Ms Corlass herself says shes not sure whether its 800 babies 20 babies 200 babies or how many babies. Shes said she doesnt know wether it was in a septic tank, beside a septic tank, near a septic tank or nothing to do with a septic tank. She says she doesnt know if the babies were placed, flung , dumped or buried. She doesnt know because nobody knows. Yet. The Government have ordered an investigation to find out. But some people just heard:
Babies
800
Septic tank
Dumped
nuns
and they dived straight in head first, because, obviously, the media would NEVER exageratte or concoct a story just to sell papers, would they?

796 death certificates, citing age and cause of death, most of which were preventable, especially since the State was paying for their care.

796 burials unknown.

My horror is not at all eased.

Spring Onion · 11-06-2014 02:15PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't understand why you are repeating a point that has already been answered more than once. I don't understand why this is assuming such significance for you. There's lots of folk of all ages, even into quite recent times, buried in graves with no headstones, or in graves where their name isn't added to the gravestone. There's other folk buried in untraceable graves, that are simply unknown to their living relatives.

I have no idea if the 800 certified deaths are all buried in one unmarked grave, or are buried in several locations, or anything else about their final resting place. As I said before, I know no more than you or the Old Tuam Society.

It's a pointless question, not least because the conclusion isn't a fact. It's an interpretation of fact. Looking for people to support statements that they cannot possibly prove is politics, not discussion.

I love it, first you start answering Yes and half way through you change your mind. This is the crux of the matter - 800 children are buried somewhere in an unmarked grave. That is diabolical. Your attempted to distract do not change that fact.

BTW, you never answered my other question...

Elektronske · 11-06-2014 02:15PM

Muise... wrote: »

796 death certificates, citing age and cause of death, most of which were preventable, especially since the State was paying for their care.

796 burials unknown.

My horror is not at all eased.

A state certified, rubber stamped, and recorded cause of death no less, in a home being funded and overseen by the state and county council. A county council that is also responsible for licensing and monitoring burial grounds under the sanitary services act, and a county council that granted permission for the development of the area. Yet total silence from the minister and department of health, and total silence from the department of the environment (councils) and its minister.

Czarcasm · 11-06-2014 02:19PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

For that, those in authority are relieved that those subservient to them have short memories and prefer to attack each other rather than form any kind of cohesive strategy that might put their authority at risk.

Magaggie wrote: »

Not one person is protecting the politicians on this thread. Quit blaming people on this thread whom you are no different to, for the inactions of politicians.

Magaggie wrote: »

Nobody is sweeping anything under the carpet - well some catholics are downplaying it all right, but not anyone else.

I'm not personally getting at you specifically Magaggie, but the above is an example of exactly what I was talking about earlier. Posters here are attacking each other and are more interested in apportioning blame, than actually discussing all aspects of this tragedy, and the attitudes in society that contributed to the RCC and the politicians gaining the power they had over people.

People were so busy arguing amongst themselves and trying to appear morally superior to each other, that they couldn't see the puppet masters pulling the strings and pitting people against each other.

They played on people's pride and people's egos and from there it was easy for them to set themselves up as the moral authority and rake in the cash (or tithes as they were known back then, and people who had no money gave whatever crops they could, leaving themselves with nothing, but still "better" than their neighbors for their shows of devotion) from people who delighted in getting one over on their neighbors, friends, and even family who couldn't see how their pride played right into the hands of their masters.

Their daughters becoming pregnant was of course "shameful", and because they brought shame on the family - "Oh my daughter is gone to America", or "My daughter is joining the nuns", anything but face up to the fact that they couldn't deal with their neighbors thinking badly of them.

Fcukall really to do with lack of education, poverty, or any of the other excuses anyone would care to dream up. People didn't need religion to tell the difference between having compassion and empathy for people, or treating them like the unwanted lepers in society. People turned a blind eye to these hell holes because they preferred not to have these "fallen women and bastard children" among the nice, "morally superior" people that we call a "civilized society". People back then were far from civilized for the way they judged people negatively, and we're no different today the way we seek to be "better" than everyone else, while our puppet masters pacify us by telling us what we want to hear.

Spring Onion · 11-06-2014 02:19PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Ms Corlass herself says shes not sure whether its 800 babies 20 babies 200 babies or how many babies.

#1 - It's Corless

#2 - She paid for each and everyone of the 796 death certs at a personal cost of over €3000

#3 - The bodies did not vanish into thin air

I want them (a) Found (b) Commemorated. I personally will not be happy until that is done and I dont care what organisations or state bodies are dragged through the mud or how long that takes.

Muise... · 11-06-2014 02:24PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

#1 - It's Corless

#2 - She paid for each and everyone of the 796 death certs at a personal cost of over €3000

#3 - They did not vanish into thin air

May I add

#4 We are all indebted to her for her meticulous and patient work to remember the "Home Babies", whom she encountered in her childhood and never forgot. In my (atheist) head, she is a quiet saint doing holy work at her kitchen table.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-06-2014 02:37PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I love it, first you start answering Yes and half way through you change your mind.

I don't follow, and don't see any change of mind.

Spring Onion wrote: »

I want them (a) Found (b) Commemorated.

Of course, this puts you in conflict with the commemoration campaign in Tuam. They only want the deaths commemorated, and apparently don't want any actions to disturb the site.
Personally, I've no interest in contributing to any memorial. But I'm curious, after all the controversy, to see what excavation of the site might reveal.

Birroc · 11-06-2014 02:42PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't follow, and don't see any change of mind.Of course, this puts you in conflict with the commemoration campaign in Tuam. They only want the deaths commemorated, and apparently don't want any actions to disturb the site.
Personally, I've no interest in contributing to any memorial. But I'm curious, after all the controversy, to see what excavation of the site might reveal.

There is a rumour aound Galway/Tuam that some of the new houses built near that site keep finding small skulls and bones in their gardens. The nuns might have sold too much of that land.

Spring Onion · 11-06-2014 02:50PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Of course, this puts you in conflict with the commemoration campaign in Tuam. They only want the deaths commemorated, and apparently don't want any actions to disturb the site.
Personally, I've no interest in contributing to any memorial. But I'm curious, after all the controversy, to see what excavation of the site might reveal.

I swap you "conflict" for disagreement but so be it. Much too late now for a quick commemoration and let's move on. I want the whole thing investigated;
- drug trials
- alleged dying rooms
- high mortality rate
- forced adoption
- coverups and lack of information around adoptions

Neyite · 11-06-2014 02:52PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I swap you "conflict" for disagreement but so be it. Much too late now for a quick commemoration and let's move on. I want the whole thing investigated;
- drug trials
- alleged dying rooms
- high mortality rate
- forced adoption
- coverups and lack of information around adoptions

I'll add to your list this one:

- the fact that adopted people have no right to their own birth certificate under law.

Little CuChulainn · 11-06-2014 03:01PM

Neyite wrote: »

I'll add to your list this one:

- the fact that adopted people have no right to their own birth certificate under law.

That's a reasonable measure under normal adoption circumstances though.

diveout · 11-06-2014 03:07PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not personally getting at you specifically Magaggie, but the above is an example of exactly what I was talking about earlier. Posters here are attacking each other and are more interested in apportioning blame, than actually discussing all aspects of this tragedy, and the attitudes in society that contributed to the RCC and the politicians gaining the power they had over people.

People were so busy arguing amongst themselves and trying to appear morally superior to each other, that they couldn't see the puppet masters pulling the strings and pitting people against each other.

They played on people's pride and people's egos and from there it was easy for them to set themselves up as the moral authority and rake in the cash (or tithes as they were known back then, and people who had no money gave whatever crops they could, leaving themselves with nothing, but still "better" than their neighbors for their shows of devotion) from people who delighted in getting one over on their neighbors, friends, and even family who couldn't see how their pride played right into the hands of their masters.

Their daughters becoming pregnant was of course "shameful", and because they brought shame on the family - "Oh my daughter is gone to America", or "My daughter is joining the nuns", anything but face up to the fact that they couldn't deal with their neighbors thinking badly of them.

Fcukall really to do with lack of education, poverty, or any of the other excuses anyone would care to dream up. People didn't need religion to tell the difference between having compassion and empathy for people, or treating them like the unwanted lepers in society. People turned a blind eye to these hell holes because they preferred not to have these "fallen women and bastard children" among the nice, "morally superior" people that we call a "civilized society". People back then were far from civilized for the way they judged people negatively, and we're no different today the way we seek to be "better" than everyone else, while our puppet masters pacify us by telling us what we want to hear.

Ireland is the only country where I have seen a single mother spat on. And believe it or not, it wasn't a nun who did it.

Saying that, nothing is going to change until the clergy don;t have dominion over the history curriculum. History is used specifically in school curricula to shape identity. So they are creating a nation of subjects. History is a political discipline and has everything to do with how one moves forward. All those sex abuse scadals eh... Sorry but people did know what was going on. Until that changes you can expect the same cycle of shame and blame, of a refusal to learn the difference between blame and responsibility, and a moral judgementalism -high groundism that is so pervasive you can't see it, and by well meaning people. It's all "is taht acceptable?' "Is that suitable?' Seriously get a grip. Everything is operating on these micomoralities.

And yes I agree with you this country is still status obsessed -it just keeps changing the criteria, and it just looks like immaturity ultimately.

paperclip2 · 11-06-2014 03:10PM

Elektronske wrote: »

You have ignored most of my questions :

I'm a cynic but I'll give it a go.

Elektronske wrote: »

Why is Irish prime minster and president not speaking enough about this ?

Because like most Irish politicians they want to see what facts emerge and don't want an inconvenient sound-bite to come back and bite them in the derrière.

Elektronske wrote: »

Why is minister for health not speaking about this at all ?.

See above

Elektronske wrote: »

Why are older nuns not being interviewed by media ?.

There seems to be no onus on the orders to speak to the agencies of the state so why would they speak to a journalist?

Elektronske wrote: »

Why is minister for environment not speaking about this at all ? .

See above

Elektronske wrote: »

Galway county council and other councils funded and administered these homes. Councillors met regularly to discuss homes and funding. Galway county council were given all the homes records in 1961 when it closed. HSE and County Council's have lots of questions to answer as well as nuns.

In terms of doing an examination of conscience I'd add wider Irish society to that list as well. To say that it's all just the churches fault is to let our parents and grandparents and great grandparents off the hook. Its a bit rich to say of the 'lay' community that they didn't know what was going on. Many kids from Industrial schools and M&B homes were fostered out or sent on 'work detail' to local families. Anyone with eyes could see the state of them when they arrived and although some families took these children and did their best for them others just continued the abuse and segregation that marked the early lives of these kids.
And if we fall back onto the old chestnut of 'Well those were just the times we lived in' why then is that a good enough excuse for ordinary people and not for the church or state? Any adult could have chosen to stand up and say something but most of them chose not to. We can make the argument that those in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard but when you are talking about the well-being of children, then surely anyone, be it church, state or Joe Soap, in a 'Christian' society had a responsibility to do something.
Don't get me wrong, definitely there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of what went on and those agencies (church & state) and any individuals who had hand,act or part in the abuse should be dragged into the light of day and prosecuted under the law. But what about those families who sent their daughters away in shame. Shouldn't they be prosecuted/ pilloried too?

My father in law was born in a home to an unwed mother in 1928. She took him home with her, she raised him in a small Kilkenny town and went on to marry a local man, not her sons father. So these families were visible and part of local communities. Why then, could one woman come home with her baby and not another? The attitude of ordinary people, ordinary families, surely played a part in this. The evidence of abuse was before peoples eyes, many chose not to see it.

And if today we place the responsibility for the utterly unspeakable and horrific treatment of the most vulnerable women and children solely or even mostly back onto the church and state, then we do more disservice to them I think.
We are abdicating the share of responsibility that ordinary people had to help and support these women and children. And if we don't recognise the depth of the responsibility that existed in 1950 will we be any good at recognising it in 2014? Despite the fact that there's greater acceptance of single parents and the stigma has lessened a great deal (not gone completely though and I speak from experience), most of our voting population didn't think the Children's Referendum was worth coming out for. The Children First Guidance is still only that, guidance, not legislation which as far as I know is still being drafted and there's little or no public demand for it. Many people are still reluctant to call social workers out when they know that there is domestic violence or child neglect going on. In 2012 approx 2,000 children were living in direct provision centres for asylum seekers and the prevailing attitude from ordinary people seems to be one of indifference, much as it was to the children in the M&B homes.
Its just my opinion and I don't claim to be particularly well informed but i do think there's a hell of a lot of work still to be done before we can say we're a nation that cherishes all its children equally.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-06-2014 03:12PM

Birroc wrote: »

There is a rumour aound Galway/Tuam that some of the new houses built near that site keep finding small skulls and bones in their gardens. The nuns might have sold too much of that land.

OK. And does the rumour say what the people do when they find these skulls and bones.

On another aspect of the general issue, there's an article in today's Irish Times recalling interviews with the doctors involved in some of the drug trials in the 1970s.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/trials-were-for-children-s-good-and-did-not-damage-1.1827577
Medical professionals who oversaw vaccine trials at Irish mother and baby homes insisted the vaccines did no harm and were administered in the children’s best interests.
But no parental consent was sought for the trials. Doctors effectively granted each other permission to proceed in at least one of the trials.
<...>
The late Prof Meenan confirmed in a 1997 interview that he had presided over a number of trials at children’s homes. He referred to a controversy over similar trials in Australia between 1949 and 1970 which had outraged many people. He described the Australian reaction as “reading history backwards”.<...>

Just interesting, in reminding us of how some of the doctors involved defended their actions.

Birroc · 11-06-2014 03:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

OK. And does the rumour say what the people do when they find these skulls and bones.

No the rumour did not specify. What would you have them do?

Neyite · 11-06-2014 03:42PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's a reasonable measure under normal adoption circumstances though.

I disagree. It was a legislative act in times where it was felt necessary to obscure any link to the bio parents, to shoud it in secrecy for their benefit. It was designed to obliterate a childs identity and forbid them any right ever to any information pertaining to that identity. Which is very damaging to a person and its a basic human right.

Its caused untold heartbreak to adoptive children who are being stonewalled by the organisations that sold adopted them in the first place and then had mysterious fires that only burnt valueless items in the home such as paperwork relating to said procedures. Some of these places were very careless with matches.

Neyite · 11-06-2014 03:56PM

The vaccines one could be a huge can 'o worms.

Its thought that in the majority of cases, the adoption procedure paperwork was not correctly followed, as the mother had a right up to 6 months after adoption placement, to change her mind.

But as we are hearing more and more of, women had children unknowingly taken away without their consent, so either were cocerced into signing something they did not fully understand, or their signatures forged on paperwork long after their baby was taken away. We know there were forced adoptions. The paperwork here cannot have been legal in many cases.

In addition, the mother had to sign over the parental consent to the Order which was rarely bothered to pursue by the Order, since children were to be adopted anyway, so legal parental consent was very likely never sought by the the Order tasked to care for the children, the manufacturers who created and distributed the vaccines, the state for sanctioning the vaccine trials, nor the doctors who administered the vaccine.

I wonder how much the manufacturers paid to use Irelands babies as lab-rats? And I wonder who they paid to allow them to do it?

mrsbyrne · 11-06-2014 04:01PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

#1 - It's Corless

#2 - She paid for each and everyone of the 796 death certs at a personal cost of over €3000

#3 - The bodies did not vanish into thin air

I want them (a) Found (b) Commemorated. I personally will not be happy until that is done and I dont care what organisations or state bodies are dragged through the mud or how long that takes.

It was Ms Corless (thank you for pointing out my typo), herself who said she never used the words, 800, dumped and septic tank in the same sentence. I would have thought you would have known that by now.
I don't dispute how many babies died at all. I don't dispute the expense Ms Corless went to in acquiring the birth certs. I am disputing, as are many including Ms Corless, that, there are 800 in a septic tank.
Sure we all know that bodies don't vanish into thin air.
And all decent people would want to know what happened to these babies after they had died, that why the Government have ordered an investigation.
I would also like to see an appropriate monument erected, as long as the families of the dead children are consulted all the way an have the final say in whatever form that commemoration takes. Im sure you agree.

mrsbyrne · 11-06-2014 04:06PM

Birroc wrote: »

There is a rumour aound Galway/Tuam that some of the new houses built near that site keep finding small skulls and bones in their gardens. The nuns might have sold too much of that land.

Id imagine if there was any truth in that rumour that it would have appeared as news in the media as and when it was happening. I mean if you find a tiny skull when your weeding the garden, you don't just have a moan to your neighbour the next time you see her. You contact the Gardaí.

11-06-2014 04:14PM

Neyite wrote: »

I disagree. It was a legislative act in times where it was felt necessary to obscure any link to the bio parents, to shoud it in secrecy for their benefit. It was designed to obliterate a childs identity and forbid them any right ever to any information pertaining to that identity. Which is very damaging to a person and its a basic human right.

Its caused untold heartbreak to adoptive children who are being stonewalled by the organisations that sold adopted them in the first place and then had mysterious fires that only burnt valueless items in the home such as paperwork relating to said procedures. Some of these places were very careless with matches.

Everyone should have a right to their full birth cert, I was listening to historian talking about the above and here is how it happened.

When a woman entered it was believed what the woman wanted was to forget the shame of her transgression she could come in have her baby its name and place of birth would be changed so the child could never contact her again, she would with a bit of luck go on to marry a respectable man, redeem herself and have more children and she need never tell he husband of her past which was supposed to be best forgotten about, some women never told anyone about the child they left behind, some only told their husband, some told their husband and children. This was only for women who had fallen once the attitude was everyone is entitled to one mistake which could fixed and forgotten about, however if you sinned twice and had another child outside marriage you were dammed and considered beyond salvation.

Elektronske · 11-06-2014 04:17PM

Birroc wrote: »

There is a rumour aound Galway/Tuam that some of the new houses built near that site keep finding small skulls and bones in their gardens. The nuns might have sold too much of that land.

It's very possible as some of the unmarked grave would go back to famine times and the old workhouse. And lets not forget the developer, as the new landowner, was also responsible for decent removal of any remains he came across. Did he dispose of any of what he excavated into the old tank by any chance ? It seem incredible they didn't encounter any remains when developing that site.

Elektronske · 11-06-2014 04:21PM

paperclip2 wrote: »

I'm a cynic but I'll give it a go.

Because like most Irish politicians they want to see what facts emerge and don't want an inconvenient sound-bite to come back and bite them in the derrière.

See above

So why did other government politicians speak out, do interview and answer the questions put to them ?

paperclip2 wrote: »

There seems to be no onus on the orders to speak to the agencies of the state so why would they speak to a journalist?

See above

Since when did publicly accountable public bodies become above and exempt from speaking to the public media or answering questions ?

None of these flimsy excuses and apologetics stand up to any serious scrutiny. People won't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily any more.

Little CuChulainn · 11-06-2014 04:26PM

Neyite wrote: »

I disagree. It was a legislative act in times where it was felt necessary to obscure any link to the bio parents, to shoud it in secrecy for their benefit. It was designed to obliterate a childs identity and forbid them any right ever to any information pertaining to that identity. Which is very damaging to a person and its a basic human right.

I think anonymity is an important part of the adoption process. Adoption is a permanent thing. Anonymity ensures the parent knows they cannot simply change their mind and knows that they need not worry about the child tracking them down in the future. Similarly it allows the new parents to be safe in the knowledge that the biological parent cannot just reappear int he childs life. If that wasn't the case we would not be talking about adoption, we would be talking about fostering.

I know it sounds harsh but look at it from the three aspects. Can you imagine a system where the child could return to their biological parents at any time? Do you think that would be fair or appealing to adoptive parents? Do you not think it would affect the relationship between them? Similarly can you imagine a system where the biological parent could turn up at any time if they decided they had made the wrong choice? It could be devastating to the child and his life.

I just don't think a system of adoption would work without anonymity as standard. People would be more likely to go through the process illegally.

diveout · 11-06-2014 04:28PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think anonymity is an important part of the adoption process. Adoption is a permanent thing. Anonymity ensures the parent knows they cannot simply change their mind and knows that they need not worry about the child tracking them down in the future. Similarly it allows the new parents to be safe in the knowledge that the biological parent cannot just reappear int he childs life. If that wasn't the case we would not be talking about adoption, we would be talking about fostering.

I know it sounds harsh but look at it from the three aspects. Can you imagine a system where the child could return to their biological parents at any time? Do you think that would be fair or appealing to adoptive parents? Do you not think it would affect the relationship between them? Similarly can you imagine a system where the biological parent could turn up at any time if they decided they had made the wrong choice? It could be devastating to the child and his life.

I just don't think a system of adoption would work without anonymity as standard. People would be more likely to go through the process illegally.

Many people use open adoption now, especially with teen age pregnancies. A relative might adopt but the child still has a relationship with their biological parent. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Electric Sheep · 11-06-2014 04:30PM

paperclip2 wrote: »

My father in law was born in a home to an unwed mother in 1928. She took him home with her, she raised him in a small Kilkenny town and went on to marry a local man, not her sons father. So these families were visible and part of local communities. Why then, could one woman come home with her baby and not another? The attitude of ordinary people, ordinary families, surely played a part in this. The evidence of abuse was before peoples eyes, many chose not to see it.

Perhaps her father was a "comfortable" farmer who could afford to ignore public and priest opinion? A laborer might find himself without work and his family without means of support in same circumstances. At any rate, it seems her family were able to support both her and the baby. This was not the case for many families.

Little CuChulainn · 11-06-2014 04:30PM

diveout wrote: »

Many people use open adoption now, especially with teen age pregnancies. A relative might adopt but the child still has a relationship with their biological parent. I can't see anything wrong with that.

That's a completely different situation and not the norm. There's obviously little reason for anonymity when the adoptive parents and biological parents are known to each other.

Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

Comments