National Maternity Hospital

The hospital will be controlled 100% by the state, the Vatican will not be able to do anything about it and to think otherwise is frankly bizarre.
Doesn't the deal state that SVHG will continue to run the pharmacy? Is it so that they can continue their practice of refusing to stock medicines that don't meet their ethos?
 
The question that remains unanswered is if the new hospital will be completely outside the control or influence of the RSC and the SVHG then why is the Catholic Church facilitating the provision of services which they find morally and ethically repugnant?
 
Doesn't the deal state that SVHG will continue to run the pharmacy? Is it so that they can continue their practice of refusing to stock medicines that don't meet their ethos?
the deal that has been signed prevents them from doing that. The memo of understanding states

The services referred to in clause 3.1 shall be carried out in accordance with the clinical and other governance arrangements set out in or adopted pursuant to this Memorandum and Articles of Association, without religious ethos or ethnic or other distinction.
 
The question that remains unanswered is if the new hospital will be completely outside the control or influence of the RSC and the SVHG then why is the Catholic Church facilitating the provision of services which they find morally and ethically repugnant?

What other choice do they have aside from shut down completely?
 
I'm not comfortable with the Irish State spending a billion Euro on a building which will be run by a holding company which is ultimately answerable to a foreign State, a State which has already incited sedition amongst Irish citizens when it instructed Irish Priests to give primacy to Cannon law ahead of Irish law in relation to the reporting of child rape and other abuse.
As I understand it the holding company will be St. Vincent's Holdings CLG.
The RSC has no interest in that company.
 
the deal that has been signed prevents them from doing that. The memo of understanding states

The services referred to in clause 3.1 shall be carried out in accordance with the clinical and other governance arrangements set out in or adopted pursuant to this Memorandum and Articles of Association, without religious ethos or ethnic or other distinction.
Why did you link to the memorandum of association of the new company? That isn't the deal.
 
As I understand it the holding company will be St. Vincent's Holdings CLG.
The RSC has no interest in that company.
Ah here now, don't be confusing the issue with mere facts. Emoting and prejudice works much better. Not to mention great big dollops of prejudice, ill-informed supposition about hospital practices unsupported by the people who actually work in the place, false assertions that the RSC have not paid money's owed under the redress agreement and baby-eating zombie nuns controlled by legions of Swiss Guards from the Vatican.
 
Doesn't the deal state that SVHG will continue to run the pharmacy? Is it so that they can continue their practice of refusing to stock medicines that don't meet their ethos?
So Rhona Mahony works there. I'm sure she prescribes the odd bit of medicine for her patients. Do you think there's any chance she might have noticed if the pharmacy refused to stock them? What with her being a very experienced doctor and all that. And yet she insists that St Vincent's is free of any religious ethos. (Ref: Brendan O'Connor show, RTE Radio 1, 15th May.) Can you explain how come you know better than she does?
 
Ah here now, don't be confusing the issue with mere facts. Emoting and prejudice works much better. Not to mention great big dollops of prejudice, ill-informed supposition about hospital practices unsupported by the people who actually work in the place, false assertions that the RSC have not paid money's owed under the redress agreement and baby-eating zombie nuns controlled by legions of Swiss Guards from the Vatican.
Conflation straight out of the most looney Trump supporter handbook. Well done.
 
She's also on the board of SVHG.
All the more reason for her knowing what's going on. She is also a longtime supporter of abortion rights and a stalwart of the Repeal campaign, so her pro-choice credentials are impeccable. She is hardly a puppet of the nuns as you appear to imply!
Conflation straight out of the most looney Trump supporter handbook. Well done.
Obvious hyperbole to highlight the ridiculous nature of the equally hyperbolic (is that a word?) nature of the opposing case.
 
All the more reason for her knowing what's going on. She is also a longtime supporter of abortion rights and a stalwart of the Repeal campaign, so her pro-choice credentials are impeccable. She is hardly a puppet of the nuns as you appear to imply!
I certainly didn't imply that. I pointed out that the RC Church, or more specifically The Vatican, have a history of duplicity and lies in their dealings in this country. My question is why they are allowing this hospital to be build on their land when it will be providing services which they find morally repugnant.
Obvious hyperbole to highlight the ridiculous nature of the equally hyperbolic (is that a word?) nature of the opposing case.
There's no shortage of hyperbole on either side.

I wonder if the broad support for this within the medical industry is more about maintaining the current system in which private companies own so many of our publicly funded hospitals?
 
So Rhona Mahony works there. I'm sure she prescribes the odd bit of medicine for her patients. Do you think there's any chance she might have noticed if the pharmacy refused to stock them?
Sorry, you missed that they refuse to stock a range or medicines that don't fit with their catholic ethos? Or are you pretending that isn't an issue as it fits with your own disposition?
 
Sorry, you missed that they refuse to stock a range or medicines that don't fit with their catholic ethos? Or are you pretending that isn't an issue as it fits with your own disposition?
Got a reference for that?

You see, I've got you telling me that there's a Catholic ethos there that prevents them stocking certain medicines. And Rhona Mahony, a hugely experienced doctor with impeccable pro-choice credentials, who actually practices in the hospital, saying on the radio that there's no religious ethos whatsoever.

Now, let me think.....which one should I believe????
 
Alea iacta est, folks.



I look forward to revisiting this thread in the 2030's when we will have a fully functional, all services provided, comprehensive women's hospital. (Albeit badly located but that's a different story.)

If spectral emanations of Vatican controlled nuns are restricting the range of services provided, I will be happy to eat my words. I don't think there's much danger of that though.
 
You don't know many women who have been treated there, do you? With family members asked to head down the road to buy prescriptions the hospital pharmacy aren't allowed to stock.
I think if that were happening, it would be a major news story that journalists would be all over like flies on a cowpat. Odd that you can't supply a source beyond vague anecdotalia, isn't it?
 
I think if that were happening, it would be a major news story that journalists would be all over like flies on a cowpat. Odd that you can't supply a source beyond vague anecdotalia, isn't it?
This has been well known for years, touched on in these articles, the Mater had a similar ethos based restriction.
 
Alea iacta est, folks.



I look forward to revisiting this thread in the 2030's when we will have a fully functional, all services provided, comprehensive women's hospital. (Albeit badly located but that's a different story.)

If spectral emanations of Vatican controlled nuns are restricting the range of services provided, I will be happy to eat my words. I don't think there's much danger of that though.
I hope you're right.
 
Back
Top