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?
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 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.
the deal that has been signed prevents them from doing that. The memo of understanding statesDoesn'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?
Who, the Catholic Church or the RSC?What other choice do they have aside from shut down completely?
As I understand it the holding company will be St. Vincent's Holdings CLG.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.
Why did you link to the memorandum of association of the new company? That isn't the deal.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.
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.As I understand it the holding company will be St. Vincent's Holdings CLG.
The RSC has no interest in that company.
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?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?
Conflation straight out of the most looney Trump supporter handbook. Well done.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.
She's also on the board of SVHG.So Rhona Mahony works there.
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!She's also on the board of SVHG.
Obvious hyperbole to highlight the ridiculous nature of the equally hyperbolic (is that a word?) nature of the opposing case.Conflation straight out of the most looney Trump supporter handbook. Well done.
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.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!
There's no shortage of hyperbole on either side.Obvious hyperbole to highlight the ridiculous nature of the equally hyperbolic (is that a word?) nature of the opposing case.
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?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?
Got a reference for that?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?
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.Got a reference for that?
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?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.
This has been well known for years, touched on in these articles, the Mater had a similar ethos based restriction.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 hope you're right.Alea iacta est, folks.
Legal guarantees on NMH service provision 'water-tight'
The Taoiseach has said legal guarantees about the provision of all services at the new National Maternity Hospital are water-tight in the Constitution, according to the legal advice given to Cabinet.www.rte.ie
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?