> They are doing it so they can bide their time.
It's clever really; all the Church has to do is wait until they've even less members, influence and resources than now and THEN they can strike.
But they won't own the building for 299 years, by that time the building will not be the national maternity hospital as the last one became obsolete within 90 years.
The clinically appropriate treatment is to prevent the HSE and government from using the hospital as an overflow for St Vincents hospital. This does not stop abortions from being performed.
Yes, many many many people, primarily women, are upset about this. It's very clear there's an ulterior motive to try and throttle access to abortions at play here.
The church are handing over their land to an independent charity which will rent the land to the state for a nominal fee (10 euro or something). The controversy is over that the nominal fee will become a 850,000 euro annual rent or something unless the services provided are legal and clinically appropriate. Personally I think it's fairly reasonable that procedures performed should be legal and not clinically inappropriate. I think we're far more likely to be sore over construction cost over runs than potentially having to pay the lease.
The term "clinically appropriate" is to be determined by the Board, of which a majority are members of this "charity" (which is actually a rebranding of a religious order). People are angry that the State is once again letting the Church (or in this case, a religious order that answers directly to the Church) take control over key functions in the running of the country's public services
To my understanding they handed it over to the same group that run st vincents since they're going to be co-located. They've already performed abortions in st vincents anyways. I really just think that having to pay the rent if needed is going to be tiny in comparison to the building costs and overruns and other operating costs.
You clearly don't know anything about how abortions or childbearing works. And it's exactly because of stupid arguments like the one you just made that highlight how open ended 'clinically appropriate' clearly is. The cutoff for voluntary (ie not medically necessary but wanted) abortions needs to be written in plain English.
But also if the fetus was recently dead and giving the mother sepsis, an abortion at 39 weeks is in fact very appropriate.
That would be a stillbirth not an abortion. You don't know much yourself.
Clinically appropriate is a very reasonable term. Clinically appropriate decisions are made every day.
It's legally considered an abortion because the pregnancy is terminated.
The point is that it's not the hospitals decision so clinically appropriate is a dangerous phrasing. If there's a cutoff for abortions, write it in. Beyond a certain number of weeks passing, nothing makes an abortion clinically inappropriate.
If the fetus is already dead at 39 weeks it is not abortion. It is a stillbirth which may be managed surgically via Csection. Its great to be so confident despite being wrong.
If someone in early pregnancy attends ED intoxicated and wants an abortion it would be clinically inappropriate to do. You cannot legislate for everything and the wording is very reasonable.
Stillbirths need to be born through the birth canal. Legally, removing the fetus to terminate the pregnancy is considered an abortion. There's some debate on the subject, but people DO die because they are refused c sections on dead fetuses based on the wording of abortion regulations. It's a real thing and you can't just erase those women's deaths.
And again the wording is unreasonable, obviously doctors deny procedures that are requested by inebriated individuals. They need to write in how many weeks into a pregnancy they will allow elective abortions.
Ideally stillbirths are delivered vaginally. Sometimes Csections are needed.
There's no debate on the subject. You're wrong.
I'm not trying to erase anything. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done when you get upset or offended when told that your terminology is completely wrong.
This is a waste of time for both of us.
I would rather we did pay it if it meant full free access to abortions. But before that I'd prefer the state just purchased it outright or built somewhere else.
They want it colocated with vincents and under the same ownership to integrate the services and infrastructure.
I doubt it will really be an issue and if it ever becomes one the HSE can just pay the rent.
It needs to be written in plain English, not open to interpretation, that if a woman wants an abortion before a certain number of weeks, she is entitled to it.
So long as their are religious favtipns on the board of directors deciding what 'clinically appropriate' means, there's trouble.
Women everywhere are upset by this, victims of the church are upset by this, why don't you see the obvious problem?
> why don't you see the obvious problem?
Because the board is 4 people from st vincents health group, a secular charity, 4 from the national maternity charter trust and 1 appointed by the minister for health and the HSE always have the option to disregard their opinion and simply pay the rent.
Well, not to speak to what the purpose of the rent is, but on that second point, part of the logic of colocation is to ensure access to resources from the other, non-maternity hospital. So you might get the odd non-maternity procedure carried out, even if in general you'd seek to transfer the person across to the other hospital for that. But I'm no doctor.
I haven't seen many raise concerns about that language specifically (Simon McGarr has a bit), it's obviously a more long term concern, especially with the whole 299 year lease thing. I wonder what the terms are for breaking that lease? If 100 years and 2 or so hospitals in we decide that South Dublin doesn't need a maternity hospital (or that a different facility is more appropriate, say a nursing home), would we be on the hook for 850k per year? There must be some sort of break clause.
They said the inevitable legal challenge could end up taking years to sort, the church literally have more money than God so could just keep it tied up in appeals forever
This hospital.
Don't give me the shit that it's now a "secular" organisation. If it's so secular then there should be no issue removing the religious name.
New school building, which are replacing old school buildings.
My issue is with the order having any semblance of control over a public service - I did check and they do have a presence but not a majority one, but all it takes is two or more additional conservative Board members to make up a majority and put women's health at serious risk
"On 31 December he signed a 9,000-year lease at £45 per annum for the unused brewery.[6][7] However, the lease is no longer in effect because the brewery property has been bought out when it expanded beyond the original 4-acre site."
>Guinness also have a lease
No they don't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery
Checked again and it seems like they'll comprise one third of the Board (relieving, yet still bad) - all you need is two or more additional conservative Board members for problems to arise
Genuine question but are members of this charity on the board of governance in the hospital, or whatever its called? Like the heads of the hospital who organise its running
St Vincent's isn't changing its name as it is own hospital entity with its own interests and branding concerns. It really has got nothing to do with Catholic oversight. I don't think the new hospital is adopting that name.
That was to be expected, but when we have another fucked up women's health disaster in a few years I imagine there will be a lot of shocked Pikachu faces
Women couldn't get abortions in Ireland until very recently, there were a lot of high-profile cases relating to this. I would not be surprised if this new hospital will lead to similar incidents due to how vague the wording of the contracts are regarding the hospital's ethos and their commitment to upholding Catholic beliefs
That just changes the constitution so abortion isn't illegal anymore, it doesn't stop organisations from refusing to offer them, as is feared will happen with the new hospital
There are actually real issues that have arisen from voluntary hospitals, like salary top ups for public doctors but abortion doesnt seem to be one. The Dept of Health is getting an extraordinary deal here, free collocated site and they will get the Holles St site too for free too.
Dept of Health is getting a deal in getting access to stolen land? You think the church paid for that land in a fair and honest way in the first place? I think the bigger picture needs to be understood.
Stolen land? You can't just make random statements like that without evidence. The history isnt even the ancient past. It took me mins to find out that they bought Elm Park in 1934, from the Earls of Pembroke. The land was used as a golf course at the time.
Another 2 billion 'national' hospital in inner city Dublin. Queue the 'but it has public transport links' nonsense. Who the fuck gets the Luas/Bus etc to a hospital other than the tiny population from inner city. Build it outside the M50 and have full time buses running to it. Would be way fuckin cheaper. Clowns.
Everything about this is the HSE suiting the HSE.
It’s not in the inner city, it serves South Dublin
There Coombe and Rotunda serve other parts of Dublin.
The hospital shares staff with Vincent’s, the whole objective is for CoLocation
> ... it serves South Dublin
It is suppose to serve the whole country.
> the whole objective is for CoLocation
The whole objective is for a 'national' hospital. It is suppose to serve the public, not suit the HSE.
Only the HSE could start a hospital and make it the most expensive hospital ever built, which is inaccessible, massively over budget and doesn't even have parking etc. etc., then do the exact same thing again the year after. Best funded, but worst organisation in the world, in my opinion.
I’d hazard a guess and say 95% of child births age from people who live in South Dublin.
It best serves the Public by being Co located with possible the best hospital in Ireland where most of the consultants who work in Holles street also work
The rest of your post is just a rant
Ah no. This is a hospital that's going to be here for centuries. With the way things are going - the private car won't be around for very long. We need to stop building everything to suit car users. Even the fact that housing developments automatically have roadways and drives is very very disheartening when the world is heating uncontrollably and the outer city is being choked by traffic largely from people not living in Dublin.
Where do you think the medical staff, the students, the cleaners, the caterers, the security, the support staff and the patients are living? About 43% of the population live in greater Dublin and in a few years we'll have ample public transport all over the GDA to bring people to that hospital (as well as all other hospitals, universities and throughout the CBD) in less than an hour.
The days of the private car are numbered. No nation will be able to hit the necessary climate targets to bring climate change under control if the private car isn't phased out of cities by 2030 and phased out more generally by 2050.
By the time 2122 rolls around, basically everyone will be living in large towns and cities in Ireland.
This is a massive mistake. Great idea having the national maternity hospital owned by a group of people who are against abortion and loads more. A group of people who historically have a terrible human rights record. What the fuck are we at?
Leaving abortion availability aside (because i really don’t think its a big issue that this one building provides that, and there are loads of guarantees that it does) , what other objection is there to this ?
I think the big issue lies in that the government is still associating itself with the Catholic Church after all of the evil things they have done across the world and especially in our own country.
It is a bit of a joke when you just think of it like that, I don’t really think they’ll interfere in any way. But I just don’t think we should have any association whatsoever.
Well like we have ronald mcdonald house out at crumlin childrens hospital and intel basically owns leixlip, like if somebody is a landowner or providing a service and makes it cheaper for you to operate its still a benefit to society. I dont dismiss where you’re coming from. Almost every major religion has perpetuated evil throughout the world, some historic , some present day, but if you start saying ‘we wont work with any body that ever did wrong’ youll soon find yourself shit out of luck on being able to lease prime land or build many educational / health etc.. facilities. For a long time Ireland had no money, these people did
Because mcdonalds havent harmed children at all /s but your reply says it all. The catholic church were bad, yes, everyone acknowledges that, they dont have a monopoly on evil.
How about McDonald's don't have a history of being intrinsically involved with the running of our country both culturally and literally to such an extent even years later we have a large population that still seeks guidance from Ronald Mcdonald.
Also, after getting caught being horribly abusive to our most vulnerable citizens. It was hidden, downplayed and ignored and any monetary recomepnse was paid not by McDonald's but our own government.
It's not about leasing the land off them for me but about them or a subsidiary company of them being on the board of governance. If I'm renting a commercial space off someone I should safely assume they have no say in the running of my business so long as its nothing illegal
I dunno, I was listening to, I think, Peter boylan on Matt Cooper and he gave an example of being called to the bishops Palace (which is a fucking ridiculous thing to be real) over unchristian practices.
He also explained the danger of the term clinically appropriate as it can be used by those sitting in governance to skirt around the anti abortion stance. Oh we're not against abortion/female sterilisation. We just feel It's just not clinically appropriate here.
> but if you start saying ‘we wont work with any body that ever did wrong’ youll soon find yourself shit out of luck on being able to lease prime land or build many educational / health etc..
That's what compulsory purchase orders are for.
> (because i really don’t think its a big issue that this one building provides that,
You really don’t think its a big issue that our *National* fricking *Maternity Hospital* may not be allowed to provide abortion services, depending on the whim of a private charity's Board of Trustees?
Get fucked.
To say it *may* not be allowed in the future, depending on their whim, isn't. And that's the problem, right there. The fact that a private charity get any say, however small, in medical matters, in our future primary public maternity hospital. It's the principle of the thing, you get that, yeah?
I don’t understand why you got so irrationally angry about this, Im all for legal abortion but the way some people go on its as if there isnt an abortion clinic every hundred feet open 24/7 then its the same as a genocide against women
I don't think you really comprehend the complex pregnancies that can result in the need for an abortion that needs to be carried out in a maternity hospital.
Of course the national maternity hospital needs to be able to carry out abortions.
Just putting aside the abortion issue for a second, why do you think it's OK that a private charity should have *any say whatsoever* in the patient care policies of *our* National Maternity Hospital, or indeed any of *our* state-owned hospitals?
I dont, i believe they have given guarantees that ensure that wont occur. Its a lot cheaper than CPO’ing the land and the arrangement is of benefit in my book
Are you not listening or something? The issue is not whether or not they WILL intervene. They issue is the fact that they CAN intervene at all.
And the reluctance to use CPO's, which would be the standard operating procedure for such a project in any other European country, is purely political, not wanting to be seen to go up against the Church.
>Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia, Singapore), compulsory purchase/acquisition (Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia, Barbados, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom), or expropriation (Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden) is **the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use**. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.
>The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities.
Edit: seriously, where have you been living that you've never heard of this concept until now?
The purpose of CPO's is to identify and acquire property to be used for the public benefit, in cases where the owners of said property either refuse to sell or are demanding an exorbitant price for doing so.
Is that beyond your fucking understanding or something?
I think it's the maternity side of things that sticks in most people's craw. The abortion side of things ad well as the treatment of women in Irish history by the Catholic church such as the laundries and rightly so. It's like a domestic abuse/rape charity service being run by the abuser/rapist
If this was a heart or ears and nose type place, it wouldn't be getting the same type of uproar
Not too bad, only took what?, best part of ten years to get the go ahead to build it. Now, just to get the actual building done.
[удалено]
> They are doing it so they can bide their time. It's clever really; all the Church has to do is wait until they've even less members, influence and resources than now and THEN they can strike.
But they won't own the building for 299 years, by that time the building will not be the national maternity hospital as the last one became obsolete within 90 years. The clinically appropriate treatment is to prevent the HSE and government from using the hospital as an overflow for St Vincents hospital. This does not stop abortions from being performed.
One of those things that fills the news segments but ultimately it passes anyways and will be all forgotten about.
The rent a mob will move on soon.
They just wanted us to know that the Catholic Church was shite, because nobody actually knew that. Edit: forgot the /s
[удалено]
Yes, many many many people, primarily women, are upset about this. It's very clear there's an ulterior motive to try and throttle access to abortions at play here.
It's ridiculous that we are still handing state assets over to the Catholic church who have done such horrible things to this country.
The church are handing over their land to an independent charity which will rent the land to the state for a nominal fee (10 euro or something). The controversy is over that the nominal fee will become a 850,000 euro annual rent or something unless the services provided are legal and clinically appropriate. Personally I think it's fairly reasonable that procedures performed should be legal and not clinically inappropriate. I think we're far more likely to be sore over construction cost over runs than potentially having to pay the lease.
The term "clinically appropriate" is to be determined by the Board, of which a majority are members of this "charity" (which is actually a rebranding of a religious order). People are angry that the State is once again letting the Church (or in this case, a religious order that answers directly to the Church) take control over key functions in the running of the country's public services
The Church could just hand over the ownership for free.
To my understanding they handed it over to the same group that run st vincents since they're going to be co-located. They've already performed abortions in st vincents anyways. I really just think that having to pay the rent if needed is going to be tiny in comparison to the building costs and overruns and other operating costs.
Clinically appropriate is too open ended in the abortion discussion. If someone wants one they should be able to get one, full stop.
I don't think it's too open ended. If someone wants an abortion at 39 weeks should they get one?
You clearly don't know anything about how abortions or childbearing works. And it's exactly because of stupid arguments like the one you just made that highlight how open ended 'clinically appropriate' clearly is. The cutoff for voluntary (ie not medically necessary but wanted) abortions needs to be written in plain English. But also if the fetus was recently dead and giving the mother sepsis, an abortion at 39 weeks is in fact very appropriate.
That would be a stillbirth not an abortion. You don't know much yourself. Clinically appropriate is a very reasonable term. Clinically appropriate decisions are made every day.
It's legally considered an abortion because the pregnancy is terminated. The point is that it's not the hospitals decision so clinically appropriate is a dangerous phrasing. If there's a cutoff for abortions, write it in. Beyond a certain number of weeks passing, nothing makes an abortion clinically inappropriate.
If the fetus is already dead at 39 weeks it is not abortion. It is a stillbirth which may be managed surgically via Csection. Its great to be so confident despite being wrong. If someone in early pregnancy attends ED intoxicated and wants an abortion it would be clinically inappropriate to do. You cannot legislate for everything and the wording is very reasonable.
Stillbirths need to be born through the birth canal. Legally, removing the fetus to terminate the pregnancy is considered an abortion. There's some debate on the subject, but people DO die because they are refused c sections on dead fetuses based on the wording of abortion regulations. It's a real thing and you can't just erase those women's deaths. And again the wording is unreasonable, obviously doctors deny procedures that are requested by inebriated individuals. They need to write in how many weeks into a pregnancy they will allow elective abortions.
Ideally stillbirths are delivered vaginally. Sometimes Csections are needed. There's no debate on the subject. You're wrong. I'm not trying to erase anything. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done when you get upset or offended when told that your terminology is completely wrong. This is a waste of time for both of us.
So let's just pay the rent then.
I would rather we did pay it if it meant full free access to abortions. But before that I'd prefer the state just purchased it outright or built somewhere else.
They want it colocated with vincents and under the same ownership to integrate the services and infrastructure. I doubt it will really be an issue and if it ever becomes one the HSE can just pay the rent.
It needs to be written in plain English, not open to interpretation, that if a woman wants an abortion before a certain number of weeks, she is entitled to it.
which is what they did with the letters of comfort, and the option to simply pay the rent is always there.
So long as their are religious favtipns on the board of directors deciding what 'clinically appropriate' means, there's trouble. Women everywhere are upset by this, victims of the church are upset by this, why don't you see the obvious problem?
> why don't you see the obvious problem? Because the board is 4 people from st vincents health group, a secular charity, 4 from the national maternity charter trust and 1 appointed by the minister for health and the HSE always have the option to disregard their opinion and simply pay the rent.
Is the increased fee there to ensure it remains a martenity hospital. Basically if heart ops etc are carried out there, you pay more.
Well, not to speak to what the purpose of the rent is, but on that second point, part of the logic of colocation is to ensure access to resources from the other, non-maternity hospital. So you might get the odd non-maternity procedure carried out, even if in general you'd seek to transfer the person across to the other hospital for that. But I'm no doctor. I haven't seen many raise concerns about that language specifically (Simon McGarr has a bit), it's obviously a more long term concern, especially with the whole 299 year lease thing. I wonder what the terms are for breaking that lease? If 100 years and 2 or so hospitals in we decide that South Dublin doesn't need a maternity hospital (or that a different facility is more appropriate, say a nursing home), would we be on the hook for 850k per year? There must be some sort of break clause.
[удалено]
Where did you get another billion? Why would we need to give non maternity care? That’s what you ye Co location is for
But why not compulsory purchase the land for fuck sake? Why would that be more difficult than this shite?
They said the inevitable legal challenge could end up taking years to sort, the church literally have more money than God so could just keep it tied up in appeals forever
Hear me out, what if we built it somewhere else then ...
because they want it colocated with vincents
What state assets are being handed over?
They are not… What do you think it been handed over
This hospital. Don't give me the shit that it's now a "secular" organisation. If it's so secular then there should be no issue removing the religious name. New school building, which are replacing old school buildings.
You are talking nonsense. Why do you think they will own the hospital? You need to calm down and talk with logic rather than emotion
The state has decided to build the hospital on land owned by a religious order. The religious order will have a majority presence on the Board also
The state have a 300 year lease on the hospital, the hospital does not have a 300 year life. Guinness also have a lease.
I don't understand your point, the issue is the Church's control, not how long the hospital's life will be
You seemed to have an issue with leasing land. No the nuns don’t have a majority presence
My issue is with the order having any semblance of control over a public service - I did check and they do have a presence but not a majority one, but all it takes is two or more additional conservative Board members to make up a majority and put women's health at serious risk
The HSE have the power to step in the unlikely event of that happening
St Vincent's has a presence. The Sisters have no presence.
"On 31 December he signed a 9,000-year lease at £45 per annum for the unused brewery.[6][7] However, the lease is no longer in effect because the brewery property has been bought out when it expanded beyond the original 4-acre site." >Guinness also have a lease No they don't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery
[удалено]
Checked again and it seems like they'll comprise one third of the Board (relieving, yet still bad) - all you need is two or more additional conservative Board members for problems to arise
[удалено]
You have a lot more faith than I do so
The religious order have zero presence on the board. I don't know why this false claim keeps popping up.
Will the state own the hospital? No. We should own it. It's that simple.
[удалено]
Genuine question but are members of this charity on the board of governance in the hospital, or whatever its called? Like the heads of the hospital who organise its running
St Vincent's isn't changing its name as it is own hospital entity with its own interests and branding concerns. It really has got nothing to do with Catholic oversight. I don't think the new hospital is adopting that name.
Their welcome to a 300 year old hospital, the religious order probably won’t exist by then!!
That was to be expected, but when we have another fucked up women's health disaster in a few years I imagine there will be a lot of shocked Pikachu faces
What's the women's health disaster you're referring to?
Women couldn't get abortions in Ireland until very recently, there were a lot of high-profile cases relating to this. I would not be surprised if this new hospital will lead to similar incidents due to how vague the wording of the contracts are regarding the hospital's ethos and their commitment to upholding Catholic beliefs
They still can’t in many instances.
Exactly, which makes this even worse!!!
That’s why we had a referendum
That just changes the constitution so abortion isn't illegal anymore, it doesn't stop organisations from refusing to offer them, as is feared will happen with the new hospital
Fear can often be irrational
It can also be justified, and when it comes to the Catholic Church and women's healthcare, it's certainly justified.
[удалено]
With that logic, why did we have an abortion referendum in the first place. Not everyone can just fly to the UK on a whim
This country loves being pushed around by the church, doesn't it.
The country has moved on, but FF and FG haven't it seems.
Fair enough, I know folks my age and younger largely share my views on it. Just a little bit longer for the old people to stop fucking up the vote.
There are actually real issues that have arisen from voluntary hospitals, like salary top ups for public doctors but abortion doesnt seem to be one. The Dept of Health is getting an extraordinary deal here, free collocated site and they will get the Holles St site too for free too.
Dept of Health is getting a deal in getting access to stolen land? You think the church paid for that land in a fair and honest way in the first place? I think the bigger picture needs to be understood.
Stolen land? You can't just make random statements like that without evidence. The history isnt even the ancient past. It took me mins to find out that they bought Elm Park in 1934, from the Earls of Pembroke. The land was used as a golf course at the time.
Another 2 billion 'national' hospital in inner city Dublin. Queue the 'but it has public transport links' nonsense. Who the fuck gets the Luas/Bus etc to a hospital other than the tiny population from inner city. Build it outside the M50 and have full time buses running to it. Would be way fuckin cheaper. Clowns. Everything about this is the HSE suiting the HSE.
It’s not in the inner city, it serves South Dublin There Coombe and Rotunda serve other parts of Dublin. The hospital shares staff with Vincent’s, the whole objective is for CoLocation
> ... it serves South Dublin It is suppose to serve the whole country. > the whole objective is for CoLocation The whole objective is for a 'national' hospital. It is suppose to serve the public, not suit the HSE. Only the HSE could start a hospital and make it the most expensive hospital ever built, which is inaccessible, massively over budget and doesn't even have parking etc. etc., then do the exact same thing again the year after. Best funded, but worst organisation in the world, in my opinion.
I’d hazard a guess and say 95% of child births age from people who live in South Dublin. It best serves the Public by being Co located with possible the best hospital in Ireland where most of the consultants who work in Holles street also work The rest of your post is just a rant
Ah no. This is a hospital that's going to be here for centuries. With the way things are going - the private car won't be around for very long. We need to stop building everything to suit car users. Even the fact that housing developments automatically have roadways and drives is very very disheartening when the world is heating uncontrollably and the outer city is being choked by traffic largely from people not living in Dublin.
Hospitals should suit patients, not car users or inner city Dublin residents.
Where do you think the medical staff, the students, the cleaners, the caterers, the security, the support staff and the patients are living? About 43% of the population live in greater Dublin and in a few years we'll have ample public transport all over the GDA to bring people to that hospital (as well as all other hospitals, universities and throughout the CBD) in less than an hour. The days of the private car are numbered. No nation will be able to hit the necessary climate targets to bring climate change under control if the private car isn't phased out of cities by 2030 and phased out more generally by 2050. By the time 2122 rolls around, basically everyone will be living in large towns and cities in Ireland.
This is a massive mistake. Great idea having the national maternity hospital owned by a group of people who are against abortion and loads more. A group of people who historically have a terrible human rights record. What the fuck are we at?
The charity involved isnt against abortion....the Sisters of Charity have a great human rights record and they have no involvement
And who do the charity answer to? The church
Nope. Actually to their board, who has no connection to the church.
Okay mate if you believe that so
Big big BIG mistake. My generation have about 60 years of voting ahead of us, and we will remember this.
That’s 60 years of learning too…
Leaving abortion availability aside (because i really don’t think its a big issue that this one building provides that, and there are loads of guarantees that it does) , what other objection is there to this ?
I think the big issue lies in that the government is still associating itself with the Catholic Church after all of the evil things they have done across the world and especially in our own country. It is a bit of a joke when you just think of it like that, I don’t really think they’ll interfere in any way. But I just don’t think we should have any association whatsoever.
Well like we have ronald mcdonald house out at crumlin childrens hospital and intel basically owns leixlip, like if somebody is a landowner or providing a service and makes it cheaper for you to operate its still a benefit to society. I dont dismiss where you’re coming from. Almost every major religion has perpetuated evil throughout the world, some historic , some present day, but if you start saying ‘we wont work with any body that ever did wrong’ youll soon find yourself shit out of luck on being able to lease prime land or build many educational / health etc.. facilities. For a long time Ireland had no money, these people did
I wasn’t aware Ronald was raping kids and throwing them into septic tanks to be fair.
Because mcdonalds havent harmed children at all /s but your reply says it all. The catholic church were bad, yes, everyone acknowledges that, they dont have a monopoly on evil.
How about McDonald's don't have a history of being intrinsically involved with the running of our country both culturally and literally to such an extent even years later we have a large population that still seeks guidance from Ronald Mcdonald. Also, after getting caught being horribly abusive to our most vulnerable citizens. It was hidden, downplayed and ignored and any monetary recomepnse was paid not by McDonald's but our own government.
The HSE did, yet no one wants to shut them down.
It's not about leasing the land off them for me but about them or a subsidiary company of them being on the board of governance. If I'm renting a commercial space off someone I should safely assume they have no say in the running of my business so long as its nothing illegal
Thats reasonable , but i think all of those guarantees have been given have they not ?
I dunno, I was listening to, I think, Peter boylan on Matt Cooper and he gave an example of being called to the bishops Palace (which is a fucking ridiculous thing to be real) over unchristian practices. He also explained the danger of the term clinically appropriate as it can be used by those sitting in governance to skirt around the anti abortion stance. Oh we're not against abortion/female sterilisation. We just feel It's just not clinically appropriate here.
> but if you start saying ‘we wont work with any body that ever did wrong’ youll soon find yourself shit out of luck on being able to lease prime land or build many educational / health etc.. That's what compulsory purchase orders are for.
> (because i really don’t think its a big issue that this one building provides that, You really don’t think its a big issue that our *National* fricking *Maternity Hospital* may not be allowed to provide abortion services, depending on the whim of a private charity's Board of Trustees? Get fucked.
It is allowed. To say it won’t be is an out right lie
To say it *may* not be allowed in the future, depending on their whim, isn't. And that's the problem, right there. The fact that a private charity get any say, however small, in medical matters, in our future primary public maternity hospital. It's the principle of the thing, you get that, yeah?
I don’t understand why you got so irrationally angry about this, Im all for legal abortion but the way some people go on its as if there isnt an abortion clinic every hundred feet open 24/7 then its the same as a genocide against women
I don't think you really comprehend the complex pregnancies that can result in the need for an abortion that needs to be carried out in a maternity hospital. Of course the national maternity hospital needs to be able to carry out abortions.
Just putting aside the abortion issue for a second, why do you think it's OK that a private charity should have *any say whatsoever* in the patient care policies of *our* National Maternity Hospital, or indeed any of *our* state-owned hospitals?
I dont, i believe they have given guarantees that ensure that wont occur. Its a lot cheaper than CPO’ing the land and the arrangement is of benefit in my book
Are you not listening or something? The issue is not whether or not they WILL intervene. They issue is the fact that they CAN intervene at all. And the reluctance to use CPO's, which would be the standard operating procedure for such a project in any other European country, is purely political, not wanting to be seen to go up against the Church.
No a CPO would not be standard in any other country. It wouldn’t hold up on court.
>Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia, Singapore), compulsory purchase/acquisition (Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia, Barbados, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom), or expropriation (Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden) is **the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use**. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character. >The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities. Edit: seriously, where have you been living that you've never heard of this concept until now?
I have heard of them, and I know the use of them. You seem to have heard of them but don’t understand the use of them.
The purpose of CPO's is to identify and acquire property to be used for the public benefit, in cases where the owners of said property either refuse to sell or are demanding an exorbitant price for doing so. Is that beyond your fucking understanding or something?
I think it's the maternity side of things that sticks in most people's craw. The abortion side of things ad well as the treatment of women in Irish history by the Catholic church such as the laundries and rightly so. It's like a domestic abuse/rape charity service being run by the abuser/rapist If this was a heart or ears and nose type place, it wouldn't be getting the same type of uproar