That's an entirely different thing.If somebody offered to donate you a house on a 300 year lease, at €10 per year rent, would you quibble that you didn't own it outright?
Or would you consider that you had got a bargain and the best thing might be to accept the offer with alacrity?
Is it though? Much of the fuss about the NMH seems to be hype, and a desire to give the Catholic church a good kicking, rather than genuine concerns about what services might or might not be offered.That's an entirely different thing.
Have you read the link I posted?Is it though? Much of the fuss about the NMH seems to be hype, and a desire to give the Catholic church a good kicking, rather than genuine concerns about what services might or might not be offered.
The medics who actually do the whole gamut of procedures in the current NMH are quite satisfied that they can do the same (and more, and better) at the new facility.
Yes, that's the real question.For the sake of €10 per annum, why don't they just bequeath the land to the state? Why the need to maintain that level of control if they have no intention of exercising control?
Remind me how much us taxpayers paid to fund the clerical abuse compensation and why this land wasn't offered up at the time...
Er, because it's their land and they don't want to. This isn't a Communist state. Property owners can do as they wish within the limits of the law. They don't owe you a reason for WHY they might choose to do so!For the sake of €10 per annum, why don't they just bequeath the land to the state?
Their land; their offer to give it away for a peppercorn rent. If you don't like the offer, decline it and walk away. Simple!Why the need to maintain that level of control if they have no intention of exercising control?
Irrelevant! The State agreed an indemnity deal with the religious institutions and then unilaterally tried to go back on it by deciding how much of the State's compensation scheme should be funded by the institutions. And, if you're going to go down the historical accounting route, presumably the religious institutions are entitled to offset the value of any socially good and beneficial works they did when the State couldn't or wouldn't? Or does it only work in one direction?Remind me how much us taxpayers paid to fund the clerical abuse compensation and why this land wasn't offered up at the time...
Did you really read the article? Really?Ah, village idiot magazine! Well, they would, wouldn't they? Could hardly be more left wing if it were the in-house magazine for People Before Profit. If they say it, it must be true mustn't it? Well, no actually. I waded through the tedious and tendentious article - ok, about 75% of it - there's only so much a man can endure. Now, here's the bit I don't get. We are told incessantly that ownership is the key thing, by Peter Boylan, by mostly left wing TDs in the Dáil and by assorted media commentators. If the site is publicly owned all is hunky dory. If it's on a 300 year lease at a tenner a year, apparently there's a big problem! Why don't the nuns just give us the freehold, the naysayers whinge? Why don't we just CPO it? But that's essentially the proposition presented: freehold is ownership, the 300 year peppercorn rent isn't. This will come as very interesting news to thousands of householders who "own" their property through the mechanism of long leases originally granted by Lord Whatshisface in whatever century it was. However, the possibility of Lord Whatshisface's heirs turning up to tell the householder what can and can't be done in the property doesn't really worry people. Funny that. But when it's the nuns.......! All rationality goes out the window and their "ethos" must be scrubbed from the very soil of the place. All very Soviet, and grist to Village Idiot's mill I suppose, but seriously, we should make public policy on this basis?
The question is will they have the clinical independence?Like I say, if the doctors running the place are perfectly happy that they'll have the clinical independence they need, I'm not convinced we need to second guess them. Consultant doctors tend not to be shrinking violets when it comes to expressing any concerns they might have, you know!!
Yes. The first three quarters in detail and skimmed the remainder. John Charles McQuaid, Mary Aikenhead, Vatican, Canon Law, DeValera and Jack Lynch having lunch with the nuns fifty years ago. All very interesting - sort of - as a social history. All very irrelevant in making policy today.Did you really read the article? Really?
The issue has been repeatedly presented as ownership. By Peter Boylan. In the Dáil. Or as @Leo put it: "For the sake of €10 per annum, why don't they just bequeath the land to the state?"The issue isn't the rent, it's the fact that the Sister's of Charity owned and controlled Holding Company will run the hospital and that the St Vincents Hospital Group is absolutely committed to upholding the values of the Sisters of Charity.
Well, they are quite certain they will. And they should know.The question is will they have the clinical independence?
They're not a maternity hospital and they don't have that clinical speciality at the moment so they refer such patients to the NMH. As far as I know, they don't do brain surgery either and they refer those patients to Beaumont. And they'd refer heart transplant candidates to the Mater. Not all hospitals do all types of surgery.AT the moment no abortions of Gender reassignments are carried out in any St Vincent's Hospital.
But relevant to the motives of the players in this production.Yes. The first three quarters in detail and skimmed the remainder. John Charles McQuaid, Mary Aikenhead, Vatican, Canon Law, DeValera and Jack Lynch having lunch with the nuns fifty years ago. All very interesting - sort of - as a social history. All very irrelevant in making policy today.
There is a tendency for people who are experts in one area to think they are experts in other unrelated areas. Being aa doctor or "medic" as they seem to be called now, does not give you expertise in international contract law.The issue has been repeatedly presented as ownership. By Peter Boylan. In the Dáil. Or as @Leo put it: "For the sake of €10 per annum, why don't they just bequeath the land to the state?"
The running and control of the new entity has been dealt with (Minister's golden share, board composition, etc, etc) to the complete satisfaction of the actual medics who will be working there.
The people, through their Parliament, are the ultimate interested party here.Why hurlers on the ditch feel obliged to second guess their judgement is somewhat beyond me. Unless the reasons are ideological rather than practical.
Why should they know? They are not lawyers.Well, they are quite certain they will. And they should know.
The NMH is being transferred to the St Vincent's Hospital Group. Prior to that is was run by a board, the Chairman of which was always the Archbishop of Dublin (since its 1936 Charter). They don't do abortions or Trans surgery either.They're not a maternity hospital and they don't have that clinical speciality at the moment so they refer such patients to the NMH.
When two or more parties reach a legally binding agreement, thereafter their motives for so doing are of little if any relevance. The terms of the agreement bind both; the Courts of land adjudicate any disputes as to what the agreement means.But relevant to the motives of the players in this production.
There's no "international contract" here. It's entirely subject to Irish law. You will also find that doctors (or medics!) are acutely aware of the law as it relates to the practice of their profession. They could hardly be otherwise. They have been prominent in debates on changing those laws when they thought it was necessary. They don't now.There is a tendency for people who are experts in one area to think they are experts in other unrelated areas. Being aa doctor or "medic" as they seem to be called now, does not give you expertise in international contract law.
Yes.....The people, through their Parliament, are the ultimate interested party here.
Debatable but accepted for the purposes of argument.... However, even though the people, as some sort of amorphous collective, may well have the "public good" - assuming you can even define that concept - as their primary interest, that doesn't necessarily apply to their elected parliamentarians, who are generally interested in advancing their own political careers!They are the only party whose primary interest is the public good.
Yep, true enough. And their status. And their independence.The primary motive of those employed in medical industry, as they have demonstrated over and over again, is their own remuneration.
You will find they make it their business to know these things. And they take copious, expensive legal advice when necessary from those who definitely do know.Why should they know? They are not lawyers.
The new group won't have that method of appointment. An improvement, right?The NMH is being transferred to the St Vincent's Hospital Group. Prior to that is was run by a board, the Chairman of which was always the Archbishop of Dublin (since its 1936 Charter).
According to Rhona Mahony, they do. And she would know.They don't do abortions
No Irish hospital does. Your tax euros pay for it to be done in London. Generous chap that you are!!or Trans surgery either.
According to the HSE, the NMH does perform abortions. https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/how-to-get/in-hospital/......The NMH is being transferred to the St Vincent's Hospital Group. Prior to that is was run by a board, the Chairman of which was always the Archbishop of Dublin (since its 1936 Charter). They don't do abortions or Trans surgery either.
Yes, and there is a considerable lack of clarity around the specifics of that agreement and how it will impact on the running of the new hospital. Hence the current discussion.When two or more parties reach a legally binding agreement, thereafter their motives for so doing are of little if any relevance. The terms of the agreement bind both; the Courts of land adjudicate any disputes as to what the agreement means.
Except that the Vatican has the ultimate say on the decisions made by any and all Catholic institutions.There's no "international contract" here. It's entirely subject to Irish law.
Having been married to a doctor who was involved in more than one legal action my experience is otherwise.You will also find that doctors (or medics!) are acutely aware of the law as it relates to the practice of their profession. They could hardly be otherwise. They have been prominent in debates on changing those laws when they thought it was necessary. They don't now.
See above.You will find they make it their business to know these things. And they take copious, expensive legal advice when necessary from those who definitely do know.
The Sister's holding company will appoint 3 of the directors of the new hospital group. That's one of the issues of contention.The new group won't have that method of appointment. An improvement, right?
Not elective abortions.According to Rhona Mahony, they do. And she would know.
Money well spent.No Irish hospital does. Your tax euros pay for it to be done in London. Generous chap that you are!!
The SVHG will now run the NMH and the SVHG is aligned to the values of the Sisters of Charity.According to the HSE, the NMH does perform abortions. https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/how-to-get/in-hospital/
The current discussion is mainly ideological. The people doing the actual running are happy with it.Yes, and there is a considerable lack of clarity around the specifics of that agreement and how it will impact on the running of the new hospital. Hence the current discussion.
No, it doesn't. In Ireland, Irish law supercedes anything the Vatican might think. Any decisions made by Catholic (or Protestant, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim or atheist) institutions must be in accord with Irish law as interpreted by the Irish Courts.Except that the Vatican has the ultimate say on the decisions made by any and all Catholic institutions.
Swallows and summers. Anyway, knowledge of.the law is not a guarantee of keeping you out of legal actions! Nothing can guarantee that.Having been married to a doctor who was involved in more than one legal action my experience is otherwise.
See above.
Three out of how many? And a golden share for the Minister? Hardly nun-controlled, is it? Compared to the current NMH setup, that appears to be a significant improvement.The Sister's holding company will appoint 3 of the directors of the new hospital group. That's one of the issues of contention.
The HSE think otherwise. They list it in their "how to get an abortion" section. Given that most abortions are elective, that would suggest they do. Or else the HSE is misleading us deliberately. Which of course is impossible, isn't it?Not elective abortions.
In that case, I happen to own a bridge at the end of O'Connell Street that's currently available - just to you - for a very attractive price!Money well spent.
Exactly, and the fact that they don't want to speaks volumes. They're happy for a hospital to be built and run there, but only on their terms.Er, because it's their land and they don't want to. This isn't a Communist state. Property owners can do as they wish within the limits of the law. They don't owe you a reason for WHY they might choose to do so!
And of course the Catholic hierarchy here report to Rome. The Sisters have acknowledged they require and obtained Vatican approval.No, it doesn't. In Ireland, Irish law supercedes anything the Vatican might think. Any decisions made by Catholic (or Protestant, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim or atheist) institutions must be in accord with Irish law as interpreted by the Irish Courts.
Are medics best placed to advise on matters of governance and value for taxpayer money?The running and control of the new entity has been dealt with (Minister's golden share, board composition, etc, etc) to the complete satisfaction of the actual medics who will be working there. Why hurlers on the ditch feel obliged to second guess their judgement is somewhat beyond me. Unless the reasons are ideological rather than practical.
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?