St Vincent’s Chief Operating Officer Kay Connolly, Minister for Health Simon Harris and Dr Rhona Mahony, Master at Holles Street
The Religious Sisters of Charity will end our involvement in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group and will not be involved in the ownership or management of the new National Maternity Hospital.
For the last two years we have been actively working to find the best way to relinquish our shareholding of the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG). It includes three hospitals: St Vincent’s University Hospital, St Vincent’s Private Hospital and St Michael’s Hospital, Dun Laoghaire.
Although the Sisters of Charity no longer have any direct involvement in the provision of healthcare services we remain dedicated to preserving the legacy of Mary Aikenhead, whose mission in life was to heal and care for the sick and poor.
We believe that the future continued success of SVHG can best be ensured by our transferring ownership of the group to a newly formed company with charitable status to be called “St Vincent’s”.
The Religious Sisters of Charity will have no involvement in this new company.
Upon completion of this proposed transaction, the requirement set out in the SVHG Constitution, to conduct and maintain the SVHG facilities in accordance with The Religious Sisters of Charity Health Service Philosophy and Ethical Code, will be amended and replaced to reflect compliance with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics and the laws of the Republic of Ireland.
The SVHG Board, management and staff will continue to provide acute healthcare services that foster Mary Aikenhead’s core values of dignity, compassion, justice, quality and advocacy.
They will ensure that the three hospitals in SVHG can continue to meet the need of their patients and families, so that every individual can always access the care and treatment they need to achieve health and well-being.
“St. Vincent’s” will replace the Sisters of Charity as the shareholders in SVHG and will meet the following criteria:
- The shares in SVHG will be transferred to St. Vincent’s for a nominal/”peppercorn” consideration in return.
- Consistent with the transfer of ownership, the Religious Sisters of Charity will no longer have a right to appoint Directors to the Board of SVHG, and the present two Sister Directors will resign from the Board with immediate effect.
- “St. Vincent’s” will not be subject to undue influence by individuals or from any source.
- “St. Vincent’s” will not seek to generate any profit or surplus, or to remunerate Directors for their work.
- “St. Vincent’s” Directors will have required skillsets in law, finance, healthcare and social care. They will be true to the values of our Foundress, recognising the right of everyone to access the care and treatment they need to achieve the best possible health care outcomes, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or personal means.
- In the event of the liquidation or wind-up of St. Vincent’s at any time in the future, any surplus assets arising therefrom will be vested with the Charitable Regulator and utilised for healthcare purposes and facilities with similar values. This is in accordance with the provisions of the RSC Constitution.
Just as our Founder Mary Aikenhead saw the need in 1834 to establish a hospital to meet the needs of the sick and poor, we believe that it is in the best interests of the patients and children born in the National Maternity Hospital today that they be provided with modern maternity and neonatal services that are women and infant-centred and integrated within the Elm Park campus.
It is now time for us to relinquish completely our involvement in SVHG. We are confident that the Board, management and staff of SVHG will continue to maintain a steadfast dedication to providing the best possible acute healthcare to patients and their families in line with the values espoused by Mary Aikenhead.
This proposal has the full support of the Board of SVHG. It is subject to implementation of all necessary legal, financial and regulatory matters.
A statement released this morning by Sr Mary Christian, congregational leader of the Religious Sisters of Charity.
Previously: Taking On Church And State
UPDATE:
By forming charitable company, SVHG erases Magdalene past, sells its property to the state at ‘commercial rates’ instead of paying redress.
— Mairead Enright (@maireadenright) May 29, 2017
The only solution to ensure the banks don’t call in the loan on Vincents Private.
what did the nuns get out of the negotiation?
I wouldn’t believe a word of it. Smoke and mirrors if ever there’s a case of it.
I presume Peter Boylan will be reinstated with immediate effect?
Lovely turn by the nuns that they were finding it hard to relinquish control, all it talk was a massive public uprising against them and they turn over three hospitals. Malcolm Tuckers
Don’t tarnish his good name!! Malcolm is my bloody hero- best lines ever!
But yes, shower of James Blunts
…so no change then
Phew. That’s all that sorted.
Nothing to see here. Move on, folks. MOVE ON.
Who will be responsible for founding this new charity and selecting it’s members etc?
The nuns.
The Sisters of Charity said St Vincent’s, the new charity being created, will replace the order as the shareholders in SVHG.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Peter Boylan, thank you.
“Although the Sisters of Charity no longer have any direct involvement in the provision of healthcare services we remain dedicated to preserving the legacy of Mary Aikenhead”
And how will that be done?
smokes AND daggers?
can’t wait for Danny Boyle/that oul Fianna Fail spin gobspoo/Moyest/Jimmy/Bodger to extemporise on this.
I’m not sure why people are so obsessed with having zero moral compass in the health service. A complete health service is made up of different elements, treating patients doesn’t end when they walk out the door, especially in Ireland’s unique case
Is the official stance of Alcohol Action Ireland?
Is not wanting the church to be involved a moral stance in itself?
Having the same religious beliefs and having the same moral beliefs are not mutually exclusive, and yes, actually the church has been quite active when it comes to alcohol abuse without ever mentioning god, ie the Pioneer movement
“Having the same religious beliefs and having the same moral beliefs are not mutually exclusive” doesn’t mean anything.
Is this EMcK?
How about some fair disclosure on Church involvement in AAI?
You mean The Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart? No… no mention of god there at all atall!
“PTAA members seek to address alcohol-related problems in society, mainly through prayer, self-denial, and the promotion of positive life-styles”….so who are they praying to if it’s not God?
Leo?
While I’m sure plenty of our members are pioneers, only one member of our board is from the Pioneer Association. This is not something we are hiding or failing to disclose(?) it is publicly available information.
As I said previously our members might share moral and religious beliefs but it is not a requirement. The only belief we all share is that alcohol consumption is an amoral activity, absolutely from start to finish. And if there are elements within the health service and government that agree with this stance especially on a fundamental level like the sisters of charity do. then they are more than welcome in my opinion.
Amoral? Well, I’m not a big drinker but amoral?! So, if you’re not affiliated with religious groups why then bring morals (bread & butter to religion) into it?!!!! Why not plain old science???? Like how our levels of drinking as a society need looking at? Vs those of us who have a few scoops are somehow repugnant to those of “good” morals.
The health professionals could give you plenty of evidence, without the need to go all finger-pointy , smug sober self.
I’m a non Drinker,I quit 4 years ago. I despise the alcohol industry. If my opinion is of any weight whatsoever, I would say that Alcohol Action Ireland should distance itself as much from the pioneer movement as possible if it is to have any success in modern Ireland. Most people have an aversion to any common sense alcohol legislation because they feel it is a cloak and dagger control by Opus Dei-ites.
And from what you are saying, I take it that that is exactly the approach you are taking.
As a fellow non drinker I would agree On the Buses.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say all alcohol consumption is amoral however, drink marketing , yes.
Why alienate people by dragging judgement, subjective ” morals” and personal religious beliefs into the conversation ?
Stick to education of the dangers of alcohol and support to people in need.
Janet, just to clarify, I didn’t say that alcohol consumption is amoral, that’s the alcohol action stance.
Hi sorry
I must learn to be clearer about who I’m talking to when I swap direction midway through a comment
Sorry for being so pedantic. Just wanted to make sure anyone reading through the comments didn’t think both things applied to myself.
The church has been been quite active, when it comes to alcohol abuse alright – in that you’d be hard pushed to find a parish without at least one resident p!sshead priest.
Religious involvement in a health system is appalling. Cancer treatments have been refused to patient groups in two hospitals (The Mater and St. Vincent’s) in the last 15 years because the patients would be required to take contraceptives during treatment. Your ‘morals’ prevent people getting help. There is NO justification for religious involvement in hospitals.
@ Kate
Just seen your comment now, that’s truly appalling I do hope the patients involved, were able to get the necessary treatment somewhere else.
I really like Tony
Does the removal of nuns’ influence equate to a loss of moral compass?
Nothing “moral” about prioritising healthcare for those who can pay. The nun’s “moral compass” seems to point directly to money. They’ve been profiteering off the backs of Irish people, particularly women for years. How much money did they save on wages by having slaves do the work in their commercial laundries? How much did they make through black market trafficking of their slaves’ babies?
It’s not about a moral compass. Treating patients shouldn’t be in any way based on religious doctrine.
God hasn’t had too much success in his medical career since he got lucky with Lazarus and Jesus (but that was a bit iffy since all evidence disappeared a few days later).
Ah Blonto!!! Lol
Sure in fairness, he turned water into wine , in a hot country, the lad was some craic; not always health conscious though
Do you need someone to tell you what right and wrong is?
Pity about ye
a moral compass exists independently of “god”
Do you need a religious element to have a moral compass? Do I have no moral compass because I don’t believe in your god?
What should I do?
Maybe I could….point you in the right direction? ;~o
“Charitable Status” ie. Tax exempt? Dey shoot, they score.
+1
that’s the one clear thing I take from that statement
the rest of it sounds like a pile of smoky mirrory gobbledygook to me (but I know I’m pretty stupid) hopefully this new vehicle is well documented & available (as opposed to vague & verbal) for thorough scrutiny by clever legal minded people, let’s not forget who’s doing the dealing here.
Martco, dear friend, ‘smoke and mirrors’ doesn’t begin to describe it. I shall study these developments closely. I don’t think that’s unfair – experience has tought us that these Orders need to be watched. There are many high priced ‘advisers’ and ‘professionals’ on these boards who will not lightly give up access to money and influence.
Do you think a public hospital should not have charitable status then?
Do you think a Hospital built with public funds should have been pledged to provide loans to private companies?
Hilariously there seems to be a broad mix of “it’s all a scam!” and “well done protesters/Peter Boylan”. You can never please everyone it seems!
Hopefully it’s good news.
Cynics are very often right here though.
More unfortunate than hilarious.
People just don’t trust the church or religious orders. And with good reason.
Trust but verify is i believe the best way to view it
Or if an organisation has already shown itself to be dishonest, unscrupulous, callous, untrustworthy, dangerous, exploitative and manipulative, it’s probably fair enough to take everything it says with a pinch of holy salt
+years of bs
I’d love to think it’s a win, but we’ve seen time and again that the religious orders cover their back, and are never not acting in their own interest.
Charity!! What guff
Good. Now can we get rid of that Bon Secours shower too?
Superstition has no place in healthcare. If you believe in god, then why don’t you believe that he gave you cancer/gallstones/heart disease/appendicitis for a reason? Have a good pray and god will cure you. If you dont pray hard enough and you die, then it’s god’s will.
And if you believe in god and believe you’ve been a good person surely you can’t wait to die anyway so you can claim your eternal reward?
No, the hyper religious seem to fear death even more than the rest of us. I’ve never understood that, for obvious reasons.
the hyper-religious are aware of their own failings. And thus, know that they are eternally damned.
Caring for the sick, trying to make them better is an act of charity. Therefore it’s a good thing to do. The state, of course, should operate a “service/rights” model of healthcare rather than a charitable one.
This is why the catholic church is, by far and away, the largest global provider of healthcare around the world.
On the specific point of why people of faith fear death – the comments here are cruel and typically spiteful. The fact is, when people are dying, often a solid faith and a lift well lived are not enough to calm a dying person. Nor, I imagine is a knowledge that “this is the end….there’s nothing after this”. Most people are understandably fearful of dying and what might or might not follow death – or what/who they leave behind.
Daisy, Yeah, Sheik. I genuinely hope you are all fear free when your time comes. And that you’d show some understanding and charity for others who, whatever their faith, are nearing death.
cruel and spiteful
or honest ? stark maybe
There’s nothing to fear about oblivion, you won’t exist. Full stop.
Why do all our ministers for health look so unhealthy?
Ah, Leo always looks in good health, to be fair to him
“sex an’ drugs an’ rock ‘n’ roll”??
They have their jizz back now, tho!
Off topic I know, but I’ve just been stunned to see a mention of Loyalist scumbags on RTE news!! Strange days indeed.
Interesting development. Hopefully this’ll mean that we can have a NMH as quickly as possible now. Of course there’ll be some who want to delay things further because hating the church is a higher priority than building hospitals, but they can probably be safely ignored now.
Get over yourself. We all want the same thing.
The priority was/is building a hospital that is fit for purpose. The ‘hate’ that you speak of is utter revulsion at a religious institution being granted a state facility within which they have the power to deny healthcare to people at will for makey-uppy reasons.
Haters gonna hate
Is that you, Kim Kardashian?
Hospitals are meant to be places of healing. Patient morale is often a deciding factor in borderline cases. No matter how high-tech and professional the staff become, the warm cheerful attitude towards patients is something to encourage and preserve. If that aspect of patient care was essential to Mary Aikenhead’s philosophy, it is a legacy worth cherishing.
Where was the warm attitude in the laundries?
Secular people and religious people can both be warm and loving.
Mary Aikenhead’s philosophy died not long after she did.
What do you understand by her philosophy?
Great to see Shirley Temple Bar getting involved.
Who ever pays for the Hospital should own it and administer it, in this case its the state, are they still
providing the funds that will build what is in part a private hospital entirely funded by the taxpayer.
Will the Sisters of Charity be soon renaming themselves the Sisters Poverty………?
Yes, the taxpayers will fund the building of the new Hospital – on a site originally gifted to the Order by the State. I understand that the order will now sell the site to the State at “commercial rates”!!!! One should remember that the Order trousered the entire of the proceeds of sale of their large St Stephen’s Green premises in or about 1970.