Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NECESSITY TO separate church and state was seen with the interference of the Catholic Church during all phases of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.
The Catholic Church’s opinion on women’s reproductive health is a valid one, of course, and it is entitled to broadcast this stance publicly. However, its attempt to manipulate the political process, pressure TDs and subvert public opinion was highly anti-democratic.
No other democracy would accept the moral monopolisation by one religious order over the will of the people. The French term for secularism- laïcité – derived from ‘laity’, explicitly promotes the wishes of the non-clergy within a society, above that of the clergy. Only recently in Ireland, a member of the clergy attempted to undermine both Irish law the laity. Father Kevin Doran’s comments, pertaining to institutional objection (though the board of the Mater Misercordiae University Hospital have yet to formally comment), have highlighted the lack of secularisation within Irish society, and specifically healthcare.
Like the recent debate about patronage of our schools, we now need a debate on the patronage of our public voluntary healthcare facilities.
The ethical principles to which doctors adhere are governed by the Irish Medical Council’s (IMC) Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics. As a GP, I may hold a personal, moral belief, but I can never allow this to influence a patient’s care. If a doctor’s religious belief prevents him/her from providing safe and accessible treatment for a patient, that doctor would be guilty of professional misconduct. The IMC is clear on the position of conscientious objection: “As a doctor, you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients”.
For example, it is permissible for a GP not to prescribe the morning after pill to a woman on account of religious reasons, but the doctor must refer her expediently to an alternative GP in the locality, without compromising that patient’s care. The IMC state: “Conscientious objection does not absolve you from responsibility to a patient in emergency circumstances”. Conscientious objection can neither contravene the law of the land, nor be applied in an emergency situation when a woman’s life is in imminent threat.
If we do not allow the moral position of an individual doctor to adversely affect a patient’s care, an institutional moral position, reflected by Catholic health policy, certainly cannot. A woman cannot be denied a life-saving, emergency treatment because of the religious belief held by a board-member of a publicly-funded hospital.
This was articulated by Dr Peter Boylan who asked anyone who might agree with Father Doran’s comments if they were “happy to stand by and watch a woman die and be denied life-saving treatment because it goes against their personal beliefs which are not shared by the doctors looking after the woman or by the woman herself or by her family?”
Society pays for its public health services through taxation and the ethos of any institution should reflect the secular, multi-denominational ethos of the society to which it serves. I am a pro-choice doctor. I believe all women should be able to choose to access safe and legal abortion services within the state. Like religious belief, I fully accept the opinion of anyone who disagrees with women being able to access abortion services. But that is not what this Bill is about. When a woman’s life is in danger, her life should be saved- institutional objection is simply medical malpractice.
There are examples of Catholic institutions providing good health and social care in the state. Yet there are many failures. Aside for the secular argument, it is these failures of Catholic health policy that render the Church unqualified to influence training, teaching, ethics, appointments and clinical governance.
Catholic health policy has not proved a model for compassionate or equitable care in Ireland, or indeed anywhere in the world. It has proved particularly caustic to the health of Irish women. This is symbolised most acutely by the 1983 ‘pro-life’ 8th Amendment, which has led to cases like Savita Halappanavar and X. It has caused umpteen crisis pregnancies as a result of their failure to promote hormonal contraception as a means of family planning, ironically increasing abortion rates.
Catholic social policy has been responsible for the Magdalene laundries and the promulgation of institutional childhood sexual abuse. Catholic social policy was responsible for abusive marriages staying together. It has promoted massive psychological trauma for LGBT adolescents, as they have been afraid to come out in hostile Catholic school environments. Worldwide, it has helped the spread of sexually transmitted diseases due to the stigma around barrier contraception.
Ireland does not need Catholicism influencing its health policies – we need secular, democratic processes based upon medical advice.
Religious influence on healthcare is still present, only in 1997 a vasectomy clinic in Letterkenny General Hospital was picketed by pro-life campaigners. As Tom Inglis stated; “the ownership and control of hospitals and the representation of Catholic religious on the boards of public hospitals has meant the Church has been able to exert considerable influence on the way medicine is practised”.
Half of our public ‘voluntary hospitals’ are owned and governed by religious orders. I have worked in two of these, the Mater and St Vincent’s University Hospitals, which claim to have a ‘religious ethos’. I remember a cancer patient in one of these hospitals being refused a clinical-trial drug, as she would have to commence hormonal contraception. That is not an ethos I wish to be associated with.
Secular health policy must replace Catholic health policy. Minister Reilly should follow Minister Quinn’s admirable efforts in the education sphere, and address the patronage of Irish hospitals, so their ethos reflects the society to which they serve.
This article has been amended to remove an erroneous statement that the Pro-Life Campaign took part in a picket at LetterKenny Hospital in 1997. The Pro-Life Campaign is a non-denominational organisation .
Dr Mark Murphy is a GP living in Sligo. He is a member of Doctors for Choice.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This should not be a debate. Personal agendas should never influence the care of a patient.
The Catholic Church has always been bullies… However, now we have the freedom of choice.
I would rather have the Church stay out of local, state and national politics and focus their attention to the spirtual well being of those wbo voluntarily seek such guidance.
We need to complete the job of separating church and state. As an Irishman and a Christian, my belief is that the intermingling of the two does neither any good.
So everyone and every group can have an opinion, but not if they are Catholic. Secularists are the new bigots.
Tom you can have an opinion and can share that opinion in a public forum but do not expect that opinion to be respected or even listened to.
No one is stopping you from having an opinion, but why should your morality affect the medical treatment of those who don’t share your beliefs?
Tom, you can have a view, Just do it with your own money,
If tax payer money is involved then a service such as education or health should in no way have any links to a religious belief.
@Tom… As private citizens the clergy and individual Catholics have a voice and a vote. However, when the clergy discontinues being private citizens and takes the position of voice of the church… Then this becomes an issue. Influencing democratic societies through threats and blackmail should be a thing of the past.
Furthermore, Ireland isn’t a one religion country.
@Tom From the article, if you’d actually READ it. “I may hold a personal, moral belief, but I can never allow this to influence a patient’s care.”
@Marlon Major Completely agree Marlon. What I would like in that this country is freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. We should have both in this state. Religion should be a personal private matter, observed in the privacy of one’s home or in a designated place of worhip. Nobody is saying that religion should be banned, as least I hope they are not otherwise we would be living in a fascist state. However, religion should not be forced down the necks of people who don’t want anything to do with it (whose number is increasing day by day). Some people argue that Ireland is now a “Post Catholic” country. With 92% of the primary schools under the control of the Catholic church, not to mention large swathes of the health service, we are anything but a “post catholic” country.
For too long we’ve had the situation where the religion of some people is infringing on the rights/wishes of other people. It was tolerated before but that tolerance has come to an end. Institutions of the state and services provided by the state that are state funded should not be under the influence of any religious “ethos”.
You obviously missed this paragraph so I’ll post it here for you.
“The Catholic Church’s opinion on women’s reproductive health is a valid one, of course, and it is entitled to broadcast this stance publicly. However, its attempt to manipulate the political process, pressure TDs and subvert public opinion was highly anti-democratic.”
@John Kelly opinions like yours will help move Ireland to a better place for all.
John Everyman, or even those who do share his views. How many women would opt to die rather than abort an unviable pregnancy? Not too many, I suspect, particularly if there were other children waiting for her to come home from hospital.
Tom is very good at idealism. I wonder how long would that idealism last if the life of his wife/daughter (assuming he has a wife/daughter) was in danger through pregnancy?
@tom – everyone can have an opinion but when that opinion is based on a childish belief in the supernatural then it is not likely an opinion to have much merit. You can call that bigotry if you wish but really it’s actually just rational thinking.
@ Tom Newnewman. So, you believe that because of a doctor’s religious opinion, he/she has the right to allow a pregnant woman to die, rather than offend the Pope?
Why should any religion have a say in the laws of the country.
Because they’re allowed to?
Keeping the Church out of State affairs is a two-way street. I challenge all the secularists and atheists to go and fund their own hospital lands and buildings in prime locations.
So pro-bort pro-choicers are now saying that hospitals don’t have a choice?
How logically coherent of ye.
James,
Apart from the fact that you lost any credibility by calling pro-choice people pro-aborts, those Catholic hospitals are publicly funded and, as such, should abide by the laws of the land.
In addition, are you seriously suggesting that hospitals should have a “choice” over whether or not to perform a life-saving operation on a dying pregnant woman? Seriously, are you arguing that saving someone’s life should be a “choice”?
James that is quite simply one of the most moronic and idiotic comments I have ever seen on Journal.
James,
A further point. No one is suggesting that an individual cannot object, for conscientious reasons, to perform an abortion procedure that will save a woman’s life (although I would not like to live the rest of my life knowing that I did not intervene to save someone’s life with a medical procedure which I, as a trained medic, have the experience to perform). In the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill it is clearly stated that an institution cannot, en masse, claim the status of conscientious objection. As Dr. Murphy points out, he worked at both the Mater and St. Vincent’s and clearly the Catholic ethos of both hospitals do not represent the views of each and every doctor stationed at those hospitals. What is reprehensible Fr. Doran’s statement is that on account of the position of the Catholic church on women’s reproductive well being, is that he is trying to impose a blanket ban on all staff that asks them to disregard the position of the Irish Medical Council’s Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics. I have posted this excerpt from the article already, but just in case you missed it, here it is:
‘The ethical principles to which doctors adhere are governed by the Irish Medical Council’s (IMO) Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics. As a GP, I may hold a personal, moral belief, but I can never allow this to influence a patient’s care. If a doctor’s religious belief prevents him/her from providing safe and accessible treatment for a patient, that doctor would be guilty of professional misconduct. The IMC is clear on the position of conscientious objection: “As a doctor, you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients”.’
@James…Go to bed James you will miss the eight mass tomorrow morning with your mammy.
Red Mass every year for the judges etc, so who runs the court corporations too?
We already are funding them. Even 200 years ago when the nuns founded the Mater Hospital where do you think the money came from? The Catholic Church was the government of Ireland up until the 1990s. They raised taxes through fear. I even remember a name and shame policy where I grew up where the P.P would publish a list of what people paid at the end of the Church year. The neighbours talking about you raised as much fear as a mafia boss whispering threats in your ear. The RC Church took the portfolios of education and health care as these were a source of vulnerable people that were easy to indoctrinate. Why didnt the Church pay for electricity or road construction?
It is embarrassing that in 2013 religious clerics still yield power over education and health care.
Why does it matter that its 2013? I never understand when people mention the year as a reason for anythiny to happen… except birthdays
Why would the year matter for birthdays, some how I manage to have one every year!!!
Because we think this should be a thing of the past.
“Why does it matter that its 2013? I never understand when people mention the year as a reason for anythiny to happen”
Because for every other developed country the change in year puts another year of separation between themselves and the dark ages. Unfortunately that isn’t the case here where we still have ancient superstition rife in our education and health systems.
Except America of course
Risteard,
It matters that it is 2013 because with every year that passes we move further away from the times when millions of people could be sold, bought and used as slaves, when children were put to work in mines and pits, and often died as a result, when we had high infant morality rates, when we didn’t have the means to give critically ill people a modicum of good healthcare, when women were not allowed to vote, when we didn’t have a convention for human rights – the list goes on. When such abuses of human rights occur nowadays we, rightly, object. That is why it really does matter that this is year 2013.
Cyril people who believe in superstitious shite will believe anything and will swallow all kinds of hardships thinking it is the will of God and not the government screwing them.
On of the great failures of the infant Irish state was their abdication of their responsibility in childcare and healthcare, by handing these areas over to the churches, mainly the Catholic Church. the political parties, mainly Fianna Fail were complicit in this.This policy lead to years of abuse, the abuse of the most vulnerable in society. It lead to Ireland remaining a backwards, underdeveloped, superstitious backwater. Things are finally changing at last, much to the annoyance of the church, who would rather keep us the way we were.
As for the medical opinions of the church, I would rather take the opinion of a medical doctor than a doctor of theology, the study of sky deities and their human incarnations.
There is no argument for the church to remain to majority patrons of our schools and hospitals. The sooner we can eliminate the grip this organisation has over our health and education, the sooner Ireland can move confidently into the 21st century.
I stopped reading after
“The Catholic Church’s opinion on women’s reproductive health is a valid one”
No, It’s not a valid one. Ever.
I think he meant they are entitled to their opinion, which of course they are, even if it is an opinion based on a twisted logic.
Read the rest of the article. It’s quite well written and addresses some extremely important issues.
If he said they’re entitled to their opinion, and left it at that, I’d agree.
But to say that it’s a valid one, that’s incorrect.
DublinLad, you should have gone on to read that he thinks it’s an undemocratic one. And that he holds no truck with it.
DublinLad. I agree with you. That statement in the article was very unwise. There is nothing valid about the Catholic Church’s opinion on women’s reproductive health. Or about anything else. That is my opinion.
Good column. I agree that Our health policy should not be coloured by religious considerations. Hospitals should be strictly secular. While the BOM of the Mater deliberate , another Savita could happen.
The Government should tax all organised religion, it is completely unacceptable to have the Vatican interfere in the laws of the land.
Keep faith personal and before any of the deluded gang of Pious Catholics start(Stephen,Paddy,Zoe,Deirdre) Religion is not necessary in order to have morality as Human morality predates Religion.
The Vatican most certainly have no moral authority with the track record of horrific abuses and ignorance of dogmatic doctrine.
James Patrick,
I agree with you. All religious organisations should be compliant with the tax laws of this land, in the same way that all citizens should be.
Also, you make an important point about religion and morality/ethics. Whilst I respect and defend the right for any individual to hold their own religious belief, I do not respect the view that religious belief necessarily affords individuals a moral framework within which to live among others in society. This view sustains the myth that individuals can have no moral compass or reasoning capacities of their own. It is grossly insulting to individuals that do not have any religious faith, that somehow their moral facilities are inferior to those who turn to an external agency – i.e. whatever God/gods of anyone’s religious conviction – for moral guidance and this attitude perpetuates the notion that conscience is the sole preserve of the religious. Time to separate religion and state once and for all.
@Reality I agree with your comment for the most part, however I do think people should be able to practice a religion but the religion must be compliant with the laws of the land.
To have people hide behind the shield of religion and faith has in some cases help defend the indefensible.
The Catholic Church with Global abuse and condemning the use of condoms in Africa especially with the Aids/Hiv crisis. The Vatican’s sheer contempt towards women and gay people.
Evangelical Christians denying and interfering with scientific teachings in schools.
Promoting hate crimes against gay people. Actively interfering in other Countries politics.
Jehovah witnesses allowing their own children to die rather than receive blood tranfusions. Literally believing the Bible word for word and actively engaged in converting people to this religion.
Islamic extremists who kill people in the name of God and mutilate genitals of infant girls.Stoning rape victims to death and who would enacted Sharia law given half the chance.
I’m sure each group are delusional and believes it is doing God’s Holy work but not to challenge such horrific and Vile acts and beliefs and prevent them happening under the guise of religion or faith or culture is unforgivable. It is for such reasons a secular system would be most beneficial.
James Patrick,
Of course religion should be compliant with the law of the land, not just the tax laws. As I said, complete separation of church and state.
Great article – there is no place for any religious ethos in the management of state funded healthcare!
Thank you Dr Mark Mruphy for a great article, well written and with very valid points.
Excellent article, I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that we’re even debating the issue. Can anyone actually give a logical & valid reason for our health system not to be a secular one?
A welcome contribution to an overdue debate. As a citizen, I pay taxes, not tithes. This issue is of primary relevance to all service-users. I do not relish the idea that I must, while being conveyed in an ambulance to an Emergency Department, be further concerned about the religious ethos of the attending hospital or doctor.
Think it’s time following happened too:
- Christmas renamed Winterfest
- ‘Waiting for Godot’ renamed ‘Waiting for entity that may / may not exist depending on your beliefs’
- boycott of all Christian Slater films
- immediate ban on all radio stations of George Michael’s ‘Faith’
Seriously journal, really getting boring all the religious themed articles
What has Godot got to do with religion?
@Goose… I think Journal.ie is doing the public a service by keeping certain issue in the public domain.
More discussions cleary are needed to resolve this issue of the marriage of the church and state.
Keeping this issue in the fore front of our minds will generate discourse.
“and a festivus for the rest of us”
‘If by Godot I had meant God I would have said God, and not Godot’ Samuel Beckett.
If God hadn’t wanted us to boycott all Christian Slater films, he would have given him better acting skills… ;-)
I liked him in Broken Arrow
Not a lot of emoting required. :-P
@ The Naked Goose.If you’re bored with these articles then either don’t click on them or if you do, then there’s always the back button!! Ffs!
About time people started
To speak up about this kind of thing…
about 100 years overdue
The “abortionists” at work again
Didn’t take long for youth defense to get the old texts out this morning.
Your minds a bit twisted isn’t it,
How you even think that Catholic ethos blocking cancer treatment has anything to do with abortion is beyond me.
@StephenEganPolitics Pathetic excuse for a human being. Shame on you
Their name is doctors for choice. Sounds like he can’t wait to get stuck into some ripping and tearing.
You mean like surgeons, Jingles? Because they tend to be fans of, you know, surgery (or as you call it, ripping and tearing).
Nope – I supported a Chinese woman living in Ireland who was heartbroken that a wanted pregnancy had a fatal foetal abnormalities – she was devastated that she wouldn’t be able to bring the body home to bury it near her.
But I guess since it wasn’t an “Irish baby”, your compassion runs dry.
Jingles what a disgusting comment to make. You really are a vile reprehensible person aren’t you?
Nick has shown that even a religious person can respect the views of the majority population and can contribute to a country seeking to move forward in the world. For that I respect her and value her contributions to any debate on Journal.
You on the other hand are simply a bigot who fails repeatedly to provide any coherent argument for the “points” you coose to make.
Your viewpoints and beliefs have repeatedly been debunked and disproven by me and many others on this site and yet you still choose to perpetuate myth, lies and plain ignorance. You are incapable of learning from your mistakes and nothing that you say should ever be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of dignity or intelligence.
Yeah Alan. People like yourself are listened to all the time that’s why you all come here to whinge. The only people the only people that give you the time of day is each other.
It took you 5 hours to come up with that as your retort?
Stephen are you being ironic?
No, it’s just I have a life outside the journal.
I agree that separation of Church and State would be good for both. However it might be worth noting that regardless of recent reduction in numbers etc the Roman Catholic element of our population is still the largest. Hence it is also the largest contributor to State coffers.
Nonsense. I do not pay tax on behalf of my church.
The Roman Catholic Church does not pay tax. It does not contribute to the state coffers.
John, you will find out that many Catholics do NOT want the catholic ethos in their hospitals.
The RC church has charitable status. No taxes payable to the State. And with the compensation for their institutionalised paedophilia and Magdalene laundry abuses the state , ie the tax payer, will have to pay for the mess the RC have made in our society. I fully support redress for the wrong people have suffered at the hands of the Church but the Church should pay at least 50% of the compensation for the industrial schools and 100% compensation for their paedophilia.
How dare they try to jump on the moral high ground over any issue whatsoever. A bunch of self serving hypocrites!
@ Colin, if you read my comment I clearly stated that the Roman Catholic population is the largest contributor to the State coffers not the Church. However if you and some other bigots would like Catholic individuals to be disenfranchised and disappear fine , I hope you are prepared to put your money where you mouth is.
The women who were sent to Magdalene laundries really let their families off the hook of blame. It’s convenient for the families to let the state & church take the blame. No one likes paying out money especially your big brother if he was left the farm.
Colin by your logic I could also deduce that people with black socks are the largest tax contributors to the state coffers.
Therefore only people with black socks should be patrons of our hospitals and schools.
The point being that religious affiliation shouod never be an overriding factor in social, civil or political issues.
I hope this example helps you realise how ridiculous your position is.
I don’t disagree with Alan, but I think you’re mixing me up with someone else, or you’ve completely misunderstood my point.
@John. Well, why don’t we have Catholic roads, and Catholic buses. By your logic because people are nominally Catholic and pay tax, there should be some kind of Catholic representation. What I pay to my government I pay as an Irishman. Not at a Christian, or as a heterosexual, or as a white person, or as a man, or any other convenient bucket. I pay my taxes so that this country can run the services it needs, and my religion has nothing to do with that or how those services should be run. What I pay to my church, I pay as a Christian. If that makes me a bigot, then for once I’m a proud bigot.
forgive me if I’m wrong, but was it not the new irish government (after it became independent) lacked the funds to keep the county running so asked the church to help?
… if that is true, it would kind of make sense as to why it would be hard to break away from religion here
How do you mean?
What? The church that has no money to pay rape and magdelene laundries victims? Sure this church cannot itself, let alone anyone else.
And where do you think the rcc gets its money?
You seem to forget that the Church you refer to consists of Irish people. They are our own flesh and blood. Would if have made any difference if those running the Magdalene laundries wwere lay people?
@Brian Yes because they’re always keen to preach the message of Jesus, “love thy neighbour as thyself” but they showed very little love and compassion to those vulnerable people in their charge.
No not true Alyssa. The wealthy church knew this was a way to control the new state and its people.
The logic of Dr Murphy’s article, insofar as any can be found, fails on at least two points.
He continually refers to his patient as solely being an expectant mother, and refuses to identify the point at which he believes himself as having two patients, the mother and the child that she carries. While I don’t expect him to agree with the pro life belief that life begins at conception, his failure to acknowledge that the unborn child is ever a patient prior to birth is not a tenable argument.
Despite the result of the coroners inquest into the tragic death of Mrs Halappanavar, he persists in peddling the myth that the tragedy was caused by the so called abortion laws of the country. It wasn’t, it happened due to inadequacies and failings within the hospital, and the manner in which her death was shamelessly exploited by Dr Murphy’s fellow travellers in the pro choice movement even after the inquest is the true example of democracy being trampled underfoot in the whole sorry tale of the progress of the legislation.
This is not an article aimed at the bettering of health services, it is a bigoted anti catholic rant, and were you to swap the word Catholic, for Jewish, Islamic, Gay or even Traveller, you would get a concept of the depth of the sectarian prejudices involved.
It is an anti-catholic rant and he supports that rant with key facts and rational argument.
If you can provide counter argument to his points re medical and educational patronage then please do so here as I and many others would be keen to hear them.
@GaryColl. Savita Halappanavar’s death was caused by our antiabortion laws. Read the report which states clearly that the refusal of an abortion was one of the causes of her death and stop peddling misinformation at best and what is actually outright lies. You might also like to read the Irish Times account of Savita Halappanavar’s last few days of life, when the infection had completely overwhelmed her. It is not pretty reading I assure you. If Preveen Halappanavar is reading this I hope this comment doesn’t cause him distress but I’m sick and tired of this lie being repeated over and over.
Quite simply a more-that-wiling church proved all educational and hospital services because, since its foundation, this state has been unwilling to do so.
The woman died of sepsis caused by eColi not because our our laws.
Brian,
Savita Halappanavar presented at hospital with a pregnancy that was in the process of miscarrying. She requested a termination. Membranes had ruptured and this leaves a pregnant woman at higher risk of infection. A termination was not carried out because of the presence of a foetal heartbeat, despite the fact that the pregnancy was miscarrying. Whilst the report acknowledged that inadequate care was offered to Ms. Halappanavar, it also found that ‘Delaying adequate treatment including expediting delivery in a clinical situation where there is prolonged rupture of the membranes and increasing risk to the mother can, on occasion, be fatal.’ Among the report recommendations was the following: ‘ We strongly recommend and advise the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators and the Oireachtas to consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a pregnancy including with prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother increases with time from the time that membranes are ruptured including the risk of infection and thereby reduce risk of harm up to and including death. These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting delivery for clinical reasons.’
The report directly references article 40.3.3 of our constitution and “strongly recommends” a constitutional change be considered.
Inadequate care was provided to Mrs Halappanavar.
Quite.
During the inquest four separate incidents were identified in which care was regarded as inadequate. It was stated repeatedly that none of these individually were fatal, but the combined effect had a fatal consequence.
The question that was not asked was what would have happened had any of the four incidents not occurred and adequate treatment provided.
It is likely that the condition of sepsis that was present would have been identified much earlier and the required treatment, including termination if necessary, would have been provided to save her life.
The law of the land as existed when Mrs Halappanavar was admitted to hospital was adequate to save her life, the manner in which the HSE runs the hospital and the treatment she received is what caused her death.
That is why the recommendations of the coroner and the inquest jury were directed towards the Medical Council, an Bord Altranais, and the procedures in the hospital which are the responsibility of the HSE.
None of the recommendations questioned the law.
I think (it is my opinion) that the people of this country are sick of the church meddling in affairs of the state. I don’t want laws passed based upon ridiculous iron age myths restricting basic human rights of people living in the real world.
Gary..
Way to totally misrepresent a situation.
The inquest had limits. It was solely concerned with identifying the medical procedures and failings which led to Ms Hallapanavars needless death.
They ruled medical misadventure because that was all they had the ability to rule. It was not within their remit to start making pronunciations on Irish law or the Irish constitution, however as Reality Cheque has pointed out to you, the legal situation was identified as a problem and an appeal was made to have this dealt with by those who were in a position to do so, ie our legislators.
For you to infer that this means the law had nothing to do with it shows a fatal misunderstanding of the process and the facts.
@ Gary Coll. Correct. But what I now find horrific, is that even after the Savita tragedy, the new legislation did not allow for a similar case happening again! An amendment was proposed to do so, but it was denied.
The Catholic Church now has 3.86m members in Ireland, the highest since records began, plus the Mater is a Catholic hospital part-owned by its founder, the Sisters of Mercy. How about you raise your own secular funding & build your own secular hospitals
Of course it has lots of members. It recruits them as babies and then won’t let them leave.
Anita do you believe that a doctor has the right to refuse treatment to a patient on the basis of their own personal beliefs?
Would you be happy if other religious groups started operating hospitals, perhaps one run by the Jehovah’s Witnesses could decide anyone delivered into their care won’t have option of blood transfusions for anybody delivered into their care. Perhaps we could let the Scientologists run out psychiatry hospitals.
There are times when people simply won’t have the option of choosing which hospital they will attend, when their medical needs are pressing enough that transferring them to another hospital would be medically inadvisable. Imagine getting a serious illness and finding yourself in a hospital run by the Christian Scientists (who believe all illness can only be cured by giving yourself over to god).
If it unacceptable for other religious groups to run hospitals because their personal beliefs would prevent some treatments that are in a patients best interest from being administered, then it is equally unacceptable for the Catholic church to do the same.
Medical knowledge and a patients personal wishes are the only things that should influence how medical care is administered.
They may have built the original building but the state built the rest, and has been funding it for quite a while. It’s a public hospital funded by the state, if you want it to be a catholic hospital it’s time to start funding it with the collection plate.
@ Anita Murray Bertels. That is quite incorrect. The figures you quote, would only be for those baptised as babies. A huge number of these people, (some now middle aged, etc.) have left the church many years ago. But the dishonest Church still keep these people on their register, and categorises them as Catholics. The figures, again, are not true. Just because one’s parents force a religion on their newborn baby, does not automatically continue to make that baby, when grown up, a Catholic. They can make a different choice, or simply reject that religion without a replacement.
“Manipulate the political process?” They expressed their opinion just as you are doing. They’re entitled to, right or wrong. The policy is now secular. That doesn’t mean Catholics have to stop being Catholics or Muslims have to stop being Muslims. This nonsensical column is just another in the long line of anti-religious rants. Perfectly entitled to write it. But total and utter bilge.
Again i ask can you provide coherent counter-argument to the points raised in the article?
Paddy,
At no point does Dr. Murphy suggest that anybody should stop being a Catholic or a Muslim. The column addresses the point at which “opinion” and medical ethics are in conflict. You must have missed this part of the piece, so here it is again:
‘The ethical principles to which doctors adhere are governed by the Irish Medical Council’s (IMC) Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics. As a GP, I may hold a personal, moral belief, but I can never allow this to influence a patient’s care. If a doctor’s religious belief prevents him/her from providing safe and accessible treatment for a patient, that doctor would be guilty of professional misconduct. The IMC is clear on the position of conscientious objection: “As a doctor, you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients”.’
The medical authorities in many Arab countries permit their doctor members to maim criminals. So that’s ok then?
The separation of church and state from the prevision of public services will NEVER happen in Ireland as, the vast majority of Irish politicians are afraid of losing votes if the criticise church practices.
However it is not in the Governments best interests to take control of the church controlled public services as;
1) Imagine the cost of purchasing every school & hospital building currently controlled by churches in this country? If not purchasing them imagine the costs of finding suitable land & planning permission & building costs.
2) The state does not want the responsibility of owing & maintaining these properties. After all they would have to stop renting unsuitable prefabs for schools.
3) The state can continue to walk away from the health & safety concerns of unsuitable practices such an inadequate hospital cleaning which leads to conditions like MRSA etc., because they are not legally responsible for the building.
“Catholic social policy was responsible for abusive marriages staying together.”
HSE and some court judges still deliver the St Augustine teaching that wives obey their husbands and a beating is necessary for the woman because suffering is good for her less evolved soul.?
Our judges are trained in 2013 to see all Irish women as feeble minded during family court hearings.
The Red Mass every year just might be a clue as to the power the Roman church still has in Eire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mass
“In Ireland, the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit (the Red Mass) is held annually on the first Monday of October, which is the first day of the Michaelmas Law Term. The ceremony is held at St. Michan’s Roman Catholic church, which is the parish church of the Four Courts. It is attended by the Irish judiciary, barristers and solicitors, as well as representatives of the diplomatic corps, Gardaí, the Northern Irish, English and Scottish judiciary. The judiciary do not wear their judicial robes, although formal morning dress is worn.”
Have you signed this european citizens initiative to protect our world against ecocide..only 463 votes from ireland ? surely its the least we can do for nature and our future generations dont you think??…. http://www.endecocide.eu/
A noble cause perhaps, but this is not the place to advertise it.
have your say