• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Symphisiotomy Bill being put to the Dáil. Nobody could vote against this surely?


MacCoise2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,849
To vote against symphysiotomy bill would be a betrayal of victims | Irish Examiner


It was also clear at the time that the Taoiseach’s statement represented unfinished business for our State and our political system. Indeed, in his earlier attempt to address the issue of the Magdalene women — the one that he was much criticised over — the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that he was sorry for those people that they lived in that kind of environment. He went on to say “we have seen what happened to the women who underwent symphysiotomies, or Thalidomide victims, or those who were in mental hospitals — or lunatic asylums as they were referred to in those days — or many other places.”

Well, this week, the Taoiseach and the Government have an opportunity to begin to address some of that unfinished business, and I hope they take it. Tomorrow night the Dáil will vote on a piece of legislation, designed to open a door for women who suffered the barbaric treatment known as symphysiotomy.


...

But there is every sign that the Minister for Health and the Government might decide, in the face of Caoimhin Ó Caoláin’s bill, to close ranks behind the Walsh report. If they decide to vote the bill down because the final Walsh report isn’t ready yet, that would be a genuine scandal.

And worse, it would be a betrayal of what Enda Kenny told the Dáil a few short weeks ago. We live in a different Ireland now, he said then. If that’s true, this bill will be passed. And the door will open, at least a little bit, for one more group of people cruelly treated by Ireland’s dark past.




A straight forward "modest" bill that deserves everybody's support? Any other opinions?
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
It's P.ie somebody will, no doubt
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,783
Who do the women intend to sue; the gynaecologist or the State?
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
A Sinn Féin Bill about barbarism.

Sure to be a winner!
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,561
The Government rarely accepts opposition Bills.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,214
To vote against symphysiotomy bill would be a betrayal of victims | Irish Examiner


It was also clear at the time that the Taoiseach’s statement represented unfinished business for our State and our political system. Indeed, in his earlier attempt to address the issue of the Magdalene women — the one that he was much criticised over — the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that he was sorry for those people that they lived in that kind of environment. He went on to say “we have seen what happened to the women who underwent symphysiotomies, or Thalidomide victims, or those who were in mental hospitals — or lunatic asylums as they were referred to in those days — or many other places.”

Well, this week, the Taoiseach and the Government have an opportunity to begin to address some of that unfinished business, and I hope they take it. Tomorrow night the Dáil will vote on a piece of legislation, designed to open a door for women who suffered the barbaric treatment known as symphysiotomy.


...

But there is every sign that the Minister for Health and the Government might decide, in the face of Caoimhin Ó Caoláin’s bill, to close ranks behind the Walsh report. If they decide to vote the bill down because the final Walsh report isn’t ready yet, that would be a genuine scandal.

And worse, it would be a betrayal of what Enda Kenny told the Dáil a few short weeks ago. We live in a different Ireland now, he said then. If that’s true, this bill will be passed. And the door will open, at least a little bit, for one more group of people cruelly treated by Ireland’s dark past.




A straight forward "modest" bill that deserves everybody's support? Any other opinions?
Only a religious fanatic could oppose this bill.

I hope it passes.

Those women need more than an apology. There should be criminal charges brought against the perpetrators.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,561
Is that good enough?
No, but that's the reality. The Government parties will not want to hand a victory to the opposition ones. That's what you get when you have a legislature dominated by the executive and the party whip system. If only we had some form of assembly that could address these necessary constitutional reforms. Of course, the Government did bring such an assembly into existence I would expect that they'd make damn sure to keep anything that would challenge the power of the centre off the agenda.
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,327
Who do the women intend to sue; the gynaecologist or the State?
Hopefully the Catholic Church? If the State I don't mind, so long as whatever the State pays out is recouped from the church. Handing over the hospitals might be a fair exchange. A hospital in State control is less likely to kill pregnant women.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,561
All of that being said, the political downside to opposing this may be too great and they might just accept it and then bury it in the committee stage or even pass it.

Is there a potential objection to the Bill on the grounds of retrospective effect?
 

Suttree

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
1,702
The Government rarely accepts opposition Bills.
A major problem with our system, I think. I can understand the government rejecting an opposition Bill on technical grounds; those drawing them up don't have the same legal resources the government have to ensure everything is in order*, but to reject what might be a perfectly fine Bill on the grounds that it came from across the isle is a major problem.

*Alan Shatter recently explained this was the grounds for rejecting Stephen Donnelly's bankruptcy bill, which Donnelly accepted, while praising the spirit and effort of it.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Now there's quite a bit of bad faith writing there.

1. This is a medical review based on figures, statistics, reports and written statements. Unless you've got questions (i.e want to impeach the version of the story) for the victims, there's no need to speak to them during the first phase period.

2. She has set up second phase sessions to discuss with the victims. IIRC No one attended because the representative team are saying they won't recognise the govt report.

3. This isn't some sort of touchy feely truth and reconciliation exercise she's conducting. "Oh it's so terrible what happened to you, let's write a report talking about our feelings about that". This is a report which (Should) highlight where the control breakdowns occurred, how they occurred, which branch of govt were responsible and what steps may need to be taken to address it. In the real world, THAT'S what affects change. Not the pat on the head saying "Sher wasn't it awful".

4. Any legal action will be against the State more than likely, who will be reasonably be able to argue that they have a report that's going to be shortly available and (should) have a compensation offer following it. So the court case will either be A: Held up to give them time to complete the work or B: allowed to proceed on an individual basis which will take forever and be expensive because you're going to have to try the bloody thing.

5. If you go to court now, there's a pretty good chance you're going to lose. The first report stated that there were legal concerns that what happened may have been legal due to the draconian laws in the State during that time. If that's true (And it will be expensive and time consuming to find that out) then you need the govt to push through some sort of legislation to address that in order for your court case to succeed (Or just rely on the compensation plan which is the most likely remediation course.)

6. The problem here is O'Reilly not being able to offer a publication date despite repeatedly being asked for it by a Labour senator. It's not acceptable that he's so far removed from this that he can't state clearly what draft it's in and when it will be delivered.

7. SF never cared about this until the point where FF/Greens and FG/Lab tried to actually do something about it. Now they proceed their regular dail carry on of pissing on everyone else's chips, knowing they'll never be called to the kitchen themselves.

The report will come out. The govt then with full knowledge to support their decisions will put something to the house (There's little doubt a compensation offer will be made.) If the women then decide to sue seperately then best of luck to them, I hope they have the financial resources and time to win out.
 

MacCoise2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,849
Now there's quite a bit of bad faith writing there.

1. This is a medical review based on figures, statistics, reports and written statements. Unless you've got questions (i.e want to impeach the version of the story) for the victims, there's no need to speak to them during the first phase period.

2. She has set up second phase sessions to discuss with the victims. IIRC No one attended because the representative team are saying they won't recognise the govt report.

3. This isn't some sort of touchy feely truth and reconciliation exercise she's conducting. "Oh it's so terrible what happened to you, let's write a report talking about our feelings about that". This is a report which (Should) highlight where the control breakdowns occurred, how they occurred, which branch of govt were responsible and what steps may need to be taken to address it. In the real world, THAT'S what affects change. Not the pat on the head saying "Sher wasn't it awful".

4. Any legal action will be against the State more than likely, who will be reasonably be able to argue that they have a report that's going to be shortly available and (should) have a compensation offer following it. So the court case will either be A: Held up to give them time to complete the work or B: allowed to proceed on an individual basis which will take forever and be expensive because you're going to have to try the bloody thing.

5. If you go to court now, there's a pretty good chance you're going to lose. The first report stated that there were legal concerns that what happened may have been legal due to the draconian laws in the State during that time. If that's true (And it will be expensive and time consuming to find that out) then you need the govt to push through some sort of legislation to address that in order for your court case to succeed (Or just rely on the compensation plan which is the most likely remediation course.)

6. The problem here is O'Reilly not being able to offer a publication date despite repeatedly being asked for it by a Labour senator. It's not acceptable that he's so far removed from this that he can't state clearly what draft it's in and when it will be delivered.

7. SF never cared about this until the point where FF/Greens and FG/Lab tried to actually do something about it. Now they proceed their regular dail carry on of pissing on everyone else's chips, knowing they'll never be called to the kitchen themselves.

The report will come out. The govt then with full knowledge to support their decisions will put something to the house (There's little doubt a compensation offer will be made.) If the women then decide to sue seperately then best of luck to them, I hope they have the financial resources and time to win out.
Mainly bluff and obfuscation. Ignores the main point that all the Bill does is lift the Statute of Limitations. If there is no case to answer they have no need to worry.

Point 7 is tripe, even Fergus Finaly recognises that.

Time is important here, how many women will have died by the time we get another report?- allow for sittong time for the Minister and officials etc.. etc etc
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
15,978
Cant see the government voting for an opposition bill,Enda Kenny may well have to backtrack on his "We live in a Different Ireland"comment.
In the link from the OP,Fergus Finlay gives Caoimhin Ó Caoláin and SF for proposing such a bill,and points to his previous stance on the childrens rights bill.

"The Bill, proposed by Sinn Féin’s Caoimhin Ó Caoláin, has one essential purpose — to set aside the statute of limitations for one year, to enable women who had suffered symphysiotomies to commence proceedings. It’s a modest and carefully drafted piece of legislation, closely modelled on an earlier law that made the same exception for people who had suffered sexual abuse. I don’t believe there is any intention to embarrass the government or to score points. I’m not a Sinn Féin supporter, as you know. But Caoimhin Ó Caoláin last year sat aside his natural opposition instincts to stand four-square with the Taoiseach and the Government during the children’s rights referendum. In fact very few people campaigned as vigorously as he did for that vital change."
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
It's not a modest bill though, and as a lawmaker he should know better. What he's basically saying is "Forget all the work done by FF/Greens and FG/Lab, forget about the group compensation plan being worked on, you should spend your time in court spending your money on a judgement that (according to the draft report) may well not be in your favour."

Note: This is a really good topic that may not get the attention it deserves (Seriously if ever Reily's basic inability to manage was on display, it's here) due to the title. Macoise if you want it revised to something mentioning symphysiotomy let me know.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,124
Sync, the resident anti-anything remotely Republican moderator stated:
"7. SF never cared about this until the point where FF/Greens and FG/Lab tried to actually do something about it. Now they proceed their regular dail carry on of pissing on everyone else's chips, knowing they'll never be called to the kitchen themselves."

Wrong. Do some research. Your hatred for SF is obviously stronger than your concern for those poor women. Cop on.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,214
Now there's quite a bit of bad faith writing there.

1. This is a medical review based on figures, statistics, reports and written statements. Unless you've got questions (i.e want to impeach the version of the story) for the victims, there's no need to speak to them during the first phase period.

2. She has set up second phase sessions to discuss with the victims. IIRC No one attended because the representative team are saying they won't recognise the govt report.

3. This isn't some sort of touchy feely truth and reconciliation exercise she's conducting. "Oh it's so terrible what happened to you, let's write a report talking about our feelings about that". This is a report which (Should) highlight where the control breakdowns occurred, how they occurred, which branch of govt were responsible and what steps may need to be taken to address it. In the real world, THAT'S what affects change. Not the pat on the head saying "Sher wasn't it awful".

4. Any legal action will be against the State more than likely, who will be reasonably be able to argue that they have a report that's going to be shortly available and (should) have a compensation offer following it. So the court case will either be A: Held up to give them time to complete the work or B: allowed to proceed on an individual basis which will take forever and be expensive because you're going to have to try the bloody thing.

5. If you go to court now, there's a pretty good chance you're going to lose. The first report stated that there were legal concerns that what happened may have been legal due to the draconian laws in the State during that time. If that's true (And it will be expensive and time consuming to find that out) then you need the govt to push through some sort of legislation to address that in order for your court case to succeed (Or just rely on the compensation plan which is the most likely remediation course.)

6. The problem here is O'Reilly not being able to offer a publication date despite repeatedly being asked for it by a Labour senator. It's not acceptable that he's so far removed from this that he can't state clearly what draft it's in and when it will be delivered.

7. SF never cared about this until the point where FF/Greens and FG/Lab tried to actually do something about it. Now they proceed their regular dail carry on of pissing on everyone else's chips, knowing they'll never be called to the kitchen themselves.

The report will come out. The govt then with full knowledge to support their decisions will put something to the house (There's little doubt a compensation offer will be made.) If the women then decide to sue seperately then best of luck to them, I hope they have the financial resources and time to win out.
Making legalistic arguements to try to deflect from what is clearly a series of preplanned assaults on vulnerable women is disgusting, wether it is a poster here or someone in the government writing up an excuse for not doing anything.

Performing a medical procedure on someone without there consent is assault.

I suggest you try to understand that.

The symphisiotomy procedure was not in regular use anywhere for 40 years when it was inflicted upon those women. The gynaecologists in Ireland regularly did part of there training in the UK, so would have been fully aware that the procedure was not to be used unless the circumstances demanded it, which they clearly did not. Most consultants will only perform that barbaric procedure once if at all in there lives.

The refusal to use other more appropriate procedures, was based purely upon a religious premise and was not nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or its practice.

Those women were assaulted by religious fanatics.

The state and catholic church ran those hospitals and belong in court to face justice. The surgeons involved should be jailed for assault and causing actual bodily harm.

The main point of this legislation is to deal with the problem around the statute of limitations. There is precedent for that in the child abuse cases.

It really is that simple.
 
Last edited:
Top