Maternity hospital delay frustrating
THE heated debate over the proposed move of the National Maternity Hospital to a site owned by a religious order at St Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin has led to a situation where the entire project has been placed in doubt pending the outcome of a meeting of the hospital board, which has been announced to review the agreed plan. The threat to the development is to be greatly regretted, but is not entirely surprising. When it comes to such projects, this country seems to be unsurpassed in terms of obfuscation and delay, particularly when various vested and competing interests are at play. Now is a time for calm heads and measured public comment with one outcome in mind, which is that the development of a much-needed new maternity hospital can proceed without undue delay.
The belated doubts thrown over the development of the maternity hospital come at a time when renewed concerns have been expressed about the funding and running costs which are delaying a final government decision to go ahead with the proposed new €1bn National Children’s Hospital in Dublin. This is also a much-needed facility, but it has been repeatedly delayed due to location and planning issues and is now at renewed risk of being set back further because of associated spiralling costs.
A certain level of exasperation at these events is understandable. It seems that whenever the State embarks on major projects, such as the development of these hospitals, rival interests, whatever the motivation, somehow conspire for advantage, even after painstaking negotiations have taken place and agreement has been reached, as in the case of the proposed new National Maternity Hospital.
This newspaper today publishes that agreement: effectively a ministerial veto to protect the autonomy of the board of St Vincent’s has been agreed. The “agreed reserve powers” include specific reference to the hospital’s “clinical and operational independence” in providing maternity services “without religious, ethnic or other distinction”. They also refer to the retention of the master role, a group role, who will report to the group clinical director and the group medical board, under “an agreed system of clinical governance” with St Vincent’s Healthcare Group. The agreement between all sides, undoubtedly tortuously negotiated, seems reasonable and fair.
The Sisters of Charity have been given ownership of the hospital because they own the land upon which it is to be built. This particular issue has given rise to a certain level of outcry, which has now led to a situation where the entire project has been placed in jeopardy. The Minister for Health, whose interventions last week in the face of such criticism has made the situation worse, must now intervene again to ensure that the project proceeds, but that all concerns are judiciously met and that agreement is reached to allow for the development of a much-needed facility. Beyond that, surely the time has long since passed that a vision for the healthcare of citizens and indeed their wider welfare, be it in the spheres of health, education, social services or the myriad other State services, can be outlined, agreed and executed in a professional manner, rather than be subject to interminable delays at almost every juncture. The need for real leadership on such issues is long overdue in this country.