02.27.07
Posted in Feminism at 11:43 am by Sarah
sigh..still no ST “regional” edition online so you are stuck with the version that has not had the benefit of the diligent and elegant work of the ST editorial staff 
also apologies for delay. I had a severe dose of PMT and couldn’t muster the focus to write anything or even post this yesterday. But all better now
Speaking as someone who is frequently wrong, I have some sympathy with Dr. John Murphy who resigned this week as President of the Royal College of Physicians. I’ve been ignorant of all the facts. I’ve placed my trust in the wrong people. I’ve rushed decisions under pressure and made the wrong call. I’ve made the most horrendous errors of judgement with totally unforeseen consequences when instead of absolute right and wrong, I let loyalty muddy the waters. The only comfort is that it’s a common mistake.
It’s exactly where Dr. Murphy and his colleagues Dr. Bernard Stuart and Dr. Walter Prendiville went wrong. These are the three doctors who have been declared guilty of professional misconduct by the Irish Medical Council. They aren’t a bit happy about this verdict. The way they see it, anyone else in the same position would have acted as they did. That might be true, and indeed several of their colleagues have testified to this very fact. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter. Their colleagues aren’t the ones in trouble.
In 1998, at the request of Finbarr Fitzpatrick, head of the Irish Hospital Consultant’s Association, the three eminent obstetricians reluctantly agreed to perform a review of Dr. Michael Neary’s practice. He was facing suspension because the North Eastern Health Board, who had recently taken over the management of Our Lady of Lourdes hospital in Drogheda, were deeply concerned about the high level of caesarean hysterectomies being carried out by him. They wrote glowing reports in which Murphy for example, claimed that the mothers of the North East were fortunate to have Dr. Neary. We found out later this was not the case – that the unfortunate mothers of the North East who went home without wombs were the victims of malpractice.
Defending themselves, they have given many reasons for their behaviour. They were under pressure from Finbarr FitzPatrick though he himself has managed to escape trouble. They didn’t have time. It was a preliminary report. They believed Neary’s difficulties were part of an industrial relations row with the NEHB. The Catholic ethos prevailing at Our Lady of Lourdes banned sterilisation so hysterectomies protected women’s health by preventing potentially dangerous pregnancies. The hospital was under resourced and didn’t have the capacity to carry out certain procedures which would have saved the mothers and the wombs. They trusted Neary as he personally guided them through each case. The women refused blood transfusions. Oh, these doctors offer many reasons for not being wrong.
There’s just one problem. They sought and kept secret an undertaking from Neary that he would not perform any more caesarean hysterectomies without a second opinion. The only possible reason for extracting this commitment was that they knew there was a problem. They just decided not to tell anyone. Dr. Murphy’s solicitor told the Medical Council the undertaking “could not be put in the report because . . . the ground would have been taken from underneath Finbarr Fitzpatrick and the IHCA.”
It’s just one little line in hundreds of pages of transcripts from the Medical Council hearings which exposes how loyalty, the supreme virtue in the view of some philosophers, can have appalling consequences. Murphy, Stuart and Prendiville acted out of loyalty to the IHCA, to Mr. Fitzpatrick and to Dr. Neary. What they fail to comprehend is that while loyalty is indeed a virtue, in their case it was entirely misplaced. Murphy in particular had concerns about Neary’s practice but faced with the competing demands of a colleague and his patients, he thought he could cover both by praising Neary in public and privately asking him to stop the hysterectomies. He was wrong and now it’s come back to bite him.
I wonder how much harm has been done in the world in the name of loyalty. It has obvious practical benefits and no friendship, alliance, organisation, community or political party can progress unless its members show loyalty. Yet, look at the misery inflicted upon thousands of children when those who considered themselves loyal to the church covered up for abusive priests. Their loyalty has destroyed the church. The war in Iraq has killed more than three quarters of a million people, yet political leaders don’t hesitate to morally blackmail the opposition by demanding loyalty to the troops. No member of the Lenihan family will say a word against Charlie Haughey even though he took money from Brian Lenihan’s liver transplant fund. How many bad teachers, corrupt Gardai or other errant professionals have been protected by the bonds of loyalty?
At a certain point, loyalty stops being good and becomes enormously damaging. For the ordinary person who is foolishly loyal they can feel stupid or cause unintended pain. For the professional, they can find themselves in criminal territory. EM Forster declared in a famously flawed defence of personal loyalty: “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” Few of us will be faced with the opportunity to betray our country, but like those doctors betraying the women of the North East, there will be other smaller though no less important tests. When you find yourself in a moral quandary how do you know what to do?
There is one simple test. Is the loyalty voluntary? If someone asks that you behave a certain way out of loyalty then watch out. Dr. Murphy never wanted to do the Neary review in the first place but Finbarr FitzPatrick pressed him to help out a colleague in trouble. When Tony Blair was facing a House of Commons vote when he wanted to invade Iraq, Cherie Blair begged women MPs to vote in favour saying “If not for Tony, then do it for me”. If ever there was an indication that an argument is without any moral foundation, it’s an insistence of loyalty.
You can also be sure of this, where a demand for loyalty fails, the use of fear is rarely far away. How many potential whistleblowers have been silenced when threatened with demotion, dismissal or isolation when arguments for fidelity failed to do the job? Once you hear “Do it for the Sisters” or your colleague, or the company or respect for our history as friends or as nations, its time to run. Don’t be fooled, claims of loyalty are the last resort of the morally bankrupt. Don’t listen to Forster. When you have to choose between betraying your friend or your best instincts, have the guts to betray your friend. If Murphy had done this, he’d still be President today.
Permalink
02.24.07
Posted in Feminism at 10:06 pm by Sarah
Just home from John and Diana’s. They’re off the booze for Lent. Three days in and John says he’s getting tetchy but with that Ireland win today, it should help.
I like Breda O’Brien’s observation today on abstinence vs cutting down
“Two of Ireland’s best-respected Catholic bishops, Bishop Eamonn Walsh and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, recently stood under the statue of Fr Mathew on O’Connell Street to launch a pastoral letter on alcohol. Dr Walsh referred to our pattern of alcohol consumption as a national tragedy.
The hard-hitting pastoral letter urged us not to leave action to someone else, but to take action ourselves. Yet the bishops may have been standing under the wrong statue for the message that they want to promote, which is about moderation and the responsible use of alcohol. Theobald Mathew, always a dramatic character, decided against moderation as a tactic, because he believed it was too difficult a goal for the Irish. He decided, instead, to concentrate on a pledge of total abstinence.
Was Fr Mathew right that the Irish “don’t do moderation”, because it allows us too much wiggle room as to what moderation actually is? The bishops make a very simple suggestion, which is to reduce alcohol intake by a third. So the guy downing 15 pints can still, in theory, down 10. The stressed working woman can still have two-thirds of that indispensable glass of wine every evening. Nothing too threatening there, is there?
Yet as the canny Fr Mathew knew, it is easier to give up the drink entirely than to moderate our drinking. In fact, most of us give up drinking five days out of seven. Swearing off the jar completely for weeks or months, for the sake of our waistlines or budget or even Lent is socially acceptable. The alternative, just cutting down, makes everyone uncomfortable, like being with a dieter at a birthday party, because it questions the blithe assumption that getting drunk is just what Irish people do to relax.”
Permalink
02.22.07
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 9:16 pm by Sarah
We referred earlier to McDowell’s careful phrasing about his “knowledge” but lack of ” involvement” in the McCaffrey arrest. PO’Neill observes over at irishelection that he’s being just as careful over the emergency legislation on the risk equalisation:
“…the Order Paper for yesterday did not include the bill, leading Pat Rabbitte to claim today in the Dail that it was “fraudulent”. And in a response that needs to be parsed very carefully, McDowell claimed that the “decision was made” to bring the bill only yesterday afternoon, after the Order of Business had been submitted. But delaying its tabling was clearly part of the strategy, as the Quinn group apparently could have filed some insurance paperwork to get in before the bill took effect. So the intent to proceed with emergency legislation was clearly present prior to the “decision.” Incidentally, the Order of Business for yesterday now contains a supplement for the emergency bill.”
btw, loved Enda’s line about McDowell being at ” the centre of every story this week except the fall of the Italian government”
Permalink
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 12:53 pm by Sarah
Well, what an interesting week its been for the Minister for Justice. It’s not been so much hogging the headlines as studiously avoiding certain ones and showing an unhealthy interest in others.
So what have been the priorities of the moral watchdog of Fianna Fail? From last week’s high of making headlines every day, how is he reacting to this week’s headlines?
Well NOT making a contribution to the Dail debate on the Moriarty Tribunal obviously, even though its subject was the reason the PDs was set up in the first place.
NOT making a statement about the inquest into Cynthia Owen’s baby – surely one of the saddest inquiries we have seen so far – and which leaves very serious questions to be answered about police behaviour. Cynthia, this poor brave woman has asked for a further inquiry. Not a peep from the responsible minister.
NOT making any remarks about the collapse of the Wellington Quay bus crash case. The prosecution totally and utterly screwed up the case and not a word from the usually verbose Minister who thinks nothing of commenting on the judiciary when he feels like it. I don’t know what happened that bus driver and the relatives of the victims composed themselves admirably – not guilty may have been the kindest verdict, but the presentation of wrong evidence deserves close examination.
NOT setting up journalist Michael McCaffrey to be arrested for publishing a leaked document (remember Michael McDowell and Sam Smyth are the only constitutionally enshrined leaking partnership in this country – everyone else from Geraldine Kennedy to Frank Connolly to eeek moi! can expect the strong arm of the law to come after them). I love the careful wording of the statement….the complaint to the Gardai was made “with his knowledge but without any involvement by him”. What is involvement? Picking up the phone yourself or saying “get that bastard”?
On the come down from his Saturday night speech, how HAS the busy Minister of last week been devoting his time? Well, it appears that he has been welcoming the collapse of a partnership which was to build an incinerator in Ringsend! He issued a press release claiming that this was a victory for democracy! (Of course, we’ll overlook the fact for one minute that incineration is government policy which as a cabinet minister with collective responsibility he should defend). The question REALLY is, HOW did he find out???? As Ruairi Quinn put it
“Local Labour TD Ruairi Quinn has called for an explanation of how Mr McDowell, who is also a TD for the Dublin South East Constituency, got the information before Dublin City Councillors were informed.
Deputy Quinn also welcomed the decision, but said it was ‘most unusual’ that Minister McDowell was informed before anyone else. He called on Mr McDowell and the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, to explain how the information came to the Tánaiste before councillors were informed.”
Glad to see the Minister is so busy dealing with information being leaked TO him that he has no time, or so he claims to complain about anyone else leaking stuff.
Things can only get better, he says. Well, if one turns watching him into a sport, that’s true. Or if the noveau riche assholes in Dublin SE cop on and don’t vote for him this time. Then things really WOULD get better.
Permalink
02.21.07
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 3:12 pm by Sarah
SO, Morning Ireland has a reputation for having an in-house style that is aggressive and uncompromising. I admit I am a regular listener because it certainly has authority, sets the agenda for the day and is very professional. However, sometimes I really feel that they are a bit useless when interviewing cabinet members.
Today was a good example. Aine Lawlor hosts an item about the government buying the West Link toll bridge. It begins with Shane Ross who launches a blistering attack on Martin Cullen. Then he’s cut off and Martin Cullen gets 6 minutes with no one to challenge him. Did the press office insist on this format? If so, we should have been told and quite frankly editors of the most listened to programme in the country shouldn’t have to give in to this. If not, crap decision.
Lawlor nevertheless puts Ross’s point to Cullen, that a consultant’s report will be produced recommending tolling on the whole of the M50 not just the West Link but this won’t be announced until after the election. Cullen starts doing that weird Pee Flynn thing of talking about himself in the third person – “Martin Cullen delivers on what Martin Cullen says”. Now the obvious question here is: but that’s only YOU saying YOU won’t toll the m50, but that leaves the door wide open for another FF minister to bring in tolling. Don’t tell us what YOU will do, tell us what FF will do. About 1 minute into this speech she tries to make this point and mentions by way of example Seamus Brennan and Cork Airport (Brennan said Cork would have no debt, Cullen has just told them that they will). Within seconds the whole interview is about Cork Airport and the possible future tolling of the M50 is gone. She never brings him back to the crucial point and lets him dominate the rest of the interview. In fact, he goes on with barely any interruption and Ross’s allegations are completely forgotten. Fair enough if the interview was to cover both the M50 and Cork, but she should have nailed him on the M50 before letting him segue neatly to Cork.
Permalink
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 11:38 am by Sarah
Some nice research work here by Richard on lazy Irish journos…
Permalink
02.18.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:24 pm by Sarah
Shortlist is out. I made it in News and Current Affairs, phew! btw, i’ll be off line for a day or two so if yis want to fight about anything I won’t be joining in!
Permalink
Posted in Feminism at 6:35 pm by Sarah
Aha! After he was sneered at last year by Joe Duffy he triumphs this year! I am delighted. “You cannot crush the Spring” containing the word “archipeligiac” was formulaic in the traditional anthem style. All entries went up a key at the end but John’s was the “biggest” one on the night. Hopefully the furriners in the Balkan states will appreciate the title. Oh and that John’s childhood friend Tommy Moran who wrote the music won’t be upset that everyone keeps calling it John’s song.
The band Dirvish are terrible but who knows, maybe they will be appreciated by the Eurovoters.
Frankly I don’t know why we don’t pay Westlife to sing it. They’d be brilliant.
A final note, the first two songs of the competition on Friday night were written by a Fin and a Swede. Both of them, my husband and I enthusiastically agreed, that were they arranged more powerfully and sung by Westlife would be great hits. A note to Louis Walsh sure?
Permalink
Posted in Irish Politics, Sunday Times Columns at 5:55 pm by Sarah
Note: Still no sign of the “regional” editions on the sunday-times.co.uk so you get the unedited version. Special note in this one for Tom. Because of YOU I bought the overpriced healthy biscuits. The little guy will eat the Liga’s but both of rejected the Organix no junk promise individually wrapped alphabet bikkies.
I paused before the doors of Tesco’s superstore in Maynooth on Monday and took a deep breath. My visits here are rare but sometimes it just has to be done. I try to approach the job in a focussed and professional manner, but I am stressed and depressed. Of all domestic tasks, supermarket shopping must be the greatest test to the middle class housewife’s mental health. The challenges are too many and too great.
Consumption is destroying the world and the most prolific consumers are to be found right here in this portal to environmental and nutritional hell. Hundreds of women and a few men, stocking up on products we don’t need, at a price we shouldn’t pay, with appalling quality and poor nutrition. I know that regardless of what efforts I make in the next hour, the result will be another contribution to landfill waste, carbon emissions and poor eating habits all at a rip-off price. Catholic guilt has been replaced by consumer guilt and housewives will burn in the 9th circle of Hell along with global oil producers. Oh that the Lord would spare us the burden, but ultimately, the family has to eat and it falls to me to arrange it in the least sinful way.
The Power of One is the name of the campaign that persuades individuals that the overwhelming planetary problems can be solved by individuals working in a collective way. Being in charge of the weekly shop means that I am The One. I take my responsibility seriously.
The very fact that I am giving my custom to a conglomerate instead of a small independent trader gets me off to a bad start but I console myself that I shop locally very frequently. This trip is made only once every six weeks. When I come out the other end one hour later, trembling slightly, I examine the results as the car is loaded.
It’s like doing the Leaving Cert every time you do a shop. There are four subjects: environmental studies, nutrition, need establishment and economy. The problem is that each product needs to score marks in all categories in order to pass the test.
The humble can of tomatoes sits proudly at the top end of the spectrum. It is relatively unprocessed, cheap, will be used in the creation of an economic family meal and has a recyclable container. It only comes from Italy so doesn’t chew up too many Air Miles and with a long shelf life won’t get thrown out when discovered at the back of the press in 6 months time.
At the other end are Ma Raeburn’s Pancakes (8 for the price of 6). They are packed with additives and preservatives, wrapped in non-recyclable plastic and whose sole virtue is their absolutely scrummy taste after just one minute in the microwave. At €2.58 this is a product that I don’t actually need, is bad for me, a waste of money and which I love.
In between are all manner of products that are not so simply categorised. Coconut milk comes in a tin but also comes from Thailand so that’s an air mile crash. Are the individually-wrapped, additive-free biscuits in the Baby-”Needs” section really any better than Jaffa Cakes? At twice the price they’d want to be. If a product is good for my children but bad for the environment, who wins? I decide that the children’s present needs outweigh future fears and get the supposedly healthy biscuits. But I still feel like I’ve been mugged. Throw in nappies and wipes and my carbon footprint is now sprawled over the planet.
My shopping goes on, every product examined. Even the claims of origin are suspicious. I reject multi-packs of chicken breasts despite the declaration they are sourced in Northern Ireland. What does that mean? The chickens were born and reared in the Six Counties or the breasts have been flown from Asia and packed over the border? I’m not taking the chance.
Organic produce poses the biggest challenge. Is it a consumer trap or the real thing? Again it’s a trade off between air miles and nutritional gain. I can’t rid myself of the suspicion that it’s just a scam. I am happier with food from Farmer’s Markets where the product is genuinely local, but supermarket organic produce has gimmickry written all over it.
While the “non-organic” (as if any plant could ever be non-organic) fruit and veg is an environmental disaster at least it’s cheap. Avocadoes, kiwis, bananas, grapes, a honey dew melon, lemons, onions, ginger, sweet potato and courgettes. I buy a wonderful variety of unprocessed food packed with vitamins and fibre, great for the family, reeking of radiation and millions of air miles. It’s healthy, economic and an environmental hazard. Great.
It’s exhausting and stressful and the final tally contains little guilt-free food. Dairy and meat provide the only solace though the vegetarians and lactose intolerant might beg to differ. I buy all my meat from the village butcher who apprises me of the personal history of each steak and lamb chop and rewards my custom with bones for stock. Irish beef and lamb is the most environmentally harmless food I can put on the table. Well, apart from the harm to the animal. But man cannot live on meat and dairy alone. Well, in another world they can obviously, but not this one.
Shopping should be a simple utilitarian task and instead it has turned into an exhausting business where too many noble motives collide. Is it possible to save the planet and eat well? It would if supermarkets and manufacturers wanted to save the planet too. It would if we all went back to eating apples and carrots instead of kiwis and sweet potatoes. But there are some roads down which we have travelled too far.
The clash between multinational and environmentalist takes place here in these supermarkets aisles, and housewives are the collateral damage. Despite the claims of The Power of One I can’t see how I can make any meaningful decision when the multinationals are pulling the strings. Yet still I carry the burden of guilt. Do the political leaders who start wars feel guilty? Is there any point in torturing myself over my weekly shop if Dick Roche is content to buy Carbon Credits instead of imposing a carbon tax? He’s buying the country out of our environmental obligations and I’m expected to compensate in my humble grocery basket. Our government fails to act and I have to pick up the slack. It’s just not fair frankly.
I try to convince myself that the trick is the Power of One. But I am not The One. George Bush is The One. Tony Blair is The One. Dick Roche is The One. This One has no power, only over her own demesne. And even that’s pretty shaky. I snuck in a pack of Jaffa Cakes. I may not have peace of mind but at least there’ll be peace in the house.
Permalink
02.16.07
Posted in Feminism, Sunday Times Columns at 12:34 pm by Sarah
I investigated this recently.
Our mortgage is with the EBS and the current interest rate is 4.25%. I looked into the National Irish Bank LTV mortgage (loan to value) where you get a great rate of 4% if your loan is 60% (I think) or less than the value of your house. Our house falls into this category.
However, the NIB will charge me this introductory rate NOW but once I become a customer that rate will increase in line with ECB hikes. They will continue to offer new customers a lower rate all the time but existing customers will have all increases applied. In contrast EBS customers are all treated equally – it means the general rate is slightly higher for new customers, but older customers benefit from the equal treatment. The NIB can offer new customers a lower rate but older customers (which I would become) get screwed in order to finance this.
It seemed to me that for an awful lot of trouble (I have to open a current account with the NIB and that’s an administrative nightmare) that all I will get is a temporary improvement in cashflow. If I was being charged more than 4.25% maybe it would be worth it, but I am not convinced that at 4.25% the long term gain makes it worth switching.
Anyone else done the math? Am I wrong?
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »