Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

Calvary to take over hospice

By s-s-a - 27 July 2009 20

A letter in yesterday’s Canberra Times alerted me to the fact that in addition to getting paid by the ACT govt for selling Calvary Public Hospital, the Little Company of Mary are also getting Clare Holland House.

Did some searching and looks like this is true.

Under present arrangments at Calvary, various issues of concern to the Catholic church are enshrined in clinical practice at the public hospital. One example being that contraception is not to be discussed with women attending for 6-wk postnatal checks (though perversely, this does not apply to patients who deliver in Calvary Private because their 6-wk checks are done at their obstetrician’s rooms).

Will the government be seeking an assurance from LCM that care practices at Clare Holland House and related palliative care home services are not going to be similarly bastardised?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
20 Responses to
Calvary to take over hospice
gun street girl 8:46 pm 27 Jul 09

So which secular Hospice in the ACT would you suggest people go to, then?

housebound 8:42 pm 27 Jul 09

Like I said – don’t go there. You would never find me in a catholic facility, but I completely respect their right to act according to their faith.

gun street girl 8:34 pm 27 Jul 09

People should feel free to be guided by whatever beliefs they might have – but this doesn’t give them the right to foist them onto others, particularly when said others are in a vulnerable position. Death is a personal thing, and some prefer to keep God out of it. This is a simple thing to respect.

housebound 8:29 pm 27 Jul 09

That’s right, God forbid that people bring their beliefs into their daily lives as they work, live and die. I mean, how bigoted could they be to presume they should be guided by their beliefs.

If the catholic thing scares you, don’t go there. (And I’m not even catholic.)

54-11 6:51 pm 27 Jul 09

That’s right, gun fighter. Let’s not even let these religious get into the act, because as soon as they can, the fundamentalism will start.

We should separate state and religion with as much space as we can, not let the lines be blurred.

gun street girl 6:47 pm 27 Jul 09

I think the bigger concern is whether they will try to involve religion and religious rites into the passage of dying. At present, such intrusion does not occur at CHH, but we should continue to be vigilant in that regard.

Quokka 6:12 pm 27 Jul 09

Meh. The LCM won’t allow euthanasia, but then again neither does the Australian judicial system. Hardly a clash of ideologies there…

pug206gti 5:08 pm 27 Jul 09

I’m highly against religion getting in the way of clinical practices at John James and Calvary, although I’m a little hard pressed to think of anything much that could get in the way of palliative care as it presently stands. Euthanasia perhaps, but that’s not exactly an option under the Self Government Act.

What the LCM do stand to gain is lots of generous benefactors. You see regularly on funeral notices not to send flowers but to donate to Clare Holland House.

Igglepiggle 3:46 pm 27 Jul 09

gun street girl said :

Igglepiggle said :

They give new staff a nice little leaflet mandating the banned practices

I politely sent said leaflet back, after tearing it up. 😉

/quote]

Mine didn’t survive very long either.

gun street girl 3:19 pm 27 Jul 09

Igglepiggle said :

They give new staff a nice little leaflet mandating the banned practices

I politely sent said leaflet back, after tearing it up. 😉

Calvary are already established at CHH. Fortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a negative impact, apart from the presence of crucifixes in the establishment, which does understandably upset some people. On the whole, though, Catholicism does not intrude on the excellent care given at CHH. Personally, I think the ACT Government is being stupid by not taking CHH back – but I’m not surprised.

Jim Jones 3:14 pm 27 Jul 09

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Not if you don’t want to be nursing the first kid’s sibling 9 months later. Plenty of people believe you can’t get pregnant for a year after birth, or while breast feeding, or whatever.

Just like you can’t get pregnant if you ‘do it’ standing up, right?

Woody Mann-Caruso 3:12 pm 27 Jul 09

Not if you don’t want to be nursing the first kid’s sibling 9 months later. Plenty of people believe you can’t get pregnant for a year after birth, or while breast feeding, or whatever.

Igglepiggle 3:12 pm 27 Jul 09

It can’t be discussed on the ward before discharge either, or in fact at any other time. They give new staff a nice little leaflet mandating the banned practices

s-s-a 3:11 pm 27 Jul 09

Err, at a 6-wk checkup the discussion about contraception usually focuses on managing the potential for *future* pregnancies…

semaj 3:04 pm 27 Jul 09

I would have thought that 6 weeks after birth is a bit late to be discussing contraception.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site