asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that an advertisement seeking a medical superintendent for a mental institution (particulars of which have been forwarded to his Department) specifies that the new appointee must be a Protestant; and if he will insist that the most highly qualified medical practitioner, irrespective of his religious beliefs, be appointed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Medical Superintendent for Mental Institution.
6.
While no particulars have been furnished to my Department, I understand that the post mentioned has been advertised and that the advertisement specified that the new appointee must be a Protestant. The institution in question is a voluntary institution and I have no direct functions in relation to the appointment of staff.
Is not this a most undesirable precedent if the Minister allows this appointment to go through? Would it not mean that the young patients who are in that hospital and who are Protestant children will, very likely, be denied the opportunity of availing of the services of the most highly qualified medical man irrespective of religion? Secondly, could the Minister not suggest that it is undesirable that precedents such as this should be allowed to go on record because it may be used——
This seems to be quite irrelevant.
——at a later date to justify religious discrimination on similar lines by Catholics?
I have pointed out that this institution is a voluntary hospital and that I have no direct function in relation to the appointment of staff.
I want to ask a supplementary question. Is there anything wrong in a Protestant hospital for Protestant children of feeble minds asking that the doctor in charge of these feeble-minded Protestant children should be a Protestant? If it were a Catholic Home, I would think it perfectly reasonable to say——
That surely is not a supplementary question.
I want to ask the Minister does he agree with me. Let us face this: Is there anything wrong in the custodians or those responsible for feeble-minded Protestant children asking that there should be a Protestant doctor in charge of them any more than there would be in the custodians of feeble-minded Catholic children asking that there should be a Catholic doctor in charge of them? So far as I am concerned, I think they are perfectly right?
I think the Deputy has stated the Catholic point of view in the matter.
I do not know whether it is Catholic or not but I think it is right.
It is good sense anyhow.
Is it not very desirable that in this allegedly non-sectarian hospital the sole criterion of the treatment of the sick children whether Protestant or Catholic should be that the best qualified medical man should be made available? Surely that is the most important consideration?
Is it in fact non-sectarian or is it only for Protestant children?
Under the Constitution it is.
But in practice?
Is it not a fact that there is a precedent for the Department of Health suggesting to a voluntary institution that they should, in circumstances such as these, recommend or ask that the Local Appointments Commission should make the appointment in order to ensure that the best qualified person should get the post and would the Minister not be prepared to follow that precedent?
I have nothing to add to the reply I have given.