It would be foolish and dishonest to ignore important arguments advanced by Government and other interests in the current nursing dispute. Holding the line on national pay deals is common sense and brings benefits to all.

The prospect of piggy-back pay claims extending throughout the public sector is frightening.

Defending the status of a Labour Court recommendation is clearly right. And inevitably there is the cold economic reality that even in the land of the Celtic Tiger there are financial constraints.

These are the economic facts which representatives of the Government have put before us in no uncertain terms. But these have been given as if they were the only issues to be considered and that nothing else mattered.

The inadequacy of this approach becomes clear when we take on board some other factors, including what the nurses are saying and perhaps more importantly how they feel.

We clergy have a particular awareness of the qualities of the nursing profession through working with them in care of the sick and dying at all hours of the day and night.

Theirs is a skilled and demanding job with little of the glamour often portrayed in soap operas. Their work is always about the needs of others, a point well illustrated by Maeve Dwyer's article in this newspaper on Saturday when she reminded us of the willingness of midwives in one hospital in the mid-1980s to give up part of their pay to limit staff reductions for the sake of the patients.

So what has made them so hurt and angry? The answer is simple: they have been ignored and exploited for too long. They have been pushed too far because it was always assumed that nurses would not and could not strike.

They have learnt from others that those who use economic or industrial muscle are heard and heeded and from the bottom of their profession to the top - including matrons and directors of nursing - they are saying "Enough is enough".

All of us are diminished by this change. But all of us are to some extent responsible and especially those who were in a position to do something about it.

There are various arguments put to the nurses as to why they should not take action. One is "the national interest". When is the body politic going to wake up to the fact that it has a huge credibility problem when it talks of the national interest, not only with nurses but the whole population, arising from the culture of corruption which seems to have affected almost every aspect of national life including members of the professions, the banks and elements in the political establishment?

Of course, there are honourable exceptions. But how could anybody take seriously the utterances of a political establishment which it now appears spawned an orgy of greed and abuse of power of frightening proportions. And to the public at large it seems that they will do everything in their power to avoid the consequences.

Another argument put to nurses is the danger to people's health if they strike. It is hard to deny that this is a real concern, but the argument is a form of emotional blackmail, and implicit in it is the suggestion that nurses and possibly doctors must forgo the right to withdraw their services for ever.

If that is what is really meant then at once it makes theirs a special case and requires fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that they are properly provided for in return. The Department of Health cannot have it both ways.

The arguments about people's safety is selective in that it ignores the damage already done on a daily basis through underfunding which closes wards, creates long waiting lists and crowded, stressful A & E departments while leaving theatres and other facilities lying idle.

It has been suggested that the nurses' organisations might have pursued their claims in another way. That may or may not be true, but the reality is that they have grievances which must be addressed in the interests of all. To allow a protracted strike to take root is simply unthinkable.

If the nurses "win" the Government's pay policy will be in trouble. If the Government breaks the nurses the consequences for the hospital service will be catastrophic because there will be residual bitterness and resentment.

The first step is for the Government to abandon its "macho" image and take a more conciliatory line and listen. There was some hint of a change of approach by the Minister for Health on Sunday and he is to be thanked for that. It is regrettable that it took so long.

It is important, too, that the nursing organisations respond positively to any reasonable proposals put to them. They are entitled to expect that any discussion on relativities within the health service will take account of the major changes recommended in the report of the Commission on Nursing and accepted by them.

When this dispute is settled, as it will be sooner or later, it will become clear that the nursing dispute is a symptom of a much deeper and more intractable problem, which is the funding of the health service in general. It raises the economic question of what we as a country can afford.

It also raises the moral question as to what we can and cannot provide by way of services. We all marvel at the advances in modern medicine but we must also have regard to their cost. The problem for any government is that the public's expectations are rarely costed and the resulting confusion is a political hot potato.

And so politicians being politicians, to avoid public disapproval, "delegate" the responsibility to regional and local bodies while retaining power at the centre by budgetary and other means. Oh, for the day when we as a people will have the courage to vote for those who have the courage to tell us the truth.

The Ven Gordon Linney is Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Dublin. He is also a member of the board of Tallaght Hospital