Obama orders same-sex hospital visits

Originally posted by clownsroundhere
That is still special treatment, widowers and religious groups, still seems special to me...

I can put it there for you to read, but I can't make you comprehend it. One more time:

new rules to ensure that hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors" and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.

Patients. Not just gay patients. Not just widowers. Those are subsections of the category "Patients".

Here. Try this one:

Source

President Obama has sent a Memorandum to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, directing the initiation of rulemaking for all hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid services that the hospitals must comply with respecting hospital patients' rights to receive designated visitors, as well as designated surrogate decision makers (proxies) for medical emergencies.

Generally, hospitals do not have to allow visitation to patients for those persons who are not immediate family. The President pointed out in his memo that those who might be suffering from a sudden emergency or long hospital stay should not be "denied the support or comfort" of others patients wish to have as visitors, such as close friends.

Maybe if the "gay fog" is out of the picture, it will be easier to understand.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Kinda hard to do, here is another quote from the article you like quoting.

"But it is clear that the document focuses on gays"

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Okay, Power of Attorney is a legal form. Any one could already give POA to anyone: neighbor down the street, bum you met last week outside a movie theater. The only legal challenge to a POA form is: was the people in their right mind when they signed it? So Obama hasn't really done anything new here except reenforce it.

Forgive my ignorance, but does the POA form guarantee visitation rights? Common sense says it should, but common sense doesn't always predict reality. What about a case where there is a legal POA who is for instance a homosexual partner and also an immediate family member such as a parent?

Visitation is always at the discretion of the hospital. There are times that family are not allowed. It is best to always remember that sometime non-medical personnel are in the way. That visitors to one patient can be a disruption to the medical car of another patient. This goes double in an emergency situation, and can happen often in an ER.

You raise a valid concern here, because I think we need to recognize that there are times when we have to allow the medical staff to determine whether or not any visitors can be in the room with the patient. But this memo only says that a patients' designated visitors (non-family) should have visiting privileges no less restricted than those afforded to immediate family members, it does not suggest that anyone has completely free reign:

It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.

Source: White House Press Office, emphasis added

Thanks Obama, you have just signed a blank check for trouble and potential lawsuits that would have been pointless and dismissed in the past. Then again, maybe not. I guess I can sum it up by what one woman once screamed at me:

"You are removing me because I am (blank)ing gay!" In the same volume I responded, "I am removing you because you are in the (blank)ing way!" "Oh...yeah." she calmly replied when she saw the doctor and nurses buzzing around pushing equipment and franticly working on her lover that was crashing.

I presume you would have done exactly the same thing if it had been a heterosexual spouse, or a parent or child of the patient, so I don't see any additional legal ramifications. On the other hand, if you would have allowed a heterosexual spouse to remain in a situation where you would have removed a gay partner, he's asking for that attitude to be changed.



Some other thoughts on this memo:

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Source: White House Press Office

Given the above, I really hope this isn't just a face-saving move. I hope they can put some teeth into it as well. I don't know what the legislative process for that would have to be -- the memo does mention that four states (North Carolina, Delaware, Nebraska, and Minnesota) have amended their Patients' Bill of Rights to guarantee the right to designate non-family visitors with the same rights as immediate family. Is there a national Patients' Bill of Rights? I assume there's a national policy that enumerates requirements for hospitals to receive Medicare/Medicaid money, perhaps that's what could be amended to reflect this? What would that process be?

edit: for error, neatening, add link

[edit on 4/16/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Instead of wasting his time on crap like this he needs to be creating jobs, something that he was elected to do.

reply to post by Alien Mind


He was elected to do this, too.

And he is working on creating jobs. He's a master multi-tasker.

Originally posted by Alien Mind
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Instead of wasting his time on crap like this he needs to be creating jobs, something that he was elected to do.

Yeah, who cares about civil rights. They're a joke anyways.

reply to post by clownsroundhere


Yea, we aren't retarded and think it wasn't brought to light because of gay people. They pushed the issue and good for them.

Now if I get in a terrible accident and have no family close to spend my last moments with, I can get at the least an acquaintance in there.

While this is a "gay issue" on one level, it's not on the next. It's more a common sense issue. If I'm in a hospital bed, I feel like I should be able to have whoever visit that I want. Remember that movie "Remember the Titans" the white dude was laid up in the hospital, the nurse said "sorry only kin is allow" to the black guy, the white dude says "can't you see, he is my brother"

She knew that it made sense for him to see who he wanted to. Yea, she broke the rules but whatever, it doesn't hurt anything.

I'm also damn sure that nurses do this on a regular basis. Now they can't get fired for it.

This isn't a special interest memo, it's a common sense one. Get off the anti gay, anti minority bandwagon already. It should have rolled out of this country a long time ago.

bottom line....

NOBODY IS BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE

if gay's want to get married who the hell is it gonna hurt? are religious nuts going to die or get sick if 2 gay men or women get married? jesus christ, it's 2010, get with the times. who cares what the bible says? i'll bet you the bible isn't anywhere near the original writings it contained. that book has probably been re-written time and again to benefit the church's grip on human beings.

i'm getting married in two months and i'm NOT doing it in a church or having a priest do it, so i guess my marriage will then be a joke.

obama's hospital plan works, if you don't want visitors you can tell the nurses to not admit anybody, you have the right to do so.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The only issue that I see still uncovered is an unconscious patient who may have suffered a stroke, heart attack, or some other horrible incident. They are unable to talk, and some dear friends may be prohibited from spending their last moments saying goodbye to them.

I would hope that common sense would prevail in situations like that, and the rule book would be thrown out the window in lieu of human compassion.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I would hope that common sense would prevail in situations like that, and the rule book would be thrown out the window in lieu of human compassion.

Sadly, human nature, history, and any form of observation made on society even today suggests otherwise.

Personally, all of this uproar is baffling to me. Any patient should be allowed to have any visitor that they want. Period. Why is this devolving into a anti vs pro Obama/anti vs pro gay/Christian vs everyone else thread?
I do not at all support Obama, but I can't see what he said or did wrong in this. He thinks that any patient should have any visitor thay want. God help me I actually agree with him. I don't agree with most everything else he has done, but this thread is not about that. On this issue I agree with him.
I am also a Christian, but not the kind that is blinded by religious dogma. The Jesus in my bible says repeatedly not to judge others. The Jesus in my bible also said "He who is without sin can cast the first stone". Personally I have never met a human being who is without sin. The Jesus in my bible also said to love everyone as you love yourself. He did not add "except for the gay community" to that statement. So according to my faith, I don't understand how gay rights in any way affects my beliefs. You "Christians" who are so vocally and sometimes violently opposed to giving gay people the most basic of human rights are so bafflingly and hypocritically un-Christian that you are giving all of us a bad rap. How does a gay person visiting their partner in a hospital room affect you in any way whatsoever?

Red herring alert!!!! This was never a huge issue because the large majority of hospitals never really enforced anything like this in the first place.


Next up they will be introducing a bill that allows people NOT to kick puppies HURRAY!!! Finally the great anti-puppy kicking prohibition will be over.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Just like sos37, its like Obama is just throwing us a bone as long as we're good lapdogs.

He still works for the Federal Reserve.

He has not abolished the Federal Reserve.

He still wants to establish a civilian military to help fight the invisible "terrorists" that hide under America's bed.

He still supports the Corporatocracy.


Any "good" that this man does is far overshadowed by the people employing him...which is not you or I:

U.S. Code: TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Do not expect a politician to stand up and defend you and your unalienable rights.

That is our responsibility.

Originally posted by SiKFury
Red herring alert!!!! This was never a huge issue because the large majority of hospitals never really enforced anything like this in the first place.

Really? How large a majority? and is that true throughout the US or are you speaking from limited experience? I would guess that the stats vary quite a bit depending on whether you're looking at New York City or the Bible Belt, for example.

Originally posted by SiKFury
Red herring alert!!!! This was never a huge issue because the large majority of hospitals never really enforced anything like this in the first place.

[citation needed]

also second line.

Originally posted by SiKFury
Red herring alert!!!! This was never a huge issue because the large majority of hospitals never really enforced anything like this in the first place.


Next up they will be introducing a bill that allows people NOT to kick puppies HURRAY!!! Finally the great anti-puppy kicking prohibition will be over.

Actually your wrong about hospitals not enforcing that rule. By law they were required to follow the mandate for liability reasons.

They did have some form of discretion, however this also means they could discriminate at will.

~Keeper

reply to post by Alien Mind


Hell! I gave you a star on this comment!

It seems that all he cares about is giving preferential treatment to special interest groups.

Gays and lesbians have turned "marriage" into a "right" instead of the Holy institution its been for thousands of years.

I had hope in humanity at one time but now I'm ready for humanity to be destroyed.

Well, humanity the way it is.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Sounds good to me. I don't like Obama, at all. That said, I'm not so proud that I can't admit it when someone I dislike does something good. Nice work Obama. It's ridiculous that something as simple as visitations would be denied to someone just because they're gay.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by Alien Mind

 

Hell! I gave you a star on this comment!

It seems that all he cares about is giving preferential treatment to special interest groups.

Gays and lesbians have turned "marriage" into a "right" instead of the Holy institution its been for thousands of years.

I had hope in humanity at one time but now I'm ready for humanity to be destroyed.

Well, humanity the way it is.

Agreed.
Let's start with those special interest groups that turned divorce into a "right".
The 50% percent of married heterosexuals who have broken the sacred vows of "marriage".
Their destruction is what will restore the Holy institution.
Let God sort out the gays later.

I just heard the partner of the dying woman being interiewed on CNN.

She said this is not a "gay right". It is a "human right". Bravo, for her.

Can you imagine lying on your death bed, and having some nurse you don't even know tell you your loved one can't come be with you?

She said one of the staff told her "you are in an anti-gay state and an anti-gay city, you have no rights here".

Good lord. She had to produce legal documents to be permitted to see her.

The President called her on the phone. It really meant a great deal to her.