Obama extends hospital visitation rights

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.... is about Obama extending hospital visitation rights. It's hard to tell whether the negative reaction is the press finding someone, anyone, to object, or real objection from the right, but I find it hard to understand the objection to letting people have those closest to them at their bedside, and to choose who controls their medical destiny, instead of being bound to blood and marriage. (Even if it does let gays have their partners at their bedside, but it seems to be pretty heartless to object to that. Does it really hurt the institution of marriage to let a women hold another woman's hand while she's dying?)

ref #3
I gather from gay friendly blog spots and gay rights advocacy sources that gays themselves think its a big deal.

Accurately or not, unless they are fibbing to the public for political reasons, they do seem to worry that they can and will be excluded.

I do seem to remember a number of hospitals articulating a policy of "relatives only" for some kinds of visitation, but I have no idea whather "gay significant other" is universally treated as a qualifying relationship or not.

I can imagine that in some families, if those families are particularly gay averse, because of cultural tradition, or religion, or just plain because they are, might want to exclude "That man" or "That woman" as the case may be, on the grands that he/she is a bad influence or a disreputable character. Don't know, just guessing.

In any case, it seems pretty cost effective. Total cost zero dollars and zero cents to take one issue off the table for those that care or worry about such things.

This is another step towards a socialist takeover. Next the government will force us to visit our family members when they are in the hospital.

The only real questions here (at least from my perspective) revolve around the question of Federal power. Does the Federal government have the power to impose such a condition? More to the point, does the Executive branch have the power to impose this sort of condition via the regulatory rulemaking process absent a clear statutory mandate? This may very well be well-intentioned but ultimately futile overreaching by the Administration.

"In some instances in the past, hospitals have barred bedside visits by the person who held the medical power of attorney for a patient."

"Gay rights advocates said the rules change was inspired by one of those cases involving a same-sex couple, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were profiled in The New York Times last year. After Ms. Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm, Ms. Langbehn was denied visiting rights in 2007 by a Florida hospital. Although Ms. Langbehn had power of attorney and she and Ms. Pond were parents to four children they had adopted, the hospital refused for eight hours to allow her and the children to see Ms. Pond, her partner for 18 years. Ms. Pond died as Ms. Langbehn tried in vain to get to her side."

"Ms. Langbehn, represented by Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy organization, brought suit against the hospital, Jackson Memorial in Miami, but lost. On Thursday night, Mr. Obama called her from Air Force One to say that he had been moved by her case."

"“I was so humbled that he would know Lisa’s name and know our story,” Ms. Langbehn said in a telephone interview. “He apologized for how we were treated. For the last three years, that’s what I’ve been asking the hospital to do. Even now, three years later, they still refuse to apologize to the children and I for the fact that Lisa died alone.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html?src=me&ref=gene...

#7: If you want someone to be legally "closer" to you than your parents or siblings, you better make it official with a marriage license or a civil union.

Isn't that what the fight is all about? If gays could get married, then this wouldn't be needed, but even today, in many states, gays can't even enter a civil union. Moreover, you may not want to marry someone, but at the same time not want your Jehova's Witness family to make decisions for you. Or a Jehova's Witness may not want his non-believing family to take control.

The nurses at the palliative care unit where my mom spent her last hours say that people die alone all the time. (There was one such poor soul there while we were.) I myself been turned away from close friends' sickbeds, which is fine if it was for medical reasons or the sick person's stated preference--but one never knows. I like the idea that all people--not just LGBT--with no family or who have outlived their family or who have poor family relations or whose family lives far away can designate someone--anyone--to be with them in hospital and at the end.

> 6 Does the Federal government have the power to impose such a condition? More to the point, does the Executive branch have the power to impose this sort of condition via the regulatory rulemaking process absent a clear statutory mandate? This may very well be well-intentioned but ultimately futile overreaching by the Administration.

I read that LBJ did something similar in the 1960s to desegregate hospitals. Apparently back then, surgical facilities were integrated, but rooms and wards were not.

#11: Of course the JW example has the same effect on heterosexuals; that's part of this whole mandate.

There is no way I can see that this gives same-sex relationships special status.

7> There is no situation where any hospital enforces a "relatives only" policy unless the patient insists.

You are wrong in this statement. When I was in intensive care, my friend was not allowed in to see me in upstate New York. He was denied because he 'was not a legal relative.' When I was involved in estate planning, in Southern California, I cross-insured gays and helped fund existing trusts for gay couples. I heard more than enough stories about being denied access to a partner in a medical situation from my clients. I had one client denied the opportunity to speak with the attending physician to determine what shape his partner was in, after a serious accident. Again, the 'relative' issue popped up. They had a living will with stipulations regarding such an occurrence, but the hospital chose to ignore it. He did not get to see his partner before he passed away.

11> 9: Your JW example would have the same effect on heterosexuals. Why should same-sex relationships have special status?

I think you misread the notice. ALL people will have the right, not just gays.

Overall, it is a good step. However, it only applies to hospitals participating in Medicare/Medical/government programs, and does not apply to other hospitals. This protects the religious-based hospitals from having to do what Jesus would have done (iif that is their current practice, of course).

#11: Of course, the example in this case didn't let the woman with power of attorney see her lover. I've seen no reputable source say that she didn't have a real power of attorney in this case.

11> Power of attorney always wins.

Sorry to say, this is wrong, again. Any authority can deny your rights under power of attorney, if they chose to force you to prove it, in a court of law. This means that if they do finally relent, it is after the fact. Case in point for illustration:

When I left the USA, I had a legal document drawn up, giving my accountant full rights under 'Power of Attorney,' to act on my behalf in all matters in the USA. It was prepared by an attorney and then notarized by a licensed notary (3 originals). I also had my business mail forwarded to him so that he could properly handle my affairs. A month later, when I was thousands of miles away, he went to collect his mail and asked if there was any with my name on it, which there was. They refused to give it to him. He went back to his office, got an original of the P of A that he had and presented it to the Postmaster. The Postmaster still refused to give him my mail. It came down to the Postmaster demanding that I return from Europe, and present myself in person, so that he could be sure I was a real person, and not a terrorist. It seems that this was part of the Patriot Act, wherein a person can now be required to prove that they are a 'real' person, when forwarding their mail to a new address. The only way around it was to have an expensive attorney call and tell the Postmaster that unless he honored the P of A, he would immediately sue the Postmaster General, and one of his charges would be racism. (My accountant is descended from a noble Persian family, and we both suspect that this had something to do with the Postmaster's response.) The Postmaster's response was immediate, and we have had no trouble since. This shows that there is no ironclad way to secure your intent, if someone wishes to challenge it. You can only take appropriate steps, and then hope.

Edited for typo. Changed 'email' to 'mail.'

The sky may fall.

Here, in North-Western Europe, the Sky IS falling.
The only thing in the air are birds, insects and balloons.
(and the smell of manure)

18> Again, just because you encountered an idiot at the post office doesn't mean that power of attorney has no relevance.

I did not state that it had no relevance. You stated that it was the end all, and I demonstrated, with an example, that it is not, if there are persons who wish to inhibit your exercise of this legal right. You may win in the end, as did I, but it cost money, and we did not get the mail for two weeks. In the case of my client, he did not get to see his partner, even though he did have a legal right to do so. It was little satisfaction for him that he was in the right, when the time for its usefulness had passed.

Nothing is an ironclad protector of our rights, as gays and citizens, in the face of someone who wishes to deny us our rights. Not a bloody thing.

17> Also, second-hand stories are often fabricated. Often, people are trying to build a case in order to "cash in" on the death of a relative or partner. A malpractice case may go even better if the hospital and doctor can be portrayed as bigots.

You have some evidence that this is so? I can assure you my own experience was real, and I did not go to court after I left the hospital. Money was not the issue: compassion was.

17> So, who did see you? Did your family?

No one was nearby, but my friend. I was away from home at the time.

My counterpoint to your statements was made because I have experienced the discrimination in hospital situations, which you stated did not exist. My second point was about a legal document that you profess to be the end all for all situations, and as much as we would like it to be so, it is not always the case. Especially for gays.

Edited for typo - wrong reference number.

What "special rights" are being granted to the LGBT community in this case?

For those who might have honestly thought that visitation rights for gay couples is a non issue, here's a reason to
reconsider:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/for-same-sex-couples-equality-in-the-ho...

Please calmly watch these barbarous displays
Which could not happen, nowadays
The men of that time, mostly now demised
We primitive
we are civilized

Except it wasn't long ago and far away.
Oops!

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/suit-charges-elderly-gay-couple-was-...

No one wants them people to get no special rights cause that will make them feel like they are special and they'll like it and we won't feel special no more and then socialism will come and the Rapture and it won't matter no more anyway, but while we are here in the here and now, them people don't deserve nothing taking away from our families and ruining everything with their special rights. Ain't I special too? They already own the banks and TV and Super Bowl ads and thank god we got Tebow on our side, he's a good boy.

Have we figured out what "special rights" are being accorded here, yet?

Special rights to visit their kin folk, or domastick partners, or concubines, or Plaçage (yeah, I just used one of them big internet words I saw on O'Reilly) friends with benefits, or significant others, or soul mates in the hospital. All we got is a husband or a wife or children to visit.

Yeah! Imagine!

Untermenschen who want the special privilege of being treated like real people.

Da noive o dem!

I have to object to many of the comments here because I have personally been excluded from visiting a seriously ill partner due to a hospital's "relatives only" policy. The hospital (ill-tempered nurses, actually) only relented after my boyfriend repeatedly cried out for me while coming to in the recovery room. We were young adults traveling together cross country and he had an emergency appendectomy in a rural area. They absolutely kept me from seeing him, against his wishes as well as mine, before and after the surgery. They also treated me like some kind of harlot every time I had to interact with them. It was a frighting and uncomfortable situation, and this happened only a few years ago to a heterosexual, but unmarried, couple.

No patient should have their right to comfort from loved ones in the hands of potentially biased and judgmental hospital staff. Exclusion of welcome visitors against a patient's wishes may not happen often, I have no data on that, but it does happen. So no, people excited about this are not just engaging in political grandstanding.

18> Here is another case which demonstrates that having the necessary paperwork all laid out is little protection, when willful authorities choose to ignore them. Read it and weep, I did:

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_an...