Obama orders same-sex hospital visits - pg.3 | allnurses

Obama orders same-sex hospital visits - page 3

"Gay, lesbian couples must be allowed visitors, medical power of attorney. President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and... Read More

  1. Visit  Chico David RN profile page
    11
    Quote from PetiteOpRN
    It is possible to deal with those cases without putting a law into place.

    When my son was hospitalized, the resident refused to let the consulting physician see his chart, and sited HIPAA when asked, even though she was noted as a consulting physician. When I found out, I requested the attention of the resident and supervisor on duty for the unit and explained that if they refused to keep our child's physician in the loop, we would need to be transferred immediately to a hospital that could accommodate our request. They decided to accommodate us.

    This is totally non confrontational. "Ok, I understand that my request violates your policy. Please bring me the appropriate forms to fill out to be transferred to another facility."

    Yes, it's a hassle, but in some cases I'm sure it is preferable than staying for weeks in a place where 'no same-sex visitors' is probably the tip of the iceberg.

    The other strategy I find effective is calling the local news station for a tear-jerking story on discrimination at the local hospital. That gets policies reversed in a mighty-quick hurry.
    On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should need to go through all those machinations at a high stress time in their lives when simply using the regulatory power of the government can take care of it for everyone. Not everyone is equally capable of standing up for themselves, not everyone is equally smart about developing a strategy to get their rights respected, but everyone is entitled to equal respect for their rights and for their basic humanity. And I'm also in the camp that says let's just get to marriage equality sooner rather than later and settle it the easy way. The age group poll results tell us the ultimate result of that fight is already settled, it's just a matter of time, so it's time have the government treat everyone's relationships equally and move on.
    SnowShoeRN, NRSKarenRN, Moogie, and 8 others like this.
  2. Visit  PetiteOpRN profile page
    0
    "simply using the regulatory power of the government can take care of it for everyone"

    Really? That is the cure to society's ills? Please take a moment to consider the quality of life in some of history's more regulated nations.

    ...

    Now, back to the issue at hand:

    Hospitals all over the country are forced to cut staff and expenses as budgets shrink. Religious institutions have provided charity in various capacities for centuries. Is now really the best time to alienate them?

    Do you think the Catholic hospital that is forced by law to permit same-sex couples to have the same visitation rights as married couples is going to be able to maintain its affiliation with the Catholic Church? And where will that hospital be when it looses the financial support of the Church?

    What about private donors who disagree with the policy? They can pull their funding at any time.

    I'm not a bigot. I don't care who lives with whom. And I also don't care who you choose to discriminate against. If a law really is a good idea, chances are it really isn't needed. Furthermore, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences that outweigh any potential benefits.
  3. Visit  Chico David RN profile page
    0
    Quote from PetiteOpRN
    "simply using the regulatory power of the government can take care of it for everyone"

    Really? That is the cure to society's ills? Please take a moment to consider the quality of life in some of history's more regulated nations.

    ...

    Now, back to the issue at hand:

    Hospitals all over the country are forced to cut staff and expenses as budgets shrink. Religious institutions have provided charity in various capacities for centuries. Is now really the best time to alienate them?

    Do you think the Catholic hospital that is forced by law to permit same-sex couples to have the same visitation rights as married couples is going to be able to maintain its affiliation with the Catholic Church? And where will that hospital be when it looses the financial support of the Church?

    What about private donors who disagree with the policy? They can pull their funding at any time.

    I'm not a bigot. I don't care who lives with whom. And I also don't care who you choose to discriminate against. If a law really is a good idea, chances are it really isn't needed. Furthermore, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences that outweigh any potential benefits.
    One could make the exact arguments that you make against the laws that have been passed to ban race and gender discrimination. Do you actually believe those laws should not have been passed? That problem was not going to fix itself without them. Without those laws, we would still have Black people in the back of the bus and women effectively barred from many professions. I'm old enough to remember those days and have no interest in going back.
    As a matter of fact, the Catholic hospitals, for the most part, do just fine on these issues and continue to serve the public quite nicely. Even on the issue of the right of the patient to refuse treatment, the Catholic hospitals mostly ignore the bishops' position and deliver appropriate care as chosen by the patient. And a donor might, just barely conceivably pull funding from a hospital that decided not to discriminate on its own, but I can hardly imagine a donor doing so because the hospital complied with a federal regulation.
    For that matter, taking your statements literally and following your argument to its logical conclusion, all of the laws that we have to protect things like health and safety are completely unneeded, starting with the laws licensing medical professionals.
    Sounds to me like you would identify yourself as a libertarian. The pure libertarian approach would be that anyone should be free to call himself "doctor" or "nurse" and that the only recourse needed is the ability of the patient to sue when injured. And, by your argument we would say the same for pure food laws, food labeling laws and so on. Read Upton Sinclair and see how well things worked before those laws.
  4. Visit  PetiteOpRN profile page
    0
    I prefer the term "anarchist." (anarcho-capitalist and austro-libertarian are also acceptable)

    You are correct, in order to be logically consistent, I have to believe that there are no valid positive rights (ie a right to food). My beliefs are logically consistent. And, yes, I think licensing agencies do more harm than good.

    I certainly cannot predict what the negative ramifications of any given law will be. But I can't think of a law that didn't have negative ramifications, so it's a safe bet that things will not be kittens and rainbows now.

    You brought up Upton Sinclair. Your statement seems to imply that you believe that legislation like the Pure Food and Drug act benefited people. This seemingly benign legislation set the precedent for the FDA, Prohibition, the DEA, and the Drug War, which have cause vast amounts of human suffering. Furthermore, Upton Sinclair advocated a political system that came up with terror famines and gulags.
  5. Visit  Otessa profile page
    1
    Quote from Paco386
    Seriously, it's about time. I would hate to think however how some religious hospitals (particularly ones that are Catholic) will find ways to circumvent this.
    Worked at a catholic hospital for more than a decade and had always allowed partner involvement, including POA, etc. Never treated anyone's personal or religious beliefs any differently. Most staff were NOT catholic or religious-it was a place of healing... and employment.
    Not_A_Hat_Person likes this.
  6. Visit  Chico David RN profile page
    7
    Quote from PetiteOpRN
    I prefer the term "anarchist." (anarcho-capitalist and austro-libertarian are also acceptable)

    You are correct, in order to be logically consistent, I have to believe that there are no valid positive rights (ie a right to food). My beliefs are logically consistent. And, yes, I think licensing agencies do more harm than good.

    I certainly cannot predict what the negative ramifications of any given law will be. But I can't think of a law that didn't have negative ramifications, so it's a safe bet that things will not be kittens and rainbows now.

    You brought up Upton Sinclair. Your statement seems to imply that you believe that legislation like the Pure Food and Drug act benefited people. This seemingly benign legislation set the precedent for the FDA, Prohibition, the DEA, and the Drug War, which have cause vast amounts of human suffering. Furthermore, Upton Sinclair advocated a political system that came up with terror famines and gulags.

    When I was very much younger I thought it terribly important to be logically consistent in my beliefs, (and even subscribed to Reason for a while myself) but over time I've learned the world is not that simple and doesn't necessarily fit into an imaginary ideological construct. Libertarians, and their ideological brethren seem just as guilty of ignoring reality and human nature as the Communists were. Having laws to insure safe milk, or safe drugs or banning racial or sex discrimination does not lead by some inexorable process to totalitarianism.
    The Drug War is indeed a travesty, as was prohibition. The standard doctrine from folks in your part of the political spectrum is that no consumer safety laws (for one example) are needed, you just sue if you are injured and that's all the remedy you need. But I'd far rather have a little regulation to protect my health than have my family be able to sue after a poisoned drug or food has killed me. Like anything else, in the real world there are nuances. Some regulations are idiotic and should be changed, but that does not mean all regulation is bad.
    And you may well be the exception, but given a little time and digging, most people who claim to be libertarians actually turn out to want freedom for the things they approve of, but not for the things or people they disapprove of. Some of your examples, particularly the war on drugs, are a classic example of that: Most of the prominent Conservative politicians claim to be for liberty and small government, but just watch them attack anyone who somehow finds the guts to tell the truth about the war on drugs. They aren't really for small government, they want government to control the things they don't like - like drugs and abortion - but leave big companies alone to abuse their customers and they sure don't want to let go of corporate welfare. So I've reached the point where I'm content to muddle through and try to come up with solutions that work the best I can and forget about an ideal of consistency.
    Last edit by Chico David RN on Jul 7, '10
    HazelLPN, DolceVita, elkpark, and 4 others like this.
  7. Visit  Lorien_LPN profile page
    7
    I am really happy about this. As a gay man who has been partnered for over three and a half years I feel that I have the right to be with my partner and vie versa if one of us was injured or sick.


    Quote from DoGoodThenGo
    So if your daughter, son, husband or whatever is in hospital and directs someone else other than yourself to make decisions about their care, and or who gets first dibs on visitation/remaining at bedside, you are now out of luck, and will be chucked out regardless of family or blood relationship. Methinks hospitals aren't going to wish to get caught up in this and risk ticking off the Obama administration, and will follow the rules to the letter. If a patient's family has problems with the rule and how it is applied they will have to turn to the courts or elsewhere for satisfaction.
    .
    Ok when I am sick I have the right to choose who I want at my bedside. If I choose to remove someone from my life it is my choice. Especially when I am sick. Just because you have a blood relationship with someone does not mean that person is the best person to be at your bedside. If I am in the hospital, its about my recovery. Not theirs. Do not get me wrong families experience a lot of stress and hard times when a loved one is hospitalized but I think the patient's decision and feelings are more important.


    Quote from PetiteOpRN
    Hospitals all over the country are forced to cut staff and expenses as budgets shrink. Religious institutions have provided charity in various capacities for centuries. Is now really the best time to alienate them?

    Do you think the Catholic hospital that is forced by law to permit same-sex couples to have the same visitation rights as married couples is going to be able to maintain its affiliation with the Catholic Church? And where will that hospital be when it looses the financial support of the Church?
    Ummmm if they are so charitable then they shouldn't discriminate against people in a time of great need. Not so christian in my opinion when you ignore what a patient needs in their time of need: those they love.
    SnowShoeRN, nursel56, DolceVita, and 4 others like this.
  8. Visit  eriksoln profile page
    2
    OK. This whole article heats me up.

    Basically, what it is telling me is: Obama is busy passing laws for things that...........are already being done the way the says it must be done.............instead of working on finding jobs for the middle class and getting on BP about the oil spill or......well, a million other things that should be on the priority list long before this garbage is even discussed.

    Economy not getting better, more and more people nearing the end of their unemployment time, lots of issues relating to the oil spill not dealt with yet, implementation of his healthcare plan needs supervision...........and he is passing laws about.........gay hospital visitation rights? Eh?

    That is the equivalent of worrying about what color window blinds to buy while ignoring that the basement is flooded or the attic is on fire.

    Obama needs a good swift kick to the head or something.

    Mind you, I don't disagree with the premises of the law one bit. Nor do I think its not an important issue. I'm just beside myself because, its a law..............about..................things already being done that way. What the heck hospital is telling visitors "Sorry, can't come in unless your are straight"?

    Idiot President. I'm ashamed for having liked him at one point. Won't make that mistake again.

    What next? "Obama has passed a law stating that all citizens blowing their nose must do so by exhaling air.................".
    Last edit by eriksoln on Jul 7, '10
    Forever Sunshine and FLmomof5 like this.
  9. Visit  HazelLPN profile page
    5
    No kudos to the previous post.

    Speaking as an old MICU nurse who took care of many first generation AIDS patients who witnessed visitation discrimination first hand, and speaking as a very proud mother of a lesbian daughter and the proud grandmother of a gay grandson...I am delighted that Obama is taking steps in the right direction on the rights of gay and lesbian people.
    SnowShoeRN, Moogie, DolceVita, and 2 others like this.
  10. Visit  FLmomof5 profile page
    1
    I have a brother who is gay (nurse, no less) and a cousin who is gay.

    I have no problem with homosexuality (one of my FEW lib-leaning positions)....but I agree with the poster above you.....

    Obama has his priorities out of whack. Period. And NO, I would have NEVER voted for him. I am left brained and one thing that was more than clear during the election was that he NEVER answered the question he was asked and 2 he only would regurgitate "Hope and Change". He never DEFINED that. HOPE is NOT a plan!
    eriksoln likes this.
  11. Visit  eriksoln profile page
    0
    Quote from HazelLPN
    No kudos to the previous post.

    Speaking as an old MICU nurse who took care of many first generation AIDS patients who witnessed visitation discrimination first hand, and speaking as a very proud mother of a lesbian daughter and the proud grandmother of a gay grandson...I am delighted that Obama is taking steps in the right direction on the rights of gay and lesbian people.

    I don't have a problem with the premises of the law. My problem is, we're well beyond needing to be told this in a law. Yes, back in the day when AIDS was new and there was no research/history to put careworkers minds at rest (or to at least teach them how to care for said AIDS pt), a lot of people became very fearful. Then, they simply started acting in ways not becoming of nurses or, well, healthcare people in general.

    THIS IS NOT THE EARLY 80'S.

    If Obama were pres. back when that sort of thing were going on, then I'd say "Good for him, fighting for the people who can't fight for themselves." But everything/anything this law tells us to do.........................has been done for the last ten years, without the law. The law has no impact whatsoever in this day and age, we are already doing everything it states we must do............and we are being guided by our moral compass...........no "law" is going to make us rethink that.

    Again, this law is a complete waste of time. Cosmetic PR bantering so that people like you will jump up and down, clap your hands and vote for him again. I'm not so easily impressed.

    Again, I'd like someone to point out to me the hospital that has it stated in their policies "Visitors must be straight". It doesn't exist. What advantage does this law grant the gay minority?
  12. Visit  DolceVita profile page
    2
    I'm at a Catholic hospital and I have never observed this being a problem. Then again -- my experience doesn't make it so.
    Not_A_Hat_Person and eriksoln like this.
  13. Visit  HazelLPN profile page
    4
    You ASSumed that I voted for Obama.

    I actually didn't vote for him. I was one of the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters who chose to write her in. I too didn't care for the constant hope and change this and that...I go for tangibles.

    As far as jumping up and down, I'm 76 years old and had knee replacement surgery last year...I still use my cane occasionally and there will be NO jumping up and down for me for a while...and I don't know who I will vote for.

    There is still much homophobia in society today and although its not the early 80s anymore there are still problems when it comes to visitation rights. The most recent one I can remember was probably 5 years ago. It was one of my last scheduled shifts in adult MICU. I was caring for a man who attempted suicide who had a type II personality disorder which sounded awful. His mother blamed his mental illness on his sexual orientation. She banned his boyfriend from visiting. He was vented and charcoaled and was in no condition to say who was to visit. It was mom's word against the boyfriend's. Once he was off the vent and talking, his significant other was allowed to visit because he was able to make it known. His significant other was the one who found him unconcious, yet he had no legal visitation rights because he was not a blood relative and the patient's mother had every right to make that policy. Of course, when the mother left we allowed his boyfriend to visit, but we shouldn't have had to sneak around like that. This law would have made that situation easier.

    Be carful when you speak of a moral compass. Everyone's is different, especially when people are stressed and emotional. Anger is a common feeling...and like this young man's mother...the anger was misdirected and her moral compass was far different than mine....and hopefully yours. Anger is part of the grieving process...and its often misdirected at the same sex partner. Someday you will care for gay and lesbian people who have strained family relationships and you will definately learn that first hand...be prepared for it.

    I save my anger for things like California's Proposition 8 which effectively took marriage rights away from gay and lesbian couples because people with conservative religious views felt that they should be able to force their views on others.

    I'm not saying who I'm voting for nor will I jump up and down. But I can certainly see that this legislation is important to thoes of us who have seen discrimination and who are concerned about the rights of our gay and lesbian friends. Even if its symbolic in many cases (but certainly not all cases)...its a step in the right direction towards equality.

    One last bit of advice. It is not wise to tell someone who is much older with much more life experience than you that "its not the the early 80s anymore" and then proceed to say what it was like. I was an experienced critical care nurse then...at best you may have had a toy nurse's kit. History is best learned by living through that period vs reading or having your teacher tell you about it. We study history so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Certainly we have come a long way, but we still have a long long ways to go.

    Best to you,
    Mrs H.
    SnowShoeRN, VegetasGRL03RN, nursel56, and 1 other like this.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

Visit Our Sponsors
Top
close
close