Due to a few people, including myself that thought that the hemophobic thread was homophobic and stated such...here is a homophobic thread...lets keep it nice now :).
I too (as one person stated) had a male homosexual whos partner was his MPOA. Sadly, most of the information was told to the patient and not his partner. His partner was so confused about the pts care, what the plans were, and was trying so hard to arrange after care that would fit their needs. No one really would discuss it with him, even though he proved he was a MPOA.
TILL I came along! I got everyone involved together and we discussed our short term and long term goals in a way both patient and partner could understand. There was quite a family dynamic involved with the pts family (against the pt being homosexual with a partner..they treated the partner like slime!), but the partner was the LEGAL MPOA! So I got in there and made it clear to everyone :).
It all worked out great, all sides were happy...(the patient was suicidal and depressed when he came in, so he wished to go to a psych inpatient to get better...bless his heart! He was so saddened by this family/partner fight he was just so sad looking and you can tell he just couldn't take it anymore!!!). And the MD's and RN's felt that they did actually get the info to the right persons involved and felt good about it. It was just that no one really got into that situation deep enough to figure out whom they should be talking with r/t the dynamics and fragile nature of the patients mind (we didn't want him to kill himself over his family and partner fighting!!!).
But would this have been the same if this was a married hetrosexual couple???? Would the wife or hubby automatically get the info with no question???
This has been an awesome thread. Thank you Tweety for the links you shared. I think all of us learned something. Thank you, Corvettte Guy for being willing to learn; you have such a big heart.
Okay, I can gripe about our computer program at work all I want, but one thing it does well is that during an admission history, for EVERY admit, you MUST fill out the DPOA information. If they have some sort of DPOA paperwork, you must either click that it is available on the chart, or unavailable, and then why (copy at home, etc). If you click unavailable, then you must fill in what the stated intent is, and who stated this intent (the pt, or the family). Each person who has a DPOA, whether it is available or not, receives a visit from the floor social worker, who checks out the paperwork if they can, and confirms that everything is in order with the pt. Each person who has a DPOA is asked if they want to make changes. Each person who DOESN"T have some sort of living will or DPOA is asked if they want more info--if they say yse, the floor social worker will visit them that day and initiate it. All this info is carried over to their subsequent visits.
Why oh why do we not push for this at doctor's offices? I work prn at one, and I dont' understand why we don't ask EVERY patient to fill out DPOA paper work and bring it in; similar to their insurance card and their updated health history and contact info. I think we are really dropping the ball here; every annual exam should include the stated intent and any updated copy; every annual exam we should encourage patients who don't have one to get one in to us ASAP and we should emphasize the importance of living wills and DPOAs.
As to just having "understandings", as many have pointed out, that just doesn't work. Stress, fear, saddness, and guilt can bring out the best, and the worst, in people, and you never know how someone is going to react in the awful situation of potentially losing a loved one.
Why oh why do we not push for this at doctor's offices? I work prn at one, and I dont' understand why we don't ask EVERY patient to fill out DPOA paper work and bring it in; similar to their insurance card and their updated health history and contact info. I think we are really dropping the ball here; every annual exam should include the stated intent and any updated copy; every annual exam we should encourage patients who don't have one to get one in to us ASAP and we should emphasize the importance of living wills and DPOAs.
The other great thing about primary care providers having this information on file, is that a critically ill patient being admitted to the hospital could just say, "contact Dr soandso's office". You've got a much better chance of being able to contact, then obtain that information from a doctor's office then if you have to try and track down "Aunt Bess" at one of 5 different phone numbers, then wait for Aunt Bess to dig it up and produce the document.
But, the gov't simply has no business mucking in the affairs of reasonable adults that aren't affecting others with their decisions.
Governments that govern least, govern best.
Now, I DO object with the way the Supreme Court of Mass interjected itself in the legislative process of that State. But, even there, I understand that we supposedly live in a society where the majority is, in fact, not supposed to be able to browbeat the minority, even if there are glaring gaps in that principle. I just won't go so far as to say that the ends justify the means.
And I guess I can't really object to the side effects of that Mass decision as I believe the result was placing the issue on the ballot in Ohio, resulting in an increased turnout that re-elected Bush.
I'm reminded of a political cartoon of two guys in a bar. The first guy says, "I don't know what all the fuss about gay marriage is; of course it should be allowed." To which the second guy says, "That's fairly enlightened of you for a conservative . . . divorce atty."
In mental health issues, substance abuse issues and pregnancy, a child at the age of 12 (in IL) can make their own decisions and do not have to allow disclosure to the parents.
This reminded me of a recent situation we had where I work. We admitted a 15 year old who was 5 months pregnant. She had a very strained relationship with her mom and the dad was not involved and she didn't know or wouldn't say who the father of the baby was. The patients mom insisted we not allow her phone calls into the room and the patient insisted the mom should not be involved at all. It became so nasty that we called the hospital attorney to find out the legal rights of the patient, her mom, and the unborn child. Come to find out in our state, the 15 year old has no rights if she is not emancipated. If she was emanciped, her mom would be totally out of the picture and not allowed any information or decision making. As far as the unborn child...only the 15 year old could make decisions when it came to her unborn child. The 15 year olds mom...had no rights to making decisions for the baby. I just thought it was interesting the way our laws work.
as I believe the result was placing the issue on the ballot in Ohio, resulting in an increased turnout that re-elected Bush.
I can't believe Issue 1 (that issue) was considered to be legal here in Ohio. I can't recall the exact wording, but it included more than one issue -- the definition of marriage as well as joint ownership of property and whatnot, perhaps more, I forget. The point is that such issues can only cover ONE ISSUE: JUST marriage or JUST property ownership.
It might surprise you some, but I have recently taken to the decision to recant my previous objection to gay marriage.
As you might know, because I've gingerly posted about it before, it is of my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. But, so is any form of non-marriage heterosexuality - and I don't castigate those that engage in any such activity. Glass houses, and all.
But, the gov't simply has no business mucking in the affairs of reasonable adults that aren't affecting others with their decisions.
From the vantage-point of 'sin'; sin involves free will - including the decision NOT to follow and/or even believe in a religious restriction along these lines. I KNOW that you, Tweety, have had problems w/ Christianity in the past, not the least of which are zealots on the anti-gay bandwagon.
But, Governments that govern least, govern best. I do not wish my gov't to interject itself in such affairs, one way, or another. And since the 'status quo' of committed relationships is a 'legal' acknowledgment of such, that 'status quo' should be extended to all rational adults that so desire. Any bar to such is an 'interjection' by the gov't, unless that bar applies to all. I know, I know, that hasn't been the status quo to all; hence the 'interjection' that I find myself now needing to oppose.
Now, I DO object with the way the Supreme Court of Mass interjected itself in the legislative process of that State. But, even there, I understand that we supposedly live in a society where the majority is, in fact, not supposed to be able to browbeat the minority, even if there are glaring gaps in that principle. I just won't go so far as to say that the ends justify the means.
And I guess I can't really object to the side effects of that Mass decision as I believe the result was placing the issue on the ballot in Ohio, resulting in an increased turnout that re-elected Bush.
But the point is this: I've had a change of opinion in my previous opposition to the concept of gay marriage.
I'm reminded of a political cartoon of two guys in a bar. The first guy says, "I don't know what all the fuss about gay marriage is; of course it should be allowed." To which the second guy says, "That's fairly enlightened of you for a conservative . . . divorce atty."
My apologies for resurrecting controversial threads. . .
~faith,
Timothy.
Timothy, I think you might agree Church & State are best kept on opposite sides of the fence, even though fence hopping by both is done on a regular basis. I do agree with you [#1 for the sake of the patient's & partner's rights] that gay marriage should be legal. My personal beliefs on gay relationships does not override my concern for fair & equal healthcare for all Americans.
Timothy, that is indeed surprising. I've long said that someone's interpretation of the Bible and "sin" should not be the basis for interpreting the US Constitution and making laws. :)
This country's founding and laws are wholly based on christian views of the bible. The bible provides an excellent guidance for the foundation of laws and morallity.
Timothy, that is indeed surprising. I've long said that someone's interpretation of the Bible and "sin" should not be the basis for interpreting the US Constitution and making laws. :)
This country's founding and laws are wholly based on christian views of the bible.
*groan*
The country's founding was by a bunch of guys who were mostly Deists - some with an open hatred/contempt of Christianity.
Did Christianity play a role? Absolutely. But to say the laws were/are "wholly" based on Christian views of the Bible isn't supported by historical evidence.
Common Law predates the arrival/dominance of Christianity in Europe and we derive our laws from British Common Law.
This country's founding and laws are wholly based on christian views of the bible. The bible provides an excellent guidance for the foundation of laws and morallity.
Thankfully not all that often though.
I would hate it if the law was based on the book of Deuteronomy and I would then have to sell my daughters into slavery, and be thrown in prison for eating shellfish or for wearing more than one kind of fabric at the same time.
My point is that just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it is practical or effective. I am not Christian, never have been, never will be, don't want to be. What I love about America is that we don't have a national religion and I don't have to do what one religion says is right or wrong. I can decided for myself what is right or wrong.
Our sense of right or wrong comes from many places, including religion. I consider myself to have a strong moral compass: I treat others well, have no problem going along with the rules, and try to be honest, fair and decent in my dealings with others. Who I love or what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom has zero affect on how I treat others, whether or not I pay taxes or my choice to refrain from stealing things that don't belong to me.
I would prefer that laws be created around how effective they are, and not for what makes one group of people happiest.
.thumb.gif.fc0b5b00a77a1cf676541776e02de0f9.gif){kind=avatar}
indigo girl
5,173 Posts
This has been an awesome thread. Thank you Tweety for the links you shared. I think all of us learned something. Thank you, Corvettte Guy for being willing to learn; you have such a big heart.