|
|
Post by beth on Apr 18, 2010 9:34:07 GMT -5
Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans. The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami. Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said. Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples' efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured. "Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement praising the president's decision. Obama's mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign. /snip rest of article and video, here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 18, 2010 9:36:33 GMT -5
This was, without doubt, a good way for Obama to give a boost to gender issues without doing anything too controversial. Mostly a political move but it's a benefit for those who will appreciate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 12:42:55 GMT -5
I see no harm in the policy; it's what every American should be allowed while ill.
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 18, 2010 16:59:37 GMT -5
I think so, too, and have long thought it strange hospitals would balk at allowing same gender partners the same privileges as close relatives. The patients' requests should carry all the weight, imo.
Not only that, I've long believed anyone entering hospital for test, treatment, surgery, etc., should be allow an advocate of their choice to keep tabs on them throughout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 20:07:45 GMT -5
I think so, too, and have long thought it strange hospitals would balk at allowing same gender partners the same privileges as close relatives. The patients' requests should carry all the weight, imo. Not only that, I've long believed anyone entering hospital for test, treatment, surgery, etc., should be allow an advocate of their choice to keep tabs on them throughout. Even though we are not married, I am on record at the prison for medical information......I don't care who you are, what sexual orientation you are or if you are behind bars, everyone should have someone to stand in the gap for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Apr 19, 2010 10:47:02 GMT -5
Even if you're not in a relationship with anyone ~ or are without 'family' whatsoever, you (the patient) should be able to choose *someone* to look after your needs/wants should you be unable to make decisions for yourself. Likewise, a patient should dictate (demand) visits from those they choose, not according to (necessarily) familial ties. I always thought it was that way anyway.
|
|
Novak
Affiliate
Posts: 14
|
Post by Novak on Apr 19, 2010 11:09:33 GMT -5
Even if you're not in a relationship with anyone ~ or are without 'family' whatsoever, you (the patient) should be able to choose *someone* to look after your needs/wants should you be unable to make decisions for yourself. Likewise, a patient should dictate (demand) visits from those they choose, not according to (necessarily) familial ties. I always thought it was that way anyway. In Canada, there is now a new policy where an ill patient can refuse to see people or have visitors. But I think it's a shame that it took this long for people to be denied visitations based on their sexual orientation, and as you said it should be the patients choice as to whom they want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Apr 19, 2010 15:29:59 GMT -5
Even if you're not in a relationship with anyone ~ or are without 'family' whatsoever, you (the patient) should be able to choose *someone* to look after your needs/wants should you be unable to make decisions for yourself. Likewise, a patient should dictate (demand) visits from those they choose, not according to (necessarily) familial ties. I always thought it was that way anyway. In Canada, there is now a new policy where an ill patient can refuse to see people or have visitors. But I think it's a shame that it took this long for people to be denied visitations based on their sexual orientation, and as you said it should be the patients choice as to whom they want to see. Absolutely ~~~ or NOT see. Yep. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2010 21:15:42 GMT -5
The only exception I can think of would be a patient with dementia. In those cases, a guardian should be appointed asap - hopefully by someone who knows the family situation.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Apr 22, 2010 9:07:04 GMT -5
It sounds quite archaic that hospitals should operate on access as the exception instead of the rule altogether. It's not just a matter of gay rights, it's not at all uncommon for people to feel closer to friends. whether lovers or not, and more easy to confide in them than in distant relatives or close relatives they may have become distant from.
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 23, 2010 13:00:26 GMT -5
I don't think it's a matter of the doctors, nurses and technicians being uncaring - though, no doubt, some are. It's just more a matter of getting their attention. After awhile, patients are bound to cease to seem like unique individuals and more like cogs on an assembly line.
In regard to same-sex partners, that kind of discrimination is just very sad to me. When patients are not allowed the support of their dear ones, it's bound to cut into their will to recover.
jmo
|
|
|
|
Post by michiganmagpie on Apr 23, 2010 16:31:14 GMT -5
I don't think it's a matter of the doctors, nurses and technicians being uncaring - though, no doubt, some are. It's just more a matter of getting their attention. After awhile, patients are bound to cease to seem like unique individuals and more like cogs on an assembly line. You really hit the nail on the head here. I was in the medical field for 11 years - front desk of a doctor's office. I noticed toward the end of my tenure there, it felt like an assembly line; answer the phone, get 'em in, collect the copay, get 'em out, and hope to get home at a decent hour to make dinner. And then get up and do it again the next day. I started losing patience with the patients...never a good thing.  That's when I knew I was experiencing burn out, and it was time for me to move on. Now I work in the field of higher education. Not an easy transition, but I did it. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2010 9:10:53 GMT -5
Congratulations on your re-careering. You were wise, but, I think, most don't have that kind of initiative - life wears 'em down, or the pay scale is too good.
OTOH, if caregivers and others who work in the medical field tried to give empathy with the tylenol to everyone, it would be a terrible emotional drain, don't you think?
Don't know a good answer; maybe rotation with job duties or between locations. Some people seem more able to survive - even thrive - in the field. I don't think I could do it.
Obviously, I have mixed feelings about this. Still think the best idea is for each patient to have someone from the outside with their best interests at heart to act as liaison.
|
|
|
|
Post by michiganmagpie on Apr 24, 2010 10:07:06 GMT -5
Congratulations on your re-careering. You were wise, but, I think, most don't have that kind of initiative - life wears 'em down, or the pay scale is too good. OTOH, if caregivers and others who work in the medical field tried to give empathy with the tylenol to everyone, it would be a terrible emotional drain, don't you think? Don't know a good answer; maybe rotation with job duties or between locations. Some people seem more able to survive - even thrive - in the field. I don't think I could do it. Obviously, I have mixed feelings about this. Still think the best idea is for each patient to have someone from the outside with their best interests at heart to act as liaison. Thanks, but I was lucky in that the pay and benefits were actually better in my new position. Small town docs just can't offer what a larger employer can. There was the option of applying in a hospital, where the pay and benefits are also better, but I thought a complete change of scenery was best for me and for the patients. It was just time to go. Luckily my skills and education were transferable; it was just a matter of presenting how during the interview process.  Your idea of rotation of duties or locations is really good. It would go a long way in rejuvenating people in the medical field. Yes, there are specialties and that may not be feasible, but even something as simple as a short-term job shadow program would help immensely; sort of walk a mile in someone else's shoes kind of thing...a new perspective. And yes, every patient should be allowed to choose their own advocate, whether that be a family member or a friend. It shouldn't matter what that patient and the advocate do in the privacy of their home or bedroom. That's not the hospital's or doctor's business. |
|
Omega
