Gay couples to be allowed visitation...

[tig82174]

Who denied you visitation? Did your partners family ask that you not be allowed in? I am trying to picture this happening! It would just be awful! How were you denied? Did you come during visiting hours, ask for a room pass for his room, and be told no?? What were the circumstances? I have visited countless people in the hospital, and in most cases, I just walked up to the room! At what point were you denied? I am just trying to figure out how this can happen!

I certainly understand how stories like this can sound startling and confusing and disturbing....but the reality is that, whether they make sense to us or not...and whether they're ethically or morally or even legally right or not...they do happen. Sadly, I don't think there's a way to explain the "why" of how things like this happen or the "how" other than just to say that there certainly are ignorant and/or uneducated and/or biased and/or bigoted people in the world....and that those very unfortunate and unattractive characteristics manifest in a variety of ways that impact our lives as LGBT people negatively....VERY negatively.

I feel the same sense of confusion and wonder when I hear about things like:

----LGBT people being violently murdered. HOW can that still happen?
----LGBT people being denied medical care based on their LGBT status. HOW can that still happen?
----LGBT teenagers being thrown out of their homes by their parents (a particularly prudent issue to pause on today---the National Day of Silence www.dayofsilence.org). HOW can that still happen?
----Women being paid less for equal work. HOW can that still happen?
----People of color being confronted with blatant racism. HOW can that still happen?
----Young women being denied access to contraception...or reproductive rights. HOW can that still happen?
----LGBT people being barred from military service. HOW can that still happen?
----it's 2010 and we STILL do not have a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act...so in large swaths of this country is still legal to fire people for being LGBT. HOW can that still happen?
----Adolescents being denied access to comprehensive sex education that can help protect them from unintended negative consequences of sex (...and, in the news lately, a Wisconsin D.A. threatening to incarcerate any high school health teacher who DOES do any form of sexual health education outside "abstinence until marriage"). HOW can that still happen?


Truly the list of disturbing, backwards, unhealthy thoughts, beliefs and behaviors that are prevalent in our culture go on and on and on. I think we can always question how and why these things are reality; and we're right to do so----but we can't dwell there...it's only productive to ask the "how's" and "why's" when we are willing to use it as a launching pad towards actually CREATING CHANGE in our world!

 

[tig82174]

....... It just seems to me a way for Obama to pander to the gay community, to make up for his anti gay marriage stance. He is playing a word game to make people think he has done something, when he hasn't.

BYC---I want to make sure to stress that I absolutely 100% follow your logic and your skepticism here...and I mostly agree with it.

Is there the potential that this "change" is somewhat superficial? Sure.

Does that lessen the significance of the president taking a formal stand, stating a formal position, and officially creating a system of accountability for providers nationwide? No, I don't think so.

but...most importantly....

Is it enough? Or is it an acceptable replacement for true and full equality for LGBT relationships under the law? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!


Those who are familiar with some of my other thoughts posted here on the LGBT boards will know that I fully support some healthy skepticism about how high a priority our community is for the president or for the federal (and many state's) government as a whole. I firmly believe that even in the face of small victories like this one, we must be vigilant about the fact that there is more work to be done and a long road to haul----and we need to continue to hold accountable our elected officials and the communities in which we live and work and exist; and, more importantly, we need to hold OURSELVES accountable and be equally vigilant about understanding & fulfilling the role that WE can play in creating the change(s) that we both need and so richly deserve.

 

[ConcKahuna]

Who denied you visitation? Did your partners family ask that you not be allowed in? I am trying to picture this happening! It would just be awful! How were you denied? Did you come during visiting hours, ask for a room pass for his room, and be told no?? What were the circumstances? I have visited countless people in the hospital, and in most cases, I just walked up to the room! At what point were you denied? I am just trying to figure out how this can happen!

I was denied by hospital staff (my partner has no family that he is in contact with). My partner was in the ICU ward and I was told only family members could visit him. I argued with them, showed them our documentation, even showed them that he was covered under my insurance, but they refused.

Finally when the shift changed, the nurse who had been working with them told the people at the desk I was his nephew and they let me in.

 

[BYC]

I was denied by hospital staff (my partner has no family that he is in contact with). My partner was in the ICU ward and I was told only family members could visit him. I argued with them, showed them our documentation, even showed them that he was covered under my insurance, but they refused.

Finally when the shift changed, the nurse who had been working with them told the people at the desk I was his nephew and they let me in.

That is just terrible. I am so sorry that happened to you. If you had legal documentation, and they ignored it, that is just wrong.

 

[C&G'sMama]

BYC---I want to make sure to stress that I absolutely 100% follow your logic and your skepticism here...and I mostly agree with it.

Is there the potential that this "change" is somewhat superficial? Sure.

Does that lessen the significance of the president taking a formal stand, stating a formal position, and officially creating a system of accountability for providers nationwide? No, I don't think so.

but...most importantly....

Is it enough? Or is it an acceptable replacement for true and full equality for LGBT relationships under the law? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!



Those who are familiar with some of my other thoughts posted here on the LGBT boards will know that I fully support some healthy skepticism about how high a priority our community is for the president or for the federal (and many state's) government as a whole. I firmly believe that even in the face of small victories like this one, we must be vigilant about the fact that there is more work to be done and a long road to haul----and we need to continue to hold accountable our elected officials and the communities in which we live and work and exist; and, more importantly, we need to hold OURSELVES accountable and be equally vigilant about understanding & fulfilling the role that WE can play in creating the change(s) that we both need and so richly deserve.

Erik -
People like you are one of the reasons I love our little city! We really have some great resources and a wealth of informed people. I've actually learned quite a bit by reading your posts today.

So, thanks!!

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

It happened in our family too.

I'm not going into huge detail but we have lost someone in our family from AIDS. His partner, long term, decades, was kept from him.

It was hateful and vile.

By the time we'd sorted it out, it was too late.

We had it happen in another way as well, even with the correct paperwork, we had consent to treat denied... again, not going into huge detail, but it's happened twice.

I don't think this law goes far enough, but it's a tiny start.

For those who don't see the significance of this law, who think that gay people are treated with respect and honor and equally under the laws, spend some time with the reality of living gay... you may find your eyes opened, or maybe if you are lucky, your heart.

 

[mickeysaver]

While I am not thrilled with being handed crumbs instead of the whole cupcake, I will take these crumbs with a none the less.

I know that I have been extremely fortunate in that no matter what partner that I was with, whether I was the one visiting, making decisions, or laying on my back in a hospital bed, that I have never experienced any trouble from any of the medical staff at any of the local hospitals that I have had dealings with since moving to the Atlanta area in 1992. I have friends who can tell you horror stories, not unlike what I have seen posted on the board here today.

Yep, I will take those crumbs with a

 

[rpmdfw]

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized

That bolded part is used to negate any legal documentation that gives rights to anyone that would normally belong to married couples, and that includes hospital visitation or decisions.

Are you sure ConcK? Our lawyer told us that Amendement 2 wouldn't affect our legal paperwork at all. Because it was specifically written to give us medical and financial power of attorney in the case of one of us becoming incapacitated and making no reference to our relationship. The same documentation can be done for siblings, children, etc. So Amendment 2 shouldn't have any bearing.

That said. The passage of Amendment 2 may very well affect how people ENFORCE the rules. If I were you, I'd check with the lawyer that drafted your documents.

 

[ConcKahuna]

If I were you, I'd check with the lawyer that drafted your documents.

Will do. The folks at the hospital specifically cited Amendment 2, and said that it even negates heterosexual couples who are not married.

 

[npmommie]

I am glad to hear that you haven't experienced this kind of ignorance, bigotry and stigma in the professional settings----but the truth is that it does happen and we need to continue to share these stories so that we can address the problem. Through my job I received a call at my office from an RN who had recently been hired at a nursing home near where I live. She was deeply troubled and wanted me to come into their facility to do a training about HIV risk so that the STAFF of the facility would be better informed about the issue. Why? When she was first hired at the facility, she learned that there was an older gay man living with HIV who was a resident in the facility. The way she knew was because the man's room had a laminated red sign on the door that said "Touching Precautions" and during their new staff orientation, employees were encouraged to take extraordinary measures to protect themselves from contact with him that went well above and beyond the standards of universal precautions---and which were clearly rooted in ignorance and bias about HIV (and were clearly a violation of the particular patient's rights since they had created an unequal standard of care for him AND had probably also violated his confidentiality either directly or indirectly through their unequal treatment). This incident did not occur in 1983. It did not occur in 1993. It occured in 2003!!! A great deal of ignorance and bias about HIV (and LGBT people's health in general, for that matter) continues to exist and must be addressed through both policy and law....and through compassionate and well-informed providers who are willing to act as agents of change within their own field and care settings!

I am also glad i have not witnessed that kind of ignorance in the professional work setting. Your nursing home story boggles my mind. If the year was say 1981 ok maybe could understand, but in 2003.......touching precautions, oh that is sad. so very sad.

It was back in Kansas City in 1991. I know there were still big fears running rampid. I'm sure some other more progressive cities wouldn't have been that "dramatic". I still had friends who freaked out when I tried to kiss them upon greeting them, or had a friend totally lose it when she accidently drank after me.

So yes, HIV or AIDS patients files were marked with a big red magic marker X, a notice was put on the door and everyone was required to wear masks and gloves. I had a wonderful nurse my first visit though, that refused. Only time she wore them was when she took blood, which is understandable of course.

We don't live in days like that, so I don't dwell on the past.

Now recently, believe it or not, we were at a weekend gathering of my partners highschool buddies. During a drunk late night with everyone sitting around talking about the old days, my being poz was brought up by my partner, thinking it wasn't going to be a big deal. Much to his surprise (I had gone to bed), almost everyone freaked out. Asking him how in the world he could EVER be with someone who was POZ and how much they were terrified for him. Some freaked out because I had held and played with their children. Some were even upset that they hadn't been told in case I had an accident and cut myself, that they needed to protect themselves and the children.

It made me laugh at first, then I got pissed when I thought about it more.

There's still a lot of stigma attached to it.

But being this way doesn't affect me, change me or distinguish who I am.

When I re-read my post, I think I sounded like I didn't believe you, I apologize if I sounded that way, that wasn't what I meant. I know you lived thru that back in 1991 and it makes me sad to think that someone is treated that way in a place that is to help them.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Will do. The folks at the hospital specifically cited Amendment 2, and said that it even negates heterosexual couples who are not married.

This is PRECISELY what we were told. This is the "hidden" aspect of Amendment 2. It was a hateful piece of legislation touted as protecting "them" from "us."

Now, the reality is, that it can very well override any union that is not sanctioned by a legal, document bearing marriage.

This is one of the factors that the anti Amendment 2 faction tried to explain to everyone but were essentially shouted down and ignored.

 

[rpmdfw]

Here's another case. It's the worst I've heard of to date. It's not only a violation of their basic rights and their legal directives, but a shamefull case of elder abuse

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights (even though it's a male/male couple):

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

Here's another case. It's the worst I've heard of to date. It's not only a violation of their basic rights and their legal directives, but a shamefull case of elder abuse

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights (even though it's a male/male couple):

I can't wrap my head around this AT ALL. If the men were being approached as "roommates" then HOW ON EARTH did all of their belongings end up at auction? That makes NO sense! Was the county trying to claim the men abandoned their home? I just don't get it.

There was story on the news not long ago where a house and all of the contents were sold at auction, and it was the WRONG HOUSE. The woman went on the news and begged for people to return her things, and many, many people did. I hope Clay wins MILLIONS in damages. That won't bring his partner back, but maybe it will teach the county some manners.

 

[ConcKahuna]

I can't wrap my head around this AT ALL. If the men were being approached as "roommates" then HOW ON EARTH did all of their belongings end up at auction? That makes NO sense! Was the county trying to claim the men abandoned their home? I just don't get it.

There was story on the news not long ago where a house and all of the contents were sold at auction, and it was the WRONG HOUSE. The woman went on the news and begged for people to return her things, and many, many people did. I hope Clay wins MILLIONS in damages. That won't bring his partner back, but maybe it will teach the county some manners.

There was a woman in Tampa who's house was sold as a foreclosure...but it was the wrong house. They came home from vacation to find strangers living there!

 

[tig82174]

Here's another case. It's the worst I've heard of to date. It's not only a violation of their basic rights and their legal directives, but a shamefull case of elder abuse

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights (even though it's a male/male couple):

I saw this story recently on 365gay.com----thanks for reposting it here....it certainly does highlight the very issues raised in this thread.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

There was a woman in Tampa who's house was sold as a foreclosure...but it was the wrong house. They came home from vacation to find strangers living there!

I can't remember the exact details, but that is similar to what happened here. The woman had gone somewhere, or it was her parents house, or something. There wasn't someone coming back to the house every day when it was sold - it took a few weeks for her to realize what had happened. Once she went to the media people did start bringing her things back, but it was a small town. In a big metro area I doubt you would be able to recover much.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Obscenely wrong, isn't it?

I read awhile back, in Lavendar News, about a man who was living in isolation in a California NH, not allowed to take his meals in the dining room with the other residents because he was gay and the rest of the residents "might catch something from him."

Yeah, this new law is a crumb. A lousy, stinking doesn't go far enough crumb.