Gay couples to be allowed visitation...

[BYC]

I haven't had this happen to me since the early 90's. Back when my file had a big red X on the front as a warning, and everyone was still required to wear gloves/masks to come visit someone with HIV. I wasn't allowed anyone to come visit me in the hospital except actual family. No friends, no partner. How times have changed....

I am sorry this happened to you, but that wasn't just a gay issue. That was an AIDS issue. It was new, and people didn't know what was true. Thank God we now know that it can't be transmitted through casual contact, but they did not know it then. I have spent most of my 55 years of life on Fire Island.. The AIDS epidemic wiped out so many of my friends, and changed my life forever. When we first learned of it, was I afraid? You bet. But so were the people that had it. My best friend would not let my children come near him. He loved them, and he just didn't know. Yes, times have changed, thank God. But a lot of the fear people had was not all wrong for the time. No one knew for sure what to expect. I miss those guys, and I wish they could have stayed around long enough for the advancements that have been made. Fear and ignorance are hurtful partners.

 

[rpmdfw]

This is very sad if it is true. But your recap has its flaws. So when this woman and her children asked to visit her dying partner, she was stopped at the door and told "Florida is an anti-gay state"? I had a dying friend who was only a friend, and not a relative, and I was not turned away from visiting her, or from staying with her as she died. Something just doesn't seem right with this story. Did the parents of the dying woman refuse to let them in?? Or did the hospital decide on their own not to let them in?
I agree that full marriage equality for gays is absolutely way past due. But I don't think it should be the thing that fixes this problem. There are many people, gay and straight, that want their partner (or friend, or lawyer, or anybody) to be their proxy or have power of attorney, and they should not have to be married to have that. And as the law stands, they don't have to be married. That is why this announcement from Obama confuses me. Nothing is different than the laws in place now.

From what I've read the hospital took it upon themselves.

Here's where I got my information: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...man-kept-apart-from-dying-partner-by-hospital

 

[TagsMissy]

There was a high profile case in South Florida recently where the couple (two women) had all of their documentation in order, and as one partner lay dying, her partner and their children were denied visitation because "Florida is an anti-gay state". They didn't get to say good-by to their wife and mother even though they had done their homework and gotten all the legal protections available to them. Presumably this mandate would end that kind of discrimination.

It's not enough, of course. Only full marriage equality will actually fix the numerous inequalities that exist. But this is a step in the right direction.

That is heart breaking.

 

[soulmates]

That is a very heartbreaking story...so sad it took that to bring more attention to this.

 

[taylor3297]

From what I've read the hospital took it upon themselves.

Here's where I got my information: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...man-kept-apart-from-dying-partner-by-hospital

Now that is just down right scary! The hospital should not be able to make those decisions! Now if a patient asked for certain people to be turned away that is a different story. Also, if the legal documents are in order, then the hospital should honor them.

 

[taylor3297]

Whether you choose to believe it happened or not it did. Was I there? No. But does it surprise me? No. It would be great if everyone was allowed in as you were, but the truth is, they're not. Not sure why you are trying to start controversy. And I agree with Rob, until we have marriage equality, not much will change.

But I'll take this if it's help folks like Conck be able to stay if there is ever a problem. Or me for that matter if one of us gets sick while in Disney. We're in New York and have never had a problem here (except 1 stupid nurse when DD was sick as an infant. The nurse was wearing a WWJD bracelet and threw a diaper at me when I asked for assistance.) I don't think Jesus would throw a diaper at a new mom. This wasn't our only encounter with this nurse and it was obvious she didn't like the lesbians.

That nurse didn't honor the message behind her WWJD bracelet. Also in the nursing profession you aren't supposed to let your personal judgements interfere with the care of your patients. Everyday I am still amazed how people treat others who may not be like them.

 

[soulmates]

That nurse didn't honor the message behind her WWJD bracelet. Also in the nursing profession you aren't supposed to let your personal judgements interfere with the care of your patients. Everyday I am still amazed how people treat others who may not be like them.

Well said, well said!

 

[BYC]

Whether you choose to believe it happened or not it did.

Oh, I am not saying something didn't happen. Believe me, I can see that something did. But there is always more to a story, depending on who is telling it. From the court ruling, it seems that a hospital has the right to deny anyone access to their trauma room. Is that right?? No, I don't think so, in most cases. But the court ruling was based on that. The court was not agreeing that the hospital had the right to exclude a gay partner. They were agreeing that the hospital had the right to exclude anyone. Now, the trick is, to make the hospital defend their reason for not allowing this family to be together. It won't help this family, but it may help another in the future. Perhaps their needs to be a federal document that any person can get that is 100% binding in all states. Problem is, the hospital can always lean on their rule that they do not have to allow any visitor in their trauma room. It's sticky, but I think it can be overcome. I think a person being denied access has to be very LOUD, too.( Remember Shirley McClain in Terms Of Endearment.......GIVE MY DAUGHTER THE SHOT!!!!!). I had to go through something like that with my step-daughter after she gave birth, and they had not brought her her baby for 17 hours after he was born. I pulled a Shirley McClain, and that baby was there in 5 minutes.

My point with this whole thread is that nothing has changed with this ruling. Nothing is different. Words were shuffled around, but the law is the same.

 

[C&G'sMama]

That nurse didn't honor the message behind her WWJD bracelet. Also in the nursing profession you aren't supposed to let your personal judgements interfere with the care of your patients. Everyday I am still amazed how people treat others who may not be like them.

And this was a peds nurse, so if you don't like me that's fine but it's my baby you're taking care of. When DD had the same nurse 9 months later she got switched of the case with someone else.


But I gotta say 99% of the people in the health care profession we have dealt with as a couple and as parents have been wonderful. Unfortunately you're always going to have the other 1%.

 

[HelenParr]

It is correct that, right now, zero has changed. Also true that if a hospital says no one can come into XYZ area (usually for clinical or safety reasons), that includes everyone. That probably will not change either.

But the actual instructions from the President to HHS (published yesterday) make clear that there will be a regulatory change, and rule change, to outline hospitals' obligations on visitors, and that change will be different from what the regulation and rule are right now. The obligations will be broader, and will bar discrimination (relative to visitors) on a broad group of public accommodation type factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity, which are not in the regulation or rule right now.

It'll be interesting to see what the final rules actually require. That may be months away.

 

[npmommie]

I haven't had this happen to me since the early 90's. Back when my file had a big red X on the front as a warning, and everyone was still required to wear gloves/masks to come visit someone with HIV. I wasn't allowed anyone to come visit me in the hospital except actual family. No friends, no partner. How times have changed....

where in the world do you live??
I worked as an RN in a hospital in the 90's and we did not put big red x's on any HIV patients chart, we didn't require gloves and masks to visit a pt with HIV!!
crazy!
the only time precautions are in place going into a room ( gowns, masks, gloves) are if the patient has another infection requiring those precautions
TB, MRSA, for example.

 

[tig82174]

My point with this whole thread is that nothing has changed with this ruling. Nothing is different. Words were shuffled around, but the law is the same.

I actually respectfully disagree. Queer Health and Healthcare Advocacy is what I do for a living and so I can tell you this continues to be a problem and a need. I don't think that at the FEDERAL level there has ever been strong enough language actually mandating that same-sex partners be treated with equality with regard to hospital visitation and healthcare decision-making. If there were such a federal mandate that was being universally enforced, then individual states would have no need of passing their own legislation to provide similar rights to same-sex couples...and the fact is that states are finding they need to do so. My state of NY, for example, passed a visitation bill several years ago and just about a month ago finally passed a state law providing healthcare decision-making rights to same-sex domestic partners and spouses (even in the absence of a signed healthcare proxy). So while the presumption has been that adequate protections are in place----in practice that has clearly not teased out to be fact.

Even people who oppose many other LGBT rights have recognized this disparity. In particular, I can specifically recall that in one of the VP debates when asked about LGBT issues Sarah Palin, who is by NO means (in my opinion, at least) a friend to the queer community, identified that while she couldn't support same sex marriage, adoption, etc. that she did recognize that we must allow partners hospital visitation, etc. The mere fact that this issue continues to get mentioned on both sides of the aisle is an indication that something has clearly been "broken" in the system.

Another indicator of such is that there are clear examples of incidents where laws either were not in place or were not appropriately enforced, as have been highlighted here on this thread. If you want to learn of more instances like these, I suggest looking up the "Healthcare Equality Index" which is published annually both online and in print by the GLMA and HRC. It contains 1st person stories of inadequate and substandard access and treatment as well as hard data about the problem(s). In 2007, for example, a sampling of hospitals nationwide were surveyed and one of the questions they were asked was "Does your hospital recognize advance healthcare directives such as durable powers of attorney, healthcare proxies or living wills in allowing GLBT domestica partners decision-making authority for their hospitalized domestic parnters?" In response, 1 of the hospitals surveyed said "sometimes"....and FOUR of the hospitals said "NO." When you have hospitals openly admitting that they opt NOT to honor legal documents designed to protect the healthcare needs of patients (specifically, in these cases, LGBT patients)---there is clearly a problem.

Obama's directive yesterday is a move in the right direction....even if for no other reason then it draws further attention to the clear disparity that continues to occur around this issue and will hopefully force care providers nationwide who have been slow to create and/or respond to what should be good common sense, ethical practices to get in line and follow the very oath they take when they become healthcare providers: "...do no harm."

where in the world do you live??
I worked as an RN in a hospital in the 90's and we did not put big red x's on any HIV patients chart, we didn't require gloves and masks to visit a pt with HIV!!
crazy!
the only time precautions are in place going into a room ( gowns, masks, gloves) are if the patient has another infection requiring those precautions
TB, MRSA, for example.

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!

 

[soulmates]

GOOOO Erik!! We SO need amazingly strong people like you in our corner. BTW, the pic of you & your partner is ADORABLE!!

 

[tig82174]

GOOOO Erik!! We SO need amazingly strong people like you in our corner. BTW, the pic of you & your partner is ADORABLE!!

Thank you very much That's us in our 101 Dalmations tuxes on our last DCL cruise!

 

[zeitzeuge]

where in the world do you live??
I worked as an RN in a hospital in the 90's and we did not put big red x's on any HIV patients chart, we didn't require gloves and masks to visit a pt with HIV!!
crazy!
the only time precautions are in place going into a room ( gowns, masks, gloves) are if the patient has another infection requiring those precautions
TB, MRSA, for example.

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.

 

[BYC]

TIG82174......I am trying to understand this. As the law stands now (before the recent ruling) a husband or wife, or mother or father (depending on the marital status of the patient) has the right, with no legal paperwork, to make decisions for a patient that is unable to for him/herself. A partner (unmarried, gay or straight) has no legal right if there is no documentation that the patient wants this person. (Now, I realize that many gay couples, through no fault of their own, are not legally married. If they could be, many of them would be) So, what is different? Can an unmarried straight partner now make legal decisions without the proper paperwork? Can an unmarried gay partner make these decisions? Does the new law give rights to anyone that may say they are the partner of someone else, but has no proof that this is even true? If not, then what is different? It seems to me that if you are not married, you must choose a health care proxy, and make it legal.....just the same as before. Unmarried straight couples have to do this. Friends have to. Even married people who want someone else other than their husband/wife have to. I just don't see anything changing. 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.

 

[tig82174]

TIG82174......I am trying to understand this. As the law stands now (before the recent ruling) a husband or wife, or mother or father (depending on the marital status of the patient) has the right, with no legal paperwork, to make decisions for a patient that is unable to for him/herself. A partner (unmarried, gay or straight) has no legal right if there is no documentation that the patient wants this person. (Now, I realize that many gay couples, through no fault of their own, are not legally married. If they could be, many of them would be) So, what is different? Can an unmarried straight partner now make legal decisions without the proper paperwork? Can an unmarried gay partner make these decisions? Does the new law give rights to anyone that may say they are the partner of someone else, but has no proof that this is even true? If not, then what is different? It seems to me that if you are not married, you must choose a health care proxy, and make it legal.....just the same as before. Unmarried straight couples have to do this. Friends have to. Even married people who want someone else other than their husband/wife have to. I just don't see anything changing. 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.

I think you're moving in the right direction....I think the major piece you're missing is that there are healthcare providers who admit to unequally enforcing policy and/or law....so that sometimes, indeed, healthcare wishes are granted without legal documents and, conversely, in some cases healthcare wishes are denied even WITH legal documents (often precipitated by bias that is, at least in part, fueled by homophobia). So the issue here is one of a clear grey area that, whether supported by current law or not, still exists. This new law (whether you choose to interpret is as truly new or not) is designed at clearing some of the fog and creating, on a nationwide level, standards of care that do equally protect all people---including LGBT people.

 

[ConcKahuna]

But your partner could always do that. This is nothing new. The problem was with an unmarried(gay or straight) partner wanting to make decisions without that legal document. I know many gays couples that have their partner as their healthcare proxy, and this is nothing new.

I have a healthcare proxy for my partner, and I still have been denied visitation.

Unfortunatly something a lot of people didnt realize is that Amendment 2 here in FL made healthcare proxy documentation null and void.

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.

 

[PghLybrt]

1 down, now only 1,137 more to go........

 

[BYC]

I have a healthcare proxy for my partner, and I still have been denied visitation.

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!