Good move by President Obama:
Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies
There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean — a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.
Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a rolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.
***Many States have taken steps to try to put an end to these problems. North Carolina recently amended its Patients’ Bill of Rights to give each patient “the right to designate visitors who shall receive the same visitation privileges as the patient’s immediate family members, regardless of whether the visitors are legally related to the patient” — a right that applies in every hospital in the State. Delaware, Nebraska, and Minnesota have adopted similar laws.
My Administration can expand on these important steps to ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays. By this memorandum, I request that you take the following steps…
This is great news, this is common sense, and there really is no reason why anyone should be opposed to this. This puts the power with the patient- where it should be. I suppose the usual suspects at Focus on the Family and the scum Tony Perkins pals around with will be upset, and Rick Santorum and J.D. Hayworth will probably be apoplectic, but this really is a no-brainer.
gogol's wife
This is wonderful. I love that man.
/Obot
General Egali Tarian Stuck
JD Hayworth – A Man That loves his horse of course.
Now do you non Obots believe? Even a little.
Calouste
Obama is sure setting up the trap for the right nicely by first mentioning childless widows and members of religious orders and only then mentioning gays.
He could by the way also have mentioned straight couples who live together unmarried.
Cerberus
Ooh nice.
That’s been a big issue and it’s good to see him putting some effort into doing something about it.
Linda Featheringill
Actually, the hospitals around Cleveland have been doing that for some time. I don’t know if all the hospitals did. Perhaps it was an individual facility decision.
As I remember, some health care professionals looked into the situation and found that patients had a better outcome if they had their Significant Other [blood kin or not] to comfort them during the hospitalization.
And yes. I suppose that Repubicans will be against it and the Teaparty folks will say that it is invasive and oppressive to have the feds encourage facilities to be a little more open minded.
Cerberus
One question, does anyone with a better grasp of laws know what the exact scope of this move will be? Like with enforcement and the like or how it may lead to future laws?
Aaron
Seems entirely too reasonable. Will Demint try to make this Obama’s Elba?
demkat620
One more step in the right direction.
Moonbatting Average
This is great news, but now that Cole has juxtaposed “horse” and “hospital”, all I can see in my mind’s eye is that classic Far Side cartoon.
Cerberus
@Cerberus:
The fug?
My original attempt at this comment literally disappeared into the ether. Weird.
Basically, I just wanted to say I found my own answer. Apparently enforcement will be up to HHS, but non-compliance will be punished by the loss of Medicare/Medicaid funds so it looks pretty enforceable.
Yay, good things happening to good people. Thank you Obama.
Comrade Luke
I live next door to a hospital administrator, and let me tell you she is going to be PISSED about the increased paperwork this will cause. She was already upset about how HIPAA, “thanks to Clinton”, made them have to do so much more work.
Expect to hear blathering about how this will cost hospitals more money, taking it away from patient care, blah blah blah.
flukebucket
Kick ass title man. Kick ass title.
Cat Lady
Compassionate care and equal treatment.
Just words/:-D
Palin/Bachmann 2012
Cole Moore Odell
All I could think of is Kool Keith’s Dr. Octagon album: “Oh shit, there’s a horse in the hospital!”
Midnight Marauder
So I guess the biggest question I have now is what is the number or percentage of hospitals that receive Medicaid and Medicare funding? I would imagine that it’s a pretty sizeable number, so this should have a rather large scale effect.
And that means there will be some wingnut heads exploding at the thought of their precious, self-generating Medicare being once again dastardly co-opted by Evil Liberal Government to benefit the hated Others.
Your worldview meltdown. It is delicious.
blueintheface
Too little, too late. Obama should have signed an executive order on January 21, 2009 ending DADT and legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
The GLBTQ community should sit out the 2010 elections or vote Republican to teach Democrats a lesson.
Oh, and we would have been better off under John McCain and Obama is no better than Bush.
/John Aravosis
gwangung
Still not seeing a down side here…
Menzies
I’m still wondering what the next animal simile is going to be.
Comrade Luke
How the NY Times interprets this:
BREAKING NEWS 8:25 PM ET Obama Orders Enhanced Rights for Same-Sex Partners of Medical Patients
Kevin
I for one believe this will lead to beastialities and incest. ‘Tis a slippery slope, lubed with K-Y Jelly and all sorts of deviancy.
Assistant Village Idiot
The 1998 Health Care Reform under Clinton created the much stricter HIPAA rules about confidentiality, and we in the biz are unable to automatically take the word of someone who says they are important to the patient at their word. I personally think it is too restrictive, and would appreciate some added flexibility. To paint this as some conservative opposition to people seeing their loved ones is simply moronic. We were the ones who fought that bill, remember? Progressives wanted it. Now you don’t like the unintended consequences and want to fix it. Fine, but don’t blame hospitals and conservatives about it.
When the patient is unable to answer for themselves, we err on the side of confidentiality. This is particularly important in psychiatric units.
You dig?
As to what else could go wrong, take a look at that Surrogate Decision making aspect. There are already laws that allow you to elect a DPOAH prior to going into a hospital. You should. This is a way around that so that people who weren’t responsible enough to do that can now have someone come in and say “Oh, we’ve been together five years. I can make that decision.” That is a very mixed bag. Most people will mean well, be honest, and do well in that situation. But if you think that doesn’t open the door to horrific soap-opera situations, you have never been to family court.
Nellcote
@Comrade Luke:
Why would this cause more paperwork/expense? It’s just letting designated people visit or be legal surrogates. It requires writing down a name and phone number. How expensive can that be?
El Cid
This move is un-Constitutional, because it is not in the Constitution.
Michael D.
I’ve had my head buried in work all day. Really exciting news coming out of my office this week.
I wouldn’t have heard about this if I didn’t stop in here just now.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!
Cat Lady
OT – The Big Picture awesome Iceland volcano pictures.
Mumphrey
Well, all I can say is that this is just another example of our marxist nazi Stalinist Hitleriffc president turning this country into a nazi-socialist-utopian hellscape.
If sick people can choose just anybody to come see them in the hospital, that’ll just take a way their incentive to stay well. Now every gay, lesbian, orphan, widow and clergyman is going to say, “Well, now I can have X come see me at the hospital, so there’s no reason not to go there. I won’t be lonely and wretched. I can’t see why I would want to stay out of the hospital with their fun (and costly to the taxpayers) colostomies, feeding tubes and barium enemas! I think I’ll check, in run up a huge tab that the hard working white, straight people of this fair land will have to foot, and have a little hot unwed sex!”
Thanks, Obummer.
John T
And yet, he still felt like he had to cleverly sandwich it in between nuns and North Carolina to make the Real Americans happy. Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, I suppose.
Progressive Elitist
@Comrade Luke: The liberal New York Times blah, blah, blah.
Enhanced rights? What is this Red State?
Digital Amish
I guess I don’t understand the scope of the problem, at least as far as the compassionate hand part goes. I have always been able to visit friends in the hospital. I simply go in, ask what room so and so is in and go in.
kay
@Assistant Village Idiot:
Oh, we know all about that here.
You may recall Democrats tried to encourage people to have that discussion as part of the health care bill, by allowing physicians compensation for a consult on advanced directives, and if I’m not mistaken we then endured six months of lies and fear-mongering on “death panels” from conservatives.
If I understood Katherine Parker (Sensible Conservative) the FEAR was that physicians would coerce patients into dying.
You remember all that mess, right?
BruceFromOhio
Fuck the in-laws. Let the horse through.
ETA: @kay:
Its fun to look back, ain’t it.
mistersnrub
Dr. Octagon please come to the office come now
Oh fuck! Patient just died in room 105
Cirrohsis of the eye
Nurse come in please where are you?
Fuck it he’s dead
Oh shit there’s a horse in the hospital!
de stijl
@Kevin:
You were just channeling Mr. Show there weren’t you? You were thinking of the slothful David Cross in a wheelchair in the Church of Satan televangelist bit.
I … also … want people to perform … beastialities for me.
Comrade Mary
I had to Google to understand you “horse in the hospital” kids. I’m OLD.
kay
@BruceFromOhio:
Here’s the sensible conservative, scaring the shit out of old people, Ms. Parker:
“We can all imagine a situation when we might not want any more life-sustaining treatments — when death is imminent, for example. But we can also imagine a scenario when, feeble and ill, we might be subtly urged to forgo further life-sustaining treatment out of consideration for others. Given that “actionable medical orders” can be formulated from advance care consultations, the danger is that life-sustaining care would be precluded based on a check-mark on a document you signed five years earlier.
It would be nice to think that everything goes as patients intend, but we can safely assume that when human error collides with bureaucratic efficiency, nightmarish enforcement scenarios could ensue. Likelihoods morph into certainties when, as this bill sets out, primary-care physicians aren’t necessarily involved in the consultations. As proposed, a variety of health-care practitioners would do.”
Of course, lawyers suggest and draft them now, with or without a physician consult. Because we’re much, much smarter than say, a nurse. Nurses will kill you.
gogol's wife
@Digital Amish:
Not in intensive care you didn’t.
Mark S.
@Cerberus:
He instructed the Secretary of HHS to make regulations to this effect. Best I can tell, it would only affect hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid, which I would imagine would be damn near all of them (at least until the Catholic Church decides it can’t abide by this and instructs all of its hospitals to stop seeing patients with Medicare or Medicaid).
It takes a while to make rules so this probably won’t go into effect until next year.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Once again, this is just nothing more than words. Now I do admit that I like these words so there’s that. :)
@gwangung:
I don’t think Obama sees any downside either.
It’s about time something like this was done. Hell, you can get a better deal on having whatever visitors you want if you are in prison or jail than you can being hospitalized. Even if you are on death row!
This makes too much sense, something is going to go wrong with it. ;)
jibeaux
I haven’t worked out how, but much like health care reform, I’m pretty sure this is making us less free.
r€nato
This is HORRIBLE!
It violates my Constitutional right to maliciously discriminate against total strangers whose relationships don’t affect my life in any way whatsoever.
…Hitler wanted unmarried partners to be able to legally visit loved ones in the hospital, too. Just saying.
El Cid
@r€nato: If George Washington didn’t engrave it on one of the 10 Constitutional Stone Tablets, it cannot Constitutionally be done.
de stijl
@Comrade Mary:
Dude, that was like the early 90s! You’re not just old; you’re super old!
gnomedad
@Cat Lady:
Cool, thanks!
As the wingers warm up the “puny humans can’t affect the climate” meme in 3, 2, …
gnomedad
@Cat Lady:
Awesomesauce. I’d buy that bumper sticker.
Comrade Mary
@de stijl:
“Super” is good, right? Um, right?
I’ll just go and rub my arthritic joints now.
cat48
Tony Perkins was right–“If Bill Clinton was the first black president, then Obama is the first gay president.” heh
Obama must be running him ragged lobbying against DADT, the justice he hasn’t picked yet who will “just love abortion” and now this.
WereBear
Oh, a hardcore wingnut pundit won’t bat an eye at ruining this.
After an obligatory paragraph about of course people should be visited in the hospital, they will point out this just undermines the traditional family because all those swinging singles indulging in zoo orgies and selfishly not reproducing won’t get the lonely death they deserve.
Thus, there is no reason for anyone to lead a moral life if President Obama has his islamofascistcommie way, and that’s the slippery slope to having only box turtles show up at your funeral.
So there.
Kevin
@de stijl:
Hail Satan!
Loneoak
I ain’t letting a horse anywhere near my hospital bed! Horses are terrible people.
robertdsc
I’m glad. Thanks, Mr. President.
Mike in NC
This outrage demands that Senate Republicans hold an all-night session to draw up Articles of Impeachment.
WereBear
All this talk about horses and hospitals are giving me A Day at the Races flashbacks.
Lurking Canadian
So, let me make sure I understand. Obama is about to ram his gay visitation policy down America’s throat? Is that about right?
cat48
@Lurking Canadian:
You are correct. That’s our prez!
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Lurking Canadian:
Better.
BDeevDad
You forgot Bill Donahue on your list because this memo is obviously anti-Catholic.
rob!
Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President.
Admiral_Komack
Another way in which President Obama has failed us/fake-ass progressive.
jrg
This is clearly a trick to give death panels health care power of attorney over Trig Palin and the elderly.
ExtremismInTheDefenseOfLiberty
I’m all for bestiality. Hey is for horses. And so forth. And why shouldn’t my lovegoat be able to visit me in the horsepital?
Ha ha.
But uh, are we saying that these and other rights can be granted just by, uh, granting them, without saying that the parties involved have to be married or blood related? You mean the government doesn’t own the rights to decide who we can include in our families? Never did have? Never should have in the first place? Oughta mind its own fucking business about these things?
Lolwhut?
MoeLarryAndJesus
Now if Bill Donohue gets sick all of his very favorite defrocked priests can visit him and fluff him up. His pillow, I mean, of course.
There’s probably a lactated ringers joke in here somewhere but I can’t work it out yet.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@MoeLarryAndJesus:
This will make it easier for priests to get support from
the churchNAMBLA.Mnemosyne
@Mark S.:
This is why “members of religious orders” (aka nuns, monks and priests) were mentioned before gay and lesbian couples. It’s not going to make the Catholic Church look any less assholish if they try to block this, but it at least lays out that they hate gay and lesbian people so much that they’re willing to deny their own clergy members comfort in a time of illness if gays and lesbians would have the same right.
tenkindsofgrumpy
@Menzies: Man on dog, perhaps
Yutsano
@cat48: And we ain’t swapping for Harper no matter how much free oil they offer. The last thing we need is another religious conservative nutjob running the country.
tenkindsofgrumpy
@Comrade Mary: If you can’t reach them, I’ll be glad to help.
fucen tarmal
its a fuctarded shame that in the immortal words of mel brooks, you have to “send in the nuns” to squeak this past the inquisition.
Bubblegum Tate
@Cole Moore Odell:
That’s the first thing that came to my mind as well. “Cirrhosis of the eye!”
Hank
What is it about North Carolina? Are they about to secede from the South?
Bernie
Not to worry, in less than 24 hours the gay hating right wing fundies have spoken. On NPR’s Morning Edition the editors decided to include a statement by Family Research Council’s J.P. Duffy that President Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group (that would be my family) and that these issues could be dealt with by health care proxy or power of attorney (because those always work for us and there has never been any pushback from a homo hating hospital employee).
kay
Well, sure they can. But that’s also true of family members. The difference is that when family members don’t opt for POA or proxy, they have a way in, and people unrelated by blood or marriage do not.
I have to say, too, I am endlessly amused by media’s sudden fascination with and promotion of health care POA’s, advanced directives and living wills.
These are the same media morons who allowed Sarah Palin to destroy any rationale discussion of this same issue six months ago. Now, we’re all ordered to go draft a living will. What happened?
If Palin issues a Tweet on this, are they going to follow her phrasing again? Really. My head is spinning. Are advanced directives GOOD or BAD? I guess we’ll have to wit for the half-term former governor to weigh in.
WallytheWineGuy
My box turtle domestic partner will have to leave for the hospital before I’m even sick if he wants to get there in time!
Angela
“…this is common sense, and there really is no reason why anyone should be opposed to this.”
And yet, just wait.
bemused
Hilarious post title.
JMC in the ATL
I am hoping that this works out and isn’t “just words.” Pretty much every GLBT person of a certain age (i.e. a legal adult during the mid-80s or earlier) knows personally someone who has had to deal with being powerless in a life or death situation involving a close friend or life partner.
Advanced directives are cool and all, as are medical powers of attorney, but there are times that even having that paperwork isn’t enough. How anyone with even the slightest shred of empathy can’t put themselves in that situation and see how horrific it would be is truly unfathomable to me. I can’t even picture it.
Joel
Blue flowers, growing by the purple pond.
Look, it’s raining yellow!
Joel
@Assistant Village Idiot: Read much?
I had to Google DPOAH, for what it’s worth. Using industry shorthand to talk over people ain’t cool, you dig?
kool-aide
This memo/order came too late for Janice Langbehn (and others) but I am very glaad about it none the less. It is now less likely others will have to go through what she did.
kay
@Joel:
Of course the language applies to everyone. You won’t get that from the media, though.
The Washington Post headline is absolutely appalling:
“Visiting Rights Given to Gays”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I mean, jesus. Do they not have editors?
WTF are “visiting rights” and why the HELL would they use “given”? Every word of that headline is slanted, hell, it isn’t even accurate, with the exception of the word “to”.
The headline is deliberately designed to mislead: there is no such thing as “visiting rights” and that idea that someone or other “gave” these mythical “rights” to gay people is just hyperbole. It could have been written by Rush Limbaugh.
It’s a fucking rule change. A NO BRAINER rule change.
kay
@Joel:
If we had an honest media, one with some respect for accuracy, one that cared about a rigorous standard that acknowledges the power of words, this would be portrayed as what it is: a rule change that ends the exclusion of people who are not a patient’s family members from bedsides and decision-making.
That’s what it is. As written. That they chose to portray this as a brand-new “right” extended to GAY PEOPLE (!!!!) is not just hyperbole, it’s inaccurate. So why are they doing that? That’s my question.