President Obama has directed that hospitals who accept Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes the vast majority of U.S. hospitals, must allow patients to decide who can visit them and prohibit discrimination based on a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/15/2010rightspatients.mem.final.rel.pdf

I think that is excellent.

Cosign.

Truthfully, I thought this happened most of the time, anyway - assuming the person was competent to make a decision. I suppose this helps someone who is competent to make the decision when they enter the hospital to not have their choice trumped by family if they become incompetent.

I am glad for this.
This is incredulous, that it even had to be done.
All any gay or lesbian couple wants is:Equal rights, not special rights!!
To those who think this shouldn't be, ponder this:
How does this impact negatively on a heterosexual couple?
Answer:
It doesn't!

On another forum we have had a discussion on this subject and the real culprit for hospitals/doctors concerning this issue was the rules/regs regarding HIPAA (passed under Clinton). Just another example of poorly written legislation that when it meets the real world creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Some of the medical professionals on there understood the frustration of not only same sex couples but it also affected unmarried heterosexual couples but couldn't do anything about it because their legal teams determined they would be in violation of HIPAA to allow it.

It is ridiculous that it took this long to correct an obvious error in a 14 year old law.

Sometimes common sense eludes most professional groups...lol

Sometimes common sense eludes most professional groups...lol
Ain't that the truth.....

I am glad for this.
This is incredulous, that it even had to be done.
All any gay or lesbian couple wants is:Equal rights, not special rights!!
To those who think this shouldn't be, ponder this:
How does this impact negatively on a heterosexual couple?
Answer:
It doesn't!

But on KFOR, OK Republican legislator Mike Reynolds says there has been no problem with discrimination against gays in hospitals and calls what President Obama did was political grand standing in order to get votes. But I wonder what Reynolds calls what he's doing getting on TV over this? Surely Sally Kern would love to get her 2 cents worth in on TV about the subject, but haven't seen her.

That will be the day in Oklahoma when all politicians think there's more votes to be lost, rather than gained by talking against gays.

Right we all know how HUGE the gay and lesbian vote block is..lol
Reynolds is a Christmas light... very low output...

But on KFOR, OK Republican legislator Mike Reynolds says there has been no problem with discrimination against gays in hospitals and calls what President Obama did was political grand standing in order to get votes. But I wonder what Reynolds calls what he's doing getting on TV over this? Surely Sally Kern would love to get her 2 cents worth in on TV about the subject, but haven't seen her.

That will be the day in Oklahoma when all politicians think there's more votes to be lost, rather than gained by talking against gays.

I would think there was more discrimination against gays and lesbians by the families than the hospitals.

I would think there was more discrimination against gays and lesbians by the families than the hospitals.


I had a friend who passed away at Baptist (Integris) about 12 years ago.
The staff "snicker" at the "boyfriend", these are the most unprofessional POS.
Among other things,the staff said "we're a Baptist hospital and we believe in Jesus", and he is not family.
I called a person I knew, and my "Jew" lawyer.
Scared the hell out of them.
My friend had his partner in the room when he passed.
As for the family none of them bothered to even come up.
The Will was well defended,from those grubby hands.
Thankfully there was some good estate planning.
I dont care if I am on the curb next to Integris,I rather die going to Saints.

I see. So in that case, since the partner wasn't family, the hospital excluded him. I hadn't thought about it in terms of family vs. nonfamily (or using that as an excuse to trump the patient's expressed wishes). I assumed, wrongly, that a coherent patient could designate anyone they wanted.

Like most of us, I'll bet, I think anyone sick enough to be in the hospital ought to have anyone they want for support and comfort, assuming that person isn't dangerous, anti social or a criminal or something.

Related horror story...

]]NCLR: issues & cases > case docket > greene v. county of sonoma et al. (http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_Coun ty_of_Sonoma_et_al)

I know longtime partners who fear these types of problems and try to figure out how they are going to deal with them when the time comes.

I am all for this because it makes my job easier. In my opinion, everyone should be welcome friends and family alike. People should be adults on these matter and work together as a team.

All person had to do before this was have a power of attorney wrote up expressing the patients wishes. Besides the world is a little bit diffrent place now. More families are opening up to same sex partnerships. They would rather have a relationship with their family member instead of shutting them out.

Speaking as someone who works at a local hosptial we allow anyone to visit who expresses a desire to visit unless their is a protection order against the person who is visiting. In cases were one person is not welcome we work with all parties and require seperate visitation times when people refuse to get along.

Believe it or not this also an issue for unmarried heterosexual couples. The family sometimes hate the girlfriend/boyfriend and they use a life or death situation as way to get revenge.

Believe it or not this also an issue for unmarried heterosexual couples. The family sometimes hate the girlfriend/boyfriend and they use a life or death situation as way to get revenge.

Yeah, I had a real doh! :doh: moment when I thought about the unmarrieds. Personally, I think the families are on better grounds in that case - those folks could commit until death if they wanted and never bothered. It may be apathy or it may be that they just didn't want to take that step.

Plus, so many boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are in early stages and it may not occur to the family that they are that serious - they could have some floozy he met at a bar the night before claiming to be his soulmate and he might be unable to say one way or the other.

Here's something else..
Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions | The Bilerico Project (http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and. php)Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions | The Bilerico Project (http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and. php)

Yeah, I had a real doh! :doh: moment when I thought about the unmarrieds. Personally, I think the families are on better grounds in that case - those folks could commit until death if they wanted and never bothered. It may be apathy or it may be that they just didn't want to take that step.

Plus, so many boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are in early stages and it may not occur to the family that they are that serious - they could have some floozy he met at a bar the night before claiming to be his soulmate and he might be unable to say one way or the other.

You would not give these kind of privelages to a unmarried couple who had been together less then a year or two. I was just making the point their are many couples out there who have been together for 10,20 or 30 years that just never made the commitment because of one reason or another.