Me either.

Godwin's Law!!!! :p

I kid.

I don't know. I've had some understanding that lots of hospitals have a "relatives only rule," at least in some cases. That would exclude partners in states that don't recognize gay marriage, which is, of course, the vast majority of states. I'd be interested in whether AOIIAngel and some of the other medical prople around here see it as addressing a real problem or just as window-dressing, or some of both.

Gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely imagine that.

I HAVE heard of partners being denied access to their loved one in the hospital. It IS important that partners are able to make medical decisions and have access to each other in the hospital just like a heterosexual couple. I know of a gay man that was denied access to his partner in the hospital when he was dangerously ill because the patient's parents did not agree with their relationship and took over...and of course the law was on their side, so had the patient died, his partner wouldn't have even been able to say goodbye.

However...can the president just do that?

The president has, as I understand it, directed the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the executive agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, to promulgate regulations concerning same-sex couples and visitation issues. Though I haven't looked at the relevant statutes, I have little doubt that Congress has given DHHS fairly broad rule-making authority.

So, the DHHS can do it. And since DHHS is an executive agency under the president and the Secretary of which serves at his pleasure, the president can direct DHHS to do that. Other than the headline-grabbing subject matter of this particular rule, there's really nothing out of the ordinary about it.

Is water still wet today?

While, I'm glad that it got rid of...him "ordering" it seems to be rather dictatorial. It's the means that matter, the end is not always as important.

Where is "ordering" coming from? The actual memo "requests" that DHHS take three specific "steps."

He's done nothing more than exercise the authority every president has had for a long time. And if Congress thinks he overstepped his authority, they can always negate what he's done.

I'l roll with your bottom line on this one. Although, I'm not a supporter if same-sex marriages, I do believe that gay partners need to be afforded some basic human rights, such as visitation.
That being said, forcing hospitals to extend visitation to non-family members is a slippery slope to start off with, and this method of implementation is even worse.....

Question... is this more of a gay marriage issue than anything else?

Are the "partners" who are being denied access joined by civil union in states where such a thing is allowed? Or have these partners decided, with their significant other, to simply spend their lives together?

If a hospital has a "not family? No visit" policy, then they're just following policy. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.


And aside from all of that... Aren't there more important things to worry about? I haven't heard of this being a major problem, but this is what we're focusing on? I feel that in some cases, Obama is reaching for small "victories" to overshadow big mistakes.

This should also be a reminder to people, regardless of the individual genders of a couple, or legal marriage status: have legal documents for what you want for your life if you are unable to make your own choices. Even if you're single this is a good idea, and there are often clinics and workshops done by volunteer members of the bar while supervising law students. This can also be beneficial to family and friends as trying to make important decisions during an emotional time can lead to disaster.

Yeah. Next we'll be allowing the family dog into the patients' rooms... then horses, then pigs and rattlesnakes.

I totally see your slippery slope thing.

Mind you, I'm all for all the visitors the patient wants. Last time I was hospitalized, I told the staff "NO visitors but my spouse and son" and told them no more than 1/2 hour each day -- but that's me. When I'm sick I don't want to see anyone.

The point, though, is this is NOT a federal government issue. Medicaid and Medicare don't pay for visitors, so that argument is specious.

Nor do I think it's a big issue. It's just another "in your face" desire.

That's always how it begins.

Oh it certainly has happened and was very common early in the gay rights movement and in the early days of the AIDS epidemic. I'm very good friends with a gay couple (actually following them to Arizona.) One of them is a psychologist who specializes in couples therapy. He sees mostly gay couples but has been practicing in NYC since the 60s. He has told me so many sad stories of couples who couldn't visit their partners as they died in hospitals from complications of AIDS. They also couldn't inherit and often lost their homes after the death of their loved ones.

I do wonder what hospitals are still doing this, but there are still many catholic hospitals out there and other religious institution associated hospitals, as well as hospitals in very conservatives areas that may be refusing to let people visit their partners in the hospital. Just because we don't know about cases doesn't mean it still doesn't occur.