Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Doesn't the Obama memorandum have to be complied with? Or it is discretionary? I have a feeling no one wants to cut funding to this institution for one case, even if it is a clear violation. Which would make such a directive pointless in the first place.
The selfishness is profound: it destroys the wishes of the ill so that another person's backward thinking can be validated.
Disgusting.
@1 This isn't going to be a Terry Shiavo-type of protest.
Why'd the family member ask the husband to leave? Is it because the family member is a homophobe or is it some other reason? What did the husband do that made the hospital feel the only option was police and handcuffs?
ThinkProgress had this to say:
Nothing in the Missouri law granting power of attorney rights suggests that a family member can trump the power of attorney granted to a non-relative. However, this passage does seem to suggest room for a facility to attempt to justify such discrimination:
No hospital, nursing facility, residential care facility, or other health care facility shall be required to honor a health care decision of an attorney in fact if that decision is contrary to the hospital’s or facility’s institutional policy based on religious beliefs or sincerely held moral convictions unless the hospital or facility received a copy of the durable power of attorney for health care prior to commencing the current series of treatments or current confinement.
In other words, if Gorley did not have the piece of paper granting him power of attorney on hand before treatment of his partner began, the hospital could argue that it refuses to recognize same-sex partners based on religious beliefs or ”moral convictions.” The Research Medical Center does not have a religious affiliation and claims not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but denying a patient access to the individual entrusted with his medical decisions appears to be a fairly egregious violation.
@10 - It's not just the haters who say marriage doesn't matter. We get plenty of people among our supporters and co-gays who whine that marriage is a distraction from the important things like employment and housing protections. I actually dated a guy once who was confident that any right that can be acquired by marriage can be acquired by a lengthy series of legal contracts, so why bother with marriage at all? I don't date him any more.
That should be "this is what state bans on same-sex marriage do."
But yeah, this has to stop.
Essentially it's saying, "Gee, guys, this would be cool if you could abide by it, but there's no actual legal enforcement to it, m'kay?"
http://www.yelp.com/biz/research-medical…
Anyone have more direct contact info for decision makers at the hospital?
Along the lines of what #10 said, I believe you're applying the wrong frame and this could often be a case of trying to save someone from hell.
Rather more charitably, if you view this under "love the sinner, hate the sin", what they are doing is having the "sin", embodied of course in the person whom their "loved one" loves (and they probably can't help but view this purely in terms of "icky" sex) removed.
It's sick, twisted and evil in effect, but I doubt that it is usually unloving in intent.
Also, I would like to point out that this happened in Kansas City, one of the bluest parts of Missouri. Although there are several Mormon-offshoot churches in the KC metro area, Kansas City itself (along with Saint Louis) is what makes Missouri a swing state, historically.
Yeah, yeah, sure, he was probably exposing himself and taking meth in front of children, like gay people do, so it had nothing at all to do with homophobia. It's possible, cuz we just don't know the facts, sure.
Not ONE logical inconsistency in that sentence, is there? Nothing to see here; move along. The life you can see is less real than the after-life of our wish-fulfillment.
Email: RHMC.CAREs@hcahealthcare.com
Administration: (816) 276-4101
PR: (816) 276-9475
Edit: Added for visibility Ethics Compliance Officer: (816) 276-3306
The man removed IS family. Possibly the most important family in the other man's life (or do you write up powers of attorney for all your acquaintances?).
Not gonna be "charitabl[e]" to ANYONE'S religious delusions.
How could more information be irrelevant???
I despise religion, and despise bigots who use it to justify their bigotry; however, everyone is saying this is due to religious objections, yet I read nothing in the article to suggest that's the case here. Indeed, the hospital in question appears to lean to the secular and progressive side rather than the religious.
I refuse to jump to conclusions based on the scant information given. I'd rather err on the side of "let's see the details of what happened here" instead of looking like a reactive fool if the facts come up and show everyone here is wrong.
All we know is that another family member wanted the husband out, and the husband was taken out by police against his will. We don't know shit about anyone's religious beliefs or homophobic behavior or the husband's behavior. Fuck, it could be some totally unrelated feud that the husband and the other family member have had going on forever and it got out of hand in this case.
If this were a hetero couple and the same thing happened, people would want to know the details.
Hospitals have the same responsibility to conform to the memo that Obama does to enforce DOMA.
in other words,
in Gommorah,
we only obey the laws we like.......
If he has power of attorney, this needs to be on all the news networks long enough that it seeps through to the supreme court justices before they rule on prop 8 & DOMA.
Either way, the ACLU needs to be contacted now.
Dan's clause at the top--"if the reports are true"--is important to remember here. The only information we have is the story of a man whose husband is in the hospital, hardly the most reliable testimony.
Oh, I see. Yeah, this bunch can be idiots of a different order. Thanks.
Just thought I'd share a hospital story that didn't make you homicidal.
Speaking as a gay man, if there had been a dispute between my husband and my birth family about religious beliefs or homophobic attitudes, I would want my husband at my bedside--not my birth family. The same would go for a "totally unrelated family feud." Presumably my husband and I would be on the same side of such a feud. Presumably, if I wanted anyone ejected from my hospital room, it would be the people on the other side of the feud. So your hypothetical arguments are nonstarters as far as I'm concerned. If anything, they demonstrate the need for same sex relationships to get legal recognition.
Thanks for providing the contacts. I was able to speak to someone answering the Administration number and she politely read me a brief press release stating that they do not discriminate against gays and that the matter has been settled. Whatever that means, there was no other info than that. The other 2 numbers for PR and Ethics Compliance go to voicemail. The woman in Administration did offer to take my number so someone could call me back later with information. She could not say if that information would be in addition to what the press release states.
It can't hurt to call these numbers and voice concern as to whether they are or not discriminating against LGBT patients and their partners.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side here. The wishes of both the man in the hospital and his husband should absolutely trump whatever the other family wants. They're married, they should be treated as any other married couple, he should certainly be allowed at his husband's bedside.
All I'm saying is that the story has so little information so far it's hard to figure out what happened and why it happened.
I was offering a rather charitable reading of their motives, not suggesting that that the practice of such bigotry should be tolerated.
I guess I just think of understanding as a tool to defeat them.
You think the onus is on the victim to prove the hospital did something wrong. I think the burden is on the hospital to prove they acted correctly.
This is why society should not settle for civil unions or "you can just get power of attorney." We need a big, loaded, culturally magical word like "married" or "husband" to vanquish the trolls with the handcuffs.
Thanks @44 for the explanation. Homophobic relatives and hospital staff win the day. Sue this hospital into oblivion, and I'm not a believer in lawsuits. As for the 'wait and see' attitude above: as Dan states- if someone tries to keep me from my ill husband or my ill children's bedside ANYWHERE, it will look a lot worse than 'disruption'. Grrrr.
Thanks much for the context. It sounds from that like the hospital reacted poorly to a guy who became disruptive (understandably disruptive, as he was provoked by a bigoted family member and wrongfully accused of mistreating his husband), but it still doesn't necessarily sound like the hospital itself was bigoted, so much as it overreacted to a situation it misunderstood.
From the hospital's (mistaken) perspective, it's actions made sense regardless of sex. Hospital hears shouting in a patients room and finds the patient's partner shouting. Family member of patient lies and says that the partner has been mistreating patient, and partner shouts at nurse. From what 44 says, partner was completely justified, but with the hospital's incomplete information, it made sense to eject the partner, regardless whether he'd been samesex or opposite.
SB sure is quiet today...
Regardless, I wish the best to both of your bros-in-law.
No. See @54.
Lee Mansell lmansell71@gmail.com
Thanks for the personal update on the situation. I'm glad to know that Roger has compassionate people like you on his side.
http://www.weareatheism.com/arrested-at-…
http://www.weareatheism.com/arrested-at-…
Apologize?? For what?? For not jumping to premature conclusions like you? Fuck off. I never said the victim was lying. I never said I doubted his word. I asked for more information. I'll never apologize for wanting to get the facts before I pass judgment.
Do you believe everything you hear the first time you hear it no matter how incomplete the source is?
Don't be such a credulous ass.
I wish Allen and Roger and you and your family [the good ones] the best. I hope this resolves in a way that keeps this from happening to others in similar situations.