Obama Orders Hospital Visitation Rights For Gay, Lesbian Couples

[Zoe_Brain]

From HuffPo:

WASHINGTON (AP)– In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners.

The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy,

Although there’s nothing Gay or Lesbian specific here, it applies to everyone, they make no secret of the fact that it’s commonly Gay or Lesbian partners who have been refused visitation rights in the past, despite holding medical powers of attorney that would have been honoured if they were unmarried - or not even partners - but not Gay.

So a step forward in basic humanity? Or to be opposed by all good Catholics as yet another attack on the “sanctity of marriage”.? Discuss.

 

[Dale_M]

F
So a step forward in basic humanity?.

Absolutely. I just heard, on CBC Radio’s news program As It Happens, of a US case which shows that prior protections were inadequate.

When eighty-eight-year-old Harold Schurr was sent to hospital after a fall, officials in Sonoma County, California, refused to allow the gay man’s live-in partner of twenty years, seventy-seven-year-old Clay Greene, access to see him. Instead, after decreeing that both men should be moved into separate nursing homes, authorities sold all of their possessions, and refused any contact between them. This despite the fact that the couple had a living will, and powers-of-attorney over each other’s medical care.

Mr. Schurr died three months after his accident

You can listen to the broadcast at:
cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/aihstreaming_20100419_02.wma
(start around the 6:40 mark)

 

[Jermosh]

I think its a great thing, people have all kinds of weird relationships, some are completely platonic even. We should all have to right to designate someone or have them there in a time of need.

 

[JReducation]

If the wording is accurate, I don’t think that the Church will oppose this. Because all it is saying is that the patient has the right to choose who can visit, who has acces to his or her medical information and who can make decisions when the patient cannot make them for himself. The Church has never said that these are conjugal rights or the rights of immediate family members only.

The Church defends the sanctity of marriage and condemns all sexual activity outside of marriage, but this is not a sexual activity. The Church has never forbidden heterosexuals from having their girlfriends or boyfriends visit, have access to medical information or be included in end of life decisions. If the Church saw these as the rights of spouses and immediate relatives only, then she would have said soemthing about non-married people in similar sutations.

Do you see what I mean?

I think it will be interesting to see the exact wording of the executive order, if there is going to be one, before we say one thing or another. If the order uses the term “conjugal rights” or “couples” or some other term that indicates that a non married couple has the same status as a married couple, then the Church will be very upset. But if the language simply protects the rights of the patient to decide these things, then I can’t imagine the Church protesting.

This was the case with “Don’t ask don’t tell.” The Church has never challenged this, because it does not challenge the institution of marriage. It simply protects the individual from being treated unfairly. The Church will never encourage unfair treatment of anyone.

A good example was the Holy Father’s meeting with the youth in Malta. If you remember, the young people came up and made their requests to the Holy Father. Among them there was a request by a young man who represented gay Catholics. He very politely asked the Holy Father to help them find their place in the Church and he politely concluded with “Holy Father help us to feel welcome”.

These statements were reviewed by the Vatican before they were made and this was allowed. The reason why it is allowed is because the request is not mentioning sex or promoting anything that is immoral. It was asking for something good and the young man was saying that all they wanetd was to belong to the Church and be faithful. He was asking for guidance to achieve this.

The reason that I bring up Malta is because it’s a good example of how the Church draws the line between what’s immoral and what is permissible. In this case the wording would have to be such that it would promote something that is morally not permissible. If all it says is that the patient can choose who can visit and care for his or her affairs, there is nothing immoral in that statement.

Again, let’s wait and see the final statement, if it hasn’t already been drafted. It may be a horrible statement that will raise some concerns or a very neutral one that is of no moral concern. As I said, the wording in the OP doesn’t give a clear picture of anything immoral. There may be something there, but it’s not in the wording, yet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dale_M]

I think it will be interesting to see the exact wording of the executive order, if there is going to be one,

This seems to be the heart of the executive order:

1. Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national
   origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient’s care or treatment.

1. Ensure that all hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid are in full compliance with regulations, codified at 42 CFR 482.13 and 42 CFR 489.102(a), promulgated to guarantee that all patients’ advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected, and that patients’ representatives otherwise have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients’ care. Additionally, I request that you issue new guidelines, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395cc and other relevant provisions of law, and provide technical assistance on how hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid can best comply with the regulations and take any additional appropriate measures to fully enforce the regulations.

1. Provide additional recommendations to me, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, on actions the Department of Health and Human Services can take to address hospital visitation, medical decisionmaking, or other health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families.

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I think it will be interesting to see the exact wording of the executive order, if there is going to be one, before we say one thing or another.

Executive Order? You have to be kidding!

No, this is a directive to the bureaucracy to formulate some rules, to be published in the government register (usually with a 45 or 90 day comment period), to be then revised depending on the feedback, and then possibly implemented. A process that takes 18 months of they hurry, usually a few years, and sometimes as long as five years.

This is no executive order, it’s a memo. As such, it will expire when the president’s term ends, unless renewed by his successor.

The memo - in full - is at
pamshouseblend.com/upload/documents/2010rightspatients.mem.final.rel.pdf

Note the last paragraph:

“This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person”.

As one commenter put it:

Reading the memo, I only see that HHS is to report back within 180 days (that’s six months folks!) but no mention is made of when the new rules would actually take affect. The rule-making process has its own schedule. So, 180 days to report back, some months more to receive comment and suggested changes from the Administration, writing of the proposed rule, publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, a public comment period, usually 45 days, possibly hearings, re-writing of the rule, then final publication in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective…

While this move is well-intentioned, it may cause some problems. For example, in states where it is illegal to give any of the benefits enjoyed by married couples to homosexual ones. The wording of the regulations must be carefully drafted to emphasise that it’s not just for couples, but any “designated person”, lest they be forced to either fall afoul of state law, or be denied medicare funding.

Currently, such hospitals, and many Catholic-run and more non-Catholic-run ones outside such jurisdictions, ignore medical powers of attorney, living wills, HCD (health care directives) and other such legal instruments in such cases, as well as out-of-state marriages or civil partnerships…

See
lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/flanigan-v-university-of-maryland.html
boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/15/11911

Orbin and her partner of 3½ years, Teresa Rowe, 30, who live in Northern California, were in Fresno for Meet in the Middle 4 Equality, an event protesting the California Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Proposition 8.
…
The problem with the hospital started when the paramedic informed the emergency room nurse on duty that Kristin was a Meet in the Middle marcher. The nurse didn’t like that.

Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center refused to accept Kirstin’s medical cards from Teresa, and they refused Teresa’s offer to have their medical advance directives and power of attorney faxed to them. The even refused to accept Teresa’s warning that Kirstin suffered massive migraines if she were given the benzodiazapine Ativan, which they tried to give Kirsten when she woke up.

And this case, recently:

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions
Filed by: Kate Kendell
April 17, 2010 4:00 PM

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place–wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.
…
Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings…The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold’s lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord

While such regulations would not prevent County officials from doing this kind of thing, it would prevent hospitals and nursing homes from co-operating with it.

Meanwhile my question appears to have been answered:

…the Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 600 hospitals, said Friday that Mr. Obama’s order had reaffirmed basic human rights.

“Everybody in this country has a right to say, If I can’t speak for myself, this is the person I want to speak for me,” said Sister Carol Keehan, the group’s president. "I think it’s a huge leap to say this is paving the way for gay marriage.

Some other Christian groups disagree, but they are irrelevant to my question.

 

[Dale_M]

Meanwhile my question appears to have been answered

erm… I hesitate to say this, but maybe it hasn’t.

You mentioned a statement by the Catholic Health Association, a statement I support. But Zoe, the CHA does not speak for the Catholic Church. It is only one Catholic organization, among many. Recently, the CHA opposed the conference of US Catholic Bishops by supporting the health care reform legislation backed by President Obama.

Catholics, and Catholic organizations, speak with many different voices. Sometimes these voices are contradictory, despite the views being rooted in part in the same religion. The Catholic Church is not as monolithic as outsiders often perceive it to be.

 

[Newbie2]

I suspect there will be a big State vs. Federal tiff over this; such a (lasting) mandate cannot be made by executive order.

In any case, I think it’s a good idea even though the whole thing will be hailed as a “gay rights” victory by the homosexual activists and the media. Never mind that there are straight people that will benefit from such a notion…

 

[CMatt25]

A sad commentary on our society that an “order” was even necessary.

 

[JReducation]

This seems to be the heart of the executive order:

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation

If this is all that the President’s memo said, there is nothing in it that is in conflict with Church teaching. Even the one sentence that prohibits discrmination and includes sexual orientation is acceptable to the Church. You cannot deny someone the right to visit a loved one who is in a hospital or nursing home, because of sexual orientation.

We will see have to wait and see what the Dept. Health comes up with. Because this is just the President’s memo.

There are two important things to look for in the final document:

1. Does it treat all couples as equal to married couples?
2. More important than number one, what rights does it give the proxy? If the rights include euthanasia under any name, this is a much more serious concern to the Church than sam-sex couples having visitation rights or consultative rights in medical decisions. In the end, it does not matter what the relationship its, no one can be given the right to terminate the life of a patientl.

My great concern here is that euthanasia may be slipped into these rules, while everyone is paying attention to the gay couple issue. It’s very easy for politicians to slip something into a regulation by throwing a stink bomb in front of it. Everyone is focussed on the sink bomb and in the meantime the great threat slips under the radar.

This will be a greater concern for Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CMatt25]

1. Does it treat all couples as equal to married couples?

And if it did, unless you live in a theocracy and not a pluralistic democracy with various faiths, beliefs, and viewpoints, this would personally affect you how?

 

[JReducation]

And if it did, unless you live in a theocracy and not a pluralistic democracy with various faiths, beliefs, and viewpoints, this would personally affect you how?

It affects all of us, because sin has a social dimmension to it. You cannot ignore sin in society, otherwise you are consenting to living in a society that fails to do what society must do, lead all men to the greater good. To turn a blind eye to sin in society makes us all complicit by a sin of ommission. We are failing to proclaim the Good News to all men as Christ commanded us to do.

We cannot force people to embrace the Gospel. That’s the principle of religious freedom that the Church defends. But included in that religious freedom, the state cannot legalize anything that is contrary to the exercise of religion. The acceptance of same-sex couples as equal to married couples in contrary to the exercise of religioin, because it imposes on the faithful lthe obligation to quietly accept a sin.

The State cannot legislate sin and expect people to acquiesce to the legislation. Then the State is saying that it has the authority to overrule moral law. Part of religious freedom is the right to reject the presence of sin in society and the right to demand that society always choose in favor the moral good. If you handcuff our citizens, you’re violating their religious freedom. Homosexual unions are not part of any faith belief. The prohibition of the same is not a violation of religious freedom. One need not be in a gay relationship to exercise one’s faith. However, the imposition that society must accept such unions without challenging it, is a violation of religious freedom to challenge the presence of sin in the world.

The Church will stand by gay people and protec their human rights. In this case, she will even protect their rights to visit their loved ones in a hospital and to take responsibility for their care, because it is the right of the patient to choose who cares for him or who visits him. As long as you promote the right of the patient, the Church does not have an issue with it. But if you use patient’s rights to promote another agenda, then it’s dishonest and the agenda that you’re promoting is morally unacceptable.

Let it be clear, the Church is not against gay people. She is protective of the sacrament of marriage. Any union outside of marriage is an assault against the sacrament. Society has no moral right to promote such unions. It has the obligation to protect the human rights of these individuals who are in relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight. Human rights do not say that people can form couples outside of marriage.

You see how this works?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

… they make no secret of the fact that it’s commonly Gay or Lesbian partners who have been refused visitation rights in the past, despite holding medical powers of attorney that would have been honoured if they were unmarried - or not even partners - but not Gay.
…

An absolutely meaningless executive order designed to throw a bone to a squeaking wheel.

I think this whole affair has been blown way out of proportion based on a few isolated incidents that undoubtedly have more to their stories than is being revealed here. Last year, a friend’s wife was in a coma in the hospital and dying, not expected to last through the evening. My wife and I walked in to the reception and said we were there to visit Jane Doe, whereupon we were immediately escorted to her room, no questions asked. I have been in the hospital for surgery and was never asked to complete a “no-fly” form.

Unless I’m mistaken, anyone of legal age can be designated power of attorney by anyone else of legal age, and no one can do anything about it. It is not necessary to be a relative by blood or marriage. If there is a U.S. attorney here and I’m wrong, please post your explanation. Thx.

 

[CMatt25]

It affects all of us, because sin has a social dimmension to it. You cannot ignore sin in society, otherwise you are consenting to living in a society that fails to do what society must do, lead all men to the greater good. To turn a blind eye to sin in society makes us all complicit by a sin of ommission. We are failing to proclaim the Good News to all men as Christ commanded us to do.

We cannot force people to embrace the Gospel. That’s the principle of religious freedom that the Church defends. But included in that religious freedom, the state cannot legalize anything that is contrary to the exercise of religion. The acceptance of same-sex couples as equal to married couples in contrary to the exercise of religioin, because it imposes on the faithful lthe obligation to quietly accept a sin.

The State cannot legislate sin and expect people to acquiesce to the legislation. Then the State is saying that it has the authority to overrule moral law. Part of religious freedom is the right to reject the presence of sin in society and the right to demand that society always choose in favor the moral good. If you handcuff our citizens, you’re violating their religious freedom. Homosexual unions are not part of any faith belief. The prohibition of the same is not a violation of religious freedom. One need not be in a gay relationship to exercise one’s faith. However, the imposition that society must accept such unions without challenging it, is a violation of religious freedom to challenge the presence of sin in the world.

The Church will stand by gay people and protec their human rights. In this case, she will even protect their rights to visit their loved ones in a hospital and to take responsibility for their care, because it is the right of the patient to choose who cares for him or who visits him. As long as you promote the right of the patient, the Church does not have an issue with it. But if you use patient’s rights to promote another agenda, then it’s dishonest and the agenda that you’re promoting is morally unacceptable.

Let it be clear, the Church is not against gay people. She is protective of the sacrament of marriage. Any union outside of marriage is an assault against the sacrament. Society has no moral right to promote such unions. It has the obligation to protect the human rights of these individuals who are in relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight. Human rights do not say that people can form couples outside of marriage.

You see how this works?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I see what you are saying. Certainly the state shouldn’t allow someone to get away with walking down the street with their loaded handgun and shooting someone point blank in attempted robbery. But people live together outside the confines of marriage, straight and gay. Why does the Church not spend as much effort on keeping all such relationships illegal in society and not so much on just the homosexual ones?

If God forbid, someone guns down my relative, this would have a horrific effect upon me and of course the state should legislate against this. But as you said we can not force someone to embrace our idea of the Gospel. Speaking hypothetically, I could have neighbors in a relationship outside marriage and it has no bearing on me. Not like if someone gunned me down.

And whether or not gay union ceremonies are legal or not, I could have neighbors living next to me who are living together in a gay relationship. What are we supposed to do? Have a state police force knocking on their door?

Like it or not, gay couples are going to exist and are part of society at large. But my gay neighbors in the hypothetical case above might be the first one to save my life in case of a fire. Now an act like that would have a bearing on my life. If protecting the Sacrament of Marriage is the goal, why not then leave it up to the Church, other churches or ecclesial communities, whatever they are being called nowadays, any other faith groups, and justices of the peace, as to whether or not they perform civil unions? Are you willing to not call it marriage but to provide citizens, straight and gay, their civil rights as a couple?

I’m not certain you are totally correct about homosexual unions not being part of any faith belief. I thought there were even at least one or two Christian denominations in support of gay marriage or at least unions if not calling them marriage. I thought the United Church of Christ is on record in support. You and I might not agree with them but it is their faith. We may not want the UCC faith forced upon us anymore than UCC’ers may want Catholicism forced upon them.

People seem to want the govt to stay out of our lives in some areas but not in others. And often sometimes to me it just seems an area where they want govt to stick their nose in, is in privacy areas such as bedrooms.

But anyway we may just have to agree to disagree. Peace and God bless you always.

 

[mlund]

I see what you are saying. Certainly the state shouldn’t allow someone to get away with walking down the street with their loaded handgun and shooting someone point blank in attempted robbery. But people live together outside the confines of marriage, straight and gay. Why does the Church not spend as much effort on keeping all such relationships illegal in society and not so much on just the homosexual ones?

Unmarried relationships are not illegal or being kept illegal in the United States.

On the other hand, relationships that do not fit the definition of marriage should not be called marriage and should not be privileged as a marriage or marketed as equal to marriage. Two people of the same sex can legally have a relationship, and make whatever sorts of ceremonials and traditions they see fit to create their own private union. It is a free country, after all.

The core objection comes when they demand that the Body Public acknowledge such a relationship, falsely, as a marriage. Further objections are raised to trying to have such a union elevated to the privileged status of marriage by the law, while all other unions and partnerships that fail to meet the criteria of marriage are still excluded from such privilege.

People are free to enter into sinful sexual relationships under the civil law (prostitution, incest, adultery, and statutory rape excluded). For the most part the Church does not attempt to change the laws of the land to police the bedroom. The Church does oppose the abuse of Public Office and Civil Law to pervert the meaning of marriage and to elevate morally illicit sexual conduct to the level of marriage.

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

I believe enough has been clearly said to explain why the Church is so opposed to same-sex unions. There is only one thing that needs to be added here. Unions (of any kind) between heterosexual couples has the potential to lead to marriage. While they are immoral, they have the potential to be turned around. The union between two people of the same sex does not have the potential to be turned into a marriage.

That being said, let’s get back to the original subject.

I checked today with our office for Respect Life, for which I work. As the memo stands, there is nothing immoral about it. Patients do have the right to decide who visits them, who has access to their medical information and who makes end of life decisions for them.

As long as the regulations say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you’re still on solid ground. If the new regulations say that same-sex couples enjoy the same rights as hetero-sexual couples, then you’re in big moral trouble.

We don’t know what the final transcript is going to say.

There is a great concern here that seems to be escaping us. The issue of same-sex couples is insignificant compared to the question of euthanasia. If this new set of rules includes the right to terminate a person’s life based on the judgment of the surrogate and the doctor, regardless of their sexual orientation, we have a catastrophe on our hands that will make same-sex unions look like childs play.

In the moral hierarchy the sanctity of life is several rungs above same-sex relations. What we have to be careful is not to be side-tracked by the same-sex issue while the a far greater evil is slipped in without our noticing it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Unless I’m mistaken, anyone of legal age can be designated power of attorney by anyone else of legal age, and no one can do anything about it. It is not necessary to be a relative by blood or marriage…

Partly correct. A complete stranger can be designated to have medical power of attorney.

However… in some states, if the person holding the POA is the gay partner of the patient, that cannot legally be honoured. A total stranger - yes. A gay partner - no. In other places, they refuse to honour it anyway, for gay partners (only).l

Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center refused to accept Kirstin’s medical cards from Teresa, and they refused Teresa’s offer to have their medical advance directives and power of attorney faxed to them.

Or this case:

While on a family cruise leaving from Miami Lisa Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner’s medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Janice’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice nor her children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Lisa’s death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get Life Insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

The priest was transferred to another diocese shortly thereafter.

 

[CMatt25]

Unmarried relationships are not illegal or being kept illegal in the United States.

On the other hand, relationships that do not fit the definition of marriage should not be called marriage and should not be privileged as a marriage or marketed as equal to marriage. Two people of the same sex can legally have a relationship, and make whatever sorts of ceremonials and traditions they see fit to create their own private union. It is a free country, after all.

The core objection comes when they demand that the Body Public acknowledge such a relationship, falsely, as a marriage. Further objections are raised to trying to have such a union elevated to the privileged status of marriage by the law, while all other unions and partnerships that fail to meet the criteria of marriage are still excluded from such privilege.

People are free to enter into sinful sexual relationships under the civil law (prostitution, incest, adultery, and statutory rape excluded). For the most part the Church does not attempt to change the laws of the land to police the bedroom. The Church does oppose the abuse of Public Office and Civil Law to pervert the meaning of marriage and to elevate morally illicit sexual conduct to the level of marriage.

• Marty Lund

Yes thanks for pointing that out. That part of my post was a bit unlear. Of course unmarried couples can have relationships. I understand the term marriage is a problem for some in civil rights issues. Peace.

 

[JReducation]

I’m just warning everyone, keep your eyes on what these rules are going to say about euthanasia. I don’t believe that the agenda is same-sex couples.

Even Catholic hospitals allow the patient to decide who visits them, who has access to their medical information and who makes end of life decisions.

But keep your eyes on the parameters that these rules are going to set on end of life decisions. That’s where this is going.

Even in states such as Florida, where there is no acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, if the patient names someone his surrogate or signs to have his medical information released to “a friend” it flies. I’m not so sure why this sudden interest by the White House in protecting the rights of same-sex couples. It’s not like they are getting married in a hospital. There is another agenda here. I’m always uncomfortable when government decides to make rules where none are needed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CMatt25]

I’m just warning everyone, keep your eyes on what these rules are going to say about euthanasia. I don’t believe that the agenda is same-sex couples.

Even Catholic hospitals allow the patient to decide who visits them, who has access to their medical information and who makes end of life decisions.

But keep your eyes on the parameters that these rules are going to set on end of life decisions. That’s where this is going.

Even in states such as Florida, where there is no acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, if the patient names someone his surrogate or signs to have his medical information released to “a friend” it flies. I’m not so sure why this sudden interest by the White House in protecting the rights of same-sex couples. It’s not like they are getting married in a hospital. There is another agenda here. I’m always uncomfortable when government decides to make rules where none are needed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So you want the govt involved in the room when a family gathers to make heartwrenching end of life decisions for someone they dearly love? You want the govt to tell a family what they can or can not decide?