Obama Orders Hospital Visitation Rights For Gay, Lesbian Couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoe_Brain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
I’m saying just the opposite. The patient has the right to decide whom he or she wants to make those decisions.

I’m questioning why the government is so interested in writing rules for something that is already covered. Even patients with a same-sex partner can sign to have that person make decisions for them. They don’t have to tell the state or anyone that this is their partner. Neither the Church nor the state require that these decisions be made by the family. These decision and this information is shared with the person or persons whom the individual selects.

Go here to see what the Church requires. There is a document that Catholics can use for this purpose. They can name anyone they wish without disclosing the relationship between the patient and the surrogate.

flacathconf.org/AdvocacyAreas/Health/EndofLifeHealthCare/CDLD/060525%20CDLD%20.pdf

The question is if we already have these systems in place, why is the governent so interested in this all of a sudden?

My admonition is watch out for euthanasia. This is not about protecting the rights of same-sex couples. Something is going to be slipped into this that is much more serious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
My admonition is watch out for euthanasia. This is not about protecting the rights of same-sex couples. Something is going to be slipped into this that is much more serious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
So you really think the govt is going to slip in a requirement saying a family or whoever a person designates to make end of life decsions, has to decide to what? To allow their terminally ill and suffering loved one with alzheimers for instance whose body is shutting down, to go in peace, not hooked up to a feeding tube, not hooked up to a machine, not resusitated? Or do you honestly think there is going to be a requirement to speed along the process ala Jack Kevorkian? I don’t undertstand what you are afraid of being slipped in. This almost sounds like the Grandma death panel scare tactics used in the healthcare debate all over again.
 
The question is if we already have these systems in place, why is the governent so interested in this all of a sudden?
Br. JR, apparently the largest gay organization in the US has been lobbying for this for several months.

CNN said:
“In the absence of gay people being able to legally marry in most jurisdictions, this is a step to rectify a gross inequity,” said David Smith, an executive at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group. “Because without gay marriage, much more inequities exist. It should be applauded.”

Smith said the organization had been working with the Obama administration for months on the request, and that it was sparked by the case of an Olympia, Washington, lesbian couple who were kept apart as one died from an aneurysm while hospitalized in Miami, Florida. The rule would help hundreds of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, he said.

cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=T1

But I think President Obama was inclined to support it. I seem to recall some controversy about a speech he made at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. He specifically mentioned hospital visitation rights as an example of civil rights needed by the gay community, and this was not what many gay activists considered important.

Obama has long (at least four years) been unsupportive of gay marriage, and has seen health care rights as an acceptable substitute:
I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man & a woman. But let’s be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time. This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged.
It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, ‘Maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital & share health care benefits; and should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected.’
ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

My guess is that President Obama saw this memorandum as a way to relieve some of the pressure he has been getting from gay rights organizations, and their supporters.
 
So you really think the govt is going to slip in a requirement saying a family or whoever a person designates to make end of life decsions, has to decide to what? To allow their terminally ill and suffering loved one with alzheimers for instance whose body is shutting down, to go in peace, not hooked up to a feeding tube, not hooked up to a machine, not resusitated? Or do you honestly think there is going to be a requirement to speed along the process ala Jack Kevorkian? I don’t undertstand what you are afraid of being slipped in. This almost sounds like the Grandma death panel scare tactics used in the healthcare debate all over again.
Just look at your post. There are several things that are immoral. I’m not saying that you’re immoral. You cannot remove a feeding tube, oxygen and medication from a patient. That is immoral. We know that in some states it has already become law that you can do so. You cannot deny resucitation to a patient who is not dying, even if they have a serious illness such as alzheimer’s. That’s immoral. If you’re going to err you must always err on the side of life. That is the moral teaching of the Church. I know that this administration favors defining as extraordinary means that which is not extraordinary such as resucitating a patient who is not dying, feeding and hydration even if it’s via a tube, and other paliative forms of care. All of which are condemned by the Chruch for everyone, not just for Catholics.

The issue in the healthcare debate was very clear. We all want healthcare for everyone. But we do not want a healthcare law tha requires citizens to pay for abortion. We do not want a healthcare law that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on citizens, when it should be handled by the states according to the means of each state.

There were no scare tactics. Just moral facts. As Catholics we have a duty to live by the moral teachings of the Church. If something is unjust, it is unjust. That’s the role of the Church, to tell us when something is immoral.

Unless the rules that the Dept of Health comes up with says that it recognizes same-sex coupls as having the same status and rights as married couples, there is nothing immoral here. If all they say is that the patient can choose who visits, who has access to medical information and to choose their surrogate, there is nothing immoral about that. If the patient chooses his or her partner, that is the patient’s choice and even that choice is not an immoral one, because it does not violate Church law.

Church law is very explicit that same-sex couples are not married couples. It does not deny people the right to choose a loved one of any sexual orientation to care for them during an illness.

My concern is that the memo that is in the original post does not say enough. I’m saying, pay attention to what comes out of this. I believe there is more here than elevating same-sex couples to the status of married couples. Such a statement is not necessary to guarrantee a patient’s rights. In fact, if that’s all that these new rules are going to say, there is nothing new here. We already know that some states believe this. The world already knows what the Church teaches on this subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Just look at your post. There are several things that are immoral. I’m not saying that you’re immoral. You cannot remove a feeding tube, oxygen and medication from a patient. That is immoral. We know that in some states it has already become law that you can do so. You cannot deny resucitation to a patient who is not dying, even if they have a serious illness such as alzheimer’s. That’s immoral. If you’re going to err you must always err on the side of life. That is the moral teaching of the Church. I know that this administration favors defining as extraordinary means that which is not extraordinary such as resucitating a patient who is not dying, feeding and hydration even if it’s via a tube, and other paliative forms of care. All of which are condemned by the Chruch for everyone, not just for Catholics.

The issue in the healthcare debate was very clear. We all want healthcare for everyone. But we do not want a healthcare law tha requires citizens to pay for abortion. We do not want a healthcare law that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on citizens, when it should be handled by the states according to the means of each state.

There were no scare tactics. Just moral facts. As Catholics we have a duty to live by the moral teachings of the Church. If something is unjust, it is unjust. That’s the role of the Church, to tell us when something is immoral.

Unless the rules that the Dept of Health comes up with says that it recognizes same-sex coupls as having the same status and rights as married couples, there is nothing immoral here. If all they say is that the patient can choose who visits, who has access to medical information and to choose their surrogate, there is nothing immoral about that. If the patient chooses his or her partner, that is the patient’s choice and even that choice is not an immoral one, because it does not violate Church law.

Church law is very explicit that same-sex couples are not married couples. It does not deny people the right to choose a loved one of any sexual orientation to care for them during an illness.

My concern is that the memo that is in the original post does not say enough. I’m saying, pay attention to what comes out of this. I believe there is more here than elevating same-sex couples to the status of married couples. Such a statement is not necessary to guarrantee a patient’s rights. In fact, if that’s all that these new rules are going to say, there is nothing new here. We already know that some states believe this. The world already knows what the Church teaches on this subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Br JR, I may have been unclear on what I wrote about possibly not resusitating. I didn’t mean not resusitating someone who was not dying. My apologies. But if someone is dying does the Church require the start of feeding tubes, artificial breathing machines, etc for someone who is suffering and dying if it will only prolong the inevitable?

This is not a health reform bill thread so I don’t want to get any further off topic than we may have already been earlier. But I will only respond with if it was left to the each of 50 states according to their individual means and desires, then I highly question whether everyone would have the universal, adequate, affordable healthcare we both want to see. God bless.
 
flacathconf.org/AdvocacyAreas/Health/EndofLifeHealthCare/CDLD/060525%20CDLD%20.pdf

The question is if we already have these systems in place, why is the governent so interested in this all of a sudden?
The secular variant is here. It’s in rather more detail.

And the reason such regulations are necessary is because when it comes to GLBT patients, in some places they are routinely ignored. As I’ve given evidence to show.

Pennsylvania has legislation in place for just such directives. Their example is here.

But again, I must stress, such directives are not always honoured. There’s no comeback - except in Pennsylvania - if they’re not.
 
You cannot remove a feeding tube, oxygen and medication from a patient. That is immoral.
Brother JR, I was in just such a situation regarding the death of my father.

I’d come to the cardiac unit due to an emergency call, with my parents in law and my mother. When I arrived, my father had already gone into cardiac arrest. I used my “voice of command” to get through to him in his semi-conscious state, and despite all the odds, the massive doses of stimulants and repeated shocks got his heart back into a sinus rhythm.

But 10 hours later, it was obvious that there had been no salvage. 2/3 of his heart muscle was akinetic - unmoving - dead. Despite heroic measures and massive deliberate dehydration over the previous 5 days - only one icecube per day - his lungs were filling with fluid. He had perhaps a few hours, perhaps less, left. There was now no longer even a 0.001% chance. It was now zero.

I asked him if he wanted the ventilator withdrawn, because he was fully conscious throughout, just too weak to breathe unaided for long. He nodded “yes” with some desperation.

He was too weak to speak in more than a whisper, or to hold a pen. So after making absolutely certain that was what he wanted, I signed for him to be extubated.

I then made sure he knew that I’d look after my mother and my sister. One of the three vows I’ve made in my life.

He managed to have a few sips of a last cup of tea, and to receive extreme unction in a “deathbed conversion” before lapsing into uneasy semi-consciousness. Still in agony.

So I signed for a dangerous dose of morphine “to help him breathe more easily”. Well, it will do that, but I’m not good enough at self-deception to believe that was the reason, and neither were the nurses and doctors who recommended it. I did it so my father, who had already fought back from the jaws of death despite agony, as long as there was even the tiniest chance, who had already experienced choking to death once, would not have to do it again. Even if it hastened his death by a few minutes.

And later, when the agony got too great, and he showed signs of becoming aware of it, yet more morphine. This may not hastened his death - but it might. That wasn’t a consideration. So as far as I’m concerned, whether it did or not is immaterial, the guilt, if guilt there be, is the same.

He was the most saintly man I know. And he would have done the same for me. I’m not sure I could do it for my son. I hope I could.

His example of manhood was the reason I kept up the boy act, until my body betrayed me. I wish I could have told him I was his daughter, not his son, but the thought never entered my mind at the time. I had far more important issues to deal with than my own concerns.

The next time that some “Catholic Bio-Ethicist” spouts on about how conditions such as mine are caused by abusive, weak parents, I will try to remain charitable. My Daddy would have wanted me to do that.

Now back on to the topic at hand. I’ve had a good cry about these events of seventeen years ago, and it’s done me the world of good.
 
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.
One is enough. The question is at least open, not completely certain. Had a single Catholic organisation spoken in favour of legal rights for the Intersexed, I would have given the Church the benefit of the doubt on that issue too. Just one.
 
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
How did they know they were gay partners and not heterosexual roommates?
Or this case:
The priest was transferred to another diocese shortly thereafter.
What is this supposed to mean? Was this because he did something wrong by giving a person the last rites? If so, what was it?

As I said before, these stories always seem to have more to them than is being revealed here.
 
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 🙂
This interest is certainly not sudden. LGBT groups have been pressuring the President to do this. Though never clearly articulated here, the reason seems to be:

“Hospital policies generally allow only visitors related by blood or marriage to visit a seriously injured or ill patient.”

I find this very hard to believe. I worked in a large hospital and I am not aware of any such restrictions. It appears to me as long as you told them who you wanted to visit, you could go. Now, end of life decisions and surgical decisions for those who are unconscious require a Power of Attorney or are done at the doctors’ discretion to save a seriously injured patient.

The government is not the enemy here. However, the increasing trend is to raise the visibility of secular and antitheist groups along with the LGBT community.

God bless,
Ed
 
How did they know they were gay partners and not heterosexual roommates?
In one case, because the patient and partner were both wearing T-shirts supporting the campaign against proposition 8. In another case, they were obviously parents with children.
What is this supposed to mean? Was this because he did something wrong by giving a person the last rites? If so, what was it?
One can only surmise - and I’d prefer not to, merely to report the fact. Certainly, allowing a lesbian to see her dying partner would be seen by some on this forum as “encouraging homosexuality”. They’ve said so in a previous thread about just this incident, and in so many words. Perhaps the Bishop thought likewise. Perhaps not, it could all be just a complete coincidence.

And perhaps you’d like to buy a Harbour Bridge. One careful owner. Cash, no cheques.
 
In one case, because the patient and partner were both wearing T-shirts supporting the campaign against proposition 8. In another case, they were obviously parents with children.
One can only surmise - and I’d prefer not to, merely to report the fact. Certainly, allowing a lesbian to see her dying partner would be seen by some on this forum as “encouraging homosexuality”. They’ve said so in a previous thread about just this incident, and in so many words. Perhaps the Bishop thought likewise. Perhaps not, it could all be just a complete coincidence.

And perhaps you’d like to buy a Harbour Bridge. One careful owner. Cash, no cheques.
Would you mind being a bit more specific? Who ordered anyone to leave? A nurse? A hospital administrator? I ask because in almost 10 years of work at a large hospital, I never observed this. I worked all floors, including the ER.

God bless,
Ed
 
Would you mind being a bit more specific? Who ordered anyone to leave? A nurse? A hospital administrator? I ask because in almost 10 years of work at a large hospital, I never observed this. I worked all floors, including the ER.
See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6547836&postcount=6
In February 2007, Janice Langbehn, Lisa Pond, and their 3 children traveled to Florida for an R Family Cruise. But before the ship left port, Lisa collapsed and had to be rushed to a hospital. Janice and their children followed, arriving shortly after. The hospital refused to take information about Lisa’s medical history from Janice, even after a copy of Power of Attorney had been faxed to the hospital. Janice and the children were not given any information about Lisa, and were denied visitation even after the doctor had indicated that there was no medical reason Lisa could not have visitors. In the mean time, other families, including children, were taken back to visit with patients in the trauma unit. The only visitation Janice was allowed in the ER, was 5 minutes while the priest to delivered last rites. At some point during the ordeal, Janice was told by a social worker that she was in an anti-gay state and city, and she would not be acknowledged as family. Apparently, that went for their adopted children too.
When Lisa was finally moved from the ER to a non-trauma room in the hospital, Janice was not notified. She had to find out from Lisa’s sister, who was told by the hospital staff when she arrived. It was more than hour after Lisa had been moved. Yes, Lisa’s sister had more rights than her partner of 18 years did. Later, Dade County Examiner and the State of Florida both denied Janice a death certificate, which she needed for life insurance and social security benefits for the children.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the case should be dismissed because the hospital had no obligation to allow visitors to see patients.
It also ruled that there was no obligation to provide patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit.
Readers may remember the stomach-turning hospital behavior from Miami, Florida based hospital Jackson Memorial Hospital. Janice Langbehn was denied access to her dying partner, Lisa Marie Pond. Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, together 18 years, were about to depart from Miami on an R Family cruise with their three children when Lisa suddenly collapsed.
The hospital refused to accept information from Janice regarding Lisa’s medical history, informing her that she was in an “antigay city and state” and that she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. Even after the power of attorney Janice held was faxed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, no hospital employee would allow Janice or the couple’s children to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival.
Langbehn, represented by Lambda Legal, filed a federal law suit claiming negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A U.S. District Court in Florida rejected the lawsuit, but Lambda Legal has announced that the hospital had changed it’s policies regarding LGBT patients after months of meetings with a coalition of LGBT and healthcare groups in Florida.
Jackson Memorial has added a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, a patient’s bill of rights that states the hospital’s commitment to “providing quality care for LGBT patients”, and a visitation policy that updates the definition of family to include same-sex partners and other people who may not be legally related to a patient.
That’s a huge move forward from where the hospital was and sets a good example of the direction all healthcare providers should be moving.
Still lacking, however? The hospital does not have a complete grievance procedure to ensure compliance with the policy in cases of emergency and has not apologized to the Langbehn-Pond Family.
Please read this:
miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/10/miami-herald-op-ed-gay-rights-are-human-rights.html
 
Would you mind being a bit more specific? Who ordered anyone to leave? A nurse? A hospital administrator? I ask because in almost 10 years of work at a large hospital, I never observed this. I worked all floors, including the ER.
See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6547836&postcount=6
In February 2007, Janice Langbehn, Lisa Pond, and their 3 children traveled to Florida for an R Family Cruise. But before the ship left port, Lisa collapsed and had to be rushed to a hospital. Janice and their children followed, arriving shortly after. The hospital refused to take information about Lisa’s medical history from Janice, even after a copy of Power of Attorney had been faxed to the hospital. Janice and the children were not given any information about Lisa, and were denied visitation even after the doctor had indicated that there was no medical reason Lisa could not have visitors. In the mean time, other families, including children, were taken back to visit with patients in the trauma unit. The only visitation Janice was allowed in the ER, was 5 minutes while the priest to delivered last rites. At some point during the ordeal, Janice was told by a social worker that she was in an anti-gay state and city, and she would not be acknowledged as family. Apparently, that went for their adopted children too.
When Lisa was finally moved from the ER to a non-trauma room in the hospital, Janice was not notified. She had to find out from Lisa’s sister, who was told by the hospital staff when she arrived. It was more than hour after Lisa had been moved. Yes, Lisa’s sister had more rights than her partner of 18 years did. Later, Dade County Examiner and the State of Florida both denied Janice a death certificate, which she needed for life insurance and social security benefits for the children.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the case should be dismissed because the hospital had no obligation to allow visitors to see patients.
It also ruled that there was no obligation to provide patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit.
Readers may remember the stomach-turning hospital behavior from Miami, Florida based hospital Jackson Memorial Hospital. Janice Langbehn was denied access to her dying partner, Lisa Marie Pond. Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, together 18 years, were about to depart from Miami on an R Family cruise with their three children when Lisa suddenly collapsed.
The hospital refused to accept information from Janice regarding Lisa’s medical history, informing her that she was in an “antigay city and state” and that she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. Even after the power of attorney Janice held was faxed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, no hospital employee would allow Janice or the couple’s children to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival.
Langbehn, represented by Lambda Legal, filed a federal law suit claiming negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A U.S. District Court in Florida rejected the lawsuit, but Lambda Legal has announced that the hospital had changed it’s policies regarding LGBT patients after months of meetings with a coalition of LGBT and healthcare groups in Florida.
Jackson Memorial has added a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, a patient’s bill of rights that states the hospital’s commitment to “providing quality care for LGBT patients”, and a visitation policy that updates the definition of family to include same-sex partners and other people who may not be legally related to a patient.
That’s a huge move forward from where the hospital was and sets a good example of the direction all healthcare providers should be moving.
Still lacking, however? The hospital does not have a complete grievance procedure to ensure compliance with the policy in cases of emergency and has not apologized to the Langbehn-Pond Family.
Please read this:
miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/10/miami-herald-op-ed-gay-rights-are-human-rights.html
 
Brother JR, I was in just such a situation regarding the death of my father.

I’d come to the cardiac unit due to an emergency call, with my parents in law and my mother. When I arrived, my father had already gone into cardiac arrest. I used my “voice of command” to get through to him in his semi-conscious state, and despite all the odds, the massive doses of stimulants and repeated shocks got his heart back into a sinus rhythm.

But 10 hours later, it was obvious that there had been no salvage. 2/3 of his heart muscle was akinetic - unmoving - dead. Despite heroic measures and massive deliberate dehydration over the previous 5 days - only one icecube per day - his lungs were filling with fluid. He had perhaps a few hours, perhaps less, left. There was now no longer even a 0.001% chance. It was now zero.

I asked him if he wanted the ventilator withdrawn, because he was fully conscious throughout, just too weak to breathe unaided for long. He nodded “yes” with some desperation.

He was too weak to speak in more than a whisper, or to hold a pen. So after making absolutely certain that was what he wanted, I signed for him to be extubated.

I then made sure he knew that I’d look after my mother and my sister. One of the three vows I’ve made in my life.

He managed to have a few sips of a last cup of tea, and to receive extreme unction in a “deathbed conversion” before lapsing into uneasy semi-consciousness. Still in agony.

So I signed for a dangerous dose of morphine “to help him breathe more easily”. Well, it will do that, but I’m not good enough at self-deception to believe that was the reason, and neither were the nurses and doctors who recommended it. I did it so my father, who had already fought back from the jaws of death despite agony, as long as there was even the tiniest chance, who had already experienced choking to death once, would not have to do it again. Even if it hastened his death by a few minutes.

And later, when the agony got too great, and he showed signs of becoming aware of it, yet more morphine. This may not hastened his death - but it might. That wasn’t a consideration. So as far as I’m concerned, whether it did or not is immaterial, the guilt, if guilt there be, is the same.

He was the most saintly man I know. And he would have done the same for me. I’m not sure I could do it for my son. I hope I could.

His example of manhood was the reason I kept up the boy act, until my body betrayed me. I wish I could have told him I was his daughter, not his son, but the thought never entered my mind at the time. I had far more important issues to deal with than my own concerns.

The next time that some “Catholic Bio-Ethicist” spouts on about how conditions such as mine are caused by abusive, weak parents, I will try to remain charitable. My Daddy would have wanted me to do that.

Now back on to the topic at hand. I’ve had a good cry about these events of seventeen years ago, and it’s done me the world of good.
Zoe, thanks for sharing. Let no human judge who has not walked in your shoes. Peace.
 
Thank you. It appears hospitals can set their own policies about who is allowed to visit. However, the answer appears to be for LGBT groups to sit down with health care providers and discuss their concerns.

The Miami Herald article, while informative, raised the troubling subject of “however you define a family.” There are also legal considerations regarding liability and “next of kin” status. A clear legal line must be drawn for whoever is a designated decision maker, otherwise lawsuits may occur.

God bless,
Ed
 
Brother JR, I was in just such a situation regarding the death of my father.

I’d come to the cardiac unit due to an emergency call, with my parents in law and my mother. When I arrived, my father had already gone into cardiac arrest. I used my “voice of command” to get through to him in his semi-conscious state, and despite all the odds, the massive doses of stimulants and repeated shocks got his heart back into a sinus rhythm.

But 10 hours later, it was obvious that there had been no salvage. 2/3 of his heart muscle was akinetic - unmoving - dead. Despite heroic measures and massive deliberate dehydration over the previous 5 days - only one icecube per day - his lungs were filling with fluid. He had perhaps a few hours, perhaps less, left. There was now no longer even a 0.001% chance. It was now zero.

I asked him if he wanted the ventilator withdrawn, because he was fully conscious throughout, just too weak to breathe unaided for long. He nodded “yes” with some desperation.

He was too weak to speak in more than a whisper, or to hold a pen. So after making absolutely certain that was what he wanted, I signed for him to be extubated.

I then made sure he knew that I’d look after my mother and my sister. One of the three vows I’ve made in my life.

He managed to have a few sips of a last cup of tea, and to receive extreme unction in a “deathbed conversion” before lapsing into uneasy semi-consciousness. Still in agony.

So I signed for a dangerous dose of morphine “to help him breathe more easily”. Well, it will do that, but I’m not good enough at self-deception to believe that was the reason, and neither were the nurses and doctors who recommended it. I did it so my father, who had already fought back from the jaws of death despite agony, as long as there was even the tiniest chance, who had already experienced choking to death once, would not have to do it again. Even if it hastened his death by a few minutes.

And later, when the agony got too great, and he showed signs of becoming aware of it, yet more morphine. This may not hastened his death - but it might. That wasn’t a consideration. So as far as I’m concerned, whether it did or not is immaterial, the guilt, if guilt there be, is the same.

He was the most saintly man I know. And he would have done the same for me. I’m not sure I could do it for my son. I hope I could.

His example of manhood was the reason I kept up the boy act, until my body betrayed me. I wish I could have told him I was his daughter, not his son, but the thought never entered my mind at the time. I had far more important issues to deal with than my own concerns.

The next time that some “Catholic Bio-Ethicist” spouts on about how conditions such as mine are caused by abusive, weak parents, I will try to remain charitable. My Daddy would have wanted me to do that.

Now back on to the topic at hand. I’ve had a good cry about these events of seventeen years ago, and it’s done me the world of good.
Based on what you have shared here, I don’t see anything that is morally objectionable. Everything that was done was to help the patient more comfortable, not to accelerate his death. Even the higher doses of narcotics were administered with the intent of making him comfortable. We all know that heavy doses of most medications are risky. But we are not giving them to poison the patient. We are administering them to help the patient be comfortable

The same rule applies to feeding tubes and ventilators. If they do more harm than good or if they cause more distress to the patient, then the good of the patient has to prevail.

In addition, if the patient is in IMMEDIATE danger of death, there is no need to continue with extraordinary means, because you just prologing life for a few hours or day at the most.

Euthanasia enters the picture when the patient is gravely ill or disabled, but is not in immediate danger of death. If you take away the supports you are then creating a medical crisis that places the patient in immediate danger of death or kills him.

I led a team of three theologians in creating an information page on this issue for a diocese. It’s on the internet. It’s pretty easy to read, because it’s in Q and A format and it give you references to Church documents and papal writings If you’re interested in reading it, just send me a PM and I’ll send you the link.

I can’t post here because it’s too long and I’m not sure how copyright laws work. I’m the primary author, but I don’t own the piece. I wrote it from someone else. I’m not sure that I can copy it.

But you’re welcome to go to the page and see it, as well as other things that I have written on life issues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Catholics would have no problems with federal rules that say that the patient has the right to decide who visits, who has access to their medical information and who the surrogate it. As to visitation, Catholics would certainly agree that if the visit poses a danger to the patient or the visitor the hospital has the right to restrict visitation, that’s a safety issue.

If the rules say that patients have these rights, without discrimination of any kind, there is nothing immoral about this.

If the rules come out and say that same-sex partners have the same rights are married couples, then we have a moral and a civil problem. The moral problem rises from equating same-sex partnerships to marriage. The civil problem is that those rights are not extended to heterosexual parterships. It would be a very unfortunate rule.

Finally, if the White House and the LGBT community are teaming up to protect their “rights”, the focus is in the wrong place. In healthcare, the focus should always be on the rights of the patient, not the people around him, with the exception of a minor, where the parents have parental rights.

One would have to question the morality of a regulation that is designed to protect those who are not the patient.

But if all the law says is that the patient has these rights and hospitals must comply, there is nothing immoral about the regulation. Whether the patient acts morally or not does not indict the rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I think the judge was right. There could be other medical circumstances for not allowing them in. Under Øbama’s rules, how is a hospital going to make a decision on whether or not to admit? Patient “A” shouldn’t see anyone, but she is a lesbian, so we have to admit her partner for fear of a lawsuit. Patient “B” shouldn’t see anyone either, but she is straight, and there is no fear of a lawsuit; therefore, no one gets to see her. So the decision is made based not the facts of the case, but “feelings”. This is where the concept of subsidiarity comes in, that decisions should be made on as low a level as possible.

But no. Everything must be made into a federal case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
 
This interest is certainly not sudden. LGBT groups have been pressuring the President to do this. Though never clearly articulated here, the reason seems to be…
The reason doesn’t seem anything; it is they want our heart and soul.

Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant. 365gay.com/features/082908-corvino
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top