Should homosexual people be allowed to visit their partners in hospital when it's 'family only'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lethe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s very sad that this is brought up so often. If States can “marry” two people of the same sex and make it legal, it is obvious that they can make it legal to allow two gay people to visit each other.

That said, I worked at a large hospital and I never saw a single case where a visitor was turned away from visiting somebody. The only exceptions were the ICU and CCU, and again, today, there is no reason to believe a law could not be created for visitation.

I see no reason to bring this up here.

Peace,
Ed
Ed:

I think we’re talking about the ICU & CCU where many hospitals still enforce a “Family Only” policy and sometimes refuse to carry out the patient’s stated wishes or refuse to allow in the patient’s “significant others” when they’re the people who actually know and have cared for the patient.

One reason this is important is that when hospitals enforce policies such as this and act with insensitivity in this area, they give the Same Sex Marriage activists an issue we don’t have to give them. This is something where just recognizing that blood and genetics don’t make relationship, where recognizing that relationship is made up of a while lot of things that have NOTHING to do with Biology could really help our policy, and could help us with a really pernicious debate our country is having right now.

I really think we need to handle this and to make it clear we’re doing it because of common decency so we can finally show how “Same Sex Marriage” isn’t about Rights, but about making something that’s Sinful NOT sinful…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
 
The important thing is what the patient wants or we could reasonably presume he wants. One example of where using ones own values (or prejudices) to decide for the patient is unethical.
 
Petergee:

I’ll repeat a situation I just posted, and let you decide who was acting like the man’s family…

A man who contracted AIDS during the early 1980’s was diagnosed sometime in 1985 while trying to donate blood. Shortly thereafter, he called his parents, who lived in the Midwest, to see if he could come home. When he revealed that he had AIDS, his father not only refused to allow him to come him, he also disowned him and forbade any further contact between him and the rest of his family. Except for occasional calls and letters from his mother, NO ONE in his family contacted him for the next 7 years. And, because his father threw away all mail from him and deleted all messages from him and refused to talk to him, gradually even his mother lost contact…

During the next 8 years, his gay friends took care of him - They cooked his meals, took him to the doctor when he got sick, made him take his meds (this was when the treatments for AIDS were AZT & Prayer), took care of his nausea & even paid his bills when he couldn’t. But the day came when he seriously began to lose the fight, and the PA (my Curate) who was treating him tried to call his “Father” to inform him that the son he had disowned was gravely ill. At first, the man’s “Father” tried to say he didn’t have a son who was gay. My Curate has told me he heard the voice of a woman sobbing, and the wife’s sobbing was the only reason the “Father” acknowledged that he had a son.

A week later, the “Father” arrived at the hospital (He had forbidden the rest of the family from coming) where my Curate’s patient was being treated for End-Stage AIDS. He flew into a rage as soon as he saw his son’s friends waiting outside the door of his hospital room. I don’t think I need to repeat what he said, but the language did not reflect hospital decorum, let alone his position as the pastor of a Baptist Congregation. No sooner had he finished confronting this man’s gay friends, then he was at the Nurses’ Station demanding that, “Those (SWD) are NOT to be allowed to see my son under ANY circumstances.” Please remember, these friends were the people who had taken care of this man for most of the previous 8 years…

He had no sooner finished at the Nurses’ Station when he stormed into the room - To remind his “son” in NO UNCERTAIN terms (Pointing at his “son”), “This (SWD) is NOT my son!” and (pointing at himself), “I am NOT your father.” “you got what you deserved, and hope you rot in hell”

He then promptly left, and took the next plane home, making sure NO ONE from this poor man’s family visited while he was dying.

Every day, for the next 10 days, my Curate’s patient’s gay friends went to the Nurses’ Station and begged to see their friend. Every day they were told that his “Father”, the one who had disowned him, had forbidden any contact between them and their friend.

I have to correct part of my original post on this…

My Curate started taking as much time as he could to see his patient almost immediately after this happened. He talked to his pastor within a day or two, and his pastor used the “Clergy Exemption” to see to see this poor man 6-7 times during his final 2 weeks. During his last week, my Curate’s patient was Baptized and received the Eucharist 5x and received the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick 2x.

Finally, my Curate and the Doctor he was working under managed to write up “Doctor’s Orders” which allowed his patient to see his friends during his last few days.

To this day, my Curate can’t tell this to me without weeping.

Who do you think ACTED more like family to this dying young man?

Your Brothe & Servant in Christ, Michael
What is really appalling about this incident is that nobody seemed to have considered the patient’s wishes. It sounds as if the young man was alert enough to make his wishes known. If this is the case, this is a gross violation of patient rights.
 
Voiced quite well in this : youtube.com/watch?v=GoWNnt4Fdh4

(Hear it through, if it offends you it’ll be over soon enough anyway… The point that hits home with me is that someone could be refused to see their partner of years and years because theyre not married, though they would happily be married if they could)
I wish she had a subtitle. I watched it twice and I would have to watch it a dozen times I guess to understand all that she is saying… Anyways…

I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I also think it would be wrong and cruel to separate someone who is in hospital dying from his / her partner just because they are not legally married.
I would also think that very close friends can sometimes be more important than family too (but we don’t ask for a friendship marriage to guarantee that one or maybe polygamy so that all sexual partners and all friends can be counted as family either).
 
One example of where using ones own values (or prejudices) to decide for the patient is unethical.
It is not uncommon for Families of Trans people to insist that all life-support measures be withdrawn, despite the patient’s expressed wishes. They prefer them dead.

The very worst case I’m aware of involved a trans woman who had been severely injured in a hit and run. Despite severe injuries and a coma, she managed to rally and start the long road to recovery from severe brain injury, with the help of her friends…

Her family, who had cut off contact years ago, took this as an opportunity to get her “back on the right track”. They forbade hormonal therapy, and insisted that the medics deny that she had transitioned, and refer to her only by her previous name. To take advantage of her amnesia and confused state. Given her anomalous body, the medical staff assented, as they were most uncomfortable with the situation too.

Her recovery, which the doctors had previously described as “miraculous” immediately halted. She started getting worse, and worse. The medics advised the family that the course of treatment was killing her.

But the family insisted that better a dead son than a live daughter. They got their wish. But not before she’d suffered the living hell of having her body revert.

It would have been far kinder to have given her a lethal injection.

A few of her friends did manage to smuggle themselves in to see her - their presence had been forbidden by the family - but could do nothing but watch her cry.

Her name was M… She died at the end of last year.
metafilter.com/88312/When-transphobia-interferes-with-quality-healthcare
etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2230

Zoe
 
The remarks from some people here should make some people very concerned about going into a Catholic hospital.
That story about the transgender person is very worrying. It certainly makes the argument for proxy decision-making persuasive. I have to question the professional ethics of the doctors too.
And this is from someone who has grave reservations about gender reassignment, but great respect for autonomy and respect for the individual.
 
Although the medical staff’s dilemma may be partly due to uncertainty about the degree of retrograde amnesia this person was suffering.
 
any one who enters the hospital is invited to specify what visitors he will accept, and which he does not. even the chaplain cannot visit without his permission. If he wishes to state his next door neighbor, boss or any other person is the one he wishes to visit and to make medical decisions when he cannot, he can do so with the proper documentation. This entire discussion is a non-issue.
I have never, ever, ever been asked this question, ever and I’ve been in the hospital ALOT

When I tried to get them to allow my partner in, my relatives just started saying that I was ‘delirious’ and didn’t know what I was talking about and had my partner thrown out of the hospital under threat of arrest. We had power of attorney, but no one would recognize it. They didn’t care, they wouldn’t even look at it. They just nodded and listened, then did nothing and did what my relatives wanted anyway.
 
Natural Law permits no one to recognize a same-sex “relationship” even if only by implication. Since allowing a visit to a patient by his or her same-sex partner would constitute implicit affirmation, this sort of thing should never be permitted. Additionally, Natural Law further directs us to ignore any sort of power of attorney or other legal fictions created in an attempt by such a couple to replicate the goods of a marriage.
 
…and of homosexuals that don’t engage in sodomy?

…and of lesbians?

Yes, that’s ok?

However, shall we ban heterosexual spouses who’ve engaged in sodomy with their marriage partner?
 
Natural Law permits no one to recognize a same-sex “relationship” even if only by implication. Since allowing a visit to a patient by his or her same-sex partner would constitute implicit affirmation, this sort of thing should never be permitted. Additionally, Natural Law further directs us to ignore any sort of power of attorney or other legal fictions created in an attempt by such a couple to replicate the goods of a marriage.
If a man and woman were engaged to be married and one of them were hospitalized, should the fiance/fiancee be denied visitation because he/she isn’t yet family?
 
Natural Law permits no one to recognize a same-sex “relationship” even if only by implication. Since allowing a visit to a patient by his or her same-sex partner would constitute implicit affirmation, this sort of thing should never be permitted. Additionally, Natural Law further directs us to ignore any sort of power of attorney or other legal fictions created in an attempt by such a couple to replicate the goods of a marriage.
Please direct me to the page in the ‘Natural Law Handbook’ that states this.
 
If a man and woman were engaged to be married and one of them were hospitalized, should the fiance/fiancee be denied visitation because he/she isn’t yet family?
I think in this case it might be a breach of etiquette not to allow someone access to a hospitalized fiancé, but not a formal conflict with morality. The issue here is which relationships we, as Christians ought to affirm and which relationships we are forbidden to affirm. Between a heterosexual couple engaged to be married, with no obvious impediments, and a same-sex couple, there is really no valid comparison. The former is both a legitimate and virtuous thing that respects chastity, the latter is an arrangement which, by its very nature, never can.
 
Please direct me to the page in the ‘Natural Law Handbook’ that states this.
Natural Law is the discernment, through reason, of the various intentions God had in His design for the human body and their consequent applications in Christian behavior. If you are ignorant about Natural Law, I suggest you begin reading Summa Theologica.
 
If you are ignorant about Natural Law, I suggest you begin reading Summa Theologica.
In other words - you just made that bit about legal fictions up.

Matthew 22:39-40 applies. As does 1 Corinthians 13. You may know every jot and tittle of the law, but since you have no Charity, you’ve missed the point.
 
Ed:

I think we’re talking about the ICU & CCU where many hospitals still enforce a “Family Only” policy and sometimes refuse to carry out the patient’s stated wishes or refuse to allow in the patient’s “significant others” when they’re the people who actually know and have cared for the patient.

One reason this is important is that when hospitals enforce policies such as this and act with insensitivity in this area, they give the Same Sex Marriage activists an issue we don’t have to give them. This is something where just recognizing that blood and genetics don’t make relationship, where recognizing that relationship is made up of a while lot of things that have NOTHING to do with Biology could really help our policy, and could help us with a really pernicious debate our country is having right now.

I really think we need to handle this and to make it clear we’re doing it because of common decency so we can finally show how “Same Sex Marriage” isn’t about Rights, but about making something that’s Sinful NOT sinful…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
Hello Michael,

Can you provide examples of the debate you refer to? The thing you are missing is not common decency but why hospitals refuse to allow others to see patients to begin with. Can you enlighten us?

There is no reason to bring this subject up here. Why? Because the policies of hospitals will not be changed here. It is not up to me or any poster here to set the policies of hospitals.

Hope this helps,
Ed
 
In other words - you just made that bit about legal fictions up.

Matthew 22:39-40 applies. As does 1 Corinthians 13. You may know every jot and tittle of the law, but since you have no Charity, you’ve missed the point.
Code:
It’s sometimes amusing how people will, on one hand, demand to know where the specific Church regulation is that directs the faithful on the proper way to prepare oatmeal and, on the other hand, accuse the Church of not allowing the faithful to think for themselves. There is nothing made up here. There is the Natural Law, which incorporates the design of the body and its intended function and the just recognition of relationships proper to this function. It is an argument based on objective criteria that you have yet to engage.

   Additionally, your Scriptural references fail to satisfy. One is not to imagine that the love one is commanded to have for others will always be a variety of saccharine-sweet pabulum suitable for a Hallmark greeting card or an episode of Barney & Friends. People like those with same-sex attractions expect to be treated as serious-minded adults and out of a genuine sense of Christian charity, that is exactly what I am doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top