How is it legal to keep a married couple apart like this?

We live in a nation that feels it is ok to discriminate and it is horrible. A hospital can say that since she was non-responsive, she wasn’t able to say that is her loved one and she needs to see her, they can say they don’t have to reveal any details – HIPPA. (was that the correct spelling?)

This country still feels it is more important to demonize people that are not heterosexual than to protect all of it’s citizens.

I’m sure you can find more stories about things like this happening. It’s heartbreaking. To deny someone that is dying their last chance with their loved ones, based on sexual orientation is disgusting. It’s discrimination.

If you are a gay couple, you need a living will for just such a situation.

We can bemoan the insensitivity and veiled bigotry until the cows come home, but it changes nothing of the law.

Lawyer up and beat these fuckers at their own game.

close, cak. HIPAA.

This was wrong. :P
It is time to sic the law on this BS.

The only people you’re going to get responding to this are going to be people either strongly in favor or strongly against gay marriage.

It is not justice when we have laws that cannot be bent, and moreover, will not be bent just to spite someone. [I’m assuming that] The hospital’s rule according to state law is that the only person allowed to be in a room is the spouse. If someone is not the legal spouse of that person, then they can’t be allowed in. If it were to surface that the hospital broke the law and let someone be in the room who was not a spouse, the hospital could face serious charges [regardless of the conditions involved].

I could argue either side of this. The thing I believe that makes this mean-spirited is that the ER worker told the lady that she was in an anti-gay city and state, and that’s specifically why she couldn’t get in. That’s following the law to a tee, but with the intent of gay-bashing, instead of the intent of following the law.

But I have to agree with cprevite, it’s easy to complain about these things, but that doesn’t change anything. The lady should sue. If there’s nothing you can do about there’s no reason to keep pointing fingers.

@poofandmook – I knew it didn’t look right! Thanks!

I think we’ll see this kind of thing changing in the future, just like before Brown vs. Board of Education, segregation was “legal”, and before Lincoln slavery was “legal”. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.

That is just heart breaking.
Fuckers.

Heartbreaking story, and wrong on many levels. More and more hospitals are opening up visiting rules. Too slow a process for this family, however. 

@aprilsimmel: everything in that story happened according to the law.

This is what happens when you allow fundamental human rights to be decided by referendum.

Then it’s time to change the law.

@cwilbur – the law says they can keep the husband/wife out of the emergency room like that? I am asking. I don’t know anything about this stuff.

@Bri_L Since the married couple are two women, their marriage is not legally recognized.

Oh, I see. So it is a matter of because I can keep you out I will.

@Bri_L: the hospital gets to set its own policies about which unmarried, unrelated people are allowed into intensive care units. Because Florida law doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, there’s no legal difference between a partner of 10 years and a random stranger off the street. So they can, and do, keep couples apart.

These are some of the “special rights” that the homophobic voters in places like Florida, California, and Arkansas have voted to prevent gay men and lesbians from happening. I hope they’re proud of themselves.

I see. So if a that women had claimed to be her cousin, married sister or something of the like she may have had a better chance?

Probably. But expecting people to lie about things like that—and at a time when they are really not prepared to play that sort of deceptive game—is adding major insult to major injury.

Oh, naive little Bri.

Most states have zero protection for same-sex couples. Partners are denied benefits, kicked out of their residences, lose children, are denied visitation, fired, etc.

You just brought up a great example of why I do not want to travel to certain parts of the US. I can’t imagine something like that happening to me. (Though I’m lucky that my wife’s parents would fight to the last breath to keep something like this from happening.)

I’m waiting Obama…

@cwilbur – You lost me. Are you saying I am insulting people?

@tinyfaery – Yup. I just see things simpler. What they did is so wrong in my mind, so plain wrong, I needed help understanding it.

@Bri_L: No, I’m saying that expecting someone whose partner is in the hospital, possibly dying, to have the presence of mind to think “I am in a homophobic state, I had better claim that I’m her cousin” just demonstrates the horror of the situation even further.

And I’m saying that a system that treats cousins better than partners is seriously fucked up.

@cwilbur I wasn’t saying that was a solution, I was pointing out what you did.

It is totally f’d up.

The hospital policy that limits visitors was not put in place to discriminate against gay people. There have always been limited patient access in hospitals. At one time there was only a 2 hour period when visitors were allowed and only then 2 visitors at a time. When my mother was having babies, husbands were not allowed beyond the waiting room until after the event and although new moms stayed in the hospital up to 7 days, her children could not enter the maternity ward..

A lot of those old policies have changed but the limiting of visitors in the ICU or emergency room still makes sense. There are often not solid walls between patients and a lot more medical personnel in attendance. They usually have to limit who has access to high risk patients simply for crowd control. All bureaucracies set very simple easy to follow rules. In this case, no one can have access to the patient except legal relatives. The same rules that apply to gay relationships also apply to heterosexual SO’s. That person has no legal right to information due to confidentiality rules and they are not allowed to make decisions regarding patient treatment just because they live together,

If gay marriage becomes (and stays) legal gay spouses will have the same rights as hetero spouses. The Constitution provides for that. BTW I didn’t see in the article that this couple were, in fact, legally married.

a ’‘holy union’’ service in a local church

@fireside was that meant to define a legal marriage? Haven’t you heard the old line “We don’t need a piece of paper as long as we are married in the eyes of God”? Not a legal marriage because God doesn’t protect your legal rights.

Plenty of churches have holy union services for gay couples. There is a bit of a problem with your definition.

Actually, the story is worse if you watch this news segment

They had a power of attorney that declared her a medical proxy faxed to the hospital and she was still denied access for hours.

@galileogirl – No one is claiming that the policy to limit the number of people in the room or section of the emergency area was put into place was done to discriminate against gay people. The nurse seemed to be making it clear that the number of people was not the issue. Once it was established that there was nothing else that could be done and she was the medical proxy, the rest was wrong.

@fireside – jesus! that takes it to a whole new level of horribleness.

and actually i think that she has a case to sue the hospital, really. if she had power of attorney, they have absolutely no legal ground to stand on with denying her information. that’s outrageous.

@La_chica_gomela – I agree, it is not as though this kind of prejudice was completely unexpected, they had gone through the proper legal steps to be able to confront the discrimination and were still denied their rights.

Did they actually have the medical proxy (hard copy) with them or was it at home with their important documents? The legalities have to be in place. Like I said, the hospital would also be liable if a person with no legal rights was given access to patient information. Remember anyone can sue but a jury in Florida might not reach the same verdict as a jury in Oregon. This also seems like the kind of case where the federal courts (if it reaches that level) would side with the hospital citing safety and confidentiality issues.

One of the things I see here is a kind of knee jerk reaction that rules and regulations are meant. In reality they are put into place in order to run organizations efficiently. As I stated these hospital rules have been in place decades before any gay person would even admit a relationship let alone demand spousal rights. As mores have changed and people have had relationships not recognized by law, there have been documents that allow others rights but nobody is going to take your word, the document must be on scene.

@ perchik Does my answer tell you what my opinion of equal rights for all is. Did I vote for or against Prop 8?

It doesn’t sound like they had the medical proxy in hand.
From what the news story says, it was faxed to the hospital in less than an hour, but the hospital still denied access for 8 hours.

@galileogirl – One of the things I see here is a kind of knee jerk reaction that rules and regulations are meant. In reality they are put into place in order to run organizations efficiently. As I stated these hospital rules have been in place decades before any gay person would even admit a relationship let alone demand spousal rights. As mores have changed and people have had relationships not recognized by law, there have been documents that allow others rights but nobody is going to take your word, the document must be on scene.

It isn’t that we don’t understand your point. We get it. This isn’t about the rules of the ER. I have checked with a lawer and the faxed copy is acceptable. This is about flat out prejudice. That nurse walked up, said ’‘I need you to know you are in an anti-gay city and state, and you won’t get to know about Lisa’s condition or see her’’—then turned and walked away.

Exactly what Bri said. The comment made by the social worker about being in an anti-gay state cuts the legs out from under galileogirl’s argument.

There’s also a concept known as malicious compliance.

Consider, for instance, a similar case where the couple is in a traditional heterosexual marriage. The hospital would be within its rights to deny the husband visitation with his wife based solely on his claim that he’s her husband, until a marriage license was faxed to them. And yet if this happened, people would be outraged, because it complies with the letter of the regulations—only people who are legally close to the patient may visit him or her—while completely ignoring the spirit of the law—only people in close relationships with the patient may visit.

If the husband’s claim that he’s married to the patient is acceptable to the hospital workers based only on his say-so, why isn’t the partner’s claim that she has a medical power of attorney acceptable, based on her say-so with a faxed copy to follow? Why is it okay to accept “I’m her husband” with no evidence and no documents on-scene, but not okay to accept “I’m her partner, and I have a medical power of attorney” with no evidence and no documents on-scene?

That’s malicious compliance—sticking to the letter of the rules in order to violate the spirit of the rules—and preferential enforcement—only insisting on documentation when it suits you.

A. It may be his insurance or other docs
B. H signs papers as her next of kin (unless she can sign that he is her contact person.

As you stated that would then be at the discretion of the hospital to accept the word of the husband or other docs or her proof faxed over and to refuse or not to based on the fact they are gay or lesbian is wrong.

@galileogirl: You aren’t going to be able to tapdance around this one. When you ignore the letter of the rules in favor of the spirit of the rules when it’s a straight couple while ignoring the spirit of the rules in favor of the letter of the rules when it’s a gay couple, you’re discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Which, while not illegal, is morally and ethically repugnant. Rationalizing it with quisling excuses such as “rules are rules” or “they were only doing their jobs” is just as repugnant.

Since one leg became paralysed, I don’t tap dance at all. My entire point, stated very clearly, is that we should not make assumptions that most rules are formulated to discriminate but rather to make things run efficiently and smoothly. What I see much of the time is that as the society changes faster than the rules and laws that govern that society leading to a system of victimhood rather than an effort to change outdated rules and laws. Of course crying out against an ‘unethical’ rule and the bad governance is easier than doing something about it. Being a victim seems to be preferable to getting off one’s hiney and doing something. And the response “What do you expect me to do” is unacceptable.

Rules are made to make things run efficiently and smoothly.

Often, they are enforced to discriminate. In this case, there’s even concrete evidence that that was done intentionally.

What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

@galileogirl: That woman could write all the letters, stage all the protests, send out all the flyers, etc. etc. that she wants. She could get off her hiney and do something and never stop. Doesn’t change what happened. She’ll never get that moment back. So, she shouldn’t be upset about it?

@galileogirl – I am having a hard time finding evidence that anyone assumed the rules in place were formulated to discriminate. What we are saying is that those rules were being selectively applied and interpreted in a biased way.

And continually stating that you made the point that the rule is as it has always been, and is that way for certain functional reasons in the face of obvious selective and biased interpretation is ignoring the real problem here.

I’m pretty sure that was the woman’s lawyer in the news story.
Pretty sure that’s the way to work towards getting the laws changed.

Being a victim, in this case, was just a fact.

Though I do agree with you in general about the system of victimhood in this country

Often the first step to doing something is having it brought to the attention of enough people. That means events like this and the media covering them. You need victims to step forward. To tell their stories. That is a part of establishing a basis for action.

Bullshit gail. I have gotten off my ass and I still can’t get married and I could go to Florida and have the same thing happen to me. What are you trying to say, we want to be victims?

@tiny: Thank you… that’s how I read it too…

That article made me sick.

As it should

You know what, people? I think this preoccupation with sexual orientation has the unstated purpose of not letting us attend to things that really matter. There is a Pentecostal divine in Trinidad who, for the past fortnight, has been excoriating your President because he is not anti-gay. He should be exercising his oratory on things that need fixing: rural roads so damaged that whole communities cannot get about; areas that flood every time it rains because of improper drainage: but then, if he did that, he would have to do something about it. So what if a couple are of the same sex? They are not doing the heterosexually married state any harm (we married people are doing that all by ourselves, thank you).

Unfortunately, the legality or illegality of something does not prevent it from happening. There are many cases where something is done that is illegal, but it still happens. The only recourse after the illegal act is to litigate in the courts.

Perhaps what is needed for this discourse (on homosexuality) is an authoritative voice reminding us of the injunction to love one another. Somewhat like this person, about whom I would like to relate this anecdote. A couple of years ago, during the SARS epidemic, a woman was taken off an aircraft at Piarco, Trinidad & Tobago’s main airport. She was rushed to hospital and placed in the ICU. Almost immediately the rumour spread that she had SARS, unfortunately encouraged by certain employees at the hospital, who should have known better. That night – or shortly thereafter – the Medical Officer of Health for the region appeared on TV after the news: his expression could have curdled milk, his tone and demeanour suggested that he was surrounded by idiots and nincompoops. His speech was brief. He said that a passenger, unnamed, was taken off a flight – airline, route and time given – and was placed in the ICU because she was gravely ill from the complications of flu. Although she was very sick, she was expected to live, and on recovery, would resume her journey. Then he said, “She does not have SARS. SARS has not yet been reported in Trinidad and Tobago” and assured us that the health services were prepared for the coming epidemic. After that, there was no more talk of SARS.

@bea2345: There are many voices reminding people of that injunction, but few people are actually listening.