The new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare and Medicaid funding, which is pretty much most hospitals. The new order will be implemented over the next few months. Previously, hospitals have often barred visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage. Plus, same-sex partners have had trouble making medical decisions on their partner's behalf -- often hospitals turn to the patient's family members by blood to make the medical decisions, often over-looking or ignoring the partner. Though the focus of the new rules is extending rights to gay and lesbian couples, the rule also affects widows and widowers who, in the past, were unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. In addition, the new rules allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than family to make medical decisions.
Gay rights activists and supporters applauded Obama's new order. The article pointed out that since Obama has become president, hate crime legislation was passed, the White House held a Gay Pride Day celebration for the first time, and the administration is advocating a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy (which states that gay people can serve in the military, but only if they aren't open about their homosexuality. Once they're open about it, they can be kicked out of the military. The repeal would allow gay people to serve openly in the military). However, for some gay rights activists Obama is not doing enough or has been moving too slowly on these issues. Some feel that Obama needs to be more vocal and active in the fight for gay rights.
No surprise, opponents of gay rights and same-sex marriage are unhappy about this. They say this is undermining the institution of marriage. It sounds to me like the institution of marriage is just a club of exclusion for these people. You mean to tell me that gay couples being allowed to see each other in the hospital (and make medical decisions regarding each other) is somehow taking away or undermining a straight couple being allowed to see each other in the hospital? Is the institution of marriage only sacrosanct if someone else is being denied rights?
The opponents also say that this is providing special rights for gay people that other Americans do not have. Ok, first of all, why don't you actually read the order. This order is extending visiting/decision-making rights to people that also are not gay. But, let's just pretend for a second that it is extended just to gay people. The whole reason it's being extended to gay people is because they cannot get married. If gay couples were allowed to be married, then there wouldn't be this issue of visitation rights and being able to make medical decisions. The whole reason these "special" rights are being extended is because they're being denied these rights because they cannot marry.
Second of all, as I mentioned already, this isn't just about extending patients' rights to gay people. The main thing is that they want to extend visiting rights/medical decisions to people that aren't just blood- or marriage-related. This order is accepting and acknowledging the reality that people have varying definitions of family and it's not always the case that who you're related to is the person you're closest with. Some people feel a companion is more like family than their sibling. The important thing is that this order requires hospitals to recognize the visitors the patient wants and who the patient wants to make medical decisions on their behalf. And that's what it should be. Just because someone has your blood doesn't necessarily mean they're the best person to carry out your medical decisions or know what you want the most. So this order isn't giving "special rights" to gay people. Instead the order is trying to ensure that everyone has someone they know at their bedside when they're at the hospital. Married people already have that right. But what about those that never got married, but have a significant other? What about widows and widowers that never remarried, but have a significant other? If someone doesn't have any living blood-relatives (or they're estranged from their family) and they happened to not get married (either out or choice or because they weren't allowed to get married), they might not have any familiar faces at their bedside when they're sick or when they pass away -- even if a partner or companion is outside in the waiting room. And that is terribly sad and unnecessary. Obama was really moved by the story of Janice and Lisa, a lesbian couple in Florida that were together for 18 years. Lisa collapsed from a cerebral aneurysm, and Janice and their children (who are biologically Janice's children) were not allowed to see her. Lisa died hours later at the hospital. There is no reason why, other than close-mindedness and an outdated definition of family, this woman had to die without her loved ones by her side. Janice said, "It's not a gay right to hold someone's hand when they die, it's a human right." (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment