| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2009 07:21:39 PM · #2576 |
While I will certainly admit the possibility that the story is as reported, it's also quite possible there are important details being left out. We are, after all, looking at a blog here and no sort of official news source (not that we could even assume the straight story then).
In all my years in and out of hospitals, I have only seen people prevented from visiting loved ones for two reasons: 1) they were disruptive or 2) family members directed that they should not be allowed. I cannot recall any other instance where I have seen a person prevented from being at the bedside.
Because of this body of experience, I gotta wonder if Mr. joemygod doesn't quite have all the facts. I didn't see any statements from the hospital or caregivers. Joe should talk to the other side too.
EDIT: Actually, if you google the person's name you will see the story reported on two other sources. One is a gay news site and the other is she wired.com. That story is the longest (they are all written by the same author) and what Monica's link leaves out is that as soon as the doctor arrived he set things straight and she was allowed to visit. Seems like Mr. joemygod didn't think that was quite as juicy so he left that part out. So assuming we have no other facts to work with it looks like a case of discriminatory nurses rather than any sort of hospital policy. That would be too bad, but seems to be a little less newsworthy.
You can read the wired.com article here.
Message edited by author 2009-06-08 19:48:55. |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 10:36:40 PM · #2577 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...So assuming we have no other facts to work with it looks like a case of discriminatory nurses rather than any sort of hospital policy. That would be too bad, but seems to be a little less newsworthy. |
Let us consider the worst case scenario where the actions of the nursing staff, and their refusal to listen to the partner, led to the demise or serious injury to the patient... would it be newsworthy then.
The sad fact is that the hospital is indeed guilty of at the very least nonfeasance when we consider that they have failed to instruct their nursing staff of the proper procedures to be adhered to in such situations.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 10:49:43 PM · #2578 |
| The likely case is that it is the doctor who is over-riding what is not necessarily hospital regulations, but state law, which states that the only persons allowed in under this type of circumstance is the spouse, parent, or holder of a durable power of attorney for health care. Absent these criteria it would seem most likely that the nurses were enforcing an unjust law, typically not being in a position (job security-wise) to over-ride the law or hospital rules on their own. |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 01:06:25 AM · #2579 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The likely case is that it is the doctor who is over-riding what is not necessarily hospital regulations, but state law, which states that the only persons allowed in under this type of circumstance is the spouse, parent, or holder of a durable power of attorney for health care. Absent these criteria it would seem most likely that the nurses were enforcing an unjust law, typically not being in a position (job security-wise) to over-ride the law or hospital rules on their own. |
From my personal experience, I highly doubt it, but I suppose it's a possibility. I think you have state law wrong. If there is law, it is to guarantee visitation rights for family. I don't know of any state law that forbids visitation by non-family members. That would put a crazy burden on hospital staff to ensure the "family members" were really related. Have you ever heard of nurses or doctors checking ID to make sure visitors were family? Now the hospital may have some policy about such things, but it's hardly because they are required to follow a state mandate forbidding partners from visiting.
My guess? The lady's partner was throwing a snit and the nurses, taking advantage of the fact she wasn't a family member, decided to keep her out. Fair? Probably not. Discriminatory? Probably. Part of the hospital's official policy? I doubt it if the doctor simply set things straight. Wouldn't he be risking his job in doing so?
At the end of the day we should probably just try to hold out for a higher degree of reporting before we can take any lessons home from a story.
Message edited by author 2009-06-09 01:07:50. |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 02:42:06 AM · #2580 |
| Question: In California, what stipulations must be met for POA/Representation Agreements and end life scenarios, specifically regarding same sex couples? |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 01:01:57 AM · #2581 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 05:14:25 PM · #2582 |
She doesn't care enough to actually raise her child herself, but cares enough to raise a legal stink once she's handed over custody? It's not her freakin' kid anymore. No matter what her reasons are, I have little sympathy.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2009 05:36:51 PM · #2583 |
Man, if that isn't a multi-layered onion. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 05:43:24 PM · #2584 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
She doesn't care enough to actually raise her child herself, but cares enough to raise a legal stink once she's handed over custody? It's not her freakin' kid anymore. No matter what her reasons are, I have little sympathy. |
I'm surprised at you, Mousie. Not because you have little sympathy; neither do I, it seems wrong to be making this lawsuit. No, what I'm surprised at is you statement that she "doesn't care enough" to raise the child herself. It's as if your perpetuating a stereotype of women who give up children for adoption, labeling them as selfish and uncaring, and this usually not the case. Indeed, it is BECAUSE she cares for her child that she gave him up for adoption, realizing that in her mental state she could not provide proper parenting, and for that she should be applauded, not chastised.
From the article:
Described as "bright and lively", he was placed in care a year ago by Brighton and Hove Council after his mother had a mental breakdown, suffering from an abusive marriage.
The Thomas More Legal Centre, a Catholic legal charity, are representing the mother, who wants to see him placed with a family that reflects traditional Catholic values.
Part of the measure of her caring, obviously, is that she cares enough to want to see the child raised in what she considers to be a moral home. Now, that's where she loses me, in this presumption that a gay couple running a hotel is "immoral", or for that matter that anyone not Catholic is immoral (assuming she thinks that), but I'm certainly not down on her for lack of "caring"...
R. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 06:03:03 PM · #2585 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Part of the measure of her caring, obviously, is that she cares enough to want to see the child raised in what she considers to be a moral home. Now, that's where she loses me, in this presumption that a gay couple running a hotel is "immoral", or for that matter that anyone not Catholic is immoral (assuming she thinks that), but I'm certainly not down on her for lack of "caring"... |
Rather than painting it so black and white, it is probably understandable that a mother who loves her child but is not capable of taking care of him would want a family "like her" (ie. catholic) to raise him. That's probably an entirely normal desire. I'm not sure about the possible reunification possibilities since the child is in foster care and is not being adopted, but if this were temporary, an environment as similar to the normal one as possible would probably be optimal (obviously we would want it to be dissimilar in the negative ways).
Take some other opposite situation and insert it. The family was vegan and wants a vegan foster family rather than the hunter family. The family is pacifist and doesn't want the military foster family, etc. The problem probably arises with the practicality of honoring such wishes and where do you draw the line rather than the idea which lies behind it.
I'm surprised (or maybe not) at Mousie too. I do have sympathy for the woman. How difficult must it be to make the decision that you are not capable as a mother of caring for the child you birthed? Talk about a tough decision.
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 18:12:21. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 07:52:24 PM · #2586 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Part of the measure of her caring, obviously, is that she cares enough to want to see the child raised in what she considers to be a moral home. Now, that's where she loses me, in this presumption that a gay couple running a hotel is "immoral", or for that matter that anyone not Catholic is immoral (assuming she thinks that), but I'm certainly not down on her for lack of "caring"... |
Rather than painting it so black and white, it is probably understandable that a mother who loves her child but is not capable of taking care of him would want a family "like her" (ie. catholic) to raise him. That's probably an entirely normal desire. I'm not sure about the possible reunification possibilities since the child is in foster care and is not being adopted, but if this were temporary, an environment as similar to the normal one as possible would probably be optimal (obviously we would want it to be dissimilar in the negative ways).
Take some other opposite situation and insert it. The family was vegan and wants a vegan foster family rather than the hunter family. The family is pacifist and doesn't want the military foster family, etc. The problem probably arises with the practicality of honoring such wishes and where do you draw the line rather than the idea which lies behind it.
I'm surprised (or maybe not) at Mousie too. I do have sympathy for the woman. How difficult must it be to make the decision that you are not capable as a mother of caring for the child you birthed? Talk about a tough decision. |
Oh, I understand all that. But to go to COURT to try to short-circuit the process because you disapprove of the putative parents, or their lifestyle, or their religion, or their situation, seems to me to be going too far. Of COURSE it was a difficult decision, but is the child really better served by having this dispute swirling around him, versus just being PLACED in a home that, after all, has already been vetted?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 19:53:18. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 08:19:51 PM · #2587 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Oh, I understand all that. But to go to COURT to try to short-circuit the process because you disapprove of the putative parents, or their lifestyle, or their religion, or their situation, seems to me to be going too far. Of COURSE it was a difficult decision, but is the child really better served by having this dispute swirling around him, versus just being PLACED in a home that, after all, has already been vetted?
R. |
No, agreed. The theoretical and the practical in this case are probably two separate things. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 09:05:03 PM · #2588 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I will certainly admit the possibility that the story is as reported, it's also quite possible there are important details being left out. We are, after all, looking at a blog here and no sort of official news source (not that we could even assume the straight story then).
In all my years in and out of hospitals, I have only seen people prevented from visiting loved ones for two reasons: 1) they were disruptive or 2) family members directed that they should not be allowed. I cannot recall any other instance where I have seen a person prevented from being at the bedside.
Because of this body of experience, I gotta wonder if Mr. joemygod doesn't quite have all the facts. I didn't see any statements from the hospital or caregivers. Joe should talk to the other side too.
EDIT: Actually, if you google the person's name you will see the story reported on two other sources. One is a gay news site and the other is she wired.com. That story is the longest (they are all written by the same author) and what Monica's link leaves out is that as soon as the doctor arrived he set things straight and she was allowed to visit. Seems like Mr. joemygod didn't think that was quite as juicy so he left that part out. So assuming we have no other facts to work with it looks like a case of discriminatory nurses rather than any sort of hospital policy. That would be too bad, but seems to be a little less newsworthy.
You can read the wired.com article here. |
That part WAS in the article (and I didn't post the link, btw). That still doesn't excuse the actions of the nurses, and they were the ones I was talking about.
""They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks," she said. Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later."
Perhaps it wasn't juicy enough for you to read it. Cus it was right there, Joe didn't leave it out. :P |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 09:10:53 PM · #2589 |
| I don't profess to know about the legal dependency system there, but if it is similar in general to the US systems, she likely did not give her child up for adoption, but rather had the child taken by protective services and detained in foster care pending determination of whether she can re-unify or not. Her parental rights are still intact, and she may well be seeking return once her mental issues are under control. In the meantime, protective services likely has authority to place in any appropriate home. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 09:14:48 PM · #2590 |
Gimmie a break. She's looking a gift horse in the mouth. This couple is kind enough to look after her child and she wants to fight because they aren't heterosexual? She should worry about herself and getting over her mental breakdown so she can be fit enough eventually to take care of him the way she chooses. In the meantime she needs to be thankful he's not sitting in a group home somewhere.
ETA: but its already been a year since her breakdown? Sheesh. She must still have a lot of healing and work to do and this is only going to be a distraction from that. Legal battle when she's still an unfit mother? Yikes.
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 21:18:03. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 09:27:04 PM · #2591 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
...it's already been a year since her breakdown? Sheesh. She must still have a lot of healing and work to do and this is only going to be a distraction from that. Legal battle when she's still an unfit mother? Yikes. |
That's pretty much my point too... The way I look at it, freaking over details like this when your life is already a war zone if pretty much "mental"...
You know what I hate? The lawyers, the advocacy groups, that enable this behavior, even encourage it. Jaysus christmas, people! What the heck is going on?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 21:27:26. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 09:55:42 PM · #2592 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
...it's already been a year since her breakdown? Sheesh. She must still have a lot of healing and work to do and this is only going to be a distraction from that. Legal battle when she's still an unfit mother? Yikes. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's pretty much my point too... The way I look at it, freaking over details like this when your life is already a war zone if pretty much "mental"...
You know what I hate? The lawyers, the advocacy groups, that enable this behavior, even encourage it. Jaysus christmas, people! What the heck is going on?
R. |
The child welfare system is a serious minefield on any level, terribly overworked and understaffed, the attrition rate for happy endings is abysmal, and things like this just make it worse.
If the child was removed for his safety and the mother deemed incompetent to make decisions, then the courts won't uphold any of her wishes anyway, and as to her dismay at not even having met the people he was placed with, well, that's most often the way it goes.
If she did in fact give up her legal rights, she has no say; if the courts ruled the child a ward of the state, she has no say; really, for all her supposed concern, she's just making life miserable for her son and his new family.
What she cares about......is herself. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 10:00:17 PM · #2593 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You know what I hate? The lawyers, the advocacy groups, that enable this behavior, even encourage it. |
What advocacy groups?
Most advocacy groups are about the children FIRST, with reunification always a goal, but the kids first.
Reunification is completely dependent on the parent(s) demonstrating willingness, and the responsible behavior and efforts to provide a safe and happy home for the child.
There is ample time, and plenty of resources for the "real" parents to get help and make a proper family unit again.
F*ck it up, and the child will be placed elsewhere......through a pretty darn good system in most cases.
A biological happenstance does not a parent make......and the children are the ones who suffer. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 10:21:07 PM · #2594 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
""They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks," she said. Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later."
Perhaps it wasn't juicy enough for you to read it. Cus it was right there, Joe didn't leave it out. :P |
OK, I take it back, Joe is a paragon of journalistic unbias...
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 22:21:22. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 11:50:38 PM · #2595 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I take it back, Joe is a paragon of journalistic unbias... |
My opinion of you as a rhetorician goes up with this excellent example of sarcasm sans indicators ... :-) |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 12:03:08 AM · #2596 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I take it back, Joe is a paragon of journalistic unbias... |
My opinion of you as a rhetorician goes up with this excellent example of sarcasm sans indicators ... :-) |
Sweet action! Kudos from Paul! :) |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 06:50:56 PM · #2597 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
""They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks," she said. Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later."
Perhaps it wasn't juicy enough for you to read it. Cus it was right there, Joe didn't leave it out. :P |
OK, I take it back, Joe is a paragon of journalistic unbias... |
I didn't say he was unbiased. I said he didn't leave out what you said he left out.
I think you are a little codependent on the straw man. The relationship is becoming unhealthy. Perhaps an intervention is necessary?
;) |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 06:58:22 PM · #2598 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think you are a little codependent on the straw man. The relationship is becoming unhealthy. Perhaps an intervention is necessary?
;) |
Strawman? Pfft. Come on. You miss the whole point of that post which was to say, a) my personal experience has never seen activity like this (which may be good info since very few of us on the thread have any experience in an ICU) and b) good news stories have something from both sides which Mr. Joe did not.
I DID miss that Joe mentioned the doc set things straight. There. You feel better? I think it's pretty well a non-story anyway. Nobody else has picked it up. There's no statement the next day from the hospital. It seems much ado about very little. The nurses were wrong. The doc made it better. End of story. Moral: Doctors rule!
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 19:01:18. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:53:05 PM · #2599 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think you are a little codependent on the straw man. The relationship is becoming unhealthy. Perhaps an intervention is necessary?
;) |
Strawman? Pfft. Come on. You miss the whole point of that post which was to say, a) my personal experience has never seen activity like this (which may be good info since very few of us on the thread have any experience in an ICU) and b) good news stories have something from both sides which Mr. Joe did not.
I DID miss that Joe mentioned the doc set things straight. There. You feel better? I think it's pretty well a non-story anyway. Nobody else has picked it up. There's no statement the next day from the hospital. It seems much ado about very little. The nurses were wrong. The doc made it better. End of story. Moral: Doctors rule! |
Unless the doctor had been just as ridiculous as the nurses. Then there would have been some major legal issues. From what I know of the story, which of course you are right, the story was biased and I never denied that, they lucked out getting a Doctor that would help them rather than further mistreatment. It could have very easily gone the other way.
As far as much ado about very little. I doubt you would say the same about nurses stopping you from seeing your wife for hours over thinking your marriage wasn't moral or legit and giving you dirty looks. That is the very last thing ANYONE wants to deal with when their loved ones need them. Even one hour is a long time when your loved one needs help and the staff wouldn't even take her medical cards or stop giving her medicine that wasn't good for her? COME ON.
Very little my ass. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:13:37 PM · #2600 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Very little my ass. |
I meant "very little" in the sense that crap happens every hour of every day. This doesn't seem to rise much above the norm. We run into bad people and we deal with it. I also was saying that I don't think they got "lucky" that the doctor let her in because my experience is far to this side rather than witnessing anybody being actually barred from an ICU. I think they got "unlucky" that they had a bitchy nurse and I even think it's possible she brought this on herself by acting like an ass and that part of the story was completely left out (I mention that possibility because I HAVE witnessed this a number of times and it does lead to you being booted from the ICU).
Anyway. |
|
