Preventing Same-Sex Couples Hospital Visitation Rights

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

"Existing CoPs protect the rights of hospital patients to have representatives who can act on their behalf, however HHS updated the guidance for these rules to emphasize that hospitals should give deference to patients’ wishes concerning their representatives, whether expressed in writing, orally, or through other evidence, unless prohibited by state law."

This part sounds like a loophole to me. Maybe I'm wrong. But the wording sounds like if a state has a law (or gets one passed) then all bets are off and the gay partner cannot act on behalf of his or her hospitalized partner. I guess he or she can still visit their partner.

Unless one has prior documentation of power of attorney and a living will, I live in a state such as you describe.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Unless one has prior documentation of power of attorney and a living will, I live in a state such as you describe.

So the quote from the HHS updated guidelines that say if there is a state law then hospitals do not have to give deference to patient's wishes concerning their representatives, whether expressed in writing, orally or through other evidence does not extend to documentation of power of attorney and a living will? Are not these things expressed in writing, orally or through other evidence? I guess I get nervous when i see wording that appears cryptic. If it's open to interpretation, if it's even remotely ambiguous, i fear the religious right will be all over it. It appears a loophole big enough to have a tea party in.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

So the quote from the HHS updated guidelines that say if there is a state law then hospitals do not have to give deference to patient's wishes concerning their representatives, whether expressed in writing, orally or through other evidence does not extend to documentation of power of attorney and a living will? Are not these things expressed in writing, orally or through other evidence? I guess I get nervous when i see wording that appears cryptic. If it's open to interpretation, if it's even remotely ambiguous, i fear the religious right will be all over it. It appears a loophole big enough to have a tea party in.

I know, but yes, if one has the documentation it must take precedent as to what the hospital wants. We've never had an issue with our hospital and it's a catholic one.