or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate

visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors,

including individuals designated by legally valid advance

directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care

proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more

restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.

You should also provide that participating hospitals may not

deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national

origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or

disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need

for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate

circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical

professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.

And, yes, I do believe that Obama is saying something about our nation's bigoted stance toward our gay citizens.

NON FAMILY PERSON?

Any yahoo who wants to get a will changed can go visit somebody for whatever reason, then.

gay relationships are NOT FAMILY. They are FRIENDS. NOT LEGAL COMPANIONS in terms of being

responsible, etc etc.

Now, if you want to have a legal document that designates who can come visit you unrestricted ahead of time,

in the hospital, regardless of the situation, I'm fine with that.

Wouldn't that simply solve the problem? Or, is the real intention to change society's views on all things warped and radical one bit at a time?

I think the latter.

Straight from the memorandum:

...ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare

or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate

visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors,

including individuals designated by legally valid advance

directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care

proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more

restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.

You should also provide that participating hospitals may not

deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national

origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or

disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need

for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate

circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical

professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.

I disagree with you on this being undeserving of praise, though.

@vaportrail said:

That's true.

But Obama was (and is I assume) opposed to gay marriage.

And this memorandum is meaningless on that front.

There's nothing here to blast him or praise him for.

WSS

@vaportrail said:

Either way it is merely paperwork. It isn't like you don't have to meet with a representative and file for a marriage licence. Honestly a majority of this argument is already in place with the same paperwork requirements that are needed to get married in the first place.

@vaportrail said:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hos...tion/index.html

Try telling that to Janice Langbehn, who wasn't allowed to see her partner of 17 years on her deathbed because she wasn't "family."

The point I think you miss is the fact that with a POA or living will one has those rights.

(I'm pretty sure that's the case, It's certainly true for the nearly universally supported civil union, but still, thet's paperwork.)

Non married straight couples would need that same legal status.

Non adopted children aren't considered family no matter how long they've lived with a step parent either.

If I've been living with a woman for say ten years I'm not automatically privy to her legal affairs.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.

And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.

WSS

No, you only feel it's meaningless because it doesn't affect you. CNN did a much better article on it

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hos...tion/index.html

Try telling that to Janice Langbehn, who wasn't allowed to see her partner of 17 years on her deathbed because she wasn't "family."

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Be that as it may, this was a pretty meaningless gesture.

As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.

And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.

WSS

@pumpkin-eater said:

Well, it's a problem such that gays are really the only ones affected, and as it was, they were denied rights that married straight couples had.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I'm not a lawyer but I assume a living will and or POA would cover those legalities regardless of sexuality.

You do know that non adopted step children aren't considered the legal heirs aren't you?

WSS

@vaportrail said:

I meant to say that I don't have a problem. No big deal 'to me'.

<-----can't somebody give medical power of attorney to a non-family member?

Maybe Gip can chime in on this.

Not sure I understand this part of the notice.

Is the bottom line is that both straight and gay patients are allowed to have nonfamily members visit them? In what instance(s) would a straight person be allowed to have nonfamily visitors and a gay person not be allowed the same?

Curious. I guess there are more than a few instances where, 'immediate family members only' applies and, now, both straight and gay people in such a condition can have visitors beyond this small circle.

Sounds like no big deal to me.