Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/18/2010 11:45:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

I think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business.

If I want my best fishing buddy to visit that should be okay too. If they want their best fisting.... lol


2 posted on 04/18/2010 11:47:26 AM PDT by GeronL (Entitlement Zombies will become real zombies when the money runs out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, as soon as the Gay Lover enters the hospital and says “I’m here to visit my life partner, etc.” The hospital should get their name and address and send them the hospital bills.


3 posted on 04/18/2010 11:50:27 AM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Am i to understand that this gives greater freedom to homosexuals than heterosexuals as regards who may visit?


4 posted on 04/18/2010 11:50:48 AM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out " (Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind; little jeremiah
The leaders agree with the president that patients, whatever their sexual orientation, need their love ones by their sides and have a right to choose who they want to make medical decisions on their behalf.

They had that right before. It's called a power of attorney. All Bam did was make aberrant behavior more mainstream.

7 posted on 04/18/2010 11:56:10 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

How can it apply to widows and widowers?


15 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:51 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

I went with my husband and several other family members to visit my day old great nephew. I asked my sister in law whether we had too many visiters in the room (6) and she works in that hospital and she just laughed and said, not if we don’t tell anyone. Well my niece’s nurse was in and out several times and she didn’t care.


16 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:52 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

How about a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy? You just say who you wish to have in the room and not why or have to give details. Why does the gov’t even need to stick their noses in it?


19 posted on 04/18/2010 12:19:02 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

“The conservative pro-family group is concerned that the directive, though innocuous itself, is part of a larger effort to undermine marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.”

It seems to me to undercut one of the current rationales being used to push gay marriage. That is, if gays can obtain this new-found “right” outside of marriage, then the case for having society recognize gay marriage to accord them this right is no longer necessary. I concur with another poster that in theory, before this policy change, gays could use a power of attorney that I presume would have accorded a partner all these rights. But absent having done so, there apparently were gay partners who ended up getting excluded due to blood/marriage requirements that I think likely were imposed by hospitals just to keep the visiting situation manageable [what hospital would want to risk letting in a self-declared friend who turned out to be a mortal enemy?] Heterosexuals have no need of executing powers of attorney for their spouses or other family members. So I think this is a reasonable attempt to “level the playing field” in that regard. It certainly would be cumbersome if the government or hospitals required us all to execute legal agreements with all spouse/blood relatives as a condition of their visiting.

That said, one hopes this policy applies to the far larger number of cohabiting heterosexual couples (whose behavior arguably is equally “sinful” in the eyes of the Bible) rather than being an exclusive prerogative a gay partners. As another poster suggested, the easiest solution is for the patient to designate the list of acceptable visitors, subject to constraints on “reasonable” numbers. Even within families or marriage relationships, there may be individuals whose presence would be detrimental to patient recovery. Who better than the patient would know this?


21 posted on 04/18/2010 1:32:51 PM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Besides gays and lesbians, the new rule would also apply to widows and widowers as well as members of religious orders.

Why would it not also include unmarried heterosexual couples?

22 posted on 04/18/2010 3:39:15 PM PDT by Between the Lines (AreYouWhoYouSayYouAre?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

some Christian leaders ok with anything...they are apostate


27 posted on 04/18/2010 11:58:00 PM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind; Travis McGee
btw...I have been in ICU pods twice for my own life in the balance surgeries and several times for others...not just family...anyone can be allowed in if you specify in a living will or if family lets them in or usually if you just walk up at visit time

what this does is allow the fag partner to push him or herself on the family

who in the case of dying homosexuals are often the ones stuck with the chore...fops running buddies fade quick

besides...gay relationships are very very very fickle and hardly monogamous

a monogamous male homosexual relartiuonship is like the unicorn even though they like to pretend they are like married straights...

before anyone here gets stoked up...I have cared for dying AIDs patient no one else wanted...not the bathhouse gang let me assure you

being homosexual is ridden with pitfalls beyond the peccadilloes more often than not

28 posted on 04/19/2010 12:04:19 AM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

People can already draw up Power of Attorney papers. This is just an excuse to normalize homosexuality, push it down everyones' throats even more, and 0bama wants to curry favor with the tiny percentage of homoesxuals and their pals (more pals)*. He said he and the missus would be the best friends sexual perverts have ever had in the White House. So now he's paying them back for his support.

*There are at most 2% of the population who identify as homosexual (fluid number, as more are recruited and others leave the "gay" life; but they have become a major pet cause of leftsts, so there are actually more leftists who support the homosexual agenda than there are acutal homoseuxals.

33 posted on 04/20/2010 2:32:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
The leaders agree with the president that patients, whatever their sexual orientation, need their love ones by their sides and have a right to choose who they want to make medical decisions on their behalf.

If one's "sexual orientation" is bestiality (hey, if "civil rights pioneer" Frank Kameny doesn't think anything is wrong with it...), then does that mean a Shetland Pony can be lead into a hospital for "visitation rights"? (Nurse, please pull the curtain, we'd like to be alone for a few minutes).

Based on the amount of disease, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc. etc. etc. that is attributed to the homosexual lifestyle, it's likely that the "loved one" visiting is partially responsible for putting said patient into the hospital.

34 posted on 04/20/2010 3:08:45 PM PDT by aSeattleConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

And here’s the crux of the issue: “letting” rather than “forcing” compliance. I believe legally executed contracts and wills should hold sway, but default recognition at homosexuals’ whim is what is being sought here. So you have a “married” sodomite couple from mAssachusetts now demanding that their “marriage” be recognized in a normal state for purposes of being treated as a spouse in a hospital setting. It’s a wedge that the sodomites will capitalize on for all it’s worth.


35 posted on 04/21/2010 5:42:46 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Hospital policies generally allow only visitors related by blood or marriage to visit a seriously injured or ill patient.

First of all, this is nonsense. Secondly, anyone can designate a durable medical power of attorney to anyone they wish. It takes a few minutes. In other words, this is a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

37 posted on 04/21/2010 5:46:23 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson