Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A woman sues a Florida hospital that refused to allow her to be at her partner's bedside while she died:
As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman's hospital room.Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.
But since she wasn't legally related, they wouldn't let her in:
Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital's visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses -- not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized. On Friday, two years after her partner's death, Langbehn and her attorneys were in federal court, claiming emotional distress and negligence in a suit they filed last June.
And guess what? They had all that paperwork that we hear makes it unnecessary to allow them to be married:
At Friday's hearing, Langbehn's lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond's condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.''This is not just about same-sex couples,'' said attorney Donald Hayden, who is also representing the Langbehn family. ``This is about protecting the legal access that a parent has to see a child, or an essential loved ones right to be aware of what is going on with their loved one.''...
Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond's legal guardian and giving her the medical ''power of attorney,'' Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.
The woman lays dying in a hospital room and the hospital won't allow her to see her wife or her children. Why? Because that would violate "family values." How sick and twisted is that? Worse yet, the hospital says it's all okay because they don't have any obligation to let anyone see anyone else in the hospital:
Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.
Right. So the fact that they do so automatically for straight couples and discriminate against gay couples - AND children of gay people - is irrelevant. So come on, all you opponents of gay marriage who say that you're all for gays having rights like this one as long as they don't call it marriage. I can't wait to hear you speak out against this hospital's actions and condemn their behavior. What's that I hear? Crickets? That's what I thought.
Politics
Comments
Uh-oh.
Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond's legal guardian and giving her the medical ''power of attorney,'' Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.
I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the existence of these documents kind of put the hospital in a not very good position?
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 17, 2009 9:44 AM
I've been to hospitals with my girlfriend several times, in both Virginia and Maryland, and I've never been prevented from seeing her, even when the joint was packed and jumping. We never had to even pretend we were married or legally "related" in any way. This case here is nothing but bigotry under the cover of bureaucratic rules.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 17, 2009 9:48 AM
Regardless of any documentation, the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.
translation: we make the rules. If you don't like them we don't care.
Just another reason it's way past time for adoption of UHC and national care and access policies.
About the only reason my wife and I are married is that we were coming to live in the States, and we knew how backward it was regarding unmarried families. Otherwise we'd still be 'living is sin' (oh noes!) with our two kids!
But what do we know - we've only been together for 21 years.
Posted by: TonyC | February 17, 2009 9:53 AM
So come on, all you opponents of gay marriage who say that you're all for gays having rights like this one as long as they don't call it marriage. I can't wait to hear you speak out against this hospital's actions and condemn their behavior. What's that I hear? Crickets? That's what I thought.
That's you, Mr. mroberts.
Posted by: SLC | February 17, 2009 10:02 AM
I'm straight, but in a similar situation. I'm not a big fan of the whole marriage thing the way it is done now, and I think that marriage should be a commitment between two people without getting the government or the church involved. However, when I get married in the future, I will make it legal just to avoid problems like these, because my own commitment isn't good enough until someone makes it official. But at least I have that option because I'm straight. The government should either recognize all committed partners or none of them. Keeping sick people away from the people they love is some crazy idea of 'family values'.
Posted by: catgirl | February 17, 2009 10:02 AM
But an strange priest doing a magic act is a big source of comfort for a woman dying alone.
Posted by: rpsms | February 17, 2009 10:03 AM
This kind of thing happens mostly in the more backward states. Here in NY it isn't an issue. Hospitals that do this kind of thing should be publicized so that they can be avoided if possible. It is time that institutions, businesses and professionals that discriminate in the manner be on some kind of national registry so that same sex couples and others can avoid just such situations as this.
Posted by: MikeNYC | February 17, 2009 10:12 AM
As the hospital ignored the existing legal documents, I find myself wondering if hospitals ever ignore the legal documents of marriage, where gay marriage exists. It seems this hospital's defense of not having to permit any visitors could be used against the visiting partner in a gay marriage. Are there cases of the legal marriages of same-sex couples are being ignored in cases where opposite-sex marriage are being recognized? If hospitals ignore legal documents now, would they be less likely to ignore the documents of a gay marriage?
Posted by: JuliaL | February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
I feel bad for the doctors here. They're going to be sued for malpractice even if they weren't involved in this portion of the case because they did not consult the responsible people for treatment options. If I were the doctors involved, I would be preparing my own lawsuit against the hospital as well.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 17, 2009 10:33 AM
Chiroptera: Many jurisdictions do not recognize a medical power of attorney as "durable:" That is, it ceases to exist should the grantor cease to be capable of granting it (precisely when it is neded, of course). This most often comes into play when a family ignores a "do not resucitate" clause to keep a grantor alive, or goes against organ donation intent. In many parts of the South it is used against straight unmarried couples as well. We'll drag ourselves into the Nineteenth Century in time, though.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 17, 2009 10:33 AM
It may have been the priest who was finally the voice of reason. I have personally escorted many "non-related" (hospital's choice of words, not mine) people to the deathbeds of loved ones when the hospital has said they weren't welcome.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 17, 2009 10:38 AM
BTW I was named medical "poa" for a church member who was not related to me. After her massive stroke, which left her incapable to make any decisions, it just took the doctor stating that she was thus incapacitated in writing. Never had an issue after that.
The craziest was Social Security-where they won't accept POA (I was also that, too.) I had to be named Payee Representative. To do that she had to sign an afidavit. I told the SS rep. point-blank that she could not do that. She told me to have her make an "x" on the paper and have two people witness it. So I had to put the pen in her hand, and move her hand to make an "x" while two nurses watched me do it-and then they witnessed the "signature."
That's your gov't. at work, folks!!!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 17, 2009 10:45 AM
Ah ha, there's the solution to the problem!
I'm assuming Rev. you were in no way related to the person dying, so you should have been logically excluded, but if you bung on a dog collar well... ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 17, 2009 10:48 AM
Yet, they let a priest in... Makes my stomach turn.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | February 17, 2009 10:54 AM
DJ-You assume correctly...sometimes I wasn't even their pastor-was just on-call at the time.
But that solution wouldn't work well for atheists, now would it...so I think the whole idea of excluding people from visiting gravely ill/dying patients is STUPID!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 17, 2009 10:56 AM
The "right" has pretty much made me hate the very word value.
Posted by: Josh | February 17, 2009 10:59 AM
Honoring the legal papers necessary for any type of medical guardianship is key for medical personnel. That's why those papers exist, from powers of attorney to DNR orders.
Ignoring the existence of such documents is actionable. Screw the bigotry angle at this point; it's obvious and you're not going to gain any more allies than you have. Sue their ass off for ignoring the legal paperwork. Eat them alive, and at the following press conference, bring up the fact that, had they simply been allowed to marry, both sides could have avoided such nastiness...Posted by: Ranson | February 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Thanks, Rev. AJB, you're a credit to your faith.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 17, 2009 11:03 AM
Just call me the steak on the black eye of Christianity;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 17, 2009 11:10 AM
so what you're telling us is that we should all carry around a priest's collar in the (un)likely even that one of our loved ones has to go to the hospital and we are denied visitation? all we would then have to do is put on this stupid collar and be allowed full access to the hospital? this is f-ed up.
Posted by: amarkbaruni | February 17, 2009 11:13 AM
Still waiting for Mrroberts--or ANY "conservative" or "family values" sort--to chime in here. Still hearing nothing but those crickets.
Posted by: gary l. day | February 17, 2009 11:17 AM
Nah...I'm saying that the hospitals' policies are f-ed up...but if I can use my office to circumvent that stupid rule...I will.
Yes it is f-ed up that I can pull the rank of clergy to visit a dying friend for whom I am not his/her clergy (and I have done that before).
What if you were in a car accident two thousand miles from anyone you know and your best friend was dying in the emergency room? Wouldn't the "decent" thing be to let the friend be comfort to the patient?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Don't hold your breath waiting for mroberts. People like him are perfectly happy to bring on the manufactured outrage over teh ghey in the abstract, but when it comes to real-world situations, such as visitation rights, POA, or real children deriving real benefit from being adopted by a gay couple, they're more likely than not to realize they have nothing to contribute, and stay away. That's what mroberts did when Ed posted a concrete example about the latter subject.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 17, 2009 11:25 AM
I think mroberts actually got banned for some particularly blatant racism, or eugenics advocacy. Something of the like.
Posted by: Paul | February 17, 2009 11:29 AM
This is straight-up 14th Amendment stuff.
If it weren't for the Opus Dei faction on the SCROTUS (WTF is a secular nation doing with FIVE fucking practicing mackerel-snappers occupying THE MAJORITY of seats on its highest court?), it'd be a done deal. But I suspect the advocates fear an adverse SCROTUS ruling, and therefore don't pursue it along strictly Constitutional lines.
There's also a First Amendment (seperation) argument to be made, too. But the OpusDeists would be even less hospitable to that one...
Posted by: woody | February 17, 2009 11:45 AM
Rev AJB - Please understand that I wasn't attacking you, merely the idiots in charge of a particular hospital's policy, Like many Christians here (although, sadly, not all) I have nothing but respect for their compassion and humanity. I just just can't share their beliefs either logically or in good conscience.
Paul - really? That's a shame, I miss Mrroberts' screeds on how flat taxes and going back to the gold standard (whilst curling up into the Austrian fetal position) will protect us from the evils of homosexuality - endlessly amusing and infuriating stupid. :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 17, 2009 11:45 AM
I'm a straight woman. Last fall, my fella had an accident, and ended up spending a week in a hospital here in NYC. Despite having no legal relationship, I had no problem visiting him, getting information about his condition, etc.
I'm not sure that this would have been so easy if it had happened 20 years ago, but over the years, medical facilities have been forced to deal with the fact that not all important relationships are very formal.
Thank you , LGBT people!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 17, 2009 11:45 AM
Like k through 12 schools - you run into a problem of widely different standards and policies.
The extra challenge with hospitals is 30 minutes is a life or death decision. Its useful to contact your local hospitals to find out what their rules are. In many cases the hospitals have never been put in this position and don't have a position so its left up to the administrator to make a call - which is sometimes the wrong call.
(perhaps there is a web page on that somewhere? anyone?
Posted by: yoshi | February 17, 2009 11:47 AM
We really need a good full "faith and credit" constitutional battle.
Posted by: JStein | February 17, 2009 12:06 PM
Um... what?
Posted by: DaveL | February 17, 2009 12:14 PM
Molly,
While overall I agree with you, visiting in a ward tends to be far more liberal than in a ICU. Usually, (in my experience, which has been far too frequent) if the patient is conscious, theyll let anyone in. I guess they figure if the patient doesnt want them there, the patient will complain.
That said, Ive never had difficulty visiting someone in an ICU either, including people I was very tentatively related to.
Posted by: Dave | February 17, 2009 12:58 PM
JStein,
We will lose that battle, unless DOMA is repealed first. That was the whole point of DOMA, was to remove same-sex marriage from the full faith and credit provision.
Posted by: Dave | February 17, 2009 1:00 PM
Paul: the last time mroberts posted here, it wasn't blatantly racist enough to get him banned, and Ed posted nothing to indicate a ban was imminent.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 17, 2009 1:12 PM
Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.
This makes no sense at all. Hospitals aren't prisons. Going into the hospital does not waive all personal rights. Besides, in this case the hospital let a priest in to administer last rites. If the lawyer is smart, they'll leap on that - a priest isn't a relative or a hospital employee, so that shreds the hospital's "immediate family only" argument.
Posted by: Carlie | February 17, 2009 2:13 PM
Related news:
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_11715945?source=commented-news
Posted by: WScott | February 17, 2009 2:50 PM
Woody said:
A. This is not a Federal issue;
B. Of course hospitals can make their own visitation rules without violating the civil rights of anyone, even if those rules are stupid, as in this case. There is no suit here.
C. Today is reserved for anti-Muslim bigotry, over in the other thread. Anti-Catholic bigotry is reserved for Fridays since that whine goes well with fish. Was William Brennan walking in lockstep with the Pope, too?
Posted by: kehrsam | February 17, 2009 3:35 PM
I thought it was Walter Brennan that walked in lockstep--oh, wait, that was a locked knee.
Posted by: democommie | February 17, 2009 5:06 PM
This story makes me enraged. I can't imagine not being able to visit my partner on her death bed because of a technicality or bigot running the hospital. My suggestion would be to make every union a "civil union" and all couples are granted the same social benefits from that title. If religious individuals want to go to a church and be "Married"...fine. But no additional rights should be associated with it.
I created a website (www.facesinequality.org) that is dedicated to giving "faces" to marriage inequality. It's a storyboard so to speak about various loop-holes that Domestic partners have to jump through in society. If you register for the site (as yourself or anonymously) you may add a page/story that's applicable. www.facesinequality.org.
Posted by: Faces | February 17, 2009 5:28 PM
Policies, even laws be damned. Anyone who actively kept loved ones away from a dying patient against her will is a monster.
Posted by: Foos84 | February 17, 2009 7:14 PM
Pricks. When I see a story like this, I know that at least part of the anti-gay movement is impelled, not by medieval theology re natural law and teleology, nor even just by the ick factor, but by malice pure and simple.
Consider some relationship you'd and I might consider icky, say a man sleeping around with his adult daughter. Troubling, yes. Now suppose that one or the other of them is dying, and that the other wants to see them one last time before they cease to be, to comfort and be comforted in those traumatic hours. What sort of monster do you have to be to keep them apart then, to force someone to die alone when they don't need to? Normal minds don't think this way...it takes a certain sadism.
Posted by: D | February 17, 2009 7:35 PM
kehrsam: If it were just the medical power of attorney, that would be one thing. But apparently she was the *legal guardian* of the woman as well.
As legal guardian, she is legally considered "family", even if not married. Otherwise they could say that a legal guardian of a child would have no right to come in and see a child in a hospital, either.
And if it is considered legal for them to do that, then it is nothing more than legalized bigotry.
Rev AJB: Thank you. Thank you for being a voice of reason, and for putting "good christian" back into "Christianity".
Posted by: C | February 17, 2009 8:11 PM
The whole visitation is fucked up and the hospital and the state have no right to decide against a patient's with whom they spend their last minutes. I hate that marriage is so sancrosanct in everything. When I lay dying, if a hospital administrator excludes any one of the friends that I want in the room, I am going to take that fucking administrator with me.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 17, 2009 8:28 PM
So priests are allowed in before family members or even friends are? What fool came up with that idea?
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | February 18, 2009 6:15 AM
A. This is not a Federal issue;
Except the 14th amendment covers the states, not just the Federal government. Equal protection is a state as well as federal issue.
B. Of course hospitals can make their own visitation rules without violating the civil rights of anyone, even if those rules are stupid, as in this case. There is no suit here.
If the hospital receives any kind of public funding it would be open to civil rights suits. Because this medical center is part of the University of Miami, it receives public funds and therefore would be subject to civil rights law.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 18, 2009 9:22 AM
My suggestion would be to make every union a "civil union" and all couples are granted the same social benefits from that title
This is exactly how it should be. The government should not be involved with religious rituals. The government can not make one religious ritual more valid than another.
Posted by: catgirl | February 18, 2009 9:27 AM
This is why I volunteer for Equality Arizona. Fuck.
Posted by: marilove | February 18, 2009 2:58 PM
DJ-I took no offense in your words, sorry if my response seemed otherwise!
When my rich, unknown, distant uncle dies and leaves me his fortune, you're the first person I'm visiting on my trip Down Under!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 18, 2009 3:07 PM
One thing for consideration: The Federal Government can pass a law tomorrow stating that homosexual couples are to be allowed the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. That still won't solve the problem. The real problem is the attitudes of individual people. Even if the law said the couple in this case was legally married, that doesn't mean the hospital will instantly accept that. The couple in question had the proper legal paperwork that would be required of any "non-legal relative." I am a conservative and a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin. Then again, I believe that hatred and cruelty is just as bad, if not worse, considering that actions such as those of this hospital are deliberate, conscious decisions. We don't just need to address the law here. People need to grow up and know when to stand by their own convictions and when to let things go. I don't have to accept a gay couple the same way I do a straight couple. I don't have to say that whatever they want to do is okay with me because it's not. I do, however, have to treat all people as human beings with rights and feelings. My religion teaches that we are all equal in the eyes of God, no matter what. I have a responsibility to treat all people with dignity, compassion and respect. Shame on that hospital and so-called Christians for treating people this way. Campaign for marriage amendments and against gay marriage if that is what you believe, fine. But there is a difference between standing up for what you believe in and treating people like crap. Just because we don't agree, it doesn't mean we can't get along.
Posted by: compassionate conservative | February 18, 2009 3:24 PM
Shame on YOU, cc for needing a religion to tell you that all people are equal.
So treating people with cruelty and hatred is "at least as bad" as homosexuality, eh? You can take your compassion and shove it up your ass.
Posted by: Bachalon | February 18, 2009 3:42 PM
"Just because we don't agree, it doesn't mean we can't get along."
Aka: "I'm a bigot, but I'll hide behind my religion and pretend I'm all-loving, even though really I'm a bigot."
There. Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: marilove | February 18, 2009 4:06 PM
I hope the judgment bankrupts the hospital, and the whole community loses access to healthcare for tolerating such a cesspool of bigotry. Maybe when some straight Christians die because of how bigoted the community is, they will understand there are some drawbacks to being bigoted.
Maybe then the bigots will get the message in a language they can understand because they don't understand family values. Maybe they understand economic values. Maybe they understand their own pain, they certainly don’t understand anyone else’s.
Posted by: daedalus2u | February 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Try living next door to a homosexual for a while. Then, try living next to someone whom you would describe as "hateful and cruel".
After that, come back and tell me whether you still think there's any possibility that "hatred and cruelty" could be "just as bad" as homosexuality.
That's right. You also don't have to give up your seat on the bus to the old lady with the walker. You don't have to do it. Of course, the fact that you don't do it would mean you're a complete ass with all the moral center of a donut.
Translation: treating people like second-class citizens is fine, as long as you don't actually treat them like crap.
If I refused to recognize the validity of your marriage, just how long do you think we could get along? What about if I refused to recognize your friend's marriage? Your parents'? Hey, after all, I don't have to agree with it, right?
Posted by: DaveL | February 18, 2009 5:11 PM
DaveL:
Never mind recognizing the validity of his marriage; how long do you think you'd get along if you told him his "faith" in a supreme being was a fantastic construct that has, to date, no evidence whatsoever to back it up?
Posted by: democommie | February 18, 2009 5:54 PM
When I originally heard this story, I was almost as upset by the hospitals' ridiculous defense as I was by the story about them keeping loved ones from a dying patient.
I am sad to say this is the main hospital I am applying to for residency. Not only do they receive federal funds, they are the main hospital that serves the indigent population of Miami. Many people who receive care there do not have a choice.
Posted by: MomTFH | February 18, 2009 8:22 PM
You're right that it won't change the attitudes of people ... right away. But acceptance by the government will likely result in attitudes being changed eventually.
There are studies being done to prove that anti-gay legislature results in more hate crimes directed toward gays. Essentially, the government saying it’s a-okay to discriminate against gays means that a lot of people, well, think it’s okay.
Racism is still around, of course, but not nearly as bad as it once was, and Civil Rights laws had quite a lot to do with that.
Posted by: marilove | February 19, 2009 11:49 AM
AUSSIE MEMBER OF THE VILLAGE PEOPLE BUYS DRINK FOR GENDER CONFUSED BULL BEAR*.
Sam the Koala gets a drink. -DJ
*Ok I fudged it so it was on topic (sort of).
Posted by: DIngoJack | February 19, 2009 12:55 PM
Posted by: Taz | February 19, 2009 1:05 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistpostingtools.info
Posted by: Elaina | February 26, 2009 7:34 AM