So you can't visit people in hospitals?

D

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
17,059
502
548
45
Marklar
₥1,014
There is no healing power of family. :tard:

And its been this way for a long time. What's the problem? You really don't think the hospital should be protecting itself and its patients?
 
This is not new. I've never encountered anything crazy... anyone you know??

Just something that's in place, should Uncle Dad Fred brings the moonshine and raises a stir in the hospital room when EllieMay his daughter/niece doesn't want him involved with the raisin' of the inbred spawn.
 
fly said:
But the hospital reserved the right to not let any or all of them in, afaik. It's called being lawsuit-averse.
Click to expand...

It does. My parents weren't allowed to see me at certain times when I was having some rough spots during recovery. And these are my parents. I understand that at some times, you necessarily can't have people around when the professionals have to do their thing.

The woman was having a brain aneurysm. I doubt there was any convenient point where they could let someone in while the medical staff is going balls to the wall to save her life. It's not like a coma. An aneurysm is from door to floor intensive treatment. You don't just lay there and wither away.
 
But this ruling scarily means that parents can't visit their own kids if the hospital chooses. The primary caregivers would be barred from giving care while the child is in the hospital if so choosing. I can understand no visitors during procedures or during sensitive times, but not 6 hours AFTER the one party has died.
 
Duke said:
It does. My parents weren't allowed to see me at certain times when I was having some rough spots during recovery. And these are my parents. I understand that at some times, you necessarily can't have people around when the professionals have to do their thing.

The woman was having a brain aneurysm. I doubt there was any convenient point where they could let someone in while the medical staff is going balls to the wall to save her life. It's not like a coma. An aneurysm is from door to floor intensive treatment. You don't just lay there and wither away.
Click to expand...

I agree depending on situations and circumstances getting "pedestrians" out of the way of the care should be allowable, however, when that care is no longer a worry because the patient has stabilized or deceased, there is no justification.
 
dbzeag said:
But this ruling scarily means that parents can't visit their own kids if the hospital chooses. The primary caregivers would be barred from giving care while the child is in the hospital if so choosing. I can understand no visitors during procedures or during sensitive times, but not 6 hours AFTER the one party has died.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with being gay </story>
 
Last edited:
dbzeag said:
But this ruling scarily means that parents can't visit their own kids if the hospital chooses. The primary caregivers would be barred from giving care while the child is in the hospital if so choosing. I can understand no visitors during procedures or during sensitive times, but not 6 hours AFTER the one party has died.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would cover dependents.
 
dbzeag said:
But this ruling scarily means that parents can't visit their own kids if the hospital chooses. The primary caregivers would be barred from giving care while the child is in the hospital if so choosing. I can understand no visitors during procedures or during sensitive times, but not 6 hours AFTER the one party has died.
Click to expand...

No, they upheld what was already the law. There was no ruling, her case was dismissed it says. They ruled on whether the hospital had the right to refuse entrance and the court said yes, established fact and that was that.
 
ZRH said:
It has nothing to do with being gay </story>
Click to expand...

Well not completely. The case was started because it was believed there was discrimination because the couple was two women instead of a heterosexual couple, but the ruling generalized it for anyone, even next of kin. That is a dangerous ruling. I know for a fact my parents would raise all hell when their parents died and they couldn't be with them during or after while they were in the ICU.
 
ZRH said:
No, they upheld what was already the law. There was no ruling, her case was dismissed it says. They ruled on whether the hospital had the right to refuse entrance and the court said yes, established fact and that was that.
Click to expand...

This is true. You are right.
 
dbzeag said:
Well not completely. The case was started because it was believed there was discrimination because the couple was two women instead of a heterosexual couple, but the ruling generalized it for anyone, even next of kin. That is a dangerous ruling. I know for a fact my parents would raise all hell when their parents died and they couldn't be with them during or after while they were in the ICU.
Click to expand...

And what happens when the wife and snot-nosed child come to visit dad in the ICU and give him an infection? My guess is mom sues because she "isn't a medical professional and couldn't know better."

So should the law just say no snot-nosed kids around? Or should it be a blanket statement that covers everyone, for the safety of the patient and hospital?
 
fly said:
And what happens when the wife and snot-nosed child come to visit dad in the ICU and give him an infection? My guess is mom sues because she "isn't a medical professional and couldn't know better."

So should the law just say no snot-nosed kids around? Or should it be a blanket statement that covers everyone, for the safety of the patient and hospital?
Click to expand...

If the priest was allowed to come in to give last rites but the "spouse" with the documentation in hand was not allowed until 6 hours after her death, there is something wrong with that picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back