On Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009, Leonard Pitts' editorial column told the story of Joe and his wife who'd collapsed on a cruise ship. Their children traumatized; Joe was denied access to said wife as she lay dying in a hospital emergency department.
Then he explained that the couple he was describing was not Joe and Lisa, but Janice and Lisa, a homosexual couple in Florida. His column quoted Janice's account of a conversation she had with the social worker: "I need you to understand that you are in an anti-gay city and state and you won't get to know about Lisa's condition or see her." The hospital disputes this account.
Without questioning the validity of that statement, Pitts goes on to recite the party line:
The Healthcare Information Portability and Protection Act has created similar scenarios throughout the nation. HIPAA prevents hospital/healthcare workers from relaying information concerning anyone over 18 to anyone not given written permission by the state. My husband and I have butted our heads against this many times, and he's a hospital administrator.
We have an adult son with a mental disability. The years between 16 and 20 were a nightmare. We couldn't find appropriate care, accurate diagnoses, or adequate physicians to treat him even though we live less than 50 miles from Los Angeles. After his 18th birthday, we couldn't even schedule apppointments for him. Once I was quoted HIPPA laws by a receptionist when I insisted that he was refusing to seek help and was suicidal. (When he was 15, a school counselor suggested that I call Family Services for help. Right. Can you imagine what would happen to a bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, violent teenager in the social services system? But I digress.)
If we were provided with the account of the "anti-gay" behavior by the Floridian hospital, I have no doubt that HIPAA laws would play a large part in their refusal to allow Janice to visit Lisa. If Lisa didn't have a written healthcare power of attorney noting Janice as her healthcare guardian, I'm not surprised that Janice was denied access.
I stood in a hospital emergency room with our asthmatic son and watched an employer bring in an employee covered in hot tar. I heard the ED worker tell the employer that he would be unable to give him any information or allow him to see the injured employee. The man stood there gaping. He asked how he should know whether to stay or go? The worker repeated HIPAA laws. I've often wondered what happened to both men.
Patients' privacy is necessary and appropriate, but common sense should prevail. If Lisa's condition was critical, if the ED weren't too chaotic, if Janet could have been by her side without being in the way of other patient's care, she should have been allowed access simply because she was there. Patients deserve the right to have with them someone with a clearer head who knows the circumstances of the emergency.
Just don't claim " anti-gay" as the reason for denial of access.
Then he explained that the couple he was describing was not Joe and Lisa, but Janice and Lisa, a homosexual couple in Florida. His column quoted Janice's account of a conversation she had with the social worker: "I need you to understand that you are in an anti-gay city and state and you won't get to know about Lisa's condition or see her." The hospital disputes this account.
Without questioning the validity of that statement, Pitts goes on to recite the party line:
- increasingly anti-gay nation (his italics)
- mean-spirited amendments
- legislation that made scapegoats and boogeymen of gay people.
HIPAA Laws.
The Healthcare Information Portability and Protection Act has created similar scenarios throughout the nation. HIPAA prevents hospital/healthcare workers from relaying information concerning anyone over 18 to anyone not given written permission by the state. My husband and I have butted our heads against this many times, and he's a hospital administrator.
We have an adult son with a mental disability. The years between 16 and 20 were a nightmare. We couldn't find appropriate care, accurate diagnoses, or adequate physicians to treat him even though we live less than 50 miles from Los Angeles. After his 18th birthday, we couldn't even schedule apppointments for him. Once I was quoted HIPPA laws by a receptionist when I insisted that he was refusing to seek help and was suicidal. (When he was 15, a school counselor suggested that I call Family Services for help. Right. Can you imagine what would happen to a bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, violent teenager in the social services system? But I digress.)
If we were provided with the account of the "anti-gay" behavior by the Floridian hospital, I have no doubt that HIPAA laws would play a large part in their refusal to allow Janice to visit Lisa. If Lisa didn't have a written healthcare power of attorney noting Janice as her healthcare guardian, I'm not surprised that Janice was denied access.
I stood in a hospital emergency room with our asthmatic son and watched an employer bring in an employee covered in hot tar. I heard the ED worker tell the employer that he would be unable to give him any information or allow him to see the injured employee. The man stood there gaping. He asked how he should know whether to stay or go? The worker repeated HIPAA laws. I've often wondered what happened to both men.
Patients' privacy is necessary and appropriate, but common sense should prevail. If Lisa's condition was critical, if the ED weren't too chaotic, if Janet could have been by her side without being in the way of other patient's care, she should have been allowed access simply because she was there. Patients deserve the right to have with them someone with a clearer head who knows the circumstances of the emergency.
Just don't claim " anti-gay" as the reason for denial of access.
Comments
Post a Comment