Better To Die Alone Than With A Non-Legal Partner, Right? Right!

Illustration for article titled Better To Die Alone Than With A Non-Legal Partner, Right? Right!

When Janice Langbehn's partner of 18 years suffered an aneurysm, Langbehn and their children were not allowed to visit her in the hospital. Now the case is the subject of a lawsuit with major implications.

Advertisement

The case, detailed in today's NY Times, is heart-wrenching. The family was on vacation in Miami when Lisa collapsed, and when they arrived at the hospital a social worker allegedly told Langbehn that she was in an "antigay city and state" and would require health-care proxy forms in order to visit the ER. Although she produced the forms, she was still not allowed to see her partner for eight hours, only permitted access for five minutes while a priest administered last rites, and denied a chance to let the three children say goodbye until after Lisa was brain-dead. When Lisa's sister arrived, she was immediately admitted.

This Miami lawsuit, and a similar case in Washington State, raise an issue that is not a new one; hospital visiting rights is a common theme in the argument for gay marriage. And of course, a positive ruling vis a vis visiting rights could have major implications for all unmarried couples, to say nothing of friends and any number of relationships beyond traditional marriage. If successful, a ruling in Langbehn's favor could compel hospitals to respect a patient's wishes; right now, it's generally subject to a doctor's judgment in the case of emergency care.

Advertisement

Of course, there are legitimate legal reasons for having put such a policy in place - when it comes to questions like life support or other major decisions, it could conceivably get dicey to allow just anyone agency in these matters, to say nothing of legally problematic for hospitals. And certainly we get that you can't have various strangers wandering around the ICU, if that's what medical pros are concerned about. But surely there are simple, practical means of expanding this policy - the insurance equivalent of 'in case of emergency?' In a time when we're more than aware of the fragmentation of many family relationships and the importance of others, such restrictive policies and narrow definitions seem impossibly retrograde - and, when we hear about specific cases like this, inhumane. One of the more depressing aspects of the article, of course, is that legality is not guarantee of fairness - prejudice and cruelty can still find a way - but at least it's a start.

Kept From a Dying Partner's Bedside [NY Times]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

This article just makes me want to cry and it just shows how far we have to come. It is sad that even with all of the proper paperwork in place (a very expensive and tedious task) LGBT couples are still given hell when it comes to visitation rights. Granted this isn't the only aspect in which we are discriminated against when it comes to the medical community. I was recently turned away from donating blood (I am O negative and have always made it a point to donate) because I identified myself as a homosexual man. They deemed me too at risk for HIV, even though I engage in safe sex and have a clean bill of health. Last time I checked gay men weren't even the highest demographic for contracting HIV, I believe it is African-American females ages 18-35. Does anyone else think I am wrong in thinking discrimination like this is unwarrented, or am I just being over-sensitive?