digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Lesbian Sues Hospital Over Denied Access To Dying Partner

miamiherald.com — As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with staff to let her into the woman's hospital room. Despite legal proof of guardianship and "power of attorney," Langbehn and the couple's three adopted children were not recognized as family and denied access until eight hours later -- just as the last rites were performed.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 8, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

649 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ReasonWinsOut, on 02/08/2009, -49/+1099And yet the groups that fight against full family equality continue to couch their bigotry and ignorance in the guise of "protecting families" and "saving children." Fight as hard as they might, these groups fail to understand that -- despite their feelings about them -- families with same-sex parents DO exist and will continue to exist, and they are every bit as valuable and deserving of recognition as any other family.

    These poor children weren't allowed to see their adopted mother until she was minutes from death. And why? Because the second parent has a vagina instead of a penis. NO OTHER REASON. This isn't just ridiculous, it's disgusting and infuriating.

    Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the Yes on 8 campaign and all other like-minded organizations and individuals need to realize that they aren't protecting ANY family or ANY children from anything... they are, instead, actually helping to destroy families with their rhetoric and hateful theocratic amendments and laws.

    Here's some advice for Tony Perkins, "Dr." Dobson, et. al -- worry about and "focus" on your own goddamned family and leave other loving, healthy families ALONE.
  • inactive, on 02/08/2009, -12/+373Absolutely deplorable. I can't imagine what kind of person could stonewall a dying person's family like that.
  • GrandmaSheila, on 02/08/2009, -24/+374FTA
    "...voters approved the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statewide amendment garnered more than 62 percent of voters -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification.

    Supporters of Florida's Amendment 2 -- mostly conservatives and Christian groups -- argued it was needed to protect families and the traditional institution of marriage by promoting homes with a mom and a dad." To protect who from WHAT? People voted for this fairytale *****, without the faintest idea of what it means, because it doesn't mean anything at all. And this vile persecution of grieving families is the result. And these people are cool with that. Marriage is not "sacred", it's not owned by some nutjob cult of ignorant bigots, it's a human institution that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. But now, we've allowed them to hijack that too, and it's a crime.

    Christiban love and family values at its finest, banning children and spouse from the bedside of a dying woman. I wish we lived in a nation free from religious persecution, hate, and bigotry. Somebody had that idea once, but these ***** have been allowed to erect their theocracy state by state. Sane people need to wake up.

  • dancantone, on 02/08/2009, -12/+244No one should be denied being with a person they love EVER!

    Stop this madness!
  • HumanNouveau, on 02/08/2009, -5/+233FTA: '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.''

    If rights are denied to some, they are guaranteed to none.
  • diggymow, on 02/08/2009, -10/+173There are no words. I can't understand why people hate so much. I can't imagine the pain they must feel now.
  • buddamus, on 02/08/2009, -8/+171This anti gay stance America has is getting ridiculous, I thought it was the "Land of the free"
  • EarlOfLade, on 02/08/2009, -11/+166A Christian?
  • PaulRay, on 02/08/2009, -4/+146I logged in to rant about how sad and horrible this is, but you worded my feelings better than I could.

    I have gay friends who have been together longer than my marriage or even any of my relationships have lasted. How can this be seen as anything less than a "real" marriage, is beyond me. It's 2009, the time for provincial thinking is over!

    Thank You ReasonWinsOut for speaking so eloquently.
  • singingsox, on 02/08/2009, -9/+135Thank goodness I live in Massachusetts.

    I don't understand why other states don't follow suit.
    Gay marriage hurts no one, and benefits everyone.
  • JenniferInMO, on 02/08/2009, -16/+139I can't add anything to that. Right on!
  • allowners, on 02/08/2009, -14/+131Anti-family bigots.
  • Alheithinn, on 02/08/2009, -15/+116What is it the Fundamentalist Christians are always telling us? That except for marriage gays and lesbians have equal rights in this country? Right. Just like we all have access to health care.

    Enough of this! We need to elect people who are going to fix it. And keep electing people until we get the right bunch. The Christian Right is well organized and funded, to the point now of owning their own political party. Perhaps we need to do the same thing, a broad-spectrum progressive/liberal movement that appeals to the mass of people who are decent and loving and caring and actually see tolerance and diversity as positives and not negatives.
  • bunki8, on 02/08/2009, -2/+95The thing to take note of is that they had done the proper legal paper work and she was STILL denied visitation.....they make hoops for us to jump through, we we end up paying more for lawyers to do this paper work, more for taxes because we can't file jointly, and they STILL pull ***** like this.

    I wish there was a way to make people like this feel the same pain that the woman felt....THAT would be justice
  • veled, on 02/08/2009, -6/+95Right, and the whole fact that they couldn't possibly be married under Florida law (or otherwise likely would have been) means nothing, amirite?

    And what of the adopted children? Should all parents be denied access to their children if they aren't biologically related?

    Okay, where's your Kool-aid?
  • secrity, on 02/08/2009, -10/+96What the ***** is your problem? There is no need at all to make this distinction.
  • protodon, on 02/08/2009, -1/+80No it's "The Land of the free, if you're just like me"
  • belebih, on 02/08/2009, -4/+76@AlphAssassin: A cheap jab? More like pointing out the root of the problem. Seriously, what do you think was it that lead the majority of people in Florida to vote for ***** that ultimately leads to hospital policies as ridiculous as this one? Fundamentalist Christian values in the US are the only things that let these people rationalize their hate in a way that lets them spoon feed it to the gullible among us. You may think it's not nice to point out the horrible ramifications of these silly beliefs but if left unchecked due to an irrational sense of respect things like this will just keep on happening, and worse.
  • Murdats, on 02/08/2009, -3/+73what about the adopted children, why are they not family?
  • inactive, on 02/08/2009, -1/+69'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 medical PoA overrides "the hospital's visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses -- not partners". At that point, the person is the decision maker.

    WHY does it take a $$multi-million$$ lawsuit to correct such situations AFTER THE FACT?
  • jhanc, on 02/08/2009, -5/+69Now you sound like those Christian groups the GLBT community shuns for saying the exact same thing.
  • Loonacy, on 02/08/2009, -0/+61"it was needed to protect families and the traditional institution of marriage by promoting homes with a mom and a dad"
    So they're banning divorce next, right?
  • skyjis6, on 02/08/2009, -3/+63this is something i've never understood. if you truly wish to "do no harm," why wouldn't you let the people most important to the dying into the room? family or not
  • whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -2/+59Actually, it's far from a "cheap jab." It's a very meaningful expression of the frustration felt by non-Christians over the behavior of people who in theory live by a moral code that boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Let's not kid ourselves; if Christianity weren't a driving force in it, the whole anti-gay marriage movement would have made no headway.

    So on one hand you have the people who use their Christianity as an excuse to be very un-Christian. And on the other hand you have the masses of people who also claim to be Christian and just let these kind of injustices pass by without standing up for what is right. The number of Christians who stand up for what would actually fit with their religion is far too small.
  • JenniferInMO, on 02/08/2009, -5/+61I understand the sentiment, but my 87 year old grandmother and her 93 year old "boy friend" go to a church which welcomes gay people. The church is mostly elderly people, but they welcome anyone. Until they waited for 4 hours in the sun then cast their votes for Barack Obama last year neither had ever voted for a Democrat (not even in a local election). Part of their identities was being a Republican.

    If the old folks can change, the younger folks can change as well.
  • albinorhino101, on 02/08/2009, -1/+50Damnit, you mean I need to go out and buy gay clothes now to replace my black ones?
  • zizzybaloobah, on 02/08/2009, -2/+50Drop the gay vs. straight angle and consider this: why does it make any difference what the relationship is of a visitor to the dying patient? I know many people whose friends are closer and more loving than any family they have, and if they were dying would prefer to have friends around them rather than be alone or be surrounded by callous relations.
  • carbonetc, on 02/08/2009, -5/+53I wish everyone who voted against the rights of this couple had been flies on the wall in that room. It's easy to check a box on a ballot; not so easy to see firsthand what you steal from loving, decent people.
  • JenniferInMO, on 02/08/2009, -5/+51You are so right. This world and this life is tough enough. Many people get through life without having the good fortune to love. Why deny those who have found love? Why?
  • secrity, on 02/08/2009, -10/+55Your long winded rationalization does not excuse your ignorant statement; there is no need at all to make this distinction.
  • KnivesForRobots, on 02/08/2009, -6/+50In Florida? ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhocking.
  • atomicrobot, on 02/08/2009, -7/+50Gay is the new black, unfortunately.
  • blacktriangle, on 02/08/2009, -7/+50Sue the bastards into oblivion.
  • jgzman, on 02/08/2009, -5/+47If you feel no need to make the distinction, then you need to take a closer look at the world. Precision in language is a wonderful thing.

    Yaun, be advised that there is a biological definition, and a social definition of 'parents.' In many cases, the social definition is the more important one. In my particular case, I have a biological father, and a father who raised me, the nasty little hellion that I was.

    Secrity, I encourage you to be less brittle. In times of anger, a calm voice is a handy thing to have.

  • pnmoore, on 02/08/2009, -0/+42This totally blows my mind. If it were me on my death bed and it was just my best friend, no relation or marriage or whatever involved, I would want them to be able to see me before I died...and me be able to say goodbye to them if I was conscious and able. Unless there was a health risk to the visitor of some sort (and there wasn't in this case) there is ZERO reason for this hospital to have done this.

    I am not even speaking from a gay marriage versus straight marriage viewpoint...just one of moral common sense and caring.
  • TKaine, on 02/08/2009, -3/+43Ummm, Yuan, as a "scientist" you seem to have zero awareness of people whose chromosomal makeup is XXY. You've also neglected a little thing we like to call in Medicine (you know, a Science), Intersexed. If you are scientist you appear to be a myopic geneticist whose forgotten the multitude of sciences in this world and the biochemical realities of fetal development.

    However, as far as I can tell you're just a narcissist who thinks his opinion counts more than other diggers b/c you can pretend that B.S. is a MA/PhD.
  • mwillems, on 02/08/2009, -3/+43Agreed entirely. And religion (deference to an imagined deity - or rather, to those who say they know the will of this imagined deity) is so often used to justify the bigotry. The more religious a society, the more discriminatory and judgmental it is. Sad.
  • edelay, on 02/08/2009, -5/+44No way. Common law spouses would have been give access since they are as legally married as those who went through a ceremony.
  • theaceoffire, on 02/08/2009, -1/+39Lets try and get equal rights for the Homosexuals, so they can join the rest of society as equals instead of outcasts.

    I mail my congressmen every three weeks about issues like this, and when bills about equal rights are taking fire, but it never seems to help... is there something else we can do?
  • Firstdaughter, on 02/08/2009, -2/+39"Gay marriage hurts no one, and benefits everyone."

    I agree wholeheartedly and I live in a state where it is legal as well.

    What ever happened to the philosophy of live and let live or acceptance of those different from yourself?
  • PaulRay, on 02/08/2009, -4/+40It IS because they were a lesbian couple that they weren't allowed to marry and weren't considered "legitimate" family members. So now due to this Hospital's blind adherence to a Rule, a family is suffering and will never have the closure they deserve! How is that "Pulling an Issue?"
    These people who run the Hospital are in the business of dealing with people in distress. These situations need people that can make good judgements based on the situation. Not just administer rules.
  • Elsewhere42, on 02/08/2009, -5/+38Those conservatives sure are compassionate.
  • Biscuitz, on 02/08/2009, -5/+38You sir, are a douche.
    Someone should ban you from things just for being you.
    I can tell by your history in your short time here on DIGG, that you're not very well liked anyway.
  • Paranor01, on 02/08/2009, -5/+37Thought i agree with your 1st statement, I have to digg you down for the 2nd.

    Any group, religious or otherwise, that believes the fallacy that 1 human being is "better" or "worse" than any other human being, is prejudice and needs to be looked into having limited to no recourse on affecting any other human being's freedoms. ALL religions, not just Christian or Muslim, practice this behavior.

    It is time for the "rule of religion" to end, and start the "rule of reason".
    Yes, it sounds like fanciful ideology, but it's already showing signs of starting. I'm not calling for the end of religion, just the position of religion in the governance of any country. Only then, will the world have peace, prosperity and true freedom.
  • mentallyinhell, on 02/08/2009, -2/+34You mean those "thank god for Katrina" nuts?
  • Yatata, on 02/08/2009, -1/+32but the constitution says basic human rights should never be subject to a vote.
  • Zpanzer, on 02/08/2009, -0/+29and it rhymes!
  • HumanNouveau, on 02/08/2009, -3/+32Wow. That was shallow. You should consider wearing a no-diving tee shirt.

    Let's get right on that amendment to the Constitution that will limit rights to those people you find stylish, attractive, and politically correct. Oh, and how do we handle succession? I mean if/when you die, who will carrying on deciding who should have civil rights in this country?
  • Apocrypha, on 02/08/2009, -2/+31"Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors."

    How about for everyone's health and well being? It's common knowledge that physical contact with loved ones eases the mind in stressful times and in some cases can aid healing. It's just unheard of to me to deny dieing people access to their loved ones and vice versa regardless of gender. If a hospital is obligated to give medical care, then not allowing contact with loved ones would be a violation of that obligation as a necessary part of the healing process.
  • MSUKate, on 02/08/2009, -2/+30Personally I don't think they should be going after the "emotional distress" and "anti-gay" angle. Although this was clearly a case of homophobia gone insane. (which if of course abhor)

    They should go after the fact that she had Power of Attorney for her partner, and that is a legal right that hospitals are forced to comply with. A POA can be anyone, not just a spouse, a child, or cousin etc. So the hospital has no right to make moral judgments on who is the POA. They just have to abide by it. The fact that this hospital denied the rights of the POA, they could have been going against the patient's advance directive (such as a "do not resuscitate order") It is illegal for the hospital to ignore the POA just for those reasons. They legally must be included in medical decisions.

    This woman was not, thus the hospital is at fault.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 666 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.