Essay
Essay for Bill SF5345 HF5264
This bill gives patients the right to have a support person present in any care facility. This support person can be present to provide anything from religious services to emotional comfort. Patients need to have the right to a support person so that they can stay mentally healthy. According to Mayo Clinic and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mental health is closely linked to your physical health. If left untreated, mental health issues can lead to things like: drug abuse, self harm, heart conditions, and a weakened immune system.
Furthermore, the bill protects the patient's physical safety. It ensures that anybody who could potentially be a danger to the patient, especially anyone suspected of abusing the patient in the past, will not be protected by this bill. It should be noted that this bill protects the right of a patient to have a clergy member or lay person present offering religious or spiritual support in addition to their support person. This means that a patient will always be able to have someone available to provide religious or spiritual support even if they already have someone else present.
In the event of a pandemic, the bill requires that the facility must provide at least one form of compassionate care visitation. This includes physical contact, however, the facility must also reduce the risk of infection by enforcing things like hand washing and wearing a mask and a gown. These must all be performed while assuring the patient’s right to having a support person present. If all other forms of compassionate care visitation have been depleted, a virtual visitation option must be provided by the facility.
On the other hand, this bill protects the facility from being punished for giving a support person access to the facility or the acts of the support person who is given access. What if the support person has a bomb? What if they intend to disrupt a medical procedure? The facility should be liable for failing to properly screen and manage the support person. For example, Mayo Clinic says, “At Mayo Clinic, we understand that providing a safe, welcoming environment is essential to the health and happiness of our patients, visitors, and staff.” They provide weapon screening and should be liable if that system fails.
Additionally, the facility will not be punished for failing to confirm the support person’s comfort and safety. I believe that the facility should be liable for the safety of the support person. According to Winona Health, “...all employees are required to actively participate in promoting safety.” In my opinion, the hospital should not only be liable for the patients, but also the visitors and support people. Hospitals should be held liable if they intentionally or unintentionally fail to protect someone inside their facility.
If a facility knowingly violates this bill, they are subject to paying a fine of five-hundred dollars for each day of violation. This fine is far too low to mean much. The mental well-being of a patient contributes greatly to their physical health, so a facility should never knowingly violate this bill. A fine of five-hundred dollars makes it far too easy for the facility to get away with it.
In addition to this, the Hippocratic oath, which is the oath all doctors must abide by, states that, “...my primary commitment to provide the best and most appropriate care available to each of my patients.” If a doctor’s main objective is to provide the best care possible to their patients, then they should also do the same for visitors of their patients as these visitors do have an impact on the patient’s health.
