CathInfo.com

[...] whoever is on duty, be it a protestant, rabbi or muslim, priest, whoever, is to play the role.  So, if a rabbi is on duty, they play priest.

Really, now?  Just what do you expect such an imposter to do?
• He can't hear confession and grant valid absolution.
• He can't administer valid extreme unction.

Perhaps even worse, the "facility" might send send a request to a Novus Ordo church [×], which might dispatch a she, d.b.a. "extraordinary minister of communion".  My mom received just such a person at least once in a hospital that had her religion on file, altho' simply as "Roman Catholic".

By the way, when a traditional Catholic deliberately lists their religion is as "none" or somesuch, assuming that such a ruse will avoid such situations, having arranged for a family member contact a traditional priest at the proper time(s), a hospital might nevertheless dispatch some kind of New-Age ecuмenical-humanist "minister" or "chaplain" to the patient (I've also seen that happen twice).  So be ready with one of the short answers, e.g., "I didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church; Rome abandoned me".  But beware that the unwanted visitor might use that an opportunity for her/his own try at prosetylization.

As a secular matter, that patient urgently needs an effective lawyer.

-------
Note ×: "Of course that church is Catholic; Google says so on the Internet: C-a-t-h-o-l-i-c", so it must be true.

No non-essential visitation allowed in facilities. That includes priests. I don't hear the Church fighting back about it either.

I don't think this is going to change.  Hospitals really don't like visitors.  Frankly, the last place to be these days when one is sick is a hospital.

No non-essential visitation allowed in facilities. That includes priests.

Good golly, Ms. Men'ndez!  All of your postings in this topic of yours have been alarming, albeit for different reasons.  One of my Catholic family members had a potentially fatal medical surprise less than 2 months ago, warranting initial admission to the i.c.u., but was discharged (by the Grace of God) right before the hospital began clearing its decks for an expected influx of acutely infected Wu-Hu Virus patients.

The primary trauma hospital here in Central Florida has established a policy allowing exactly 1 visitor, who will be prescreened, including body temperature [#].  And that 1 visitor must always be the same person for the emergency/in-patient stay.  Which indeed practically excludes a priest, because:
• a spouse or other family member will already be that 1 visitor, serving to monitor the patient's condition, and would usually be the person to alert a priest; or
• a patient whose condition and prognosis is grim might have kept her/his 1-visitor selection open specifically for a priest, but as near certainty approaches, he/she might be too incapacitated to alert that priest or parish [*].

I don't hear the Church fighting back about it either.

I can imagine 1 compromise that might seem reasonable to a hospital administration honestly trying to accomodate "the Church", but it would not help CathInfo members: Prescreen priests, but rely on the diocesan office of "the Church" to identify acceptable candidates.  Which, considering the typical hostility of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, would exclude all traditional priests.

I can't think of any way around the current restriction, unless God provides the patient with a sympathetic & assertive Catholic staff member, or an effective lawyer who has strings that can be pulled.

-------
Note #: A screening step that as many readers might know, is ineffective in excluding infected visitors who are asymptomatic, but I suspect that the example hospital would quite reasonably not dare not to do such screening.

Note *: Communication technology would not be an impediment at the example hospital: It provides individual phones, on direct-dial-in lines, including in its i.c.u., to each patient who's progressed beyond the emergency dept. and been formally admitted to the hospital.