It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nurse forcibly arrested for not allowing cop to draw blood of unconscious patient(Video)

page: 42
126
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra

She seemed to be following hospital protocol. That's what she is to do.


and the Detective was following his, which is what he was supposed to do.


He was trying to get someone to do something they didn't have to do. Failed.

Much like the lies police can tell but a person is wrong if they lie and might be charged.
edit on 9/4/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

That is really a good decision by the hospital. The only problem I see is that they are either going to have to deal directly with administration or Case Management.

Evening and night shift administrators are likely to be on call, which means a wait time. Case Managers already have enough on their plate, and if they are lucky enough to be at a hospital that has an after hours Case Manager, it will be an issue of time and priority.

This is just going to make the tensions between the hospital staff and law enforcement increase.

I believe in, if it is not broke, don't fix it. Right now I rarely have problems with hospital staff or doctors that I haven' been able to resolve amiably on all sides.

Not to say I haven't had times when members of the hospital staff, or law enforcement, have pissed me off big time. I just remember that it is about the patient. Not about ego, not about making someone happy, not about time or expediency, it is utmost and always about the patient.

I have to make tough calls sometimes, and I always carry the possibility of having to defend my decisions in court in the back of my mind, that is part of the job.

At our Forensic Association meeting last week, one of the things we focused on was testifying in court and importance of not just knowing how you do something, but why you did something.

I was taught that if you didn't know why you were doing something, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

Two different mentalities. Law enforcement, do without question. Nurses, question before you do. Can make for a bit of friction but it didn't have to get that out of hand.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


Not all LE's are like this idiot, I am former LE and I actually viewed everyone as human beings and treated them with respect and arrest was the last thing I wanted to do. Don't mistake that for weakness, obviously there are times it just has to happen but this clearly was not one of them. I feel for you all in the health care and Fire Departments, I respect the hell out of what you all do.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra

She seemed to be following hospital protocol. That's what she is to do.


and the Detective was following his, which is what he was supposed to do.


He was trying to get someone to do something they didn't have to do. Failed.

Much like the lies police can tell but a person is wrong if they lie and might be charged.


In fact they werent asking medical staff to do anything. The detective was there to take the blood draw himself.

And as I pointed out medical staff is immune from civil / criminal liability for following the direction of a police officer in this type of case.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



uhm no -


Uhm, YES!!!!

The 2nd officer, who lectured Nurse Wubbels in the car, clearly states that he needs the blood for a criminal investigation that he's conducting! Not civil!

Listen to him say it yourself at a few seconds before the 16:00 mark!



Repeating this over and over doesn't change a thing!



The following are immune from civil or criminal liability arising from drawing a blood sample from a person whom a peace officer has reason to believe is driving in violation of this chapter, if the sample is drawn in accordance with standard medical practice:


Again, this case doesn't qualify, because the officers had no reason to believe a violation had been committed. The requested blood draw was not legal in Utah.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

uhm no -

People acting under the direction of law enforcement are provided immunity from being sued for following their direction.

if you are going to accuse me of something at least know what you are talking about.


Effective 5/9/2017

Index Utah Code
Title 41 Motor Vehicles
Chapter 6a Traffic Code
Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving
Section 523 Persons authorized to draw blood -- Immunity from liability. (Effective 5/9/2017)
41-6a-523. Persons authorized to draw blood -- Immunity from liability.

(1)
(a) Only the following, acting at the request of a peace officer, may draw blood to determine its alcohol or drug content:
(i) a physician;
(ii) a registered nurse;
(iii) a licensed practical nurse;
(iv) a paramedic;
(v) as provided in Subsection (1)(b), emergency medical service personnel other than paramedics; or
(vi) a person with a valid permit issued by the Department of Health under Section 26-1-30.
(b) The Department of Health may designate by rule, in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, which emergency medical service personnel, as defined in Section 26-8a-102, are authorized to draw blood under Subsection (1)(a)(v), based on the type of license under Section 26-8a-302.
(c) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to taking a urine, breath, or oral fluid specimen.
(2) The following are immune from civil or criminal liability arising from drawing a blood sample from a person whom a peace officer has reason to believe is driving in violation of this chapter, if the sample is drawn in accordance with standard medical practice:
(a) a person authorized to draw blood under Subsection (1)(a); and
(b) if the blood is drawn at a hospital or other medical facility, the medical facility.


Liability is on the officer and not medical staff.


I said the nurse had immunity and she does. It is why I cited the law for you so you can read and understand it. Apparently I was asking to much.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Medical staff are like cops. they hold positions of authority and dont like it when someone else comes in with their own authority.

That would be because?
I'll tell you why..their one and only concern/priority is the well being of the patient..who likely was in shock in ICU.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

As a Forensic Nurse, I sit somewhere in the middle.

The patient is always my first priority and comes before anything else, including what the police "want" sometimes.

One of the things I like about my job is, that while I work on the team with law enforcement, my job is caring for the best interest of the patient.

Sometimes this is hard for a police officers to understand, especially if they have never done an assault or trauma case before. Most LEOs are willing to listen and to learn. I learn from law enforcement as well. We really are a team and most of the time we have the same goal, serving and caring for the victim.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra




Medical staff are like cops. they hold positions of authority and dont like it when someone else comes in with their own authority.

That would be because?
I'll tell you why..their one and only concern/priority is the well being of the patient..who likely was in shock in ICU.


and if medical staff was concerned about the patients medical condition they would have cited that as reason for no blood draw.. Instead they focused on a warrant. Had the officer had a warrant they would of allowed the blood draw so your observation about medical staffs intention is contradicted by what the medical staff said in the video.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

If your comments were directed at me I worked in a level 1 trauma center for 6 years in their public safety department so im well aware of each others roles and responsibilities. I am also familiar with the laws that govern both and what each can and cannot do.

If your comment was directed at me.

If not then fyi.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



People acting under the direction of law enforcement are provided immunity from being sued for following their direction.


That's not what this is about! The officer said that he needed the blood for a criminal investigation. You said that "implied consent" laws in Utah are not unconstitutional, because they impose civil, not criminal, penalties for refusal.

Earlier, the officer said they wanted to draw blood to prove the driver wasn't under the influence, but that's bogus too, because he was never under suspicion!



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   


In fact they werent asking medical staff to do anything. The detective was there to take the blood draw himself.


He was asking for access to the patient to draw. He was asking them to do that.

That's another like "he didn't arrest her".



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



In fact they werent asking medical staff to do anything. The detective was there to take the blood draw himself.


He was asking for access to the patient to draw. He was asking them to do that.

That's another like "he didn't arrest her".


No - he was not asking medical to draw blood. The detective is a phlebotomist on the pd blood draw unit. He was there to do it himself. They were refusing him access to the patient unless he had consent or a warrant.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I am guessing English is not your first language since you cant seem to grasp what you posted and my response.

I said medical staff had civil immunity. You accused me of gaslighting you.

I provided you the statute that shows immunity.

you up to speed now?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


What are "civilians" told? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, the same applies ,to a higher standard, to LEO's . Also there is good faith which I believe covers this guy, although I don't agree with how he handled it. But here is no such thing as blanket immunity as long as you are following orders. If a reasonable person can determine an order is illegal you don't have to follow it. Unfortunatelyy a lot of LEO's don't have the balls to stand up to their superiors. I worked with a bunch of them.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Wow now this guy X has resorted to mocking people? Who cares if English is not someones first language.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

and you would be wrong in this context. Specifically because the medical staff acting under a leos direction are immune. Specifically because of their ignorance of the law and the fact they are acting under someone elses direction.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Other than the last bit, my comment was a general one, responding to this..


Medical staff are like cops. they hold positions of authority and dont like it when someone else comes in with their own authority.


The hospital stated the policy and that should of been enough..for the time being anyway.
The patients medical condition may or may not of played a part aside from the policy.
In the bodycam audio, while conversing with another LE Payne says a judge wouldn't likely approve a warrant..what do you make of that?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: windword


Wow now this guy X has resorted to mocking people? Who cares if English is not someones first language.



it is a legitimate question when the person doesnt seem to understand his own post. If its not I can explain my responses in a manner he might be able to understand better by providing more information.

But once again way to assume someone holds a certain viewpoint.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Sure - my point though was hospital policy doesnt apply to law enforcement. especially in this case where the Hospital policy was in fact different than the police policy. It is why the pd policy was changed in the aftermath of this incident and has been tweaked by both sides in the last few weeks to satisfy both sides requirements.

The issue there however is the fact Logan pd was responsible for that aspect, a warrant or exigent circumstance compliance, and not Salt Lake City pd. It wasnt even their case and were there to draw blood at the request of the logan pd officer working the accident.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join