Posted on 08/09/2021 7:48:13 AM PDT by rktman
Read more Carefully:
Section 4: “if such tasks are performed in a
hospital licensed under Title 68 pursuant to a facility-specific, COVID-19-related
plan of delegation that has been submitted by the facility’s chief medical officer
and approved by the Commissioner of Health or the Commissioner’s designee.
Such a plan of delegation must include the specific types of licensees covered, the
specific tasks outside of their licensed scope of practice that are permitted, and the
specific circumstances and directives under which such tasks are permitted. “
Section 6&7, med school and nursing school students ALREADY practice under supervision. This doesn’t change that.
Section 8 allows for trained NG medical professionals (The NG has Doctors and Nurses too) to supplement within their scope, and to perform screening and to drive ambulances.
Section 14: You need to re-read. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with rewriting what constitutes substantial harm under the Code. It doesn’t change the law in any way other than to allow telemedicine ONLY when the following two conditions are met: The mandatory pre-screening agent is not reasonably able to conduct an
evaluation in-person or via readily available telehealth services; and
b. The mandatory pre-screening agent determines in the agent’s professional
judgment that conducting the assessment via telephone with the person is
clinically appropriate.
Most States already use telemedicine anyway in this procedure.
Section 20: Nope, it suspends ROUTINE government regulatory inspections and visits. (You should be happy about the lack of red tape.)
Section 21: Nope, it suspends “to the extent
necessary to suspend the requirement that the Department of Health conduct
inspections of facilities applying for licensure if the applicant facility is physically
located in the same location as another licensed facility where patients have been
seen within the thirty (30) days preceding the submission of the application.”
What this boils down is to people WANT there to be a nefarious plot behind the scenes, and then getting angry when someone points out that there isn’t one.
Laughable. I just quoted you the law verbatim. It has NOTHING to do with an “ad hominem” attack.
You don’t like the fact that there isn’t a grand conspiracy here.
You aren’t a lawyer either.
C) the person has placed others in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them, OR
(D) the person is unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from specific risks, AND
(2) there is a substantial likelihood that the harm will occur unless the person is placed under involuntary treatment,‘
Coulda stopped at ‘B’. Why didn’t it? Because they need some vague language in there to handle Wrong Think during, say, a medical ‘emergency’. It’s cute that you think law even matters very much to these people these days. It’s even cuter that you think we lock up schizoid Charlies before they kill someone.
Take it up with the General Assembly. That’s the law that the General Assembly passed.
I find it curious that you would want people to:
“Place others in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them.”
Since you said to stop with B.
As for D, do you understand the legal standard required? It has nothing to do with “wrong think.”
It requires that a “person is unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from specific risks”
AND a substantial likelihood of harm.
Covid doesn’t create “severe impairment” in anyone, nor does it mean that “substantial likelihood of harm” requirement under TN law.
I know that you are digging your heels in, because you didn’t read the law, but the law is there in black and white.
This has nothing to do with FEMA camps and pretending that there is such a crisis when there isn’t one doesn’t help anyone.
Just as a magician uses misdirection, you appear to rely on the citation of sections of the code that are not focuses of concern while ignoring the very specific issues that are. While you appear adept at demolishing the strawmen of your own creation, you have yet to address the very real potential for harm and abuse that is inherent in EO83.
Just out of curiosity, are you in some way vested in the Lee Administration?
Wasn’t what I said. Read my post.
Ok, three words for the governor:
Separation of powers.
And a comment for the governor:
Per the Constitution, there’s three branches of government, and there is to be no infringement/aggrandizing of powers by one branch of/over another branch.
That means laws get introduced and go through the legislature, laws get signed by the governor, and laws get reviewed by the judiciary.
Where have the legislatures been during all this?
For the most part, strangely silent.
Where have the lawsuits been during all this?
For the most part, strangely silent.
We have a mess of sick illegal aliens shipped into our st5ate Whats he doing about that ???
Wrong. Those provisions of the code are absolutely relevant. They all work together.
Section 33-4-108 is the examination requirements for the “certificate of need” issued under 33-6-404.
The certificate of need is part of the requirement for an emergency detention under 33-6-401 & 33-6-402.
I provided you, verbatim what is required under 33-6-401, which lays out the steps that are required by the General Assembly and what is required to be proven by 33-6-501.
These code sections all work together, which is something that lay people seem to ignore or not understand.
As I already Stated, the ONLY thing that Section 14 does, is allow a certificate of need to be issued (in limited circumstance) without an in person examination.
All of the other provisions regarding involuntary detention, likelihood of substantial harm ect... remain in effect.
This has nothing to do with shipping people into camps.
I have absolutely no vested interest with Lee. I can’t stand the Qtard conspiracy theories of people who just make stuff up like in this thread.
“DER, DA GUVNA IS GOING TO SHIP US TO THAT THEM THUR CAMP FOR WRONG THUNK.”
“DER, DEY COMING TO GIT UZ FOR ANY REASON THEY SEE FIT.”
If you think that an in-person exam should be an absolute prerequisite, fine. Make that argument. Don’t make up crazy.
Complaining about illegals might be a sign of mental illness in our brave new world.
B encompasses C. They coulda stopped there.Tell me, in what way was existing law insufficient that fake law had to be imposed?
"Good, but how long until anti-vaxxers are declared mentally unhealthy, trying to harm themselves and others?"
As I pointed out, that's not the legal standard. It's not enough to "declare" someone "mentally unhealthy."
In TN, the government must prove: (1) a person has a mental illness or serious emotional disturbance, AND (2) the person poses an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm under § 33-6-501 because of the mental illness or serious emotional disturbance AND must prove (1) (A) a person has threatened or attempted suicide or to inflict serious bodily harm on the person, OR (B) the person has threatened or attempted homicide or other violent behavior, OR (C) the person has placed others in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them, OR (D) the person is unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from specific risks, AND (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the harm will occur unless the person is placed under involuntary treatment.
None of these apply to people who just don't want to get vaccinated (of which I am one.)
The only thing that changed is the in-person examine requirement being necessary in every case.
Explain to me why Telemedicine wouldn’t work to do such an exam? Psychiatric assessments typically don’t involve much in the way of a physical exam anyway. They involve questions and answers.
When Charlie tells the doctor that he hears lizard people telling him to kill people and he plans on acting on those requests, does it matter that he tells that to the doctor in person or via video conference?
Shipping you some more. Sharing is caring right?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m getting from you:
1. Q believers are nutcases.
2. The code says it can detain nutcases, but not paranoid Q believer nutcases.
The gov’t has been working towards proving wrong thinkers (wearing a Q shirt, denying election results) ARE a physical threat since 1/6. A freeper got a visit from the retards in blue for posts here. Even if the TN gov has acted like he’s on “our side” today, I don’t see the justification of continued gov creep.
The Code makes it very clear what the standard is for detention. It is a high bar. Rightly so.
“Wrong think” is categorically and absolutely protected by the Constitution.
I think Qtards are nutcases. I think that they are wrong and delusional. However, what they spew is protected from governmental interference.
I don’t know anything about the visit that you are referencing, but if it didn’t involve specific threats, then that would be wrong and I would hope the person told them to go get bent.
Continued governmental creep IS a problem. I completely agree! However, focus on what the problem is. Don’t make up a problem that doesn’t exist and then attack that.
Attack what is actually there.
It is one thing to say, “I don’t think the Governor should have suspended the in person exam requirement.” Or “I don’t think the Governor has this particular power.”
It’s another thing entirely to say, “DEY COMING TO PUTZ UZ IN CAMPS!”
We saw this with the “turn key” fascism Obama was working towards. Each piece he worked on looked relatively harmless by itself, like tightening gun laws regarding the mentally ill. (Who could be against that?)
But then you have to ask, who declares (Yes someone has to DECLARE it) someone mentally ill? The DSM-V is being regularly updated. I could list all the symptoms of mental illness Q believers suffer that most “reasonable” people could agree with.
Folks in The Volunteer State are going to put up with this s**t?
C’mon y’all. Get them guns out.
“Attack what is actually there.”
There’s nothing wrong with playing out scenarios anytime a law is passed. I’d be surprised if Govenors just sign laws without thinking of consequences, some likely, some less likely. Maybe Rand is the only one that does.
Wow. For someone who does not know me personally, you seem to presume you know me well, including not only my professional background (or lack thereof), but also my very thoughts - which you so kindly placed in all caps replete with bad grammar and a system of spelling that appears to originate with a derived rendition of how those on the Left mis-characterize conservatives in general. I can only hope you will not be one of the newly qualified tele-arbiters of who is and is not worthy of institutionalization in a mental facility.
I should probably also tell the members of the Tennessee legislature who have been texting me since this weekend, that their concerns are invalid. I guess their law degrees, decades of practice and comprehension of the Tennessee Code Annotated are also invalid because...”Qtards”?
For the record, those with whom I associate deem QAnon to likely be a psy-op by those on the Left. I guess if you wish to retain some level of integrity you’ll have choose another derogatory label in your quest to demean those with whom you disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.