“The qualification is who she was talking to. You know this. You are being absurd.”
No.
Either one can draw blood from an unconscious person or one can’t.
I say one can. You say one can.
According to this article, she said one can’t.
Are we right, or is the nurse right?
Drawing the blood is a fully separate issue than using it in court.
The nurse is not the unconscious person’s lawyer.
She does not have power of attorney over the “patient”.
She is not an officer of the court.
She has zero authority to act as an officer of the law under such circumstances.
She was not even going to draw the blood, the phlebotomist policeman was going to. She had zero authority to stop him from doing it. He respected her enough to not do it over her unlawful obstruction and acted in a civilized manner in arresting her so that the issue could be resolved in a civilized legal manner.
If it is wrong for the blood to be drawn or used, it is the police blood -drawing officer who is putting himself or herself on the line and is subject to subsequent legal issues, ie whether it is admissible or not, whether the police phlebotomist was right or wrong etc...
It is not a nurse’s responsibility or authority to interfere.
Do you understand this?
Agree or disagree, do you at least understand what I just said?
What you don’t understand is that the unconscious man had not yet been arrested nor had he given his consent. The officer had not yet read the man his rights, and could not do so while he was unconscious.
A police officer does not have the authority to order a citizen to perform a medical procedure on another citizen against that citizen’s will or without that citizen’s authorization.
All the cop had to do was produce a warrant.
You are wrong. The hospital and medical personnel involved have a responsibility to the patient; and they also face legal consequences and liability if they allow medical records to be released contrary to law or medical procedures to be done to a patient of theirs by some other person, with no legal standing.
The person in question was a patient in the hospital. He was not under arrest. Had the patient been under arrest the laws/rules/policy would have been different. There was no warrant for blood draw or access to his records/test results. LEO is the one that had no legal right to do what they were trying to do in this situation.
If she had allowed this to happen contrary to law, her license would have been in jeopardy because she would have been violating laws concerning patient care and privacy. Her employer would have also been held responsible for her actions.
“She was not even going to draw the blood, the phlebotomist policeman was going to.”
No, he was not. He has no authority to act within that hospital.
Also, just because someone else may have authority, the nurse did not.
The police phlebotomist has zero authority to do blood draw in the hospital without the hospital’s permission. He is not their employee and they have legal/medical obligations to their unconscious patient and serious liability issues if they ignore those obligations.
The hospital also had a written protocol agreement with the police department that the police phlebotomist was not following.
The cop was following neither the law nor the protocol so where does his authority come from?
She has zero authority to act as an officer of the law under such circumstances.
She was not even going to draw the blood, the phlebotomist policeman was going to. She had zero authority to stop him from doing it. He respected her enough to not do it over her unlawful obstruction and acted in a civilized manner in arresting her so that the issue could be resolved in a civilized legal manner.
Yes she does have the authority if it interferes with the care of the patient...if the staff deems it a risk to the pt the law loses....the pt was a burn pt and thus has a HIGH RISK of infection since the natural skin barrier to infection is compromised. The police officer had NO LEGAL standing to either her OR HIMSELF drawing the blood. PERIOD