Posted on 09/05/2017 9:36:38 PM PDT by Ken H
The University of Utah Hospital, where a nurse was manhandled and arrested by police as she protected the legal rights of a patient, has imposed new restrictions on law enforcement, including barring officers from patient-care areas and from direct contact with nurses.
Margaret Pearce, chief nursing officer for the University of Utah hospital system, said she was “appalled” by the obfficer’s actions and has already implemented changes in hospital protocol to avoid any repetition.
She said police will no longer be permitted in patient-care areas, such as the burn unit where Wubbels was the charge nurse on the day of the incident and from emergency rooms.
In addition, officers will have to deal with “house supervisors” instead of nurses when they have a request.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“That policy will change the first time a patient in the treatment area assaults a nurse.
I predict less than one year.”
Hospitals have their own security officers to handle any in-hospital conflicts. There is NO ROLE here for the local jack boots. I noted that the Campus Police Chief was very apologetic for the namby pamby way his “officers” stood idly by while Payne abused Wubbels.
You better pray they don’t end up in that nurses hospital room...
Tammy 8, your comments are spot on.
And isn’t it nearly always the case that “government workers, and their leaders,” never respond to situations like this until someone like Wubbel’s attorney releases this video and the result is the SLC City Government reacts like someone threw a bomb in their outhouse and it’s raining $hit and boards. From the mayor on down, everything was reactionary. Not only should the two “officers” loose their jobs, but put the Chief of Police on notice that his job is in jeopardy as well, because it’s clear he was trying to keep this whole mess swept under the PD’s rug.
So, for you, some self-described “rogue cops” gives you the impression that you can flippantly slander the motives and reputation of the other 99%; none of which you know or have any relationship with?
Alright. Cool. That’s your right.
You speak for ALL Americans now? Alright.
Bad move on your part.
Keeping your head in the sand (or whatever dark place it is in) won't do you any good.
I was in training before the PRECURSOR to HIPPA. EMTALA. LOL.
I've actually been quite measured in my comments to you; indeed, on this entire thread. If asking for accountability for these rogue cops is 'flippantly slander the motives and reputation of the other 99%', I would offer that yours is a generalizing that denies the reality.
But you are free to ascribe tone and content I have not published and do not subscribe to. Alright. Cool. That's your right.
And that lt Jackboot was on the phone telling office Jackboot to break the law and still none of your 99% were willing to timidly raise their hand and say maybe we should try something radical like say, following the law, rather then roughing up honest citizens.
All lt and officer Jackboot would have need to to do was call a friendly judge with no regard for the Constitution and they would have had their warrant.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
This is the problem with your 99%. They. Do. Nothing.
By their inaction they indicate that they are perfectly fine with law breaking as long as the perpetrator wears blue.
Wow. I didn’t see that in the article that there was a written agreement that specifically dealt with such situations.
If the agreement was specific and detailed with respect to obtaining medical evidence, you would think that even if the officer acted politely, the police department could not take the position that evidence should be obtained against policy and illegally.
Even if one takes a law enforcement perspective, this is crappy substandard police work because this kind of evidence would/should be thrown out.
Maybe they had had trouble in the past with aggressive law enforcement employees and you got the brunt even though you were innocent.
The blood draw would never have stood up in court, the officer and lt would have been probably reprimanded but the nurse would have been fired, possibly have lost her license and may have faced fines, imprisonment plus civil penalties as the cherry on top.
The hospital would have also faced fines and civil penalties.
This is why they were careful to have everything written out in a contract with the police department.
But I don't think the blood draw was ever meant for court. Even if they had gotten a warrant the truck driver had already been treated for burns which would have involved drugging him. I think it was to try to pressure the truck driver to not go after the police department for his injuries. They would have hinted to the papers that drugs had been found in his system.
It would have ruined the truck driver's life but it would have gotten the police off the hook in the court of public opinion.
“Even if they had gotten a warrant the truck driver had already been treated for burns which would have involved drugging him.”
They could have been looking for THC, cocaine, heroin metabolites which would not be something that the hospital would give to sedate a burn victim. Cocaine and heroin don’t last very long as metabolites which might have prompted the rapid “need” for the test.
This appears to be very slimy police CYA operation.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, William Blackstone.
If he really didn't know until the video was released then he needs to be fired for not knowing; wonder what else he doesn't know about his police department? Either he didn't know and is incompetent with those below him running amok or he knew and as you say was trying to sweep it under the rug. Either way not good for him.
She didn’t need to know the story, all she needed to know is the criteria for LE to get blood drawn.
Patient consents
Patient is under arrest
LE has warrant for blood draw
This met none of those conditions. That is what made it different, that is what made it against hospital policy, HIPAA and other laws. What LE was demanding she do was illegal, she would have violated hospital policy and the laws it was based on.
If he had been a drunk behind the wheel LE would have had probable cause to get a warrant. The hospital even accepts electronic warrants so time is not a valid issue.
Thank you for filling in the rest. I wish people would make even a small attempt to find out what the story is before just going off. It would help to have coherent discussion if people knew the basics.
Was her name Nurse Ratchet?
I was rude to you. I apologize.
That happens how often? Now tell me how a hospital calling LEO for something like that differs from say the pizza place down the street doing the same thing? Hospitals do their own security to the extent it is possible, and yes they do call LE if they need to.
The thing is hospitals and LE used to have a great relationship- so close many in LE met and married nurses and other hospital employees. That is still the case with many hospitals and police departments. When there is not a good relationship there might just be a reason.
When HIPAA was made law it drastically changed and made much more difficult how LE is allowed by law to do their job when it comes to patients in medical care situations. HIPAA basically puts the legal responsibility of proper patient care and protection of patient rights on medical professionals and facilities. Back in the day cops could walk in a hospital and ask for a blood draw...but that has not been the case for many years. Now medical professionals have to follow laws that pertain to what they can and cannot release and to who they may release it. Hospital policy is based on those laws. LE is very aware of this, they deal with this daily. The LE in this situation thought they could bully that nurse into breaking the law for them.
One of my daughters is a nurse and at one point she worked in the county jail as a nurse. Even in the jail officers cannot simply ask for or do a blood draw on an inmate. Think about that, even when people are incarcerated there are laws and rules and policy to follow. So yes these LE knew they were asking her to break the law and violate the policy of her employer. When she didn’t fall for it they tried to bully her into it.
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.