Posted on 09/01/2017 7:34:22 AM PDT by BobNative
.
You’re the berserk fool at this particular party.
It is foolish to post without reading the article, as you must clearly have done.
.
He didn’t. The police were chasing a car. That’s what caused the crash. The fleeing car hit the victim’s car.
Likely the police wanted to limit their liability and see if they could charge the victim with something.
Are you drinking?
Okay, I'll try to make it a little more clear. 100% of the health care providers that establish their policies in compliance with state, federal, and constitutional law would tell this cop to take a hike. The rest, which must set policy based on their own local Mayberry/Andy Taylor unconstitutional rules, are absolutely 100% wrong.
There was no criminal case or even suspicion stated regarding the trucker — the 5th Amendment does not apply.
But from spending what seems like most of the last 3 years tied up with my P’s health problems, hospitals and caregivers, I can guarantee you HIPPA and Hospital Policy derived from it are EXACTLY why the nurse had to say no. Ask any Health Care professional.
This is a fairly long thread, but, I do not recall any of the healthcare professionals on this thread alluding to 5th amendment concerns. I did reread the article just now; it does not refer to 5th Amendment concerns either. HIPPA violations are what the nurse could have been fired for (as well as disobeying Hospital Policy and a supervisor) if she had acquiesced to the detective.
You Finnegan, me Kirk, in the end. :-)
Thanks.
But not one word about hipa.
Not even an intimation. Maybe the guy on the phone was talking hipa but that is not mentioned or reported in the article.
Here is all it said:
“Alex Wubbels, seen here in various images from police body cam video, was arrested after explaining to police that she couldn’t draw a blood sample from an unconscious person at University Hospital. A Salt Lake City police detective asked for a blood sample. After explaining to the detective that the police needed a warrant, consent from the unconscious patient or that the patient needed to be under arrest before the blood sample could be drawn, she was arrested.”
Consent is Fifth Amendment.
There’s no hipa. The police were not asking to see medical records.
If this is HIPPA it was not explained well or at all in any report I read.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
HIPPA, privacy laws, and the policy the hospital had worked out with the police dept. are (mostly) derived from the 4th. It need not be explained: Any damn fool who's run into these issues, or ever signed off on paperwork prior to any medical service from a new (to the patient) provider would be aware of the issues. (Ok, that assumes said damn fool was enough of a non fool to read what they signed.) You substitute "medical records" in your argument, but that is just being obtuse. (Kirk's "Finnegan") The issue is "medical or health information", which is NOT necessarily medical records, and is legally required to be tightly guarded & protected, as is consent for any medical procedure.
Again, I am telling you, don't accept this from me, just ask any medical professional.
Oh, wait. Some have already commented on this thread.
Yes, fair enough, but again, HIPPA was mentioned no where in any article I read.
It is also fifth in terms of giving consent to draw blood if it could be used as evidence against in a criminal case.
On a broader note, my interest isn’t which side was “right”. That’s debatable and for a court to decide.
My problem has always been with her resisting arrest and people supporting such lawless and uncivilized action as if they were BLM.
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.