Login
Site Search
Subscribe
Modify
Home >
List Archives
Consesnt vs. Responsibility;
Krin135 at aol.com Krin135 at aol.comSun Nov 5 23:01:59 GMT 2006
- Previous message: Consesnt vs. Responsibility;
- Next message: Consesnt vs. Responsibility;
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
In a message dated 11/5/2006 4:28:53 PM Central Standard Time, rgross at harthosp.org writes: I know what you are saying - but then again, we are NOT shrinks. That gives us the advantage of being fairly sane, which gives us the ability to use our best judgement. And THAT gives us the ability to see that a patient with this history cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be considered capable of mentating to the point of compentency for the purpose of deciding what is in his best interest at this time. Short story - transport regardless of what the patient says, and worry about the consequenses later. Rest assured that if he died 'cause he herniated, your butt would be there for all to chew on. So, as I see it, I would be happy to have some dumb-ass lawyer try to accuse me of kidnapping or assault. At least I could look at myself in the mirror each morning and know that I did the right thing. Ron: While I do agree with you, the practical problem is in restraining this patient if he is refusing to go. Not only would there be a substantial risk of increasing the bleeding during the struggle, but most of our field medics are NOT properly trained in forcible take downs of resisting patients, and most of the peace/law enforcement officers I know would NOT want to get involved in this kind of situation if there is no indication that the patient is currently having problems. "Sweet Reason" is actually the best and safest method of managing transport in these cases. In Tennessee and Louisiana (where I have practical experience in), a physician who has personally examined a patient can make a decision to require the assistance of law enforcement in forcibly restraining a person that the physician has reason to believe is unable to care for themselves for what ever reason. There is also an Order for Protective Custody in Louisiana, that the Coroner may issue 'upon sworn statements of witnesses', requiring the Sheriff's Office or PD to bring an affected person into a medical treatment facility for medical/psych evaluation. Here in Missouri, the case is a bit more complex, as a judge must sign a formal order for restraint, something that is only done 'upon application by affidavit.' In all three of these states, if the appropriate format is followed in good faith, the physician (and the LEO) is held immune from civil or criminal actions. I've had more than a few situations over the years where I've been stuck with a patient who, while clinically intoxicated or otherwise impaired, did not meet the legal requirements for forceable restraint and who refused further care while demonstrating that they had enough control of language to make it plain that they did understand what was going on (often in unprintable terms)....while we did occasionally involve law enforcement in some cases (such as the patient threatening to drive himself home), often the best we could do was to insure that the patient did not go home alone and did not drive themselves. ck Charles S. Krin DO FAAFP
- Previous message: Consesnt vs. Responsibility;
- Next message: Consesnt vs. Responsibility;
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the trauma-list mailing list
