Doctor arrested after refusing to draw blood from homicide suspect

[JohnRich 4]

In the news:

Doctor arrested after refusing to draw blood from homicide suspect

A doctor was arrested early Saturday after he refused requests from police and a judge to draw blood from a homicide suspect without the man's consent.

Police said the man had been drinking alcohol when he allegedly stabbed a man to death in north Minneapolis. Police eventually obtained a court order and had another doctor draw blood about 9 a.m., five hours after the suspect arrived at the hospital.

The five-hour delay could have "a serious impact on the case," Stanek said, because the delayed blood test won't provide an accurate gauge of the suspect's blood-alcohol level at the time of the stabbing.

The doctor, who has worked at the hospital since 2000, was trying to follow hospital policy for protecting patient privacy by not doing "intrusive procedures" such as drawing blood without consent.

Full Story

Member: dzcom
Password: dropzone

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

In the news:

Doctor arrested after refusing to draw blood from homicide suspect

A doctor was arrested early Saturday after he refused requests from police and a judge to draw blood from a homicide suspect without the man's consent.

Police said the man had been drinking alcohol when he allegedly stabbed a man to death in north Minneapolis. Police eventually obtained a court order and had another doctor draw blood about 9 a.m., five hours after the suspect arrived at the hospital.

The five-hour delay could have "a serious impact on the case," Stanek said, because the delayed blood test won't provide an accurate gauge of the suspect's blood-alcohol level at the time of the stabbing.

The doctor, who has worked at the hospital since 2000, was trying to follow hospital policy for protecting patient privacy by not doing "intrusive procedures" such as drawing blood without consent.

Full Story

Perhaps the police forgot to say "please".

I don't see that the police should be able to coerce a non-police doctor into doing anything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

He did the righjt thing.

He was under no obligation to do anything to that guy w/o permission.

I feel a counter suit comming.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[peregrinerose 0]

Agreed, he did do the right thing. Docs must have at least verbal permission to do anything to a patient, we can't force any testing to be done (although we'd like to sometimes...)
Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Rebecca 0]

Would performing an 'intrusive procedure' without consent violate the doc's hippocratic oath? Like, do no harm?

Doc's need to cover their asses these days or they'll get their pants sued off. What if the guy was acquitted and then came after him for violating his privacy? No thank you. I'm with the doc on this one.

What if the suspect were unconscious? How would that work?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

What if the suspect were unconscious? How would that work?

Depends. Is he unconcious and in need of medical attention?

The doctor sounds like he was within this rights and the letter of the law to refuse to performa procedure on a patient with out their consent.

The law has been getting to big for it's britches in some areas lately. Did you know in California they have started to turn over the "Inocent till proven guilty" rule?

If suspected of DUI through observation, and field sobriety testing, you are required to take a breathalizer, blood, or urine test. If you refuse, you're automaticaly charged with the crime.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Kennedy 0]

If the suspect is not in need of medical treatment (blood willl be drawn to test for toxins, etc) and hasn't or won't give consent, the doctor is right to refuse to draw blood without a court order.

The cops thought "I say you should, and that's good enough." If they'd had someone getting the court order as soon as they thought one was proper, they could've had one much quicker than if they tried to get around it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

A doctor was arrested early Saturday after he refused requests from police and a judge to draw blood from a homicide suspect without the man's consent.

Did the judge just verbally ask for it or did he issue a court order?

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Kennedy 0]

In this case, for the doctor under investigation, I don't think there was a judge involved.

However, I appear to have been incorrect on one point. A doctor can be ordered to draw blood from a suspect without consent or a court order, depending on hospital regulations.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

A doctor was arrested early Saturday after he refused requests from police and a judge to draw blood from a homicide suspect without the man's consent.

The news posted said police and a judge.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Kennedy 0]

My bad.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jdhill 0]

Quote

If suspected of DUI through observation, and field sobriety testing, you are required to take a breathalizer, blood, or urine test. If you refuse, you're automaticaly charged with the crime.

That's not just in Cali... a lot of states have similar provisions... it is something you consent to for having the priviledge of getting a driver's license.

Failing the stupid human tricks equals probable cause for the courts.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

it is something you consent to for having the priviledge of getting a driver's license.

True enough, and I am a firm believer that there is no "Right" to have a DL.

How ever this has been extended (perhapse unlawfuly so) to Puplic intoxication cases, and has been applied to passengers in vehicals where the driver was suspected of DUI.

That's not so cool.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[PhillyKev 0]

You're not automatically charged here, but if you refuse the test, you do automatically lose your license. And more likely then not, they will get a judge to an issue a court order requiring you to submit. If you still refuse, they you're pretty much going to at least be charged with indirect criminal contempt.

[livendive 8]

Quote

However, I appear to have been incorrect on one point. A doctor can be ordered to draw blood from a suspect without consent or a court order, depending on hospital regulations.

While I agree he can be ordered to do this, I doubt he has any legal obligation to comply with the order. His duty is the care of his patients. Drawing blood for any reason other than medically necessary diagnostics does not fall within that duty.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Agreed, he did do the right thing. Docs must have at least verbal permission to do anything to a patient, we can't force any testing to be done (although we'd like to sometimes...)
Jen

I don't know where I stand on this case.

Do condemned prisoners have to give their permission for the lethal injection before they can be put to death?

I believe that the law provides for the TAKING of blood in certain circumstances. An arrest for murder combined with a suspicion of being under the influence of intoxicating substances may well mean that the doctor was really not required to have patient permission for drawing blood -- I don't really know.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

If suspected of DUI through observation, and field sobriety testing, you are required to take a breathalizer, blood, or urine test. If you refuse, you're automaticaly charged with the crime.

That's not just in Cali... a lot of states have similar provisions... it is something you consent to for having the priviledge of getting a driver's license.

Failing the stupid human tricks equals probable cause for the courts. J

Well, I think that the concept is, if you get stopped for suspicion of DUI, you can either give them the evidence (blood, breath, failed FST, etc.) that WILL convict you, or you can refuse to give that evidence, in which case they will use the observed behavior (slurred speech, cops' observation of weaving, difficulty standing, odor of alcohol, etc.) to obtain a conviction. That might make it more difficult for the prosecution of DUI.

In NY, I remember, refusal to take a sobriety test was grounds for revocation of your driver's license -- it did not mean you were automatically charged with nor convicted of DUI (well, they call it DeeWee, there: DWI). Having a driver's license is conditional on agreeing to be subject to sobriety tests, and you stipulate when you accept the license that you will surrender it if you refuse a field sobriety test. NOTE: I have read numerous news stories about public officials -- cops, prosecutors, congressmen, etc. who consistently refuse to take the tests. If I were ever to be so stupid as to drive drunk, and get caught, you can bet I would take a cue from these people and refuse the test. Far easier to do without a license, or get the license restored, than to do a few months or years in jail for DUI, plus paying fines and a lawyer. I think that the news stories about these "folks in the know" are guiding us, here.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You're not automatically charged here, but if you refuse the test, you do automatically lose your license. And more likely then not, they will get a judge to an issue a court order requiring you to submit. If you still refuse, they you're pretty much going to at least be charged with indirect criminal contempt.

I don't see how a court can compel you to provide blood evidence against yourself any more than it can compel you to testify against yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like the idea of a judge being able to order you to surrender evidence from your own body. That should be sacrosanct.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court ruling grants police the right to have blood drawn without a court order in cases where someone has died or if a person's death is highly likely

This is just a guess, but I think the US Supreme Court overrules hospital policy.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Do condemned prisoners have to give their permission for the lethal injection before they can be put to death?

No, but the executioner has a chance to _not_ take the job doing the injection.

This is only partly about the rights of the accused. For me it's mostly about the right of the doctor to practice medicine as he sees fit.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

An arrest for murder combined with a suspicion of being under the influence of intoxicating substances may well mean that the doctor was really not required to have patient permission for drawing blood -- I don't really know.

The legal issue isn't whether it was wrong to get the sample. The issue is should the dr. be charged with a crime for not knowing the answer to that moral dilemna either.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't see how a court can compel you to provide blood evidence against yourself any more than it can compel you to testify against yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like the idea of a judge being able to order you to surrender evidence from your own body. That should be sacrosanct.

Because when you sign the paper for your license, you sign a contract stating that you will provide that evidence whenever requeste for whatever reason. if you don't like it, don't sign the contract and get your license in the first place.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see how a court can compel you to provide blood evidence against yourself any more than it can compel you to testify against yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like the idea of a judge being able to order you to surrender evidence from your own body. That should be sacrosanct.

Because when you sign the paper for your license, you sign a contract stating that you will provide that evidence whenever requeste for whatever reason. if you don't like it, don't sign the contract and get your license in the first place.

Are you saying that you don't have to be suspected of drunken driving in order to be compelled to give the blood? What if I were pulled over for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? What if it were just about a broken taillight? "Requested for whatever reason"?

What legal guarantees do I have that the blood taken without my authorization will not be used to, say, record my DNA on a government database? If they have enough to test for alcohol, they sure have enough to do that. Is that set down at law, that they may use the blood only for specified purposes?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

An arrest for murder combined with a suspicion of being under the influence of intoxicating substances may well mean that the doctor was really not required to have patient permission for drawing blood -- I don't really know.

The legal issue isn't whether it was wrong to get the sample. The issue is should the dr. be charged with a crime for not knowing the answer to that moral dilemna either.

I don't think he should be. There is nothing I know of at law that says he can be conscripted to be the one who draws the blood. If the police want the blood drawn, they should keep someone qualified to do so on staff. Simple as that. The doc should go free. He's not a slave to the police department, nor is he an employee. He's under no obligation to do what they want done. If they want it done, they should do it.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Are you saying that you don't have to be suspected of drunken driving in order to be compelled to give the blood? What if I were pulled over for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? What if it were just about a broken taillight? "Requested for whatever reason"?

Yep.

Quote

What legal guarantees do I have that the blood taken without my authorization will not be used to, say, record my DNA on a government database? If they have enough to test for alcohol, they sure have enough to do that. Is that set down at law, that they may use the blood only for specified purposes?

Don't know. But, don't think so.

What Happens If I Refuse To Be Tested?
You will face mandatory driver's license sanctions, typically involving adding points to your driving record, and the suspension of your license, under your state's "implied consent" law. The police may also seek a search warrant, allowing them to take a blood sample for testing. The blood sample must be drawn by a professional, and blood sampling usually occurs at a clinic or hospital, not at the police station.

In some states, refusing an alcohol test is a criminal offense, separate from the drunk driving offense.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Criminal/Drunk_Blood_Alcohol.html