Mandatory DNA test for male healthcare workers

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

SkyDekker

***Serious stress can cause the period to cease, or not to be anything remotely resembling regular. Serious athletes often don't have periods. So that's not necessarily a good indicator.

Wendy P.

Understood and agreed.

However, comatosed women generally get their periods. Pregnant women cannot get their period, but can experience vaginal bleeding/spotting.

I believe Bill's implication to be that a caregiver should have noticed the lack of period and therefor the indication of a possible pregnancy. My comment was aimed at that.

Post #31 -

Quote

The fact that she stopped menstrating could easily go unnoticed, in a typical facility, they have several nursing aids providing personal care, and none of them are keeping track of that type of thing.

As I noted above, jclalor works (or used to work) is a long term care facility. If anyone on here would know what is typical, reasonable, possible; atypical unreasonable or impossible, it would be him.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[gowlerk 1,912]

This case is only unusual in the surprise delivery of a healthy baby. There is nothing unusually about vulnerable women being sexually assaulted by heath care workers. There are many cases. There is nothing unusual about her periods ceasing for a time and busy aides not noticing. There is nothing all that unusual about pregnancy being missed, again there have been many cases. And further, there is nothing unusual about the family accepting the child of a rape. They will simply choose to view the child as the only good thing to come out of their family tragedy.

It really is not that complicated. But the outcome is somewhat remarkable.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

That would not be rape. It also would be unethical, even if it could be shown that she wanted it. No clinic would participate in such an act.

Likely not - which is why that possibility is a remote one.

[jclalor 12]

wolfriverjoe

******Serious stress can cause the period to cease, or not to be anything remotely resembling regular. Serious athletes often don't have periods. So that's not necessarily a good indicator.

Wendy P.

Understood and agreed.

However, comatosed women generally get their periods. Pregnant women cannot get their period, but can experience vaginal bleeding/spotting.

I believe Bill's implication to be that a caregiver should have noticed the lack of period and therefor the indication of a possible pregnancy. My comment was aimed at that.

Post #31 -

Quote

The fact that she stopped menstrating could easily go unnoticed, in a typical facility, they have several nursing aids providing personal care, and none of them are keeping track of that type of thing.

As I noted above, jclalor works (or used to work) is a long term care facility. If anyone on here would know what is typical, reasonable, possible; atypical unreasonable or impossible, it would be him.

If I had to take a wild guess, I would say something like this could have only happened between 1-4 AM. There is way too much going on during the day, evening, and early morning. Therapist, nurses, house keeping, CNA’s, and family are all in and out of the rooms during these times.

At 2 in the morning, many CNA,s, nurses, and respiratory therapist hide out in vegetative Pt’s rooms to sleep for an hour or two, some even shut the doors. There would still be a huge element of risk.

With males making up about 20% of the typical staff, I bet they have a list of around 4-5 suspects who work nights. I’m not sure how well you can distinguish visually a new borns ethnicity, but they're are many different ethnicities working in health care: Asian, Caucasian, African and Hispanic, so that could also narrow down the search.

If something like this happened where I work, I couldn’t take a DNA test fast enough.

[Iago 8]

Pretty good points, particularly from a HC worker.  I was on the IT side myself and avoided patient care areas as much as possible.

 

My problem, as many have said, would be having the data in a database for all time, particularly if I’m not compatible on the basic characteristics.  For example, I’m  A+ so if the child is incompatible with me being a sire I should not be forced to give a sample.

 

 

[gowlerk 1,912]

The forced DNA testing has now led to the arrest of a Practical Nurse.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/arizona-woman-birth-vegetative-state/index.html

[SkyDekker 1,122]

From that CNN article:

 

Quote

Investigators received search warrants for records that helped them identify people who had access to the woman, as well as court orders to get DNA evidence from men who worked at the facility, police said.

Detectives learned that Sutherland was among those responsible for caring for the woman "during the time this sexual assault occurred," leading to the court order compelling him to provide a DNA sample Tuesday, Thompson said.

Looks like the courts weighed more than just: all males at the facility, when granting the order to produce DNA samples. 

I do have to say that I find it slightly bizarre that some decided that it would make more sense to point fingers at the family.

[DJL 232]

34% of sexual assaults are from a family member.  As bizarre as this situation was it's definitely not beyond likelihood.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

8 minutes ago, DJL said:

34% of sexual assaults are from a family member.  As bizarre as this situation was it's definitely not beyond likelihood.

With that stat chances are it is not a family member.

[DJL 232]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

With that stat chances are it is not a family member.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  You start with the most likely and work from there.  Have we made some sort of faux pas by mentioning the other 1/3 of possible suspects?

[Phil1111 911]

26 minutes ago, DJL said:

34% of sexual assaults are from a family member.  As bizarre as this situation was it's definitely not beyond likelihood.

Thats defined as current or past boyfriends, spouse, or girlfriends.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats defined as current or past boyfriends, spouse, or girlfriends.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Did I miss some sort of argument within the thread in which someone was adamant that it was a family member?  I guess I'm the spokesperson for that point of view now.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

8 minutes ago, DJL said:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  You start with the most likely and work from there.  Have we made some sort of faux pas by mentioning the other 1/3 of possible suspects?

I found it distasteful yes, for a few reasons:

1. your stat is extremely misleading. Out of the 1/3 you mention, 99% of that group is made up of people identified as: current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. None of those were a possibility here, meaning your group of 1/3rd is down to pretty much nothing.

2. In any sexual assault/rape the family pays a heavy price dealing with the aftermath. In this case, that is magnified. It will be the same immediate family members who now have to make very difficult decisions regarding the offspring of this assault.

3. Considering that in this case the perpetrator is/was by the largest odds likely not to be a family member, it is in poor taste to start pointing those fingers. Mostly based on the premise: they should have known she was pregnant.

 

Lastly, I don't think you represent that viewpoint at all. I made a statement, you asked me a question about it, I am trying to explain my statement. C'est Tout.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

I found it distasteful yes, for a few reasons:

1. your stat is extremely misleading. Out of the 1/3 you mention, 99% of that group is made up of people identified as: current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. None of those were a possibility here, meaning your group of 1/3rd is down to pretty much nothing.

2. In any sexual assault/rape the family pays a heavy price dealing with the aftermath. In this case, that is magnified. It will be the same immediate family members who now have to make very difficult decisions regarding the offspring of this assault.

3. Considering that in this case the perpetrator is/was by the largest odds likely not to be a family member, it is in poor taste to start pointing those fingers. Mostly based on the premise: they should have known she was pregnant.

 

Lastly, I don't think you represent that viewpoint at all. I made a statement, you asked me a question about it, I am trying to explain my statement. C'est Tout.

The whole damn thing is distasteful and people are going to talk about the possibilities of an event.  I think we even talked about the possibility of artificial insemination, should we not have?  In this case there is presumably a small number of people with access to this woman and that includes the family members.  Do you think the police didn't discuss that possibility because it was too distasteful?

[Phil1111 911]

19 minutes ago, DJL said:

Did I miss some sort of argument within the thread in which someone was adamant that it was a family member?  I guess I'm the spokesperson for that point of view now.

?? Don't know. I found your quote questionable.i.e. family member.

But upon searching, its correct as defined.

Carry on.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

The whole damn thing is distasteful and people are going to talk about the possibilities of an event.  I think we even talked about the possibility of artificial insemination, should we not have?  In this case there is presumably a small number of people with access to this woman and that includes the family members.  Do you think the police didn't discuss that possibility because it was too distasteful?

I am not quoting it all here. But scroll to the top and read Trigirl's posts from the top. In my opinion, that is a lot more accusatory than "discussing possibilities".

[gowlerk 1,912]

People in nursing homes are always vulnerable to abuse by staff. Not usually, but sometimes including sexual abuse. Abuse by family members occurs in homes. It is a similar thing, those with opportunity do the abusing.

[jclalor 12]

38 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats defined as current or past boyfriends, spouse, or girlfriends.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

As it turns out it was a night shift nurse, pretty much what I thought.

[DJL 232]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I am not quoting it all here. But scroll to the top and read Trigirl's posts from the top. In my opinion, that is a lot more accusatory than "discussing possibilities".

Gotcha.  I think she was just having a lot of trouble believing that someone close to her would not have noticed her going to term.  I think I remember a post where someone laid out how things like that can be easily missed.

What I think is that it was probably small, probably premature and she probably had a baggy blouse on at any family visit.  I don't know what to say about what the staff should've seen.

[DJL 232]

10 minutes ago, jclalor said:

As it turns out it was a night shift nurse, pretty much what I thought.

It's really too bad that they couldn't keep the victim's name out of the news.

[TriGirl 268]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Gotcha.  I think she was just having a lot of trouble believing that someone close to her would not have noticed her going to term.  I think I remember a post where someone laid out how things like that can be easily missed.

What I think is that it was probably small, probably premature and she probably had a baggy blouse on at any family visit.  I don't know what to say about what the staff should've seen.

DJL -- Thanks for taking the heat on this. Yes, that is exactly what my comment addressed.

The article mentioned the victim weighed 112 lbs at her last physical before becoming pregnant.  Others have noted in response to my comments that overweight people could have pregnancies that go unnoticed -- again, I just found it odd that no one noticed, especially the family (and now we know, on such a small woman).  I appreciate other people with more expertise in caring for such patients providing insight -- this is, after all, a discussion.  I agree with DJ then, probably small infant, probably premature.

Incidentally, folks -- this thread was opened to criticize the (what we understood at the time) blanket DNA requirement of all male workers at the facility who would have had access to the victim, essentially throwing all blame in that direction and casting an awfully wide net, with no other mentions of possibilities.  I've been agreeing that this would have been an overreach.  Now this CNN article gives a little more clarity to the terms of the warrant, so "overreach" may not actually be the case.  To that development (and on topic), I say "good."

Anything else I can clarify for anyone?

 

(ETA -- I'm not a fan of this new layout/format.  You can't tell when someone is replying to a particular poster, so if a new post falls into the thread in an awkward place, the whole meaning can be misconstrued.)

Edited January 23, 2019 by TriGirl
add comment

[SethInMI 145]

1 hour ago, TriGirl said:

3 hours ago, DJL said:

Gotcha.  I think she was just having a lot of trouble believing that someone close to her would not have noticed her going to term.  I think I remember a post where someone laid out how things like that can be easily missed.

What I think is that it was probably small, probably premature and she probably had a baggy blouse on at any family visit.  I don't know what to say about what the staff should've seen.

DJL -- Thanks for taking the heat on this. Yes, that is exactly what my comment addressed.

The article mentioned the victim weighed 112 lbs at her last physical

Hey I figured out how to get nested quotes. But the delineation between posters is not good. I italicized the inner quote for clarity. 

 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, TriGirl said:

Now this CNN article gives a little more clarity to the terms of the warrant, so "overreach" may not actually be the case.  To that development (and on topic), I say "good."

 

Agreed.  Very glad to hear that the shotgun approach wasn't used.

[Coreece 190]

On 1/10/2019 at 1:23 PM, jclalor said:

Male workers who worked at the time of the vegetative patient’s impregnaten have been court ordered to provide DNA. 


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html

 

It's only a matter of time when a court order won't be needed - it'll just be a condition for employment.  And we'll just give it to them, just like everything else.  We give businesses permission to monitor our everyday lives without even giving it a thought.  We're practically blackmailed every day for information, and we just blindly accept their terms because it's convenient.  Their apps and services just make life too easy to ignore.

Business don't have to respect our "freedom of speech," among other rights - and we freely give them up just so we can work and get more money to buy their services.  They analyze every aspect of our lives.   Rather than just looking us in the eye and shaking our hand like a normal human, they rather examine our excrement, pull out our hair follicles and put our urine under a microscope. We wouldn't put up with such intrusive behavior for a life long partner, let alone the government, yet for some reason businesses get a pass.

People actually pay to get their DNA analyzed for a simple sense of heritage and genetic pride, so why wouldn't they give it up freely for a chance at the American dream, if that's what it cost?

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Coreece