Nurse arrested for following hospital policies

Officer handcuffed and detained a nurse for following the policy of, from what I have heard and read, "No blood drawn or turned over without consent of the patient or a court order". It appears the officer is newest in a line of bad optics PDs cant seem to shake. The optic of "Officer who does not get his 'orders' are not absolute in all things.". That you can not attempt to arrest, intimidate, or "Direct Order" your way around due process because "I WANT THIS NOW".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...a169beb0953_story.html?utm_term=.64428547b02f

 

And for anyone who has issue with the source, I chose this because it had multiple updates over the time rather than a new one for each development. I heard the original on an AP news update in my car on Sat Radio.

 

A bit close to home for me, obviously. The hospital has subsequently changed its policy, police are no longer allowed contact with the staff. Its about time.

 

I read through the news article, and I can pretty much figure out what was not said in it. I can understand why the police wanted the blood sample. I can understand why they were willing to break the law in order to get it. But it's no excuse. I can understand why the nurse refused to let the police take the blood sample and I understand that she was trying to hinder the police. I can see that the reporter didn't even mention who the person was that the police wanted the blood sample from till almost 3/4th of the way down the article. The reporter wanted to imply specific slant to the reader. The only ones that broke the law in this case was the police and the only ones that had a honest motive was the police, even though that motive is kind of thin.

 

Ok. Neo. They have modified this article since i posted it. When I did, it was the original, at the bottom, with times and updates. I wish I had pasted the original instead of the link.

 

The problem is if she had complied? It violates HIPPA. That is why hospital policy is as it is. Does not matter why they wanted it. Does not need to be addressed in the beginning. The issue is that the police attempted to intimidate her to break the rules because "That is not convenient for us". This was not just that one cop. He was given an order by his boss to get it no matter what.

 

As I stated, the only ones that broke the law in this case were the police. But I know why they wanted the sample so badly that they were willing to violate a persons right to get it. I'm also saying the nurse and the hospital administration also knew why the police wanted the sample. The hospital could have easily provided an alternative that would have protected the patients rights and satisfied the police but they choose not too. The hospital would have already taken a blood sample and would have known the information the police wanted, but they probably felt that standing behind the HIPPA law would allow them to give the shaft to the police with impunity. I'm not saying that the hospital should give the sample results to the police, but they could have given the police the justification to legally get the warrant. The nurse and the hospital had the law on their side but it doesn't mean that what they did was the right thing to do. This case is mostly a civil liability case but situations like this probably has come up where a criminal case could have been compromised. There are many laws meant to protect the innocent and there are many lawyers and politicians intent on creating more, but these laws are mostly used to protect the guilty and almost no-one is working to correct that. But back to this case, the police did handle it badly, the hospital was under no obligation to be helpful, and the reporter isn't required to tell the whole truth.

 

Here is a link to the video from the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us...urse-arrested-for-refusing-to-hand-over-blood

Does anyone really think the cop was justified in his actions?

(If anyone tried that with me, the police would be facing a million dollar law suit)

 

What is not stated in the WP article is that the patient was an off duty police officer. Just curious why they would have ommited that.

 

The hospital's one and only OBLIGATION is to the patient. Not to help the Police get a warrant or a sample. Not to assist the police in any way. They did not have PC to get a sample. They tried to end run that by "demanding". Your comment boils down the "The hospital should have helped them get it then because the police wanted it". Between "hiding behind HIPPA" (they should have found a way around HIPPA to help out the cops) and an arguement of "They had the law on their side" then making a "but the right thing would be.......". No exception to HIPPA where they can give the cops ANY INFO while he is not conscious. HIPPA has one exception. An existing court order like a warrant. Not "A warrant, and help the police get one too". You are arguing "Well the police should have exceptions when they want things" because they suspect but can not prove it. Here is the truth. Anything from that sample would have been tossed. The hospital LEGALLY can not disclose anything. Anything they gave to support the warrant before he regained consciousness would be thrown out and people would lose their jobs.

Your entire argument is "The police wanted, so the hospital should have found a way to give it".

 

You did not read my entire post.

 

I did. It was full of "Well while the hospital was right, they should have worked with the police to find a way to give them the sample instead of giving the police the shaft". There was not "alternative" Neo. No "It is important to law enforcement" exception. Anything the hospital did, at all, to release anything that helped them get the warrant would invalidate it once discovery happened. HIPPA rules here. Does not matter why the police wanted it. Does not matter that people feel it was not the right thing to not "work with the police". Their job is to follow HIPPA. Their professional licenses depend on it. There is no "Exception for working with Law Enforcement to find a compromise" in those licenses or laws. It is past time that PDs get that they are not ENTITLED to their way and everything they want. Everyone is not required to "find a way to help them get it".

 

Did you read this part.

No, people aren't required to cooperate with the police, but how much better would the world be if they did. Just because I say, I understand why they did it, doesn't mean that I agree with what they did, that was your interpretation, because that is what you prejudged me to think like. Understanding does not mean agreement, it means I have an open mind.