Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 To the best of my knowledge, a peace officer can consent medical care for an individual if they are in custody, be it under arrest or in protective custody. Can anybody tell me if my info is correct, puhleeze? Troy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 Are you asking can he refuse for himself or for someone else??? LP Arlington PD Parsley wrote: > > Can a licensed peace officer in the State of Texas legally refuse: > > a. medical assessment by EMS personnel > > b. medical treatment by same or; > > c. medically supervised transportation > > I honestly thought that I knew the answer but have been told > differently and could use some help.....thanks! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Win $1000 this Friday! > Go to: > http://click./1/2892/4/_/4981/_/955071717/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 A peace officer CAN ONLY consent to the location of a prisoner, i.e. jail vs. hospital because he can control the person's movement. A peace CANNOT consent to medical treatment for the person unless the person falls into the consenual category of implied consent, i.e., unconcious or life threatening injuries/illness in a person with an altered mental status. Both the EMS laws and Mental Health laws (both of which are found in the Health and Safety Code), as well as the Family Code address the areas of Consent. LP Arlington PD rogue501@... wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, a peace officer can consent medical care for an > individual if they are in custody, be it under arrest or in protective > custody. > > Can anybody tell me if my info is correct, puhleeze? > > Troy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net. > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now: > http://click./1/2345/4/_/4981/_/955076885/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 I concur with this. Several years ago a DPS Officer escorted an ambulance pt to our E.R. with the pt.'s neck filleted open exposing but not lacerating the carotids,the jugulars,and the external rings of the trachea. All of which were intact. The pt. refused surgical treatment for about 6-7 hours-until the alcohol wore off. The pt. had a patent airway; was normotensive, no signs of shock or other trauma, was awake, alert, and oriented The pt. allowed us to provide IV fluids, vital sign monitoring, and pressure dressings (tourniquets were discussed several times during the night but cooler heads prevailed) but was adamant in his refusal of surgical treatment. The pt. was under arrest for P.I. but the DPS officer couldn't give the necessary permission to treat. The local Justice of the Peace felt that since the pt. was A/A/ OX3, he couldn't issue an OPC as it didn't germane to the situation. It was a great anatomy lesson as well as an education in Texas Law. We gave the pt. a mirror and allowed him to see what was wrong and he still wouldn't buy it. Due to the situation which caused the pt. to get his throat cut, we couldn't contact his family to get them to talk him into having the surgery done. He finally agreed to it around 6 in the morning. The O.R. crew and several surgical pts were just a bit unhappy as it caused them to have to reschedule several cases. Don't you just love our patients? Stay safe Jim Easley Re: Legal or Not? > A peace officer CAN ONLY consent to the location of a prisoner, i.e. > jail vs. hospital because he can control the person's movement. > > A peace CANNOT consent to medical treatment for the person unless the > person falls into the consenual category of implied consent, i.e., > unconcious or life threatening injuries/illness in a person with an > altered mental status. > > Both the EMS laws and Mental Health laws (both of which are found in the > Health and Safety Code), as well as the Family Code address the areas of > Consent. > > LP > Arlington PD > rogue501@... wrote: > > > > To the best of my knowledge, a peace officer can consent medical care for an > > individual if they are in custody, be it under arrest or in protective > > custody. > > > > Can anybody tell me if my info is correct, puhleeze? > > > > Troy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net. > > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now: > > http://click./1/2345/4/_/4981/_/955076885/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Own a large list that is hosted on another service? > Move it to eGroups and earn $500 > http://click./1/2979/4/_/4981/_/955080321/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 Can a licensed peace officer in the State of Texas legally refuse: a. medical assessment by EMS personnel b. medical treatment by same or; c. medically supervised transportation Uhm, of him/herself or another person? I'll take a shot on this assuming it is another person (IE a bad person). a, b, c> sure, but the officer is now TOTALLY responsible for the patients outcome. In otherwords, if the person dies, it is the PO's fault. Last time I checked, the PD was in charge (unless it is a fire, then the FD is in charge). You all have to remember, EMS is the LOW person on the totem pole. I think even the garbage collectors (sorry, sanitation engineers) outrank us on-scene. Back to the question though. I would have the officer sign the refusal form. I would also have him/her write down on the form that I have explained to them, and they understand, that the patient needs medical examination/treatment/transport and may die/be disabled/whatever as a result of their refusal to allow me to evaluate/treat/transport the patient. If the officer refuses to write/sign. Politely excuse yourself, get into your unit, and go to the police station and find a superior officer to talk to and get them to sign the darn form. If that fails, DOCUMENT YOURSELF SILLY. Call your supervisor and medical director and report the incident. Remember, the nice, big man has a badge, a gun, and handcuffs. Do NOT antagonize them without a judge present. Need I say more? That is how I would handle it at least. Webb, EMT-P FLW EMS, MO ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 Thanks for setting me straight, :-) I totally forgot about the codes. Troy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 In a message dated 04/07/2000 08:30:04 AM Central Daylight Time, mreed@... writes: << I get so, so sick of hearing this. There's nothing more ingratiating than hearing about EMS being the low person on the totem pole... this is going to be different on EVERY scene. On those scenes where threats are the high-priority issue, it makes sense for PD to run the scene. For those scenes where rescues, fire or physical threats are priority, it usually makes sense for FD to be command. But for those scenes that are medically oriented, such as mass casualty incidents (without hazardous materials, confined space, etc.), it makes sense for EMS to be command. The real problem is, though, that most EMS personnel and agencies don't train nearly enough on Incident Command, and aren't used to running inter-agency scenes. Under ICS, it's perfectly valid for EMS to be the IC for a scene, and for FD and PD to play adjunctive (task) roles. In almost EVERY situation involving Incident Command (whether led by FD or PD) where there are patients involved, EMS should be " Medical Sector " , with a ranking member reporting directly to the Incident Commander. In a case where EMS is IC, there should be a SECOND EMS person that's Medical Sector, because the Incident Commander should NOT be running a scene and making direct medical decisions at the same time. At least that's in a perfect IC world... I won't even get into " Staging Officers " , staging sites and locations, and such... that's a whole course's worth of lecture... Mike >> Mike, you are so correct and it should make you mad to hear this time and time again. If your City has any type of ICS system in place, the EMS sector should become involved and integrate this system into your own. Takes a little time and effort and a lot of practice, but when it works it is so great. If you are in the private EMS sector, but still the main responder of your City, get involved with the Fire and PD on this and hopefully they will assist you in the ICS program. Good Luck Andy Foote, EMTP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 In a message dated 04/07/2000 08:47:49 AM Central Daylight Time, bpems@... writes: << AMEN! The sad part of it is that most of these comments come from EMS people. Are we our own worst enemy? What kind of atmosphere do these people work in--we are seldom treated this way and when it does happen it is an isolated incident (one individual acting like a fool), not a widespread attitude. Maxine >> It is so good to hear that other sectors are becoming involved and yes, we do have the same isolated incidents (one individual acting like a fool) but not very often. EMS has a job to do and they (Fire and PD) realize it and work together with us. Thanks for the positive comments and continue to move ahead. Andy Foote, EMTP City of Beaumont EMS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 All I know is, there sure are alot of pt's (esp. suicidal one's) brought into my e.r. by the police who have been arrested or in protective custody that DO NOT want to be there... >From: rogue501@... >Reply-To: egroups >To: egroups >Subject: Re: Legal or Not? >Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:07:38 EDT > >To the best of my knowledge, a peace officer can consent medical care for >an >individual if they are in custody, be it under arrest or in protective >custody. > >Can anybody tell me if my info is correct, puhleeze? > >Troy ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Okay, I've got to jump on this one... you found my hot button. Comments below... Mike Re: Legal or Not? >Last time I checked, the PD was in charge (unless it is a fire, then the FD >is in charge). You all have to remember, EMS is the LOW person on the totem >pole. I think even the garbage collectors (sorry, sanitation engineers) >outrank us on-scene. I get so, so sick of hearing this. There's nothing more ingratiating than hearing about EMS being the low person on the totem pole... this is going to be different on EVERY scene. On those scenes where threats are the high-priority issue, it makes sense for PD to run the scene. For those scenes where rescues, fire or physical threats are priority, it usually makes sense for FD to be command. But for those scenes that are medically oriented, such as mass casualty incidents (without hazardous materials, confined space, etc.), it makes sense for EMS to be command. The real problem is, though, that most EMS personnel and agencies don't train nearly enough on Incident Command, and aren't used to running inter-agency scenes. Under ICS, it's perfectly valid for EMS to be the IC for a scene, and for FD and PD to play adjunctive (task) roles. In almost EVERY situation involving Incident Command (whether led by FD or PD) where there are patients involved, EMS should be " Medical Sector " , with a ranking member reporting directly to the Incident Commander. In a case where EMS is IC, there should be a SECOND EMS person that's Medical Sector, because the Incident Commander should NOT be running a scene and making direct medical decisions at the same time. At least that's in a perfect IC world... I won't even get into " Staging Officers " , staging sites and locations, and such... that's a whole course's worth of lecture... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 AMEN! The sad part of it is that most of these comments come from EMS people. Are we our own worst enemy? What kind of atmosphere do these people work in--we are seldom treated this way and when it does happen it is an isolated incident (one individual acting like a fool), not a widespread attitude. Maxine ---------- > > I get so, so sick of hearing this. There's nothing more ingratiating than > hearing about EMS being the low person on the totem pole... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Am I interpreting this correctly? In cases involving unconsciousness or a life-threatening problem with altered mental status, we already have the authority to treat based on implied consent so we don't need any other consent from anyone including the peace officer. If the prisoner is a conscious, mentally competent adult, we still need the prisoner's consent to treat. The only consent we actually need from the peace officer is consent to TRANSPORT because that would involve movement of the prisoner from one location to another. I realize that other factors could enter into this (such as potential for violence, unsafe scene, uncooperative officer, etc.) but as far as the basic premise is concerned, this makes sense to me. Maxine ---------- > > > A peace officer CAN ONLY consent to the location of a prisoner, i.e. > jail vs. hospital because he can control the person's movement. > > A peace CANNOT consent to medical treatment for the person unless the > person falls into the consenual category of implied consent, i.e., > unconcious or life threatening injuries/illness in a person with an > altered mental status. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 You ot it. You would basically only need the permission of the PD to actually interact with the prisoner, but again, if the prisoner is COA/competent, then medical treatment cannot be forced upon him. Just FYI, you can't force a person who has been committed to a psychiatric facility to accept/ingest medication against their will without a seperate court order. LP hire-Pattison EMS wrote: > > Am I interpreting this correctly? > In cases involving unconsciousness or a life-threatening problem with > altered mental status, we already have the authority to treat based on > implied consent so we don't need any other consent from anyone including > the peace officer. If the prisoner is a conscious, mentally competent > adult, we still need the prisoner's consent to treat. The only consent we > actually need from the peace officer is consent to TRANSPORT because that > would involve movement of the prisoner from one location to another. > > I realize that other factors could enter into this (such as potential for > violence, unsafe scene, uncooperative officer, etc.) but as far as the > basic premise is concerned, this makes sense to me. > > Maxine > > ---------- > > > > > > A peace officer CAN ONLY consent to the location of a prisoner, i.e. > > jail vs. hospital because he can control the person's movement. > > > > A peace CANNOT consent to medical treatment for the person unless the > > person falls into the consenual category of implied consent, i.e., > > unconcious or life threatening injuries/illness in a person with an > > altered mental status. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Choose 1 of 5 fantastic FREE gifts -- ranging in value from > $24 to $40 -- when you make a nonprescription purchase of > $10 or more on your favoritehealth and beauty products! > Visit PlanetRx.com NOW! > http://click./1/2634/4/_/4981/_/955115921/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Of course he or she can. Peace officers don't give up their civil rights when they pin that badge on. However, if the department they work for has policies requiring an officer be medically evaluated under certain circumstances, and the officer refuses, he or she may be in trouble with the department. That is purely an internal employer-employee matter, not a legal issue. Dave Legal or Not? > Can a licensed peace officer in the State of Texas legally refuse: > > a. medical assessment by EMS personnel > > b. medical treatment by same or; > > c. medically supervised transportation > > I honestly thought that I knew the answer but have been told > differently and could use some help.....thanks! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Win $1000 this Friday! > Go to: > http://click./1/2892/4/_/4981/_/955071717/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 : If you are talking about a police officer denying a prisoner in his or her custody the opportunity to be medically evaluated, treated, or transported, as opposed to your question applying to the officer him or her self, that is a whole 'nother smoke. I don't know about the officer's authority in these cases, but I can sure tell you the prisoner denied access to emergency health care would be smart to talk to a civil rights attorney later (assuming he or she lives through the medical problem). I suspect the officer in this case would be in for real trouble, possibly of a federal nature. Dave Legal or Not? > Can a licensed peace officer in the State of Texas legally refuse: > > a. medical assessment by EMS personnel > > b. medical treatment by same or; > > c. medically supervised transportation > > I honestly thought that I knew the answer but have been told > differently and could use some help.....thanks! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Win $1000 this Friday! > Go to: > http://click./1/2892/4/_/4981/_/955071717/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 In the majority of cases, things work really well up here... we have pretty good relationships with the local fire departments, and I can't remember a time since I started that there's been any sort of " power struggle " or squabble on scene. Not that I'm attributing that to me, I'm just saying that although it may have happened before I got here, I've not seen it. And I *have* seen exactly that sort of power struggle in neighboring agencies where fire departments think that when the big red pumper shows up, EMS should bow down and cower. ICS is something that should be considered ESSENTIAL training for ANYONE in EMS. Any more, EMS isn't just the paramedics playing with neat toys, it's everyone and their dog showing up on scene, all wanting to help. ICS let's everyone play in the sandbox together without fighting over toys or throwing sand. Mike Re: Legal or Not? In a message dated 04/07/2000 08:30:04 AM Central Daylight Time, mreed@... writes: << I get so, so sick of hearing this. There's nothing more ingratiating than hearing about EMS being the low person on the totem pole... this is going to be different on EVERY scene. On those scenes where threats are the high-priority issue, it makes sense for PD to run the scene. For those scenes where rescues, fire or physical threats are priority, it usually makes sense for FD to be command. But for those scenes that are medically oriented, such as mass casualty incidents (without hazardous materials, confined space, etc.), it makes sense for EMS to be command. The real problem is, though, that most EMS personnel and agencies don't train nearly enough on Incident Command, and aren't used to running inter-agency scenes. Under ICS, it's perfectly valid for EMS to be the IC for a scene, and for FD and PD to play adjunctive (task) roles. In almost EVERY situation involving Incident Command (whether led by FD or PD) where there are patients involved, EMS should be " Medical Sector " , with a ranking member reporting directly to the Incident Commander. In a case where EMS is IC, there should be a SECOND EMS person that's Medical Sector, because the Incident Commander should NOT be running a scene and making direct medical decisions at the same time. At least that's in a perfect IC world... I won't even get into " Staging Officers " , staging sites and locations, and such... that's a whole course's worth of lecture... Mike >> Mike, you are so correct and it should make you mad to hear this time and time again. If your City has any type of ICS system in place, the EMS sector should become involved and integrate this system into your own. Takes a little time and effort and a lot of practice, but when it works it is so great. If you are in the private EMS sector, but still the main responder of your City, get involved with the Fire and PD on this and hopefully they will assist you in the ICS program. Good Luck Andy Foote, EMTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Win $1000 this Friday! Go to: http://click./1/2892/4/_/4981/_/955115899/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 > >ICS is something that should be considered ESSENTIAL training for ANYONE in >EMS. Any more, EMS isn't just the paramedics playing with neat toys, it's >everyone and their dog showing up on scene, all wanting to help. ICS let's >everyone play in the sandbox together without fighting over toys or throwing >sand. > >Mike > There is a Federal mandate that REQUIRES ALL emergency response agencies to train AND use the Incident Command System. The fire service has been using some form of ICS for 30 years so it is second nature for us. It's too bad that some agencies (industry, police and EMS, etc.) don't think it applies to them. Greg Higgins Fort Worth Fire Department Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Actually that information is not correct. Once in custody the officer who maintains custody of the prisoner DOES have the authority to give consent or refuse treatment. I ran into a situation where an officer refused to allow us to treat a prisoner with obvious injuries. After the lawers were all said and done it was determined that Texas law states that a prisoners consent and refusals are the responsibility of the officer maintaining custody. Are there civil rights issues with this law? I believe yes, but as the law reads now it is up to the officer. rogue501@... wrote: > Thanks for setting me straight, :-) > > I totally forgot about the codes. > > Troy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 72% off on Name brand Watches! > Come and buy today and get free shipping! > http://click./1/2712/4/_/4981/_/955101462/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 No, again, the issue is ACCESS to the prisoner. A peace officer is not consenting to treatment or not; the peace officer is only giving EMS ACCESS to the prisoner or not. The judgment call there is safety of prisoner and EMS personnel, as well as security for the prisoner. Said another way: If the prisoner does not want treatment, the peace officer cannot give permission for that treatment over the prisoner's objections. The prisoner give up his right to freedom of movement and location, but the other rights, including the right to have medical treatment, humane (read " not cruel and unusual " ) treatment, food, and the preservation of their normal rights not related to free movement. So yes, a peace officer can refuse to let EMS personnel near a patient to treat him, but he or she had better be VERY sure this is necessary. While they can't consent to adbridgement of the prisoner's rights, they ARE responsible for that prisoner while in custody. =Steve , EMT-P, Licensed Peace Officer= > > > Thanks for setting me straight, :-) > > > > I totally forgot about the codes. > > > > Troy > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > 72% off on Name brand Watches! > > Come and buy today and get free shipping! > > http://click./1/2712/4/_/4981/_/955101462/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Excellent, Mike! I'm with you on this one 100%!! Troy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 In a message dated 04/07/2000 10:53:35 AM Central Daylight Time, jamincy@... writes: << Actually that information is not correct. Once in custody the officer who maintains custody of the prisoner DOES have the authority to give consent or refuse treatment. I ran into a situation where an officer refused to allow us to treat a prisoner with obvious injuries. After the lawyers were all said and done it was determined that Texas law states that a prisoners consent and refusals are the responsibility of the officer maintaining custody. Are there civil rights issues with this law? I believe yes, but as the law reads now it is up to the officer. >> Actually, you are correct. Finally someone got it right. The prisoner, while in custody, is at the mercy of the officer in which he is in custody of. The prisoner, has no rights, (this is mainly meant to be the right to refuse). The officer can deem his prisoner to the ER for medical release prior to going to the jail, or the jail can (and usually does) send the prisoner back to the hospital for medical release. Our jail will accept no prisoner that has been in an assault or MVC without first going to the emergency room and getting a medical release. WHETHER HE WANT IT OR NOT. He doe not have the right to refuse treatment once in custody. You made the correct answer and take it to the bank. Andy Foote, EMTP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Can you please provide a case citation for that because it is contrary to current state law as well as case law. People do not give up their civil rights just because they are incarcerated. At issue would be the criminal offense of assault. If someone is CAOx3, mentally competent, of legal age and informed of the possible results of consent/refusal, how can anyone touch them against their will? The assault, if done by a peace officer, violates not only the assault statute but several state and federal civil rights statutes as well. Furthermore, I have found no nurses, doctors or hospitals that are willing to assume that liability either. LP A. Mincy wrote: > > Actually that information is not correct. Once in custody the officer who > maintains custody of the prisoner DOES have the authority to give consent or > refuse treatment. I ran into a situation where an officer refused to allow > us to treat a prisoner with obvious injuries. After the lawers were all > said and done it was determined that Texas law states that a prisoners > consent and refusals are the responsibility of the officer maintaining > custody. Are there civil rights issues with this law? I believe yes, but > as the law reads now it is up to the officer. > > rogue501@... wrote: > > > Thanks for setting me straight, :-) > > > > I totally forgot about the codes. > > > > Troy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 72% off on Name brand Watches! > > Come and buy today and get free shipping! > > http://click./1/2712/4/_/4981/_/955101462/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Win $1000 at eGroups! > Click here to find out how: > http://click./1/2861/4/_/4981/_/955122735/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 The police have the authority to perform an emergency apprehension and detention of a person whom the police officer has reason to believe and does believe based upon the representation of a credible person, or the conduct of the person or the circumstances under which the person is found, that the person evidences mental illness and because of such mental illness represents a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others unless immediately restrained. The peace officer must immediately transport the person to the nearest appropriate in-patient mental health facility (unless possible life threatening conditions exist) to be examined by a physician. This is not an arrest since it is not illegal to be mentally ill. It is a lawful detention which allows the use of reasonable force to accomplish that detention. The person does not concede any civil rights nor does this law supercede other laws including the right to consent/refuse invavsive medical interventions as described in the Health & Safety Code's EMS chapter. In as much, the peace officer may transport them but the psychiatrist does not have to keep them, i.e., the question of suicidal gestures vs. attempts. LP g.r. goodman wrote: > > All I know is, there sure are alot of pt's (esp. suicidal one's) brought > into my e.r. by the police who have been arrested or in protective custody > that DO NOT want to be there... > > > >From: rogue501@... > >Reply-To: egroups > >To: egroups > >Subject: Re: Legal or Not? > >Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:07:38 EDT > > > >To the best of my knowledge, a peace officer can consent medical care for > >an > >individual if they are in custody, be it under arrest or in protective > >custody. > > > >Can anybody tell me if my info is correct, puhleeze? > > > >Troy > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files. > Install today: > http://click./1/2344/4/_/4981/_/955123439/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 I'd say Steve probably hit it on the head. No offense meant, but I'd like to see the entire case, not hear what's been passed through the grapevine. LP P. wrote: > > No, again, the issue is ACCESS to the prisoner. A peace officer is > not consenting to treatment or not; the peace officer is only giving > EMS ACCESS to the prisoner or not. The judgment call there is safety > of prisoner and EMS personnel, as well as security for the prisoner. > > Said another way: If the prisoner does not want treatment, the peace > officer cannot give permission for that treatment over the prisoner's > objections. The prisoner give up his right to freedom of movement > and location, but the other rights, including the right to have > medical treatment, humane (read " not cruel and unusual " ) treatment, > food, and the preservation of their normal rights not related to free > movement. So yes, a peace officer can refuse to let EMS personnel > near a patient to treat him, but he or she had better be VERY sure > this is necessary. While they can't consent to adbridgement of the > prisoner's rights, they ARE responsible for that prisoner while in > custody. > > =Steve , EMT-P, Licensed Peace Officer= > > > > > > > Thanks for setting me straight, :-) > > > > > > I totally forgot about the codes. > > > > > > Troy > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > 72% off on Name brand Watches! > > > Come and buy today and get free shipping! > > > http://click./1/2712/4/_/4981/_/955101462/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Win $1000 this Friday! > Go to: > http://click./1/2892/4/_/4981/_/955123622/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 Heres the flip side to the consent for treatment issue. I had a call at one of the local city jails. The prisoner had a severe case of " jailitis " and wanted to go to the hospital (something about a change of scenery).Anyway, since I could not refuse transport I did talk to the Sgt. on duty who did refused to allow her to go seek medical treatment. I assessed this patient very well and documented well. The sgt. then signed my AMA form. Does anyone see a problem with this? Lindsey EMT-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.