Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the current law allow for the mandatory blood draw only if there is a death or serious bodily injury as a result of the crash? If that is the case, then I don't see a circumstance where a paramedic will be called to the scene when there are no other injuries. You'll be out there taking care of the serious injuries anyway. If you don't have time to draw blood from an uninjured suspect, then that's the way it goes. Maybe there are some cops out there with an ego that would try to pull you away from patient care in order to obtain blood, but if so, I'm lucky to have never met one. And if one can't testify to a blood draw under " recognized medical procedure " , how would one be able to testify to any veinipuncture if called into court to do so? Either you can describe the process of putting a needle into a vein or you can't. One other thing that may be a consideration is that it is possible that some jail facilities have a paramedic or EMT-I on site for medical response. It seems to me that this bill would allow those folks the draw blood from a suspect at the jail, whereas before they were not specifically allowed to do so. I guess for me it isn't a big deal...it's just part of the profession. Ed Strout, RN, CEN, LP Clinical Practice Coordinator Austin- County EMS 517 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Austin, Tx. 78741 Office Pager Fax e-mail: ed.strout@... HEADS UP!! Folks, HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by a police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes no provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for no compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions for who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical procedures. " Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but this is not the way to do it. We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the members of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the calendar for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members won't know about any opposition. Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members and their FAX numbers will follow. Dear _____________ As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe a person is driving under the influence. Please don't set that bill for consideration on the House floor. While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for EMS providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not injured, then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind the back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood stick from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called out when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance when someone else has an emergency and needs us. HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency Medical Services in your area. Don't set this bill. Sincerely, (Your Name) Members to fax: > All numbers are AC 512. > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > Gene Gandy, JD, LP EMS Consultant HillGandy Associates POB 1651 Albany, TX 76430 wegandy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 I strongly agree Gene and have faxed all the folks I can. Arlene Wohlgemuth's fax reports out of service and of course Suzanna Gratia Hupp's fax does not answer. All others went through. Would love to see others do the same if they concur. Larry Mc Coordinator Paris Junior College EMSP HEADS UP!! Folks, HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by a police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes no provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for no compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions for who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical procedures. " Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but this is not the way to do it. We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the members of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the calendar for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members won't know about any opposition. Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members and their FAX numbers will follow. Dear _____________ As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe a person is driving under the influence. Please don’t set that bill for consideration on the House floor. While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for EMS providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not injured, then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind the back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood stick from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called out when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance when someone else has an emergency and needs us. HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency Medical Services in your area. Don’t set this bill. Sincerely, (Your Name) Members to fax: > All numbers are AC 512. > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > Gene Gandy, JD, LP EMS Consultant HillGandy Associates POB 1651 Albany, TX 76430 wegandy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 Representative Hupp is a Law and Order legislator. Nothing wrong with that and she has sponsored many bills that have been of help to law enforcement and the millitary. She was a good bit of help to me back during the EMS " education wars " . I suspect she is unaware of the potentials this bill is creating. I also suspect she would be very interested in hearing our side of the story. As someone else mentioned her fax machine is not answering tonight. It is too late today but tomorrow I will phone her office. Anybody else that wishes should do so as well. Especially those living in Lampasas or Burnet counties as that is her district. Capitol office Austin Fax District Office Lampasas Mailing address Room EXT E1.414 P.O. Box 2910 Austin, TX 78768 Regards, Donn HEADS UP!! > > > > Folks, > > HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by a > police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes no > provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when > patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for no > compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI > stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions for > who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll > spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the > medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross > examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from > liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical procedures. " > Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood > draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but > this is not the way to do it. > > We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the members > of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the calendar > for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members won't > know about any opposition. > > Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members > and their FAX numbers will follow. > > Dear _____________ > > As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very > concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and > paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe a > person is driving under the influence. Please don’t set that bill for > consideration on the House floor. > > While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for EMS > providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic > accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a > chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not injured, > then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind the > back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take > blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood stick > from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person > resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? > > What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take > blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called out > when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance > when someone else has an emergency and needs us. > > HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency Medical > Services in your area. Don’t set this bill. > > Sincerely, > > (Your Name) > > Members to fax: > > All numbers are AC 512. > > > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > > > > > > > Gene Gandy, JD, LP > EMS Consultant > HillGandy Associates > POB 1651 > Albany, TX 76430 > > wegandy@... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 I faxed as many of them as their machines would respond. Jane Hill HEADS UP!! Folks, HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by a police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes no provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for no compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions for who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical procedures. " Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but this is not the way to do it. We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the members of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the calendar for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members won't know about any opposition. Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members and their FAX numbers will follow. Dear _____________ As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe a person is driving under the influence. Please don’t set that bill for consideration on the House floor. While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for EMS providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not injured, then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind the back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood stick from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called out when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance when someone else has an emergency and needs us. HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency Medical Services in your area. Don’t set this bill. Sincerely, (Your Name) Members to fax: > All numbers are AC 512. > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > Gene Gandy, JD, LP EMS Consultant HillGandy Associates POB 1651 Albany, TX 76430 wegandy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Actually Jane this is a change to an existing law, not a new law. I had an opportunity to look up the existing law and it is very specific. The only circumstance where a police officer can obtain blood without voluntary consent is if the suspect was the operator of a vehicle and was involved in a collision, and the officer believes that someone has dies or will likely die as a result of the collision. They cannot order a blood draw for a minor injury collision or a DWI stop. (Transportation Code Section 724.012 If a collision as described above occurs, then most likely an ambulance will be sent to the scene anyway, so it's not really an additional call for the system. Since the suspect has to be involved in the collision, then the suspect will most likely also have to be considered a patient while at the scene, which means that an EMS provider will have to do an assessment. That makes the provider a witness, which means that the possibility of sitting in court already exists. They way I read this change in the law (and I'm the first to admit that I have no legal background, so my interpretation is simply my humble opinion), it simply adds paramedics to the list of medical professionals qualified to draw blood in this circumstance. The law as it currently stands specifically excludes EMS as qualified individuals. (Transportation Code Section 724.017...this is the part that is up for change). There has been discussion in the past about the fact that EMS providers are not looked at or treated as medical professionals in the same way that nurses are. While this may not be exactly how we had hoped to start that process, it does seem that we will inevitably have to accept some of the not-so-good aspects of that goal, and this is one of those unpleasant side effects. Gene has raised legitimate concerns about liability and infection control. I can't say how the liability issues may bear out, but the infection control issues are covered by law. The agency that employs you (or that you volunteer for) is required by law to pay for treatment and testing in the event of an exposure to a communicable disease. (Government Code Chapter 607). It's time for me to get back to work, so I'll close this note by saying that this is one of the better discussion threads I've seen come through in a while. It is discussion that needs to happen, and I thank you all for keeping it professional and interesting. This isn't to say that I'm done with it...just saying keep up the good work on this and any other topics that concern us. Re: HEADS UP!! First off, this is concerning a NEW potential law that would allow law enforcement to use us for this purpose in many situations. It IS a big deal for services with few resources. There WOULD be situations where EMS agencies would be called out to do this if this passes, you can count on it. And the service responsible for the area - volunteer or not - can be called out for this. There could be issues arising where the officer wants the blood drawn, but you ARE caring for other serious injuries and patients and don't have time but are now being pressured to do this too. Then there is the inevitable situation involving being subpoenad for court for these blood draws. Austin may can afford to pay for their medics to sit in court and pay for someone else to cover their shifts while they are there. But smaller services could find this as another unnecessary burden for another unfunded mandate. Something like this that you have identified as " just part of the profession " that is not entirely necessary and that could actually negatively impact any segment of the EMS service population (rural, municipal, etc.) is not something that we need to add to our already overwhelmed systems. Just my opinions. Jane Hill HEADS UP!! Folks, HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by a police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes no provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for no compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions for who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical procedures. " Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but this is not the way to do it. We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the members of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the calendar for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members won't know about any opposition. Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members and their FAX numbers will follow. Dear _____________ As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe a person is driving under the influence. Please don't set that bill for consideration on the House floor. While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for EMS providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not injured, then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind the back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood stick from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called out when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance when someone else has an emergency and needs us. HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency Medical Services in your area. Don't set this bill. Sincerely, (Your Name) Members to fax: > All numbers are AC 512. > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > Gene Gandy, JD, LP EMS Consultant HillGandy Associates POB 1651 Albany, TX 76430 wegandy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 However Ed, by way of inclusion, these changes expand the location of such actions from the hospital setting into the uncontrolled prehospital setting, along with the inherent risks found therein. The amendments seem to promote greater convenience for law enforcement personnel, and far less convenience (and risk) for EMS personnel. On DUI scenes where the victim has or is likely to die, the responding crew will most likely be preoccupied with treating the injured. If they are the only responding and transporting EMS unit, is it then incumbent on the EMS provider to send another EMS unit to stick the DUI suspect who might not have been injured or transported? Consider rural and wilderness providers in this scenario. Bob Kellow ed.strout@... wrote: > Actually Jane this is a change to an existing law, not a new law. I had an > opportunity to look up the existing law and it is very specific. The only > circumstance where a police officer can obtain blood without voluntary > consent is if the suspect was the operator of a vehicle and was involved in > a collision, and the officer believes that someone has dies or will likely > die as a result of the collision. They cannot order a blood draw for a > minor injury collision or a DWI stop. (Transportation Code Section 724.012 > > If a collision as described above occurs, then most likely an ambulance will > be sent to the scene anyway, so it's not really an additional call for the > system. Since the suspect has to be involved in the collision, then the > suspect will most likely also have to be considered a patient while at the > scene, which means that an EMS provider will have to do an assessment. That > makes the provider a witness, which means that the possibility of sitting in > court already exists. > > They way I read this change in the law (and I'm the first to admit that I > have no legal background, so my interpretation is simply my humble opinion), > it simply adds paramedics to the list of medical professionals qualified to > draw blood in this circumstance. The law as it currently stands > specifically excludes EMS as qualified individuals. (Transportation Code > Section 724.017...this is the part that is up for change). > > There has been discussion in the past about the fact that EMS providers are > not looked at or treated as medical professionals in the same way that > nurses are. While this may not be exactly how we had hoped to start that > process, it does seem that we will inevitably have to accept some of the > not-so-good aspects of that goal, and this is one of those unpleasant side > effects. > > Gene has raised legitimate concerns about liability and infection control. > I can't say how the liability issues may bear out, but the infection control > issues are covered by law. The agency that employs you (or that you > volunteer for) is required by law to pay for treatment and testing in the > event of an exposure to a communicable disease. (Government Code Chapter > 607). > > It's time for me to get back to work, so I'll close this note by saying that > this is one of the better discussion threads I've seen come through in a > while. It is discussion that needs to happen, and I thank you all for > keeping it professional and interesting. This isn't to say that I'm done > with it...just saying keep up the good work on this and any other topics > that concern us. > > Re: HEADS UP!! > > First off, this is concerning a NEW potential law that would allow law > enforcement to use us for this purpose in many situations. It IS a big deal > for services with few resources. There WOULD be situations where EMS > agencies would be called out to do this if this passes, you can count on it. > And the service responsible for the area - volunteer or not - can be called > out for this. There could be issues arising where the officer wants the > blood drawn, but you ARE caring for other serious injuries and patients and > don't have time but are now being pressured to do this too. > > Then there is the inevitable situation involving being subpoenad for court > for these blood draws. Austin may can afford to pay for their medics to sit > in court and pay for someone else to cover their shifts while they are > there. But smaller services could find this as another unnecessary burden > for another unfunded mandate. Something like this that you have identified > as " just part of the profession " that is not entirely necessary and that > could actually negatively impact any segment of the EMS service population > (rural, municipal, etc.) is not something that we need to add to our already > overwhelmed systems. > > Just my opinions. > > Jane Hill > HEADS UP!! > > Folks, > > HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by > a > police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes > no > provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when > patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for > no > compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI > stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions > for > who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll > spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the > medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross > examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from > liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical > procedures. " > Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood > draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but > this is not the way to do it. > > We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the > members > of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the > calendar > for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members > won't > know about any opposition. > > Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members > and their FAX numbers will follow. > > Dear _____________ > > As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very > concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and > paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe > a > person is driving under the influence. Please don't set that bill for > consideration on the House floor. > > While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for > EMS > providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic > accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a > chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not > injured, > then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind > the > back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take > blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood > stick > from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person > resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? > > What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take > blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called > out > when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance > when someone else has an emergency and needs us. > > HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency > Medical > Services in your area. Don't set this bill. > > Sincerely, > > (Your Name) > > Members to fax: > > All numbers are AC 512. > > > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > > > > Gene Gandy, JD, LP > EMS Consultant > HillGandy Associates > POB 1651 > Albany, TX 76430 > > wegandy@... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I guess this is what I was trying to say in my first post...I have never met a cop who would try to interrupt patient care in order to get blood drawn. Perhaps it is my own naivete based on my experiences here in Central Texas. Our agency (including STAR Flight) have a very good working relationship with the dozens of LE agencies we work with, so even if this change in the law does occur we will be able to work through potential conflicts in advance. I hope that this is the case in rural areas as well. I can see benefits if a LE agency has a paramedic cop (like Mosely), and in cases where a jail uses paramedics as responders. I can also see the potential problems. By the way....I'm not faxing letters of support for this change... I'm just enjoying a cerebral discussion with my colleagues. Ed Strout, RN, CEN, LP Clinical Practice Coordinator Austin- County EMS 517 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Austin, Tx. 78741 Office Pager Fax e-mail: ed.strout@... Re: HEADS UP!! > > First off, this is concerning a NEW potential law that would allow law > enforcement to use us for this purpose in many situations. It IS a big deal > for services with few resources. There WOULD be situations where EMS > agencies would be called out to do this if this passes, you can count on it. > And the service responsible for the area - volunteer or not - can be called > out for this. There could be issues arising where the officer wants the > blood drawn, but you ARE caring for other serious injuries and patients and > don't have time but are now being pressured to do this too. > > Then there is the inevitable situation involving being subpoenad for court > for these blood draws. Austin may can afford to pay for their medics to sit > in court and pay for someone else to cover their shifts while they are > there. But smaller services could find this as another unnecessary burden > for another unfunded mandate. Something like this that you have identified > as " just part of the profession " that is not entirely necessary and that > could actually negatively impact any segment of the EMS service population > (rural, municipal, etc.) is not something that we need to add to our already > overwhelmed systems. > > Just my opinions. > > Jane Hill > HEADS UP!! > > Folks, > > HB 1141 by Riddle adds EMT-I and Paramedics to those who can be ORDERED by > a > police officer to draw blood whenever they think they need it. It makes > no > provision for us to decide when we have time to do this nor to refuse when > patient care of that patient or others should come first. It provides for > no > compensation for doing it, and they could call us to the scene of any DWI > stop or to the jail to draw blood anytime they wanted us. No provisions > for > who will pay for the calls, pay for the supplies, pay the overtime we'll > spend sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify, nothing about the > medical directors who every decent defense attorney will call to cross > examine on the training and so forth. The bill provides protection from > liability only if the blood is drawn using " recognized medical > procedures. " > Want to try testifying on that subject? Want to try documenting blood > draws? Folks, this is a BAD bill for EMS. We all want to stop DWIs but > this is not the way to do it. > > We have until approximately 1500 tomorrow to get letters off to the > members > of the House CalendarCommittee opposing this. If it is set on the > calendar > for hearing it will probably pass without opposition since the members > won't > know about any opposition. > > Here's a sample letter to send to the members. Names of committee members > and their FAX numbers will follow. > > Dear _____________ > > As an __________________ working for _______________________ I am very > concerned about HB 1141 by Debbie Riddle, which would add EMT-Is and > paramedics to the list of people who could draw blood when police believe > a > person is driving under the influence. Please don't set that bill for > consideration on the House floor. > > While the bill looks innocent, it will have unintended consequences for > EMS > providers and EMS personnel. Even if EMTs are on the scene of a traffic > accident helping patients, taking blood from a person under arrest in a > chaotic situation is difficult. If the alleged drunk driver is not > injured, > then very likely that person is in handcuffs with his or her hands behind > the > back. This makes it very difficult, if not dangerous for an EMT to take > blood. Who will stand behind the paramedic who gets an accidental blood > stick > from a person who turns out to have AIDS or hepatitis? What if the person > resists the procedure and the EMT breaks a needle in the arm? > > What if the police call an ambulance out to have EMTs and Paramedics take > blood when there are no other injuries? Many times ambulances are called > out > when there is no emergency. Calls of this nature could tie up an ambulance > when someone else has an emergency and needs us. > > HB 1141 is just a bill that should not pass. Please support Emergency > Medical > Services in your area. Don't set this bill. > > Sincerely, > > (Your Name) > > Members to fax: > > All numbers are AC 512. > > > > Beverly Woolley, 463-9333 > > > > Arlene Wohlgemuth, 463-6551 > > > > Wayne Christian, 463-3102 > > > > Suzanna Gratia Hupp, 463-8284 [a strong supporter of this bill] > > > > Velma Luna, 463-8090 > > > > Jerry Madden, 463-9974 > > > > Menendez, 463-0634 > > > > Gene Seaman, 4633509 > > > > Barry Telford, 463-8155 > > > > Vicki Truitt, 477-5770 > > > > Sylvester , 463-8380 > > > > Gene Gandy, JD, LP > EMS Consultant > HillGandy Associates > POB 1651 > Albany, TX 76430 > > wegandy@... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > I guess this is what I was trying to say in my first post...I have never met > a cop who would try to interrupt patient care in order to get blood drawn. To date, neither have I, unfortunately, there will be one somewhere along the line. We have also enjoyed an outstanding relationship with our LE here, many are EMT's, and many others are FF's, so we all work together in more ways than one. A bill like this needs to be written in " idiot proof " fashion. A drawback to that, is each time we make something 'idiot proof'; they come up with a better idiot. Remember that drawing of the blood is only a part of the problem, overtime is another part of the equation, as is the question of compensation, neither of which is addressed in the bill. Just my 0.02 worth. Hatfield EMT-P " Women and cats do as they please. Men and dogs might as well relax and get used to it. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > The court would pass this along as fees upon conviction. > Maybe assessing it to the DA's office, or the police department. Would > certainly cause them to consider who they draw blood on. Or assess it to the defendant upon conviction, we would then see our money, but it could take years. Hatfield EMT-P " Women and cats do as they please. Men and dogs might as well relax and get used to it. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT) " Mike , LP " writes: > ... let all the emt's and paramedics carry guns... > that'll solve the problem. Interesting concept, plug and patch all at once ... great for response times! :-) A lot of deputies in Utah and some of the counties in AZ have dual LEO - paramedics. With the Maricopa Co. SO (Phoenix area) there are three full time Deputy / paramedics, a bunch of EMTs and the Medical Rescue Posse has 10 paramedics and 20 EMTs. Some of the posse members are Qualified Armed Possemen, and can carry weapons on duty. Most are unarmed and just do Medical Rescue / First Response in the Lake Area. " There are countless ways of attaining greatness, but any road to reaching one's maximum potential must be built on a bedrock of respect for the individual, a commitment to excellence, and a rejection of mediocrity. " - Buck Rodgers Larry RN NREMTP Nurse, Teacher, Medic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > let all the emt's and paramedics carry guns... that'll solve the problem. Job security?!?!?!.... Mike Hatfield EMT-P " Women and cats do as they please. Men and dogs might as well relax and get used to it. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Dr. Bledsoe raises questions and brings up points that cannot be ignored. HB 1141 has ramifications that go far beyond merely drawing blood for a trooper. I wish to insert some comments into the body of his post, so please read below. Gene Gandy In a message dated 4/18/2003 11:40:59 AM Central Daylight Time, bbledsoe@... writes: > I have been following this thread and see problems: > > 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state > EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is > serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. I believe Dr. Racht is aware of this and is working on it. However, to my knowledge all the other physicians besides are asleep at the wheel. The idea of a state medical director is one that needs to be considered seriously. > 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of > the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this > proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? Yes. Suppose the legislature passed laws requiring that EMTs and Paramedics administer a certain drug to all patients regardless of the medical director's wishes. It's the same thing. This act allows a police officer to " order " the drawing of blood by an EMT or Paramedic. Read the Act. It reads: Only the following [a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse] may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer under this chapter: (1) a physician; (2) a qualified technician; (3) a registered professional nurse; (4) a licensed vocational nurse; or (5) a licensed or certified emergency medical technician-intermediate or emergency medical technician-paramedic. BTW, all you physicians. Get ready to be called out to draw blood. The trouble with this is not with 99% of the law enforcement officers. The trouble is with the 1% that are bullheaded and stubborn and can't stand to have their authority challenged. They're the ones that will threaten us with arrest and so forth if we don't want to draw the blood. They will not understand that we operate under the delegated practice of our physicians. > 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS > providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the > system to be involved in for various reasons? See above. The legislature is stepping into the practice of medicine here. Suppose the legislature decides that we should draw blood for an HIV test on every patient. The principle is the same. > 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a > hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal > fashion? Yes. One only has to look to California to see what havoc the legislature can wreak when it gets into regulating EMS through legislation. > 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and > guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, > and similar responsibilities? Careful, . We don't want state mandated scope of practice do we? I don't think that's what you're saying, but please clarify. Remember when Paramedics in CA couldn't do endotracheal intubation because Wedworth-Townsend, the EMS law, only permitted medics to " insert esophageal airway, " the classic order given again and again on EMERGENCY? It took years to overcome that. > 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for > legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? Yes. This is bad public policy. Bad. We are patient advocates, and we are NOT law enforcement. When we blur those distinctions we create a situation of potential distrust between ourselves and our patients. We rely on the patient to give us truthful medical histories in order to do our jobs. If the patient thinks they may be compromised by being honest with us, they will stop talking to us. Medical people have always had to be careful about letting their personal views about social policy enter into their practices. Same for lawyers. I am often asked how I could defend someone I knew was guilty of some crime. The answer is that I have no choice. The constitution requires it, and my oath as a lawyer requires it. We treat those of whom we disapprove as well as those that we approve of. That's what our ethical and legal standards require us to do. > 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning > under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? > HIPAA and the confidentiality requirements of Chapters 181 and 773, Texas Health and Safety Code wouldn't prohibit us from drawing blood because that's not a " disclosure, " but there is a good question as to whether we would be able to testify about it. Chapter 773's confidentiality rules are, in fact, more stringent than HIPAAs in terms of what we can disclose from a patient's records in court. Enter TDH which has the power to enforce the HIPAA standards and the 773 standards against each individual certificant and licensee. > This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here > and should be opposed at all junctures. Correct. If you agree and you haven't yet faxed, written or called the members of the Calendar Committee, time is running out. We need help in the form of urgent communications with those people. If this bill gets to the house floor there's no stopping it because MADD is behind it. MADD means well, and I support them with my donations, but they haven't thought this one through. Gene Gandy > > E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P > Midlothian, Texas > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > >New Mexico tried a simular program in the early 80s. This state sponcored >program was called BAT (Blood Alcohol Testing). The idea behind the >program was to get the patrol officers back on the street as fast as >possible. A police officer and a paramedic were sent out in a BAT Mobile >(coverted ambulance) to the scenes of DUI stops and suspected DUI >MVCs. The BAT Mobile was operated only on weekend nights and >holidays. All I had to do was draw the blood, package and label it. We >were paid $60.00 per 8 hour shift which worked out to $7.50 per hour. BIG >bucks for a paramedic in the 80s. Then we started getting called into >court. Many times we would be there all day and sometimes for two days >waiting to testify. We were not paid for this time. I was ordered to >appear in court for a case at 0830. I was working the night before and >ten minutes prior to shift change 's Law struck. I was sent way out >in the county on a MVC and didn't get back to the station until 9:30. I >was charged with contempt of court. I had to appear in court for the >original case and then again for the contempt. The contempt was >dismissed, but I lost a day of work. After one year the service made a >policy that we could not work for the BAT service due to the amount of >time we were tied up in court. The entire program was suspended due to a >lack of paramedics/nurses/LVNs willing to work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > >New Mexico tried a simular program in the early 80s. This state sponcored >program was called BAT (Blood Alcohol Testing). The idea behind the >program was to get the patrol officers back on the street as fast as >possible. A police officer and a paramedic were sent out in a BAT Mobile >(coverted ambulance) to the scenes of DUI stops and suspected DUI >MVCs. The BAT Mobile was operated only on weekend nights and >holidays. All I had to do was draw the blood, package and label it. We >were paid $60.00 per 8 hour shift which worked out to $7.50 per hour. BIG >bucks for a paramedic in the 80s. Then we started getting called into >court. Many times we would be there all day and sometimes for two days >waiting to testify. We were not paid for this time. I was ordered to >appear in court for a case at 0830. I was working the night before and >ten minutes prior to shift change 's Law struck. I was sent way out >in the county on a MVC and didn't get back to the station until 9:30. I >was charged with contempt of court. I had to appear in court for the >original case and then again for the contempt. The contempt was >dismissed, but I lost a day of work. After one year the service made a >policy that we could not work for the BAT service due to the amount of >time we were tied up in court. The entire program was suspended due to a >lack of paramedics/nurses/LVNs willing to work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I don't know that I'd want to work a special traffic unit just for the purpose of DWI enforcement. I suppose if a change in the law was to occur, then a special enforcement unit could be created. But that's a whole 'nuther topic. Ed Strout, RN, CEN, LP Clinical Practice Coordinator Austin- County EMS 517 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Austin, Tx. 78741 Office Pager Fax e-mail: ed.strout@... Re: HEADS UP!! > >New Mexico tried a simular program in the early 80s. This state sponcored >program was called BAT (Blood Alcohol Testing). The idea behind the >program was to get the patrol officers back on the street as fast as >possible. A police officer and a paramedic were sent out in a BAT Mobile >(coverted ambulance) to the scenes of DUI stops and suspected DUI >MVCs. The BAT Mobile was operated only on weekend nights and >holidays. All I had to do was draw the blood, package and label it. We >were paid $60.00 per 8 hour shift which worked out to $7.50 per hour. BIG >bucks for a paramedic in the 80s. Then we started getting called into >court. Many times we would be there all day and sometimes for two days >waiting to testify. We were not paid for this time. I was ordered to >appear in court for a case at 0830. I was working the night before and >ten minutes prior to shift change 's Law struck. I was sent way out >in the county on a MVC and didn't get back to the station until 9:30. I >was charged with contempt of court. I had to appear in court for the >original case and then again for the contempt. The contempt was >dismissed, but I lost a day of work. After one year the service made a >policy that we could not work for the BAT service due to the amount of >time we were tied up in court. The entire program was suspended due to a >lack of paramedics/nurses/LVNs willing to work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I have been following this thread and see problems: 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the system to be involved in for various reasons? 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal fashion? 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, and similar responsibilities? 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here and should be opposed at all junctures. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P Midlothian, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Good questions. I don't see anywhere in the proposed changes that gives EMS providers any kind of legislative authority. All I see it that it adds paramedics to the list of persons who are qualified to draw blood. There are other laws in place that regulate when and where a paramedic is authorized to perform invasive procedures, and this law doesn't give a police officer the power to supercede those laws. I would imagine that a system's medical director could choose not to authorize this under his/her delegated authority and that would be the end of it for that particular locality. Ed Strout, RN, CEN, LP Clinical Practice Coordinator Austin- County EMS 517 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Austin, Tx. 78741 Office Pager Fax e-mail: ed.strout@... HEADS UP!! I have been following this thread and see problems: 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the system to be involved in for various reasons? 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal fashion? 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, and similar responsibilities? 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here and should be opposed at all junctures. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P Midlothian, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Good points, : 1. Because GETAC is an advisory body to the TDH, it is not empowered to officially interact (directly) with the legislature. Has the TDH been asked, " Is this O.K. with you? " , thus allowing input from GETAC? It's the " mother may I " syndrome again. Texas needs a State EMS Medical Director, but that would also provide ample evidence of the need for a Texas State EMS Commission. 2. Permitting a non physician to order paramedics and EMT-I's to perform medical procedures seems to violate the intent of delegated medical practice. But, in all likelihood, no one has bothered to ask. 3. These changes appear to exclude the system medical director from the process, since they are not mentioned on the body of House Bill 1141. 4. Yes. But should I be surprised? 5. Yes. See: #1 6. Yes. But, in many examples the suspect might not be a " patient " . 7. Ask Gene. As an extension of this logic, shouldn't animal control officers be authorized to order paramedics and EMT-I's to tranquilize or euthanize dangerous or rabid animals on the scene, thus sparing them the time hassle of transporting them to the appropriate facilities? After all - it's kinda medical you know. Bob Kellow " Bledsoe (Notebook) " wrote: > I have been following this thread and see problems: > > 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state > EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is > serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. > 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of > the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this > proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? > 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS > providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the > system to be involved in for various reasons? > 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a > hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal > fashion? > 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and > guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, > and similar responsibilities? > 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for > legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? > 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning > under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? > > This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here > and should be opposed at all junctures. > > E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P > Midlothian, Texas > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I took a little time to try and read the existing law (at Gene's suggestion). It outlines all of the circumstances where an individual may be asked to provide a blood, breath, or urine sample. Again, I can find only one circumstance where the officer can get the sample without the suspect's consent. The proposed change in the law doesn't appear to address only that circumstance, but rather appears to add Paramedics and EMT-I providers to the list of folks who are authorized to draw blood in any of the circumstances. We've gotten stuck (pardon the pun) on the one circumstance that would be the most difficult (involuntary collection). This law has been in effect since the mid 80's (although it appears that the most recent revision was in 1997). Doctors, nurses, chemists, and " qualified technicians " have been on the list for at least 8 years. I don't know that any doctor has been called out to draw blood since it was first enacted, and doubt that any chemist has either. Dr. Racht regularly responds to calls in our area, and he's been on the list for years, yet I don't know of any time that he was asked, let alone forced to draw blood despite the fact that he was readily available. Our flight nurses have been on the list since at least 1997, and they go to rural areas all the time, and again, I don't know that they have ever been asked. Cops aren't dumb. They know what we are there to do. If the 1% is out there, then let him arrest a medic on the scene for refusing his " order " . I can't imagine that he'll do it more than once, at least if the publicity is handled correctly. Ed Strout, RN, CEN, LP Clinical Practice Coordinator Austin- County EMS 517 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Austin, Tx. 78741 Office Pager Fax e-mail: ed.strout@... Re: HEADS UP!! Dr. Bledsoe raises questions and brings up points that cannot be ignored. HB 1141 has ramifications that go far beyond merely drawing blood for a trooper. I wish to insert some comments into the body of his post, so please read below. Gene Gandy In a message dated 4/18/2003 11:40:59 AM Central Daylight Time, bbledsoe@... writes: > I have been following this thread and see problems: > > 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state > EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is > serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. I believe Dr. Racht is aware of this and is working on it. However, to my knowledge all the other physicians besides are asleep at the wheel. The idea of a state medical director is one that needs to be considered seriously. > 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of > the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this > proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? Yes. Suppose the legislature passed laws requiring that EMTs and Paramedics administer a certain drug to all patients regardless of the medical director's wishes. It's the same thing. This act allows a police officer to " order " the drawing of blood by an EMT or Paramedic. Read the Act. It reads: Only the following [a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse] may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer under this chapter: (1) a physician; (2) a qualified technician; (3) a registered professional nurse; (4) a licensed vocational nurse; or (5) a licensed or certified emergency medical technician-intermediate or emergency medical technician-paramedic. BTW, all you physicians. Get ready to be called out to draw blood. The trouble with this is not with 99% of the law enforcement officers. The trouble is with the 1% that are bullheaded and stubborn and can't stand to have their authority challenged. They're the ones that will threaten us with arrest and so forth if we don't want to draw the blood. They will not understand that we operate under the delegated practice of our physicians. > 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS > providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the > system to be involved in for various reasons? See above. The legislature is stepping into the practice of medicine here. Suppose the legislature decides that we should draw blood for an HIV test on every patient. The principle is the same. > 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a > hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal > fashion? Yes. One only has to look to California to see what havoc the legislature can wreak when it gets into regulating EMS through legislation. > 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and > guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, > and similar responsibilities? Careful, . We don't want state mandated scope of practice do we? I don't think that's what you're saying, but please clarify. Remember when Paramedics in CA couldn't do endotracheal intubation because Wedworth-Townsend, the EMS law, only permitted medics to " insert esophageal airway, " the classic order given again and again on EMERGENCY? It took years to overcome that. > 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for > legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? Yes. This is bad public policy. Bad. We are patient advocates, and we are NOT law enforcement. When we blur those distinctions we create a situation of potential distrust between ourselves and our patients. We rely on the patient to give us truthful medical histories in order to do our jobs. If the patient thinks they may be compromised by being honest with us, they will stop talking to us. Medical people have always had to be careful about letting their personal views about social policy enter into their practices. Same for lawyers. I am often asked how I could defend someone I knew was guilty of some crime. The answer is that I have no choice. The constitution requires it, and my oath as a lawyer requires it. We treat those of whom we disapprove as well as those that we approve of. That's what our ethical and legal standards require us to do. > 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning > under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? > HIPAA and the confidentiality requirements of Chapters 181 and 773, Texas Health and Safety Code wouldn't prohibit us from drawing blood because that's not a " disclosure, " but there is a good question as to whether we would be able to testify about it. Chapter 773's confidentiality rules are, in fact, more stringent than HIPAAs in terms of what we can disclose from a patient's records in court. Enter TDH which has the power to enforce the HIPAA standards and the 773 standards against each individual certificant and licensee. > This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here > and should be opposed at all junctures. Correct. If you agree and you haven't yet faxed, written or called the members of the Calendar Committee, time is running out. We need help in the form of urgent communications with those people. If this bill gets to the house floor there's no stopping it because MADD is behind it. MADD means well, and I support them with my donations, but they haven't thought this one through. Gene Gandy > > E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P > Midlothian, Texas > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I don't believe this law has anything to do with recognizing us as professionals. We have been already recognized by the things we do now. 12-lead EKGs, RSI, and a host of other things. Paramedics doing certain skills in the field and showing the medical community that they work in the streets has lead to nurses being allowed to do more in the ER. Taking blood out of a drunks arm is not what I call being " finally " recognized as one of the team. I see this as a convenience for law enforcement. This way they can just call an ambulance to " just check someone out " and " while your here get this guys blood for me. " As I understand it you will have to do it if " ordered " to do so. Does this mean that if you refuse there is a penalty involved? Jail time? Assessing a fine? Getting your certification revoked or being placed under probation? I guess you will feel real professional spending a lot of time in court defending what you did, why you did it, how you did it, and you will know all of the technical and medical facts you need as the defendants lawyer rips you a new one. I don't think the medical community is going to think any higher or lower of you or your professional status while your sitting in that chair. I think they will just be happy it's not them. Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > It's already law. Why are we fighting over being INCLUDED in something > where we were EXCLUDED before? This is a GOOD thing - paramedics > recognized as MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. I fail to see where drawing blood for law enforcement improves our standing as medical professionals. If it is simply doing something we were not allowed to do before, could we not try to be approved to perform triage when working in ER's across the state? Are we instantly recognized as medical professionals because now 'we can do what the nurses do'? Where does this increase our level of professionalism? I really don't see where being able to draw blood is a benefit at all, I do see where it could lead to issues. No matter what the reason, the bill introduced in it's present form is not a good thing. " TJ " Hatfield EMT-P " Women and cats do as they please. Men and dogs might as well relax and get used to it. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Mike, If I remember right, you're an Austin cop too, aren't you? For this debate I think you really ought to focus on the medical end of things, and not law enforcement. > There is NO provision in the law that allows ANYONE to be " ordered " to do > so by law enforcement. It simply allows paramedics to count Sorry fella, but the bill really does use the term " ordered " . Word for word here is what it says: " Only the following may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer under this chapter: " While a cop would probably be disinclined to " order " a physician to do anything, I don't think they would hesitate with field EMS personnel. You may be one of the lucky ones who has never had a unpleasant situation occur on scene involving an overzealous or big- headed LEO. It has happened to me and I know that allowing cops to have authority over EMS is simply a bad idea. The wording of this bill is simply bad. It leaves us with few options, scant protection, and copious liabilities. While stating that the person drawing the sample is not liable for damages so long as we use " recognized medical procedure " , it also says " this subsection does not relieve a person from liability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. " Do you know how many different ways a plaintiff's attorney can convince a jury that the bad ol paramedic was negligent? Could not an attorney argue that the very act of drawing blood from a suspect who had refused was negligence or malpractice? Who is going to pay our wages and legal expenses while we fight the charge? And if the jury finds in favor of the suspect, who will pay the damages when our malpractice insurance won't? Who will give me a job when my medical director says I can't work here anymore because I did what a cop told me to even though it wasn't in my protocols? Try to put you alliances and allegiances aside Mike, and look at it practically, from an EMS perspective. ..... Max:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 In a message dated 4/20/03 6:13:04 PM Central Daylight Time, ed.strout@... writes: <> arrested.> This is comforting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 I want to reiterate that the cops can order a blood draw in only one circumstance. The suspect must be the driver of a vehicle that was involved in a crash where someone has died or probably will die. Also..a paramedic cannot do anything that their medical director will not authorize. So if your medical director says no to this, then a cop cannot order you to do so. If he does, he is in effect ordering you to break the law. The worst that can happen is that you will be arrested. Since this must be a traffic fatality, the news will be there to cover the story of the zealous LE officer arresting you for not breaking the law. This has happened in Austin. A cop arrested a medic for not stopping his assessment so that the cop could interview the patient as a witness. The end result? Unemployed cop, no charge filed against the medic. Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 Doc, How come we don't have a state level medical director or for that matter state level protocals since we are all allegedly trained to the same standards. Tom Fuller EMT-I HEADS UP!! I have been following this thread and see problems: 1. Where is the input from Texas medical directors? We need a state EMS medical director who is an advocate for the profession. Dr. Racht is serving in a de facto role--but with no authority. 2. If paramedics and EMT-Is function under the delegated authority of the Medical Practice Act as described by their medical director, does this proposed law not undermine the authority of the medical director? 3. If this law is enacted, will it give legislative authority to EMS providers to perform an act that their medical director may not want the system to be involved in for various reasons? 4. Is the legislature, it it's wisdom, or lack thereof, creating a hodge podge of legislative statutes that affect EMS care in a piece meal fashion? 5. Should we not have a statewide EMS ordinance/law that defines and guides EMS practice with an EMS governing agency, state medical director, and similar responsibilities? 6. Are EMS people not advocates for the patient? Is drawing blood for legal prosecution not a failure to maintain such advocacy? 7. Might such an action violate HIPAA as the EMS people are functioning under HIPAA constraints while the police are not? This issue has grave consequences that go beyond the topical discussion here and should be opposed at all junctures. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, EMT-P Midlothian, Texas 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.