Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 If a EMS employee is exposed to bodily fluids during the course of duty and the patient refuses to allow blood test, it almost takes an act of congress to get one from the patient. Since the EMS employee was in the course of duty shouldn't the state pass a law where the patient must give blood for disease testing so that the EMS employe can know if he has been exposed. If you drive drunk and refuse a breathalizer you have consequences to pay so why shouldn't the sam happen if you refuse to give blood for testing after exposure has occured. If the patient refuses and the EMS employee contracts a fatal disease is this right when a simple blood test might could have indacated treatment and prevented the tragedy. 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.