Re: Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

[Guest guest]

We have always been the 'neutral dudes', taking care of whoever needed it. Any

change to this will 1) put us further into the 'public safety camp', where we

are already being treated like 'red-headed step children'; and 2) drive us

further from where we belong - public health.

" Money can buy you a fine dog, but only love can make him wag his tail. " - Kinky

Friedman

Larry RN LP

[Guest guest]

Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our mind...but

I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

<<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

care to

the sick and injured. We treat patients who need treatment. Drawing blood for

LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination. The public

expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement. Once we step into the

law enforcement role, we have crossed the line. We are required, morally and

ethically, to be patient advocates. That does not include stepping into a law

enforcement role.>>>>

Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report abuse

of children or elderly? That seems like a law enforcement job...how are we

trained to recognize this appropriately? Aren't we stepping across the line?

If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals about how we

are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over suspicious,

etc. We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution of child abuse

to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

should go into law enforcement.

<<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because we

have

nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and the

law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandatory

situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an accident.

<<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the closest

EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper? Talk about negative

public perception!!>>>> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper

spray off a subject or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner???

What if a frog had wings....

<<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient but

drawing blood for LE.>>>> I see nothing in the law that would make this

happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

<<<<The defense is going to call

you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of the

draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

environment, can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how many

sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>> Again, this is all

contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out of the

kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

<<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness to

deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> Funny

here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because they

want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon as

possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

intoxicated. The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

<<<<I have never seen my role as a

Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to be

a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they might

or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of child

abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but not

paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections? What about bicycle rodeos? It

seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident occurs. The fact

of the matter is we do these things because they are injury prevention and if we

can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in jail, that is

also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child abuser in jail is

injury prevention.

And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for the

doctors and nurses to be doing it? I guess they are not as vital as us and of

course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all taught a class

on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law, and when it was

and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of health care to

bother with law enforcement duties.

I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need to

determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an accident,

only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one ambulance is

available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think through this)

and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru needs inputed

before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and we get stuck

with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not just a little

detrimental.

Dudley

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our mind...but

I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

<<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

care to

the sick and injured. We treat patients who need treatment. Drawing blood for

LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination. The public

expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement. Once we step into the

law enforcement role, we have crossed the line. We are required, morally and

ethically, to be patient advocates. That does not include stepping into a law

enforcement role.>>>>

Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report abuse

of children or elderly? That seems like a law enforcement job...how are we

trained to recognize this appropriately? Aren't we stepping across the line?

If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals about how we

are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over suspicious,

etc. We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution of child abuse

to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

should go into law enforcement.

<<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because we

have

nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and the

law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandatory

situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an accident.

<<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the closest

EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper? Talk about negative

public perception!!>>>> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper

spray off a subject or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner???

What if a frog had wings....

<<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient but

drawing blood for LE.>>>> I see nothing in the law that would make this

happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

<<<<The defense is going to call

you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of the

draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

environment, can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how many

sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>> Again, this is all

contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out of the

kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

<<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness to

deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> Funny

here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because they

want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon as

possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

intoxicated. The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

<<<<I have never seen my role as a

Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to be

a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they might

or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of child

abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but not

paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections? What about bicycle rodeos? It

seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident occurs. The fact

of the matter is we do these things because they are injury prevention and if we

can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in jail, that is

also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child abuser in jail is

injury prevention.

And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for the

doctors and nurses to be doing it? I guess they are not as vital as us and of

course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all taught a class

on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law, and when it was

and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of health care to

bother with law enforcement duties.

I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need to

determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an accident,

only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one ambulance is

available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think through this)

and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru needs inputed

before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and we get stuck

with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not just a little

detrimental.

Dudley

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our mind...but

I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

<<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

care to

the sick and injured. We treat patients who need treatment. Drawing blood for

LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination. The public

expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement. Once we step into the

law enforcement role, we have crossed the line. We are required, morally and

ethically, to be patient advocates. That does not include stepping into a law

enforcement role.>>>>

Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report abuse

of children or elderly? That seems like a law enforcement job...how are we

trained to recognize this appropriately? Aren't we stepping across the line?

If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals about how we

are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over suspicious,

etc. We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution of child abuse

to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

should go into law enforcement.

<<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because we

have

nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and the

law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandatory

situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an accident.

<<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the closest

EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper? Talk about negative

public perception!!>>>> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper

spray off a subject or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner???

What if a frog had wings....

<<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient but

drawing blood for LE.>>>> I see nothing in the law that would make this

happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

<<<<The defense is going to call

you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of the

draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

environment, can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how many

sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>> Again, this is all

contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out of the

kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

<<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness to

deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> Funny

here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because they

want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon as

possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

intoxicated. The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

<<<<I have never seen my role as a

Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to be

a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they might

or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of child

abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but not

paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections? What about bicycle rodeos? It

seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident occurs. The fact

of the matter is we do these things because they are injury prevention and if we

can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in jail, that is

also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child abuser in jail is

injury prevention.

And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for the

doctors and nurses to be doing it? I guess they are not as vital as us and of

course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all taught a class

on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law, and when it was

and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of health care to

bother with law enforcement duties.

I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need to

determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an accident,

only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one ambulance is

available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think through this)

and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru needs inputed

before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and we get stuck

with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not just a little

detrimental.

Dudley

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Replies below. GG

> Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our

> mind...but I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

>

> <<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

> care to

> the sick and injured.  We treat patients who need treatment.  Drawing blood

> for

> LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination.  The public

> expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement.  Once we step into

> the

> law enforcement role, we have crossed the line.  We are required, morally

> and

> ethically, to be patient advocates.  That does not include stepping into a

> law

> enforcement role.>>>>

>

> Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report

> abuse of children or elderly?  That seems like a law enforcement job...how are

> we trained to recognize this appropriately?  Aren't we stepping across the

> line?  If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals

> about how we are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over

> suspicious, etc.  We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution

> of child abuse to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

>

> Reporting child and elder abuse is not medical care. It is no different

> from reporting a fire or a collision. It is not invasive. Blood drawing

> is.

>

> If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

> should go into law enforcement.

>

We are not the ones who put them in jail. CPS and LE are. We only report

objectively observable facts.

>

> <<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because

> we have

> nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and

> the law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandat

> ory situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an

> accident.

>

> <<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the

> closest EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper?  Talk about

> negative public perception!!>>>>

>

Washing pepper spray and removing tazer darts are medical treatment. Blood

drawing for LE is not.

> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper spray off a subject

> or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner??? 

>

When I'm on duty eating dinner I am subject to call. I have left my

barbecue uneaten many times.

> What if a frog had wings....

>

> <<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

> medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient

> but

> drawing blood for LE.>>>>  I see nothing in the law that would make this

> happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

>

Correct. Care comes first.

>

> <<<<The defense is going to call

> you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of

> the

> draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

> environment,  can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how

> many

> sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>>  Again, this is

> all contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out

> of the kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

>

A witness still has to testify about it. It is not self admitting. The

Court will not take judicial notice of it.

>

> <<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness

> to deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> 

> Funny here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because

> they want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon

> as possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

> intoxicated.  The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

>

The subject is not potential manslaughter/homicide cases. The subject is

routine blood draws for DWI. In the potential murder case the considerations

are entirely different. The prosecutors who were for this law are simply

uninformed about the problems it will cause. If they are smart, they will push

for a law that allows LE to draw the blood. Eliminate one possible flaw in

the chain and you're that much closer to admissible evidence.

>

> <<<

> Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to

> be

> a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they

> might

> or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of

> child abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but

> not paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

>

When I report child abuse, I am a patient advocate. When I puncture a

driver's vein so that he can be prosecuted for DWI, I am no longer a patient

advocate, because my actions have nothing whatsoever to do with his health and

welfare. Surely you can see the difference. Your analogy won't stand up.

>

> BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections?  What about bicycle

> rodeos?  It seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident

occurs. 

> The fact of the matter is we do these things because they are injury

prevention

> and if we can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in

> jail, that is also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child

> abuser in jail is injury prevention. 

>

You're venturing into absurdity.

>

> And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for

> the doctors and nurses to be doing it?  I guess they are not as vital as us

> and of course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all

> taught a class on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law,

and

> when it was and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of

> health care to bother with law enforcement duties.

>

The doctors and nurses will only be doing it after the emergency has passed.

That's one major difference. And they will not leave the hospital to go to

a scene on the side of the road to do it. It is done in controlled

environment.

>

> I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need

> to determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an

> accident, only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one

> ambulance is available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think

> through this) and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru

> needs inputed before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and

> we get stuck with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not

> just a little detrimental.

>

> Dudley

>

And I say it needs to buried, never to see the light of day again. It was a

bad idea at its inception, it's a bad idea today, and it will be a bad idea

tomorrow.

Let me know when you find that a majority of the EMS community supports you.

I expect you're a voice in the wilderness and will remain so.

I sense that you have something more than a professional interest in this.

Perhaps a personal experience with a drunk driver. One sometimes loses one's

perspective when one becomes too emotional. My comments are based upon cool

and careful examination of the effects this legislation will have upon

MEDICAL CARE, not LAW ENFORCEMENT. The two are different in my mind, but

obviously

not in yours. I say choose one or the other. Be a cop, or be a

Paramedic/EMS provider. We cannot ethically be both. It is a matter of

ethics.

Respectfully,

Gene G.

>

> Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

> >

> >

> >Mr. Sharp,

> >

> >You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

> >perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

> >tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

> >

> >The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

> >functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

> >a few.

> >

> >What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

> >lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

> >health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

> >to the transportation codes do for that?

> >

> >The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

> >this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

> >court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

> >work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

> >representation, etc.?

> >

> >To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

> >because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

> >their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

> >minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

> >enforcement?

> >

> >Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

> >EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

> >

> >Larry

> >

> >

> >>

> >> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> >> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> >> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

> >them

> >> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> >> idea. "

> >>

> >> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

> >breathing

> >> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

> >stick? The

> >> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

> >do they

> >> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

> >the body?

> >>

> >> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

> >different

> >> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

> >it

> >> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

> >blood drawn.

> >> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

> >to belly

> >> up for access to the person being stuck.

> >>

> >> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

> >scenes

> >> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

> >potentially

> >> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

> >we have

> >> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

> >first

> >> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

> >to get

> >> to the stickee first?

> >>

> >> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

> >for

> >> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

> >needles

> >> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

> >patient

> >> either.

> >>

> >> Just my $.02.

> >>

> >> Barry

> >>

> >>

> >> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health  (TDH) has merged with other

> >agencies

> >> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

> >(DSHS),

> >> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

> >employees:

> >> firstname.lastname@d...

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Replies below. GG

> Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our

> mind...but I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

>

> <<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

> care to

> the sick and injured.  We treat patients who need treatment.  Drawing blood

> for

> LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination.  The public

> expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement.  Once we step into

> the

> law enforcement role, we have crossed the line.  We are required, morally

> and

> ethically, to be patient advocates.  That does not include stepping into a

> law

> enforcement role.>>>>

>

> Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report

> abuse of children or elderly?  That seems like a law enforcement job...how are

> we trained to recognize this appropriately?  Aren't we stepping across the

> line?  If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals

> about how we are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over

> suspicious, etc.  We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution

> of child abuse to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

>

> Reporting child and elder abuse is not medical care. It is no different

> from reporting a fire or a collision. It is not invasive. Blood drawing

> is.

>

> If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

> should go into law enforcement.

>

We are not the ones who put them in jail. CPS and LE are. We only report

objectively observable facts.

>

> <<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because

> we have

> nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and

> the law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandat

> ory situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an

> accident.

>

> <<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the

> closest EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper?  Talk about

> negative public perception!!>>>>

>

Washing pepper spray and removing tazer darts are medical treatment. Blood

drawing for LE is not.

> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper spray off a subject

> or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner??? 

>

When I'm on duty eating dinner I am subject to call. I have left my

barbecue uneaten many times.

> What if a frog had wings....

>

> <<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

> medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient

> but

> drawing blood for LE.>>>>  I see nothing in the law that would make this

> happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

>

Correct. Care comes first.

>

> <<<<The defense is going to call

> you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of

> the

> draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

> environment,  can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how

> many

> sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>>  Again, this is

> all contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out

> of the kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

>

A witness still has to testify about it. It is not self admitting. The

Court will not take judicial notice of it.

>

> <<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness

> to deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> 

> Funny here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because

> they want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon

> as possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

> intoxicated.  The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

>

The subject is not potential manslaughter/homicide cases. The subject is

routine blood draws for DWI. In the potential murder case the considerations

are entirely different. The prosecutors who were for this law are simply

uninformed about the problems it will cause. If they are smart, they will push

for a law that allows LE to draw the blood. Eliminate one possible flaw in

the chain and you're that much closer to admissible evidence.

>

> <<<

> Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to

> be

> a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they

> might

> or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of

> child abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but

> not paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

>

When I report child abuse, I am a patient advocate. When I puncture a

driver's vein so that he can be prosecuted for DWI, I am no longer a patient

advocate, because my actions have nothing whatsoever to do with his health and

welfare. Surely you can see the difference. Your analogy won't stand up.

>

> BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections?  What about bicycle

> rodeos?  It seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident

occurs. 

> The fact of the matter is we do these things because they are injury

prevention

> and if we can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in

> jail, that is also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child

> abuser in jail is injury prevention. 

>

You're venturing into absurdity.

>

> And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for

> the doctors and nurses to be doing it?  I guess they are not as vital as us

> and of course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all

> taught a class on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law,

and

> when it was and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of

> health care to bother with law enforcement duties.

>

The doctors and nurses will only be doing it after the emergency has passed.

That's one major difference. And they will not leave the hospital to go to

a scene on the side of the road to do it. It is done in controlled

environment.

>

> I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need

> to determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an

> accident, only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one

> ambulance is available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think

> through this) and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru

> needs inputed before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and

> we get stuck with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not

> just a little detrimental.

>

> Dudley

>

And I say it needs to buried, never to see the light of day again. It was a

bad idea at its inception, it's a bad idea today, and it will be a bad idea

tomorrow.

Let me know when you find that a majority of the EMS community supports you.

I expect you're a voice in the wilderness and will remain so.

I sense that you have something more than a professional interest in this.

Perhaps a personal experience with a drunk driver. One sometimes loses one's

perspective when one becomes too emotional. My comments are based upon cool

and careful examination of the effects this legislation will have upon

MEDICAL CARE, not LAW ENFORCEMENT. The two are different in my mind, but

obviously

not in yours. I say choose one or the other. Be a cop, or be a

Paramedic/EMS provider. We cannot ethically be both. It is a matter of

ethics.

Respectfully,

Gene G.

>

> Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

> >

> >

> >Mr. Sharp,

> >

> >You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

> >perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

> >tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

> >

> >The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

> >functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

> >a few.

> >

> >What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

> >lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

> >health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

> >to the transportation codes do for that?

> >

> >The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

> >this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

> >court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

> >work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

> >representation, etc.?

> >

> >To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

> >because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

> >their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

> >minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

> >enforcement?

> >

> >Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

> >EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

> >

> >Larry

> >

> >

> >>

> >> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> >> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> >> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

> >them

> >> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> >> idea. "

> >>

> >> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

> >breathing

> >> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

> >stick? The

> >> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

> >do they

> >> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

> >the body?

> >>

> >> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

> >different

> >> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

> >it

> >> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

> >blood drawn.

> >> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

> >to belly

> >> up for access to the person being stuck.

> >>

> >> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

> >scenes

> >> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

> >potentially

> >> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

> >we have

> >> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

> >first

> >> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

> >to get

> >> to the stickee first?

> >>

> >> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

> >for

> >> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

> >needles

> >> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

> >patient

> >> either.

> >>

> >> Just my $.02.

> >>

> >> Barry

> >>

> >>

> >> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health  (TDH) has merged with other

> >agencies

> >> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

> >(DSHS),

> >> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

> >employees:

> >> firstname.lastname@d...

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Replies below. GG

> Thanks Gene for your view points...I agree...we all should speak our

> mind...but I too would like to attempt to address some of your assertions.

>

> <<<<<<The flaw in this logic is that the purpose of EMS is to render medical

> care to

> the sick and injured.  We treat patients who need treatment.  Drawing blood

> for

> LE is not medical treatment by any stretch of the imagination.  The public

> expects us to render medical care, not law enforcement.  Once we step into

> the

> law enforcement role, we have crossed the line.  We are required, morally

> and

> ethically, to be patient advocates.  That does not include stepping into a

> law

> enforcement role.>>>>

>

> Then Gene...why don't we balk at the point that we are required to report

> abuse of children or elderly?  That seems like a law enforcement job...how are

> we trained to recognize this appropriately?  Aren't we stepping across the

> line?  If called into court the defense lawyer will rake us over the coals

> about how we are trained to recognize this, what in our past led us to be over

> suspicious, etc.  We should probably just leave the reporting and prosecution

> of child abuse to the cops....it is not a patient care issue...

>

> Reporting child and elder abuse is not medical care. It is no different

> from reporting a fire or a collision. It is not invasive. Blood drawing

> is.

>

> If a paramedic wants to stop child abuse and put child abusers in jail they

> should go into law enforcement.

>

We are not the ones who put them in jail. CPS and LE are. We only report

objectively observable facts.

>

> <<<<In fact, we do not generally go to court on routine DWI trials because

> we have

> nothing to testify to.>>>> Blood is not drawn on routine DWI trials...and

> the law is in the section where blood draws are called for because of a mandat

> ory situation after a potential life threatening injury or death after an

> accident.

>

> <<<<How will you explain to the family of a patient who dies because the

> closest EMS crew is out of service drawing blood for a Trooper?  Talk about

> negative public perception!!>>>>

>

Washing pepper spray and removing tazer darts are medical treatment. Blood

drawing for LE is not.

> How will you explain it when you are out washing pepper spray off a subject

> or removing tazer darts or out of pocket eating dinner??? 

>

When I'm on duty eating dinner I am subject to call. I have left my

barbecue uneaten many times.

> What if a frog had wings....

>

> <<<<How do you think the public will respond when they find out that

> medical care suffered because we were not paying attention to our patient

> but

> drawing blood for LE.>>>>  I see nothing in the law that would make this

> happen...again a non-valid point because patient care always comes first.

>

Correct. Care comes first.

>

> <<<<The defense is going to call

> you and ask you every thing it can think of regarding the circumstances of

> the

> draw, including where it was done, whether or not it was done in a sanitary

> environment,  can you identify the blood kit as being the one you used, how

> many

> sticks did it take, was alcohol prep used, and so forth.>>>>  Again, this is

> all contained in the blood draw kit and all the supplies you use comes out

> of the kit and it all goes back into the kit....betadine prep pads included.

>

A witness still has to testify about it. It is not self admitting. The

Court will not take judicial notice of it.

>

> <<<<It will be a prosecutor's nightmare, because now he has another witness

> to deal with, to produce on time, and establish the requisite facts.>>>> 

> Funny here Gene, it is the prosecutor's in Texas that are pushing this because

> they want blood drawn in potential manslaughter/homicide cases drawn as soon

> as possible so that they have the greatest potential of proving the person was

> intoxicated.  The prosecutors actually want us doing this...

>

The subject is not potential manslaughter/homicide cases. The subject is

routine blood draws for DWI. In the potential murder case the considerations

are entirely different. The prosecutors who were for this law are simply

uninformed about the problems it will cause. If they are smart, they will push

for a law that allows LE to draw the blood. Eliminate one possible flaw in

the chain and you're that much closer to admissible evidence.

>

> <<<

> Paramedic as helping put bad guys in jail. That's not my job. My job is to

> be

> a patient advocate, to treat all equally and without regard to what they

> might

> or might not have done.>>>> Again, lets repeal the mandatory reporting of

> child abuse by paramedics...it is okay for doctors and nurses to report...but

> not paramedics because we are just patient advocates....

>

When I report child abuse, I am a patient advocate. When I puncture a

driver's vein so that he can be prosecuted for DWI, I am no longer a patient

advocate, because my actions have nothing whatsoever to do with his health and

welfare. Surely you can see the difference. Your analogy won't stand up.

>

> BTW, why do we do child safety seat inspections?  What about bicycle

> rodeos?  It seems that these things aren't our concern until an accident

occurs. 

> The fact of the matter is we do these things because they are injury

prevention

> and if we can help stop a DUI or help law enforcement put a DUI offender in

> jail, that is also injury prevention as well....much like putting a child

> abuser in jail is injury prevention. 

>

You're venturing into absurdity.

>

> And lastly, again, if we should not be involved in this...why is it okay for

> the doctors and nurses to be doing it?  I guess they are not as vital as us

> and of course, in that nursing program and medical school, they were all

> taught a class on chain of custody, proper ways to testify in a court of law,

and

> when it was and wasn't appropriate to stoop down from the lofty heights of

> health care to bother with law enforcement duties.

>

The doctors and nurses will only be doing it after the emergency has passed.

That's one major difference. And they will not leave the hospital to go to

a scene on the side of the road to do it. It is done in controlled

environment.

>

> I do agree this will come back again and again until it is passed...we need

> to determine what is the best way to make this work for us (only after an

> accident, only when patient care is finished, maybe only when more than one

> ambulance is available...who knows...but we really need to realistically think

> through this) and make sure as it gains more and more strength that we get oru

> needs inputed before it gets pushed through despite our " no not us " cries and

> we get stuck with a version that would be horribly detrimental...and not

> just a little detrimental.

>

> Dudley

>

And I say it needs to buried, never to see the light of day again. It was a

bad idea at its inception, it's a bad idea today, and it will be a bad idea

tomorrow.

Let me know when you find that a majority of the EMS community supports you.

I expect you're a voice in the wilderness and will remain so.

I sense that you have something more than a professional interest in this.

Perhaps a personal experience with a drunk driver. One sometimes loses one's

perspective when one becomes too emotional. My comments are based upon cool

and careful examination of the effects this legislation will have upon

MEDICAL CARE, not LAW ENFORCEMENT. The two are different in my mind, but

obviously

not in yours. I say choose one or the other. Be a cop, or be a

Paramedic/EMS provider. We cannot ethically be both. It is a matter of

ethics.

Respectfully,

Gene G.

>

> Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

> >

> >

> >Mr. Sharp,

> >

> >You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

> >perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

> >tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

> >

> >The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

> >functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

> >a few.

> >

> >What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

> >lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

> >health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

> >to the transportation codes do for that?

> >

> >The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

> >this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

> >court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

> >work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

> >representation, etc.?

> >

> >To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

> >because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

> >their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

> >minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

> >enforcement?

> >

> >Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

> >EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

> >

> >Larry

> >

> >

> >>

> >> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> >> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> >> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

> >them

> >> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> >> idea. "

> >>

> >> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

> >breathing

> >> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

> >stick? The

> >> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

> >do they

> >> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

> >the body?

> >>

> >> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

> >different

> >> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

> >it

> >> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

> >blood drawn.

> >> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

> >to belly

> >> up for access to the person being stuck.

> >>

> >> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

> >scenes

> >> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

> >potentially

> >> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

> >we have

> >> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

> >first

> >> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

> >to get

> >> to the stickee first?

> >>

> >> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

> >for

> >> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

> >needles

> >> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

> >patient

> >> either.

> >>

> >> Just my $.02.

> >>

> >> Barry

> >>

> >>

> >> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health  (TDH) has merged with other

> >agencies

> >> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

> >(DSHS),

> >> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

> >employees:

> >> firstname.lastname@d...

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

Mike wrote:

Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

are less competent?

Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

- if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

of custody - why not a medic?

I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

Mike

> I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a police

officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my opinion,

medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in trial a good

defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to obatain the

blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a hospital. As

already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes blood draws are a

simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to drag EMS's good

name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do not care about

professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

---------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

draw it tag it bag it and give it to the cop it is his chain of evidence from

that point on and his problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

draw it tag it bag it and give it to the cop it is his chain of evidence from

that point on and his problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

draw it tag it bag it and give it to the cop it is his chain of evidence from

that point on and his problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

>

>

>Mr. Sharp,

>

>You make the assumption that EMS will always be treating the alledged

>perp as a patient. Suppose the perp is uninjured and does not require

>tx? Where does your scenario go from there?

>

>The idea of medical professionals performing evidence gathering

>functions raises more concerns than have been discussed. Lets look at

>a few.

>

>What about public perception? Recent discussion on this and other

>lists have focused on the need for EMS to move closer to public

>health and away from public safety. What does this proposed amendment

>to the transportation codes do for that?

>

>The issue of chain of custody was raised on another list. What about

>this and the very real potential that medics will become involved in

>court trials? Who will cover the costs of overtime, time away from

>work, lost days off, travel, the possible need for legal

>representation, etc.?

>

>To some degree, EMS is protected specie in the criminal world. This

>because even numbskull gang bangers realize it is EMS that comes to

>their rescue when they get gang banged. What will happen to this

>minor protection once they realize we have entered the world of law

>enforcement?

>

>Inquiring minds want to know. I reiterate?.SB 14 is a bad bill and

>EMS performing evidentiary blood draws is a bad idea.

>

>Larry

>

>

>>

>> " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

>> necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

>> why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let

>them

>> do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

>> idea. "

>>

>> Just one question, providing the blood draw is from a living,

>breathing

>> patient and not from a corpse: Who gets first dibs on the needle

>stick? The

>> guys with the guns and badges or the guys with the orange bags? Or

>do they

>> both get an arm and the first one through gets to keep the rest of

>the body?

>>

>> While I do agree that law enforcement and medical care are two

>different

>> functions, there has to be some reasonableness and cooperation when

>it

>> actually comes down to putting hands on the person having their

>blood drawn.

>> There are only so many places to do a stick and only so much room

>to belly

>> up for access to the person being stuck.

>>

>> We already get into hot water for potentially contaminating crime

>scenes

>> with our patient care personnel and equipment, could be also be

>potentially

>> contaminating their criminal with our patient care services? Will

>we have

>> emergency personnel doing rock-paper-scissors to see who gets the

>first

>> stick? Or will the EMS and LEO folks be drag racing down the street

>to get

>> to the stickee first?

>>

>> While laws that put EMS into evidence gathering modes aren't great

>for

>> patient advocacy, having two many persons with opposing needs and

>needles

>> using the patient as a pin cushion can't be very good for the

>patient

>> either.

>>

>> Just my $.02.

>>

>> Barry

>>

>>

>> NOTE: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has merged with other

>agencies

>> and is now part of the new Department of State Health Services

>(DSHS),

>> resulting in the following e-mail address format change for all

>employees:

>> firstname.lastname@d...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

I am not saying that medics are any different from nurses. I simply stated

that EMS currently maintains an unbiased stance in the community and does not

need more strain of going to court having their personal backgrounds ran through

the ringer.

As you know DWI trials can go several different ways, the ones you think will

get convicted, usually dont and the ones you dont think will even go to trial

get convicted. As a paramedic I have had to testify in several cases

questioning my opinion of the patient/violater and you know as well as I do its

all about the money and the attorney you can hire. Police officer are paid to

go to court and paid to testify. When a police officer signs on to be a peace

officer he/she puts his history on public record. Medics have much bigger and

more stressful things to worry about then to have there name smeared all over

the public paper (ie the news media) as the reason a DWI trial was mistrialed.

Not to mention violating that care provider/ patient trust. People call on EMS

because they feel secure they are not being judged.

It was just a statement as someone who has been on both sides. I not trying to

argue a point for or against. I just think medics have a bigger role to fufill

then being dragged into court badgered by a defense attorney, name placed on

public record and made to testify against a patient.

I, by no means, meant to start a debate, I simply feel EMS has bigger fish

to fry. Either way if the states says its ok then by all means I will use it

when needed.

Curtis

Mike wrote:

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

I am not saying that medics are any different from nurses. I simply stated

that EMS currently maintains an unbiased stance in the community and does not

need more strain of going to court having their personal backgrounds ran through

the ringer.

As you know DWI trials can go several different ways, the ones you think will

get convicted, usually dont and the ones you dont think will even go to trial

get convicted. As a paramedic I have had to testify in several cases

questioning my opinion of the patient/violater and you know as well as I do its

all about the money and the attorney you can hire. Police officer are paid to

go to court and paid to testify. When a police officer signs on to be a peace

officer he/she puts his history on public record. Medics have much bigger and

more stressful things to worry about then to have there name smeared all over

the public paper (ie the news media) as the reason a DWI trial was mistrialed.

Not to mention violating that care provider/ patient trust. People call on EMS

because they feel secure they are not being judged.

It was just a statement as someone who has been on both sides. I not trying to

argue a point for or against. I just think medics have a bigger role to fufill

then being dragged into court badgered by a defense attorney, name placed on

public record and made to testify against a patient.

I, by no means, meant to start a debate, I simply feel EMS has bigger fish

to fry. Either way if the states says its ok then by all means I will use it

when needed.

Curtis

Mike wrote:

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

I am not saying that medics are any different from nurses. I simply stated

that EMS currently maintains an unbiased stance in the community and does not

need more strain of going to court having their personal backgrounds ran through

the ringer.

As you know DWI trials can go several different ways, the ones you think will

get convicted, usually dont and the ones you dont think will even go to trial

get convicted. As a paramedic I have had to testify in several cases

questioning my opinion of the patient/violater and you know as well as I do its

all about the money and the attorney you can hire. Police officer are paid to

go to court and paid to testify. When a police officer signs on to be a peace

officer he/she puts his history on public record. Medics have much bigger and

more stressful things to worry about then to have there name smeared all over

the public paper (ie the news media) as the reason a DWI trial was mistrialed.

Not to mention violating that care provider/ patient trust. People call on EMS

because they feel secure they are not being judged.

It was just a statement as someone who has been on both sides. I not trying to

argue a point for or against. I just think medics have a bigger role to fufill

then being dragged into court badgered by a defense attorney, name placed on

public record and made to testify against a patient.

I, by no means, meant to start a debate, I simply feel EMS has bigger fish

to fry. Either way if the states says its ok then by all means I will use it

when needed.

Curtis

Mike wrote:

I honestly don't care if I do this - and from the police side, the

cases where I need blood are the ones where I can't have the subject

do SFST's, or I can't clearly document impairment anyway... in other

words, the borderline ones, or the very, very serious ones - IOW, the

marginal ones.

Again, in your mind, why is it different for medics than for nurses,

who already do this?

Mike

> Its obvious you want to do this, I wish you the best.

> And no I do not think medics are less competent, this has nothing to do with

competecy.

>

> Mike wrote:

> Why, exactly, would a good defense attorney eat a medic alive, but not

> a nurse? If nurses are doing this now, and medics are just as

> competent as nurses, what's the worry? Or, do you believe that medics

> are less competent?

>

> Chain of custody is an EASY thing - medics do it all the time. They

> hold on to blood samples to give to the hospital, hold on to patient's

> belongings to give to the hospital, etc. I'd think this is backwards

> - if rookie cops, all full of adrenaline and wonder, can handle chain

> of custody - why not a medic?

>

> I'm just curious, one paramedicop to another...

>

> Mike

>

>

> > I just want to throw my 2 cents in. As a paramedic for 10 years and a

police officer for 2. Im not sure exactly what this bill is purposing. In my

opinion, medics should not be drawing blood for LEA's for the simple fact in

trial a good defense attorney will eat medics alive about the method used to

obatain the blood and how the chain of evidence was handled out side of a

hospital. As already stated by someone medics dont need this headache, yes

blood draws are a simple procedure but court is not and court is not a place to

drag EMS's good name through the mud. Believe me defense attorneys generally do

not care about professionalism and ethics, they have a client to take care of.

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It specifically

points out that the blood draw request has to be the result of an accident where

EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to specify if it is possible

to do and will not interfer with patient care, and all agencies and personnel

are protected from any and all liability as a result of the needle stick.

The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the most

important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries) it would

be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the helicopter fly the

critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood drawn quickly instead of

waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the patient to the ED, and the

procedure done there. That is why this law would be in the section of the

traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in serious injury or death

resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the section where the breath test is

waived or the suspect requests a blood draw...it doesn't apply there.

Dudley

PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough to

not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended by such

needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to stop this

needless death.

Re: Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

Alfonso,

The difference is that in the hospital there are 5 times the personnel

available to work the patient, and care is not interrupted to perform the blood

draw.

Let me propose this to you: In a small hospital with one physician, two

LVNs and one RN in the ER, a patient comes in with severe injuries. All

personnel are working with that patient. Shortly thereafter, EMS arrives with

another patient with minor injuries, who was the driver of the car that hit the

first patient.

In comes the Trooper and demands that blood be drawn immediately from the

driver.

The physician cuts loose one LVN to take care of the driver, and s/he does

immediate triage and determines that he can wait. This caregiver then returns

to help with the other patient who is critical.

That Trooper can order, demand, have a hissie fit with a bob wahr tail and

shit right on the spot, but nobody is going to bust loose to draw his blood for

him until things are under control.

That's the difference. When blood is drawn in the hospital, it's done in a

controlled environment and the person drawing is not trying to carry out

emergency care at the same time.

Plus, hospitals are typically better able to absorb costs than are most EMS

services. So when the RN who drew the blood is called to court, the hospital

has other people it can shift into the ED, but many times EMS is so short on

personnel that having an employee out for court duty can cause chaos. (This,

of course, depends entirely upon the situation, so I don't want to put too

much emphasis on this aspect.)

So it's about resources as well as legal considerations.

Further, nobody has said much about the risk to the medic when drawing blood

from a belligerent and uncooperative prisoner (notice that I did not say

patient---the prisoners are in no way patients).

What will the consequences of such a bill be in terms of liability insurance

premiums? Will the insurance carriers even cover this activity? That

question ought to be answered by any service thinking about providing blood

draws

for LE. If you get sued, you're looking a MEGABUCKS to defend. You'll need

insurance, or your company will crash financially. Better talk to your

insuror before getting too excited about joining this bandwagon.

What's going to happen when your medic gets a needle stick and the prisoner

is HIV+ or HBV+? Who will pay for the drugs, labs, and care by an infectious

disease specialist? Will worker's comp cover it? Better ask. A person

who contracts HIV is looking at a lifetime of continuing therapy in which the

co-pay for drugs with good insurance coverage runs $2,500 a year or more.

Without insurance, the drugs can cost $20-30K per year, not including labs,

which

are very expensive, and physician visits, which are actually the least of all

the costs.

I cannot conceive of any EMS administrator in his right mind who would want

to take this on, but whadda I know? Maybe OJ is factually innocent! (He is

legally innocent, which is a different thing entirely.) Maybe the moon IS

made of green cheese.

If I am to become a law enforcement officer while performing as a Paramedic,

then I want to be sworn, carry my Glock Model 21 with me at all times, have an

AK-47 and a .270 rifle in my rig, a taser, personal body armor, some pepper

spray, an asp baton, handcuffs, and a badge and ID card to get me out of

speeding tickets. I also want a trillion dollar insurance policy that protects

me

not only from medical malpractice but from law enforcement malpractice.

And please increase my compensation three-fold to cover the stresses of all

this.

I don't mean to be flippant (well, of course I do) but before one joins the

crusade for medic blood draws for LE, please consider all the consequences. I

think they will give you pause.

Gene G.

>

> >

> > " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> > necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> > why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let them

> > do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> > idea. "

> >

>

> Here's another angle that has yet to be discussed. Q: Who does the

> actual blood draw for LE? A: A nurse at the hospital. Yet, I don't

> hear any ranting and raving for requiring them to do it for LE.

>

> I think the logic behind this bill is, why require a subject the

> additional expense of a hospital bill when a paramedic is equally

> capable is doing the same procedure.

>

> All this patient advocacy stuff is valid, but again, no one seems to

> have a problem with a nurse (RN or LVN) doing it.

>

> Alfonso R. Ochoa

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It specifically

points out that the blood draw request has to be the result of an accident where

EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to specify if it is possible

to do and will not interfer with patient care, and all agencies and personnel

are protected from any and all liability as a result of the needle stick.

The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the most

important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries) it would

be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the helicopter fly the

critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood drawn quickly instead of

waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the patient to the ED, and the

procedure done there. That is why this law would be in the section of the

traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in serious injury or death

resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the section where the breath test is

waived or the suspect requests a blood draw...it doesn't apply there.

Dudley

PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough to

not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended by such

needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to stop this

needless death.

Re: Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

Alfonso,

The difference is that in the hospital there are 5 times the personnel

available to work the patient, and care is not interrupted to perform the blood

draw.

Let me propose this to you: In a small hospital with one physician, two

LVNs and one RN in the ER, a patient comes in with severe injuries. All

personnel are working with that patient. Shortly thereafter, EMS arrives with

another patient with minor injuries, who was the driver of the car that hit the

first patient.

In comes the Trooper and demands that blood be drawn immediately from the

driver.

The physician cuts loose one LVN to take care of the driver, and s/he does

immediate triage and determines that he can wait. This caregiver then returns

to help with the other patient who is critical.

That Trooper can order, demand, have a hissie fit with a bob wahr tail and

shit right on the spot, but nobody is going to bust loose to draw his blood for

him until things are under control.

That's the difference. When blood is drawn in the hospital, it's done in a

controlled environment and the person drawing is not trying to carry out

emergency care at the same time.

Plus, hospitals are typically better able to absorb costs than are most EMS

services. So when the RN who drew the blood is called to court, the hospital

has other people it can shift into the ED, but many times EMS is so short on

personnel that having an employee out for court duty can cause chaos. (This,

of course, depends entirely upon the situation, so I don't want to put too

much emphasis on this aspect.)

So it's about resources as well as legal considerations.

Further, nobody has said much about the risk to the medic when drawing blood

from a belligerent and uncooperative prisoner (notice that I did not say

patient---the prisoners are in no way patients).

What will the consequences of such a bill be in terms of liability insurance

premiums? Will the insurance carriers even cover this activity? That

question ought to be answered by any service thinking about providing blood

draws

for LE. If you get sued, you're looking a MEGABUCKS to defend. You'll need

insurance, or your company will crash financially. Better talk to your

insuror before getting too excited about joining this bandwagon.

What's going to happen when your medic gets a needle stick and the prisoner

is HIV+ or HBV+? Who will pay for the drugs, labs, and care by an infectious

disease specialist? Will worker's comp cover it? Better ask. A person

who contracts HIV is looking at a lifetime of continuing therapy in which the

co-pay for drugs with good insurance coverage runs $2,500 a year or more.

Without insurance, the drugs can cost $20-30K per year, not including labs,

which

are very expensive, and physician visits, which are actually the least of all

the costs.

I cannot conceive of any EMS administrator in his right mind who would want

to take this on, but whadda I know? Maybe OJ is factually innocent! (He is

legally innocent, which is a different thing entirely.) Maybe the moon IS

made of green cheese.

If I am to become a law enforcement officer while performing as a Paramedic,

then I want to be sworn, carry my Glock Model 21 with me at all times, have an

AK-47 and a .270 rifle in my rig, a taser, personal body armor, some pepper

spray, an asp baton, handcuffs, and a badge and ID card to get me out of

speeding tickets. I also want a trillion dollar insurance policy that protects

me

not only from medical malpractice but from law enforcement malpractice.

And please increase my compensation three-fold to cover the stresses of all

this.

I don't mean to be flippant (well, of course I do) but before one joins the

crusade for medic blood draws for LE, please consider all the consequences. I

think they will give you pause.

Gene G.

>

> >

> > " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> > necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> > why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let them

> > do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> > idea. "

> >

>

> Here's another angle that has yet to be discussed. Q: Who does the

> actual blood draw for LE? A: A nurse at the hospital. Yet, I don't

> hear any ranting and raving for requiring them to do it for LE.

>

> I think the logic behind this bill is, why require a subject the

> additional expense of a hospital bill when a paramedic is equally

> capable is doing the same procedure.

>

> All this patient advocacy stuff is valid, but again, no one seems to

> have a problem with a nurse (RN or LVN) doing it.

>

> Alfonso R. Ochoa

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It specifically

points out that the blood draw request has to be the result of an accident where

EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to specify if it is possible

to do and will not interfer with patient care, and all agencies and personnel

are protected from any and all liability as a result of the needle stick.

The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the most

important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries) it would

be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the helicopter fly the

critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood drawn quickly instead of

waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the patient to the ED, and the

procedure done there. That is why this law would be in the section of the

traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in serious injury or death

resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the section where the breath test is

waived or the suspect requests a blood draw...it doesn't apply there.

Dudley

PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough to

not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended by such

needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to stop this

needless death.

Re: Re: HB 805 (and SB 14)

Alfonso,

The difference is that in the hospital there are 5 times the personnel

available to work the patient, and care is not interrupted to perform the blood

draw.

Let me propose this to you: In a small hospital with one physician, two

LVNs and one RN in the ER, a patient comes in with severe injuries. All

personnel are working with that patient. Shortly thereafter, EMS arrives with

another patient with minor injuries, who was the driver of the car that hit the

first patient.

In comes the Trooper and demands that blood be drawn immediately from the

driver.

The physician cuts loose one LVN to take care of the driver, and s/he does

immediate triage and determines that he can wait. This caregiver then returns

to help with the other patient who is critical.

That Trooper can order, demand, have a hissie fit with a bob wahr tail and

shit right on the spot, but nobody is going to bust loose to draw his blood for

him until things are under control.

That's the difference. When blood is drawn in the hospital, it's done in a

controlled environment and the person drawing is not trying to carry out

emergency care at the same time.

Plus, hospitals are typically better able to absorb costs than are most EMS

services. So when the RN who drew the blood is called to court, the hospital

has other people it can shift into the ED, but many times EMS is so short on

personnel that having an employee out for court duty can cause chaos. (This,

of course, depends entirely upon the situation, so I don't want to put too

much emphasis on this aspect.)

So it's about resources as well as legal considerations.

Further, nobody has said much about the risk to the medic when drawing blood

from a belligerent and uncooperative prisoner (notice that I did not say

patient---the prisoners are in no way patients).

What will the consequences of such a bill be in terms of liability insurance

premiums? Will the insurance carriers even cover this activity? That

question ought to be answered by any service thinking about providing blood

draws

for LE. If you get sued, you're looking a MEGABUCKS to defend. You'll need

insurance, or your company will crash financially. Better talk to your

insuror before getting too excited about joining this bandwagon.

What's going to happen when your medic gets a needle stick and the prisoner

is HIV+ or HBV+? Who will pay for the drugs, labs, and care by an infectious

disease specialist? Will worker's comp cover it? Better ask. A person

who contracts HIV is looking at a lifetime of continuing therapy in which the

co-pay for drugs with good insurance coverage runs $2,500 a year or more.

Without insurance, the drugs can cost $20-30K per year, not including labs,

which

are very expensive, and physician visits, which are actually the least of all

the costs.

I cannot conceive of any EMS administrator in his right mind who would want

to take this on, but whadda I know? Maybe OJ is factually innocent! (He is

legally innocent, which is a different thing entirely.) Maybe the moon IS

made of green cheese.

If I am to become a law enforcement officer while performing as a Paramedic,

then I want to be sworn, carry my Glock Model 21 with me at all times, have an

AK-47 and a .270 rifle in my rig, a taser, personal body armor, some pepper

spray, an asp baton, handcuffs, and a badge and ID card to get me out of

speeding tickets. I also want a trillion dollar insurance policy that protects

me

not only from medical malpractice but from law enforcement malpractice.

And please increase my compensation three-fold to cover the stresses of all

this.

I don't mean to be flippant (well, of course I do) but before one joins the

crusade for medic blood draws for LE, please consider all the consequences. I

think they will give you pause.

Gene G.

>

> >

> > " Evidence gathering is a law enforcement function. If it is so

> > necessary to draw blood samples on scene that it must be mandated,

> > why then don't we train LEO's in the rather simple skill and let them

> > do it themselves? This would address all concerns. SB 14 is a bad

> > idea. "

> >

>

> Here's another angle that has yet to be discussed. Q: Who does the

> actual blood draw for LE? A: A nurse at the hospital. Yet, I don't

> hear any ranting and raving for requiring them to do it for LE.

>

> I think the logic behind this bill is, why require a subject the

> additional expense of a hospital bill when a paramedic is equally

> capable is doing the same procedure.

>

> All this patient advocacy stuff is valid, but again, no one seems to

> have a problem with a nurse (RN or LVN) doing it.

>

> Alfonso R. Ochoa

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, thanks for your thoughts, and God please protect you. You are an icon

for what is real.

Thanks for your service.

Re: DWI defense. The reality is that most DWI defendants are guilty as hell

and will try to cop a plea to minimize the damage. So there are not a bunch

of DWI trials. However, as penalties increase, so does the willingness of

defendants to spend money on lawyers and challenge the charges.

Most DWIs would have rough sailing in a trial with a competent and aggressive

defense counsel. The reason that most of them do not go to trial is that

most defendants don't have the money or incentive to hire counsel.

If I were a defense counsel (which I'm not) I would try every case to a jury.

I would plead nobody, and I would force the prosecution to prove the case

to a jury. As a prosecutor my experience was that most juries don't really

want to convict DWI defendants because of the " There but for the Grace of God Go

I " factor. Unless you've got a jury of religious zealots or a defendant who

looks so bad that anybody looking at him would want to convict, the defense

has the upper hand. Give them something like a blood draw question and

they''ll run with it and attempt to creat a reasonable doubt in at least one

juror's

mind. That's not that hard to do.

As penalties increase, the number of trials will also increase. When it

becomes the choice of paying a good attorney $5,000 to defend you and win, or

losing your license, spending jail time, being on probation, attending DWI

school, paying probation fees, and still paying your lawyer, why not take the

chance? The outspoken people support MADD, but the good ole boys who work

every

day with their hands and bodies and come home and drink a six pack or two every

night, sometimes go out to a honky tonk and drive home, do not. When they

turn up on the jury, the prosecution is screwed, because they're not going to

convict for things that they have done themselves.

The ideal DWI jury for the prosecution is all deacons from the First Baptist

Church (those who don't have DWI convictions). The ideal defense jury is

some construction workers, cowboys, welders, roughnecks, and house painters.

The outcome of a trial depends totally on the makeup of the jury.

Facts play a lessor role than impressions. Read the book, " Blink, " and

you'll see what I mean. Juries make up their minds within the first few

minutes

of most trials. If the defendant is at all sympathetic, meaning like them,

they'll look for any reason to acquit. Give them some good fodder like

questionable lab tests, and they'll run with it.

Some of you won't like to hear this, and you will dispute it. So be it.

Sometimes you'll be right, but most of the time you'll be wrong. Most people

are not Pat on or Jerry Falwell in their thinking. Most are just

good ole people trying to hang in there and have a little fun now and then.

Most have had unpleasant experiences with cops, and particularly with DPS cops.

They will tell you that they love Bush and are Conservative as hell.

But they lie. They don't want to convict DWIs. They know that Little

Georgie himself used to drive drunk all the time, and now he's President.

Defense

lawyers smell them a mile away and will do anything to get one on the jury.

One is all it takes.

Don't take this as being partisan, because it's not. The same thing could

be said for C. The snobs roasted him, but the good ole boys said, " Hey,

if I had in my office I would have done the same thing. " Hypocrasy

runs deep in our society. Just look at Gingrich, Bill , and others who

have fallen. They jumped right up and started their crap over again, but

the real people ain't buyin it.

The REAL American people, meaning those who work every day with their hands

and bodies, live from paycheck to paycheck, and don't watch CNN or FOX, have a

real disdain for politicians of all colors.

They also don't like cops or prosecutors. So give them a reason to acquit,

and they will. Put an EMT or Paramedic on the stand who makes one little

bobble in testimony about a DWI blood draw, and that's the thing they need.

I say don't do it. Some say do it because we need to limit the number of

drunk drivers on the highways. Agreed. But spend a little money putting BA

analyzers on every car hooked to the ignition switch, and for a fraction of the

cost of a trial, you'll stop most people from driving drunk. Technology is

the way, not involvement of EMS caregivers in the enforcement program.

GG

> And just to throw my thoughts in.

> I also see both sides of this and that it is in a gray area. But I, too,

> have seen many lives ended by drunk drivers and seen even more drunk drivers

> not getting the punishment that they deserve because of stupid legal

> technicalities, etc. If the blood could be drawn on scene, prior to the

> accused patient leaving for the ED, it would make the job of prosecuting

> that much easier and very minimal extra time needed to do so on the scene.

> Now I am a realist. I know that defense attorneys will try every way they

> can to discount the blood draw, where it was done, how it was done, the

> scene was dirty, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. But they pick apart every part

> of the case anyway. We (the police) know it, the prosecuters know it, the

> defense knows it. That is how the game is played. Just another day in the

> criminal justice system. If it will help the prosecution to prove the case

> in just a few cases, it will be worth it. If folks are scared to testify in

> court and companies not willing to pay them overtime while they do so, well,

> I don't know what to say about that. I have had to testify once in court as

> a Paramedic, before being a cop. It was brutal, but I survived. And it is a

> given that I have been to court a number of times now that I am a police

> officer. But to tell you the truth, I have never been to court on a DWI

> case. The system is so overburdened that there are usually handled in plea

> agreements, right or wrong, good or bad. So the worry that a whole slew of

> EMTs and Paramedics will be going trudging off to the courthouses in droves,

> is not based in reality.

> I think it could be a good thing, not without it's own set of problems, but

> a good thing as the bill has been narrowed down and amended.

> Now all that aside. I am still here in the lovely deserts of Kuwait where

> the temperatures are ever rising, up to 109 yesterday with 12% humidity. No

> lack of patients to be taken care of here, good job security. I am looking

> forward to some leave in 5 weeks when I will be heading back to Texas to

> grab the wife and kids and us all head to Hawaii for two weeks of R & R. Then

> it is back over here for who knows how long.

> Y'all take care and stay safe back at home.

> Moseley, LP

> HM2, USNR

> Camp Patriot, Kuwait

>

>

> >

> > Gene,

> >

> > I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It

> > specifically points out that the blood draw request has to be the result

> of

> > an accident where EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to

> > specify if it is possible to do and will not interfer with patient care,

> and

> > all agencies and personnel are protected from any and all liability as a

> > result of the needle stick.

> >

> > The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the

> > most important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries)

> > it would be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the

> > helicopter fly the critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood

> drawn

> > quickly instead of waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the

> > patient to the ED, and the procedure done there. That is why this law

> would

> > be in the section of the traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in

> > serious injury or death resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the

> > section where the breath test is waived or the suspect requests a blood

> > draw...it doesn't apply there.

> >

> > Dudley

> >

> > PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough

> > to not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended

> by

> > such needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to

> stop

> > this needless death.

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, thanks for your thoughts, and God please protect you. You are an icon

for what is real.

Thanks for your service.

Re: DWI defense. The reality is that most DWI defendants are guilty as hell

and will try to cop a plea to minimize the damage. So there are not a bunch

of DWI trials. However, as penalties increase, so does the willingness of

defendants to spend money on lawyers and challenge the charges.

Most DWIs would have rough sailing in a trial with a competent and aggressive

defense counsel. The reason that most of them do not go to trial is that

most defendants don't have the money or incentive to hire counsel.

If I were a defense counsel (which I'm not) I would try every case to a jury.

I would plead nobody, and I would force the prosecution to prove the case

to a jury. As a prosecutor my experience was that most juries don't really

want to convict DWI defendants because of the " There but for the Grace of God Go

I " factor. Unless you've got a jury of religious zealots or a defendant who

looks so bad that anybody looking at him would want to convict, the defense

has the upper hand. Give them something like a blood draw question and

they''ll run with it and attempt to creat a reasonable doubt in at least one

juror's

mind. That's not that hard to do.

As penalties increase, the number of trials will also increase. When it

becomes the choice of paying a good attorney $5,000 to defend you and win, or

losing your license, spending jail time, being on probation, attending DWI

school, paying probation fees, and still paying your lawyer, why not take the

chance? The outspoken people support MADD, but the good ole boys who work

every

day with their hands and bodies and come home and drink a six pack or two every

night, sometimes go out to a honky tonk and drive home, do not. When they

turn up on the jury, the prosecution is screwed, because they're not going to

convict for things that they have done themselves.

The ideal DWI jury for the prosecution is all deacons from the First Baptist

Church (those who don't have DWI convictions). The ideal defense jury is

some construction workers, cowboys, welders, roughnecks, and house painters.

The outcome of a trial depends totally on the makeup of the jury.

Facts play a lessor role than impressions. Read the book, " Blink, " and

you'll see what I mean. Juries make up their minds within the first few

minutes

of most trials. If the defendant is at all sympathetic, meaning like them,

they'll look for any reason to acquit. Give them some good fodder like

questionable lab tests, and they'll run with it.

Some of you won't like to hear this, and you will dispute it. So be it.

Sometimes you'll be right, but most of the time you'll be wrong. Most people

are not Pat on or Jerry Falwell in their thinking. Most are just

good ole people trying to hang in there and have a little fun now and then.

Most have had unpleasant experiences with cops, and particularly with DPS cops.

They will tell you that they love Bush and are Conservative as hell.

But they lie. They don't want to convict DWIs. They know that Little

Georgie himself used to drive drunk all the time, and now he's President.

Defense

lawyers smell them a mile away and will do anything to get one on the jury.

One is all it takes.

Don't take this as being partisan, because it's not. The same thing could

be said for C. The snobs roasted him, but the good ole boys said, " Hey,

if I had in my office I would have done the same thing. " Hypocrasy

runs deep in our society. Just look at Gingrich, Bill , and others who

have fallen. They jumped right up and started their crap over again, but

the real people ain't buyin it.

The REAL American people, meaning those who work every day with their hands

and bodies, live from paycheck to paycheck, and don't watch CNN or FOX, have a

real disdain for politicians of all colors.

They also don't like cops or prosecutors. So give them a reason to acquit,

and they will. Put an EMT or Paramedic on the stand who makes one little

bobble in testimony about a DWI blood draw, and that's the thing they need.

I say don't do it. Some say do it because we need to limit the number of

drunk drivers on the highways. Agreed. But spend a little money putting BA

analyzers on every car hooked to the ignition switch, and for a fraction of the

cost of a trial, you'll stop most people from driving drunk. Technology is

the way, not involvement of EMS caregivers in the enforcement program.

GG

> And just to throw my thoughts in.

> I also see both sides of this and that it is in a gray area. But I, too,

> have seen many lives ended by drunk drivers and seen even more drunk drivers

> not getting the punishment that they deserve because of stupid legal

> technicalities, etc. If the blood could be drawn on scene, prior to the

> accused patient leaving for the ED, it would make the job of prosecuting

> that much easier and very minimal extra time needed to do so on the scene.

> Now I am a realist. I know that defense attorneys will try every way they

> can to discount the blood draw, where it was done, how it was done, the

> scene was dirty, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. But they pick apart every part

> of the case anyway. We (the police) know it, the prosecuters know it, the

> defense knows it. That is how the game is played. Just another day in the

> criminal justice system. If it will help the prosecution to prove the case

> in just a few cases, it will be worth it. If folks are scared to testify in

> court and companies not willing to pay them overtime while they do so, well,

> I don't know what to say about that. I have had to testify once in court as

> a Paramedic, before being a cop. It was brutal, but I survived. And it is a

> given that I have been to court a number of times now that I am a police

> officer. But to tell you the truth, I have never been to court on a DWI

> case. The system is so overburdened that there are usually handled in plea

> agreements, right or wrong, good or bad. So the worry that a whole slew of

> EMTs and Paramedics will be going trudging off to the courthouses in droves,

> is not based in reality.

> I think it could be a good thing, not without it's own set of problems, but

> a good thing as the bill has been narrowed down and amended.

> Now all that aside. I am still here in the lovely deserts of Kuwait where

> the temperatures are ever rising, up to 109 yesterday with 12% humidity. No

> lack of patients to be taken care of here, good job security. I am looking

> forward to some leave in 5 weeks when I will be heading back to Texas to

> grab the wife and kids and us all head to Hawaii for two weeks of R & R. Then

> it is back over here for who knows how long.

> Y'all take care and stay safe back at home.

> Moseley, LP

> HM2, USNR

> Camp Patriot, Kuwait

>

>

> >

> > Gene,

> >

> > I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It

> > specifically points out that the blood draw request has to be the result

> of

> > an accident where EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to

> > specify if it is possible to do and will not interfer with patient care,

> and

> > all agencies and personnel are protected from any and all liability as a

> > result of the needle stick.

> >

> > The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the

> > most important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries)

> > it would be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the

> > helicopter fly the critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood

> drawn

> > quickly instead of waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the

> > patient to the ED, and the procedure done there. That is why this law

> would

> > be in the section of the traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in

> > serious injury or death resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the

> > section where the breath test is waived or the suspect requests a blood

> > draw...it doesn't apply there.

> >

> > Dudley

> >

> > PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough

> > to not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended

> by

> > such needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to

> stop

> > this needless death.

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, thanks for your thoughts, and God please protect you. You are an icon

for what is real.

Thanks for your service.

Re: DWI defense. The reality is that most DWI defendants are guilty as hell

and will try to cop a plea to minimize the damage. So there are not a bunch

of DWI trials. However, as penalties increase, so does the willingness of

defendants to spend money on lawyers and challenge the charges.

Most DWIs would have rough sailing in a trial with a competent and aggressive

defense counsel. The reason that most of them do not go to trial is that

most defendants don't have the money or incentive to hire counsel.

If I were a defense counsel (which I'm not) I would try every case to a jury.

I would plead nobody, and I would force the prosecution to prove the case

to a jury. As a prosecutor my experience was that most juries don't really

want to convict DWI defendants because of the " There but for the Grace of God Go

I " factor. Unless you've got a jury of religious zealots or a defendant who

looks so bad that anybody looking at him would want to convict, the defense

has the upper hand. Give them something like a blood draw question and

they''ll run with it and attempt to creat a reasonable doubt in at least one

juror's

mind. That's not that hard to do.

As penalties increase, the number of trials will also increase. When it

becomes the choice of paying a good attorney $5,000 to defend you and win, or

losing your license, spending jail time, being on probation, attending DWI

school, paying probation fees, and still paying your lawyer, why not take the

chance? The outspoken people support MADD, but the good ole boys who work

every

day with their hands and bodies and come home and drink a six pack or two every

night, sometimes go out to a honky tonk and drive home, do not. When they

turn up on the jury, the prosecution is screwed, because they're not going to

convict for things that they have done themselves.

The ideal DWI jury for the prosecution is all deacons from the First Baptist

Church (those who don't have DWI convictions). The ideal defense jury is

some construction workers, cowboys, welders, roughnecks, and house painters.

The outcome of a trial depends totally on the makeup of the jury.

Facts play a lessor role than impressions. Read the book, " Blink, " and

you'll see what I mean. Juries make up their minds within the first few

minutes

of most trials. If the defendant is at all sympathetic, meaning like them,

they'll look for any reason to acquit. Give them some good fodder like

questionable lab tests, and they'll run with it.

Some of you won't like to hear this, and you will dispute it. So be it.

Sometimes you'll be right, but most of the time you'll be wrong. Most people

are not Pat on or Jerry Falwell in their thinking. Most are just

good ole people trying to hang in there and have a little fun now and then.

Most have had unpleasant experiences with cops, and particularly with DPS cops.

They will tell you that they love Bush and are Conservative as hell.

But they lie. They don't want to convict DWIs. They know that Little

Georgie himself used to drive drunk all the time, and now he's President.

Defense

lawyers smell them a mile away and will do anything to get one on the jury.

One is all it takes.

Don't take this as being partisan, because it's not. The same thing could

be said for C. The snobs roasted him, but the good ole boys said, " Hey,

if I had in my office I would have done the same thing. " Hypocrasy

runs deep in our society. Just look at Gingrich, Bill , and others who

have fallen. They jumped right up and started their crap over again, but

the real people ain't buyin it.

The REAL American people, meaning those who work every day with their hands

and bodies, live from paycheck to paycheck, and don't watch CNN or FOX, have a

real disdain for politicians of all colors.

They also don't like cops or prosecutors. So give them a reason to acquit,

and they will. Put an EMT or Paramedic on the stand who makes one little

bobble in testimony about a DWI blood draw, and that's the thing they need.

I say don't do it. Some say do it because we need to limit the number of

drunk drivers on the highways. Agreed. But spend a little money putting BA

analyzers on every car hooked to the ignition switch, and for a fraction of the

cost of a trial, you'll stop most people from driving drunk. Technology is

the way, not involvement of EMS caregivers in the enforcement program.

GG

> And just to throw my thoughts in.

> I also see both sides of this and that it is in a gray area. But I, too,

> have seen many lives ended by drunk drivers and seen even more drunk drivers

> not getting the punishment that they deserve because of stupid legal

> technicalities, etc. If the blood could be drawn on scene, prior to the

> accused patient leaving for the ED, it would make the job of prosecuting

> that much easier and very minimal extra time needed to do so on the scene.

> Now I am a realist. I know that defense attorneys will try every way they

> can to discount the blood draw, where it was done, how it was done, the

> scene was dirty, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. But they pick apart every part

> of the case anyway. We (the police) know it, the prosecuters know it, the

> defense knows it. That is how the game is played. Just another day in the

> criminal justice system. If it will help the prosecution to prove the case

> in just a few cases, it will be worth it. If folks are scared to testify in

> court and companies not willing to pay them overtime while they do so, well,

> I don't know what to say about that. I have had to testify once in court as

> a Paramedic, before being a cop. It was brutal, but I survived. And it is a

> given that I have been to court a number of times now that I am a police

> officer. But to tell you the truth, I have never been to court on a DWI

> case. The system is so overburdened that there are usually handled in plea

> agreements, right or wrong, good or bad. So the worry that a whole slew of

> EMTs and Paramedics will be going trudging off to the courthouses in droves,

> is not based in reality.

> I think it could be a good thing, not without it's own set of problems, but

> a good thing as the bill has been narrowed down and amended.

> Now all that aside. I am still here in the lovely deserts of Kuwait where

> the temperatures are ever rising, up to 109 yesterday with 12% humidity. No

> lack of patients to be taken care of here, good job security. I am looking

> forward to some leave in 5 weeks when I will be heading back to Texas to

> grab the wife and kids and us all head to Hawaii for two weeks of R & R. Then

> it is back over here for who knows how long.

> Y'all take care and stay safe back at home.

> Moseley, LP

> HM2, USNR

> Camp Patriot, Kuwait

>

>

> >

> > Gene,

> >

> > I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It

> > specifically points out that the blood draw request has to be the result

> of

> > an accident where EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to

> > specify if it is possible to do and will not interfer with patient care,

> and

> > all agencies and personnel are protected from any and all liability as a

> > result of the needle stick.

> >

> > The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the

> > most important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries)

> > it would be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the

> > helicopter fly the critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood

> drawn

> > quickly instead of waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the

> > patient to the ED, and the procedure done there. That is why this law

> would

> > be in the section of the traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in

> > serious injury or death resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the

> > section where the breath test is waived or the suspect requests a blood

> > draw...it doesn't apply there.

> >

> > Dudley

> >

> > PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough

> > to not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended

> by

> > such needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to

> stop

> > this needless death.

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

And just to throw my thoughts in.

I also see both sides of this and that it is in a gray area. But I, too,

have seen many lives ended by drunk drivers and seen even more drunk drivers

not getting the punishment that they deserve because of stupid legal

technicalities, etc. If the blood could be drawn on scene, prior to the

accused patient leaving for the ED, it would make the job of prosecuting

that much easier and very minimal extra time needed to do so on the scene.

Now I am a realist. I know that defense attorneys will try every way they

can to discount the blood draw, where it was done, how it was done, the

scene was dirty, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. But they pick apart every part

of the case anyway. We (the police) know it, the prosecuters know it, the

defense knows it. That is how the game is played. Just another day in the

criminal justice system. If it will help the prosecution to prove the case

in just a few cases, it will be worth it. If folks are scared to testify in

court and companies not willing to pay them overtime while they do so, well,

I don't know what to say about that. I have had to testify once in court as

a Paramedic, before being a cop. It was brutal, but I survived. And it is a

given that I have been to court a number of times now that I am a police

officer. But to tell you the truth, I have never been to court on a DWI

case. The system is so overburdened that there are usually handled in plea

agreements, right or wrong, good or bad. So the worry that a whole slew of

EMTs and Paramedics will be going trudging off to the courthouses in droves,

is not based in reality.

I think it could be a good thing, not without it's own set of problems, but

a good thing as the bill has been narrowed down and amended.

Now all that aside. I am still here in the lovely deserts of Kuwait where

the temperatures are ever rising, up to 109 yesterday with 12% humidity. No

lack of patients to be taken care of here, good job security. I am looking

forward to some leave in 5 weeks when I will be heading back to Texas to

grab the wife and kids and us all head to Hawaii for two weeks of R & R. Then

it is back over here for who knows how long.

Y'all take care and stay safe back at home.

Moseley, LP

HM2, USNR

Camp Patriot, Kuwait

>

> Gene,

>

> I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It

> specifically points out that the blood draw request has to be the result of

> an accident where EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to

> specify if it is possible to do and will not interfer with patient care, and

> all agencies and personnel are protected from any and all liability as a

> result of the needle stick.

>

> The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the

> most important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries)

> it would be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the

> helicopter fly the critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood drawn

> quickly instead of waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the

> patient to the ED, and the procedure done there. That is why this law would

> be in the section of the traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in

> serious injury or death resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the

> section where the breath test is waived or the suspect requests a blood

> draw...it doesn't apply there.

>

> Dudley

>

> PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough

> to not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended by

> such needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to stop

> this needless death.

>

>

[Guest guest]

And just to throw my thoughts in.

I also see both sides of this and that it is in a gray area. But I, too,

have seen many lives ended by drunk drivers and seen even more drunk drivers

not getting the punishment that they deserve because of stupid legal

technicalities, etc. If the blood could be drawn on scene, prior to the

accused patient leaving for the ED, it would make the job of prosecuting

that much easier and very minimal extra time needed to do so on the scene.

Now I am a realist. I know that defense attorneys will try every way they

can to discount the blood draw, where it was done, how it was done, the

scene was dirty, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. But they pick apart every part

of the case anyway. We (the police) know it, the prosecuters know it, the

defense knows it. That is how the game is played. Just another day in the

criminal justice system. If it will help the prosecution to prove the case

in just a few cases, it will be worth it. If folks are scared to testify in

court and companies not willing to pay them overtime while they do so, well,

I don't know what to say about that. I have had to testify once in court as

a Paramedic, before being a cop. It was brutal, but I survived. And it is a

given that I have been to court a number of times now that I am a police

officer. But to tell you the truth, I have never been to court on a DWI

case. The system is so overburdened that there are usually handled in plea

agreements, right or wrong, good or bad. So the worry that a whole slew of

EMTs and Paramedics will be going trudging off to the courthouses in droves,

is not based in reality.

I think it could be a good thing, not without it's own set of problems, but

a good thing as the bill has been narrowed down and amended.

Now all that aside. I am still here in the lovely deserts of Kuwait where

the temperatures are ever rising, up to 109 yesterday with 12% humidity. No

lack of patients to be taken care of here, good job security. I am looking

forward to some leave in 5 weeks when I will be heading back to Texas to

grab the wife and kids and us all head to Hawaii for two weeks of R & R. Then

it is back over here for who knows how long.

Y'all take care and stay safe back at home.

Moseley, LP

HM2, USNR

Camp Patriot, Kuwait

>

> Gene,

>

> I would ask that you read the ammended language of this law. It

> specifically points out that the blood draw request has to be the result of

> an accident where EMS is already on scene, it is up to the paramedic to

> specify if it is possible to do and will not interfer with patient care, and

> all agencies and personnel are protected from any and all liability as a

> result of the needle stick.

>

> The point of the legislation, from the guy who wrote it, is that on the

> most important cases (those involving death and life threatening injuries)

> it would be possible, if the medics are standing around watching the

> helicopter fly the critical trauma patient away, to possibly get blood drawn

> quickly instead of waiting 1 to 2 hours to get the scene cleaned up, the

> patient to the ED, and the procedure done there. That is why this law would

> be in the section of the traffic code that deals with DUI's resulting in

> serious injury or death resulting in a mandatory blood draw...not the

> section where the breath test is waived or the suspect requests a blood

> draw...it doesn't apply there.

>

> Dudley

>

> PS: I have no personal experience with DUI as I have been fortunate enough

> to not have that happen...although I have seen many many many lives ended by

> such needless stupidity and I, for one, would like to do what I can to stop

> this needless death.

>

>