Re: EMS blood draws

[Guest guest]

If you still have West, look in New York State for more legal information on

this. As I recall there were a number of police-based EMS services in that state

that were doing DWI draws as a matter of course during there interactions with

drunk drivers. I believe there were a number of legal issues that were raised.

In the ED, we have techs and nurses (if we can't find a tech) doing blood draws

for police pretty frequently. They don't become anyone's patient, they aren't

considered visits to the ED. I don't know of any blood draws that were

involuntary (stupid drunk people generally agree to anything.) I've never heard

of any issues arising from this practice, either moral or legal.

As far as the ethical, legal questions, the fourth amendment rules, right? Other

then a question of a breach of civil rights, I don't think it matters who does

what or is allowed to do what. I wouldn't suggest a paramedic draw bloods on a

patient expressly for the purpose of an EtOH level--that's a pretty clear

violation of rights and would raise some ethical problems. However, with a court

order or consent, I fail to see the problem--though in practice it would be

better if another party (paramedic, nurse, jailor, whatever) were to draw on my

patients.

Austin

> The State of Ohio has enacted legislation " enabling " EMS personnel to draw

blood in DWI cases for evidence.

>

>

> This poses some questions I would like to present.

>

>

> Does a person being presented against his will to a medic for a blood draw

become that medic's patient?

>

>

> Is there an ethical conflict for the medic if he performs an invasive

procedure that is neither intended nor inquired to be treatment for a medical

condition?

>

>

> If a medic performs a blood draw and there is a claim of injury (such as

infection) resulting therefrom, has the medic been guilty of medical

malpractice?

>

>

> There are other questions one might ask, but I would specifically like to hear

your thoughts about these. Also feel free to pose any additional questions that

come to your mind.

>

>

> Gene Gandy

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Saturday, September 4, 2010 10:54, " B. Austin "

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> said:

> I don't know of any blood draws that were involuntary

> (stupid drunk people generally agree to anything.) I've never heard of any

issues

> arising from this practice, either moral or legal.

Not to hijack too far from the original question, but this raises an issue that

has always concerned me. If a suspect gives consent for the test, then fails

the test, I don't see why that doesn't automatically render the test

inadmissible, since he was obviously incompetent to give informed consent. Just

like a woman can claim that she was " raped " because she was drunk when she

consented, it seems like the same situation here. No competent consent and no

warrant seems to equal no evidence, to me.

Rob

[Guest guest]

On Saturday, September 4, 2010 10:54, " B. Austin "

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> said:

> I don't know of any blood draws that were involuntary

> (stupid drunk people generally agree to anything.) I've never heard of any

issues

> arising from this practice, either moral or legal.

Not to hijack too far from the original question, but this raises an issue that

has always concerned me. If a suspect gives consent for the test, then fails

the test, I don't see why that doesn't automatically render the test

inadmissible, since he was obviously incompetent to give informed consent. Just

like a woman can claim that she was " raped " because she was drunk when she

consented, it seems like the same situation here. No competent consent and no

warrant seems to equal no evidence, to me.

Rob