Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Utah nurse screams 'help me' as she's cuffed by cop for refusing to draw blood on unconscious patient, video shows
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/0 ... cious-patient-video-shows.html
Published: Sep 2, 2017
Author: Fox News
Post Date: 2017-09-02 00:34:39 by Pinguinite
Keywords: None
Views: 11244
Comments: 75
Nurse arrested for refusing to draw unconscious man's blood
A Utah nurse screamed “help me” after a cop handcuffed her for refusing to draw blood on an unconscious patient July 26, police body camera footage showed.
The video showed University of Utah Hospital nurse Alex Wubbels, an Alpine skier who participated in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic games, calmly explaining to Salt Lake Detective Jeff Payne that she could not draw blood from a patient who had been injured in a car accident, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
Wubbels told Payne the patient was required to give consent for a blood sample or be under arrest. Otherwise, she said police needed a warrant. Payne threatened to imprison Wubbels if he was not given the blood sample, according to the video.
“I either go away with blood in vials or body in tow,” Payne is shown saying.
Wubbels, who was on the phone with her supervisor, explained the situation to the supervisor, who agreed with the nurse and reportedly told the cop, “sir, you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse.”
Disturbing video shows Utah nurse dragged away by cop for refusing to draw unconscious patient’s blood https://t.co/y6ZjfDHeyp pic.twitter.com/k3SrUsSjqh — Raw Story (@RawStory) September 1, 2017
Upon hearing that, Payne announced Wubbels was under arrest and physically moved her outside the hospital while she screamed.
Wubbels yelled, “Help! Stop! I did nothing wrong!” while being handcuffed.
Payne was attempting to get a blood sample from a patient who was burned after being involved in a head-on crash with a pick-up truck driver that was fleeing police, the Washington Post reported. The driver died in the incident.
Wubbels was not charged and police have started an internal investigation. Payne initially remained on duty although he was suspended from blood-draw duties. Later on Friday Utah police announced that he had been put on paid administrative leave.
Police Chief Mike Brown said in a statement that his department will comply with the investigation into Payne. Salt Lake County's Unified Police Department will run the criminal probe into Payne's actions. Brown and the mayor of Salt Lake City have apologized for the incident and changed their policies to mirror hospital protocols.
Christina Judd, a spokesperson for the Salt Lake City Police, said the department was alarmed by what they witnessed in the video.
Judd said the department was working to investigate what went wrong and is seeking to repair the “unfortunate rift” it has caused.
Wubbels said she had been told of other hospital employees being harassed by officers and this footage proved their claim. She has not pressed charges yet but would consider it if police did not change their ways.
“I can’t sit on this video and not attempt to speak out both to re-educate and inform,” Wubbels told The Salt Lake Tribune. Police departments “need to be having conversations about what is appropriate intervention.”
The hospital supported Wubbels actions and said it would consider pressing charges.
"University of Utah Health supports Nurse Wubbles and her decision to focus first and foremost on the care and well-being of her patient,” said Suzanne Winchester, the hospital's media relations manager. “She followed procedures and protocols in this matter and was acting in her patient’s best interest. We have worked with our law enforcement partners on this issue to ensure an appropriate process for moving forward.”
Poster Comment:
I was unclear if the cop was expecting the nurse or staff to make the blood draw and they were refusing, or if the cop wanted to draw it himself and the staff was preventing him from doing so.
This article clearly states the cop was expecting the staff to do it, in which case the nurse was arrested for refusing to do something the cop wanted.
It seems the nurse, so far, is being nice in not suing the cop & department. That's characteristic of a true public servant.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
He's on admin leave for bullshit, politically correct reasons because his linquini-spined supervisors decided to kiss the hospital's ass rather than educate the hospital staff on state law.
If so, it may be because of the absolute enormity of backlash they are receiving as this video has gone viral with near universal condemnation from the general public.
Imagine that.... a police department actually caving to the will of the people instead of, if you are right, the law. Such a travesty.
Remember what I said about people being much more motivated by emotions rather than cold logic? Well, that video is an absolute killer. And of course it doesn't help the cop at all that the nurse was shown being very logical.
#37. To: misterwhite (#32)
They can question it, complain about it, challenge it -- at the appropriate time to the appropriate people.
Sure they can. After the fact, of course. In this case, after a lot of people end up dead from blood loss. That's the appropriate time to question things "properly".
#38. To: misterwhite (#34)
I assume so. The article doesn't say. Is that important?
As far as the question of who was to do the blood draw, it sure is.
If he didn't do the draw himself, then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself.
So yes, very important.
#39. To: Pinguinite (#36)
that the nurse was shown being very logical.
So that's the key? Logic?
So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?
You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.
#41. To: Pinguinite (#38)
then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself.
Suppose after the first nurse was taken away in handcuffs a second nurse came forward and volunteered to do the blood draw.
So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?
#42. To: Pinguinite (#40)
You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.
So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public.
That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday.
#43. To: Hank Rearden (#15)
She needs to take this psycho asshole's house, car, pension, TV - everything.
Oh noes. Not de big screen tee-bee!
#44. To: misterwhite (#41)
So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?
In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.
If the nurse was obstructing as you claim, then after doing the arrest, he would be free to then conduct the blood draw himself.
But if he did not obtain any blood draw that day, then it implies that the nurse was ordered by the cop to do the draw but did not do so, and that would likely mean the nurse was not arrested for obstructing the cop from doing it himself, but merely not doing something he ordered, and that makes a big legal difference in the justification, or lack thereof, for the arrest.
#45. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite, nolu chan (#24)
The SLTrib article does not explicitly say who was to draw the blood.
It does not matter at all who was going to draw the blood. As a matter of policy, the hospital would not allow non-staffers to draw blood.
As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state.
If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.
#46. To: misterwhite (#42)
So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public.That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday.
As I predicted, your defense of the cop in this case has proven extremely entertaining. Thanks for playing.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#45)
As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state.
A very reasonable and believable position. If true, and the cop did want to do it himself but was prevented by the staff, then it would be the cop in violation of law, not withstanding any laws related to implied consent by drivers.
If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.
True, but a moot point as to the question of the reason for his arresting her.
I think it most likely that the cop was demanding the staff do the draw and give him the samples, and was not asking for access to do it himself. I mean, heck, it's a hospital. When you are in a hospital and want something like a blood draw done, one would typically ask a nurse to do it. Prior to the dispute arising, it would be most reasonable for the cop wanting a blood sample to ask the hospital staff to provide one and that he had every expectation of it being provided to him. Even if he was trained, it's not his primary field so that is what a reasonable person would do. Plus there is the matter of sterility. A cop walking into an ER has all his gear all over him, and was presumably at the scene of the accident, so it would not be prudent for staff to allow that under normal circumstances anyway.
It is most likely then that the cop wanted the staff to draw the blood and did not attempt to do it himself, at least prior to the arrest.
#48. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite, nolu chan (#44)
In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.
I think the bigger question is why the cop was demanding a blood draw from a victim who was grievously injured as a result of a high-speed police chase.
I think he was hoping to find something in the guy's blood, like a low alcohol level or some prescription or illicit drug that might be claimed to have impaired his driving ability.
I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him.
The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here.
We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#48)
I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him.
Deckard and I both speculated on this exact point previously. It's not out of the question the cop could have intended to taint the blood samples on his way to the lab, if he was outright crooked. Normally such speculation would be groundless, but given the arrest response was so extreme, such mal intent would set the stage for the harsh response.
The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here.
I think I read once the rule is to not engage in pursuit if the danger the pursuit poses to the public exceeded the danger to the public of not immediately capturing the suspect.
We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.
Such questions are moot and pointless in conducting the investigation.
According to misterwhite.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#49)
According to misterwhite.
He's the biggest a-hole on the Internet.
#51. To: misterwhite (#6)
She was wrong. The cop was right.
Nope, on hospital property, with the patient in hospital custody. The cop has no right to do any blood drawing there without a warrant.
Nor does the cop have the power to command a civilian to do something unconstitutional.
The cop and the police department will lose this.
You are not in charge, and nobody will ever put you in charge, because the way you think is German, not American.
#52. To: misterwhite (#42)
the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public
I am very sorry to disappoint you but police are not lawmakers, if they want to be, they should run for state legislature or Congress.
Either way, do you realize that you are doing a horrible PR for your buddies? If they knew you would be in a big doo doo.
#53. To: Pinguinite (#44)
In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.
He could have asked her to do it. She said no. Then he said he'll do it. Then she obstructed.
"If the nurse was obstructing as you claim, then after doing the arrest, he would be free to then conduct the blood draw himself."
He was always free to do the blood draw himself. My guess is he did. Or another nurse volunteered.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
You are not in charge, and nobody will ever put you in charge, because the way you think is German, not American.
I think you just insulted the Germans.
#55. To: misterwhite (#53)
I have a right to draw your blood with a rusty nail a straw and an empty pickle jar,
#56. To: misterwhite (#53)
He could have asked her to do it. She said no. Then he said he'll do it. Then she obstructed.
Thanks for the on-the-scene, play by play call, though your summary doesn't match the video very well.
He was always free to do the blood draw himself. My guess is he did. Or another nurse volunteered.
From other reading, it appears that after the arrest that it was discovered that the staff had already done a blood draw in the course of treatment, and that blood may or may not have sufficed for what they wanted.
So it seems things get a bit convoluted. Since prosecutors are now investigating the cops actions for criminality, I'm guessing they should be looking at that, including the reason the cops wanted the blood in the first place. (Which is a question independent of whether they had a legal authority to demand it).
Though to be candid, prosecutors might only be investigating to help pacify the public outrage. I won't hold my breath for any finding of wrong doing, much less criminal action. But we'll see.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#45) (Edited)
he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.
Detective Jeff Payne is a police phlebotomist.
I suppose they could have called him to the accident scene to do the blood draw but my guess is that they wanted to get the victim to the hospital as quickly as possible, figuring they could could do the blood draw there.
"As a matter of policy, the hospital would not allow non-staffers to draw blood."
The hospital had a policy not to do blood draws unless certain conditions were met. Where did you read that police phlebotomists were not allowed to do so?
"the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person"
Under the State of Utah law, drivers give up their right to refuse blood draws the moment they're issued a license. You may disagree with the law, but it is what it is until the citizens of Utah change it.
#58. To: Tooconservative (#48)
I think the bigger question is why the cop was demanding a blood draw from a victim who was grievously injured as a result of a high-speed police chase.
Apparently it's departmental policy. A good one, I think.
In this case, the surviving driver could sue the dead man's estate by claiming the other driver was weaving and acting erratically -- as though he had been drinking or on drugs -- and that behavior caused him to lose control and crash into him.
Without a blood test, we only have his word.
#59. To: Fred Mertz (#50)
He's the biggest a-hole on the Internet.
Nuh-uh. You are.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
I think you just insulted the Germans.
Vas ist los?
#61. To: A K A Stone (#55)
I have a right to draw your blood with a rusty nail a straw and an empty pickle jar,
As always, a true contributor to the discussion.
#62. To: Pinguinite (#56)
Thanks for the on-the-scene, play by play call, though your summary doesn't match the video very well.
You're the one citing hypotheticals. So I thought I'd add mine. By the way, the video, as always, leaves out the footage of how everything got to that point.
"including the reason the cops wanted the blood in the first place."
You're like a dog with a bone on that issue. You've lost the argument as to whether or not the police could do the blood draw, so now you're trying to salvage something by hoping to dispute their reason for doing so.
Sad.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
The cop has no right to do any blood drawing there without a warrant.
Not in the State of Utah. No warrant required. This is what -- the 10th time I've cited that? I even gave you a link to the actual law. What's wrong with you?
#64. To: misterwhite, Vampire PD (#62)
the video, as always, leaves out the footage of how everything got to that point.
The officer arrived at the hospital with a lust for blood.... then the video.
#65. To: hondo68 (#64)
The officer arrived at the hospital with a lust for blood
He wanted blood, but I don't think he was lusting for it.
#66. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Vicomte13, hondo68 (#57)
Detective Jeff Payne is a police phlebotomist.
Then he should have done his job. Not go postal at some nurse who was only obeying written hospital policy. It was her job to refuse him, nothing but.
The hospital had a policy not to do blood draws unless certain conditions were met. Where did you read that police phlebotomists were not allowed to do so?
Once that hospital receives an unconscious person, they assume many legal obligations for medical privacy and to prevent unauthorized medical procedures by anyone. That would include the patient's own doctor if they were not credentialed at that hospital or in that state. There are also HIPPA laws to protect patient privacy and all kinds of ethical guidelines to follow. Undoubtedly, there is statutory law in the state that comes to bear as well as a history of medical privacy cases in the state courts.
No, if he wanted the blood, he had to get it before the patient was transferred from police/EMT custody to the custody of the hospital. Only if the patient was admitted under arrest would the cop have any excuse. Even then, the hospital simple would not allow any non-staffer to do anything that might cause harm or raise privacy issues for them. They would get sued for failing to protect the privacy of the patient while unconscious if they allowed that to happen and their policy does reflect that.
You're just wrong.
Is allowing free-range police vampires to suck the blood out of unconscious victims of reckless high-speed police chases that important to you?
#67. To: Tooconservative (#66)
Then he should have done his job.
She refused to allow him to do his job. Which is why she was arrested for obstruction.
"No, if he wanted the blood, he had to get it before the patient was transferred from police/EMT custody to the custody of the hospital."
Then why did he, a trained police phlebotomist, even go to the hospital? Certainly he knew he would be denied because "once that hospital receives an unconscious person, they assume many legal obligations for medical privacy and to prevent unauthorized medical procedures by anyone. That would include the patient's own doctor if they were not credentialed at that hospital or in that state. There are also HIPPA laws to protect patient privacy and all kinds of ethical guidelines to follow. Undoubtedly, there is statutory law in the state that comes to bear as well as a history of medical privacy cases in the state courts."
Right?
#68. To: misterwhite (#63)
Not in the State of Utah. No warrant required. This is what -- the 10th time I've cited that? I even gave you a link to the actual law. What's wrong with you?
The Constitution supersedes what you have said, and the police know it too, which is why they are bending over backwards here, and why the cop will be disciplined.
You're used to the law twisting all around to support the cops. But medicine is higher up the totem pole of power than the police. Doctors are upper class. Cops are working class. Cops get to tell the average schlub on the street what to do, but start manhandling the intelligentsia, and the superior power of the political system crushed cops down and teaches them their place.
That is what is happening here. Cops bow to doctors, as is right and just.
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
Cops bow to doctors, as is right and just.
So, once again you're saying that the law doesn't apply to certain people.
#70. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#68) (Edited)
That is what is happening here. Cops bow to doctors, as is right and just.
That's how it seems to work.
OTOH, an EMT can get shoved around by a cop. And there is some recurring rivalry between firemen and cops, like at an accident scene where the fire department is present and may be trying to use a Jaws of Life or put out a fire. There was a case like that a few years back in CA where the CHiPs assaulted some firemen on a freeway at an accident scene. There were a number of firetrucks at the scene, blocking oncoming lanes of traffic. The cops wanted to re-open lanes and ordered the firemen out but one fireman was a EMT or paramedic and refused to leave his patient and the cops got uppity. The leadership of CHiPs and the fire chief had a lot of backpedaling to do to make peace over it.
But the cops never screw with hospitals. At least I've never heard of it.
However, those rules do change somewhat if a suspect is under arrest when he is admitted to a hospital.
#71. To: misterwhite (#67)
She refused to allow him to do his job. Which is why she was arrested for obstruction.
Once he arrested her, what was to stop him from doing the blood draw? Kinda pokes holes in your little theories.
For that matter, if he was fully entitled legally to draw that blood, he should have pulled his gun on her and forced her to stand aside while he drew the blood himself. So why didn't he (if you are correct that he is fully entitled to draw the blood of any driver at any time for any reason)? Hell, I'm surprised you aren't arguing that he should have shot the nurse dead on the spot for interference in law enforcement.
#72. To: misterwhite (#61)
When someone repeatedly shows they have an evil heart. It is no use debating. Insults are in order. There is no convincing you. You have a hardened heart.
#73. To: Tooconservative (#71)
Hell, I'm surprised you aren't arguing that he should have shot the nurse dead on the spot for interference in law enforcement.
Please do not give him any ideas.
#74. To: misterwhite (#69)
So, once again you're saying that the law doesn't apply to certain people.
Not really. I am saying that cops are not at the top of the hierarchy of law. The job of the cops is inferior in importance to the job done by hospitals, so the writ of the cops and their will ends at the hospital door when it comes to touching patients.
Law enforcement is inferior to medical control of medicine - and that IS our law.
The enforcers of law - cops - are not used to encountering things that have superior legal authority to them, that can give orders to THEM and command THEM to stand down, but the superior authority of medical control over medicine has been placed BY THE LAW above mere street law enforcement. Law enforcement is not as important, in our hierarchy of things, as lifesaving. And law enforcement officers are inferior socially - and in LEGAL POWER - to medical professionals operating on the turf of hospitals. This cop was not on the street. He was in a hospital, which means that his badge did NOT, in fact, make him supreme monkey on this mountain. The hospital's authority was superior to the authority of his badge.
But he was a bully and an ignoramus and did not understand that he was NOT the superior authority present. The LAW is always the superior presence, and the nurse was telling him the LAW that HE had to submit to and obey. Unaccustomed to being commanded to stand down, he went rogue, with the blessing of his ignorant watch commander, and committed a crime. He did not have the authority to do what he did - he merely had the force of a badge and a gun and a pair of handcuffs.
So, now the courts, to which all cops are service dogs, will decide the fate of these dogs gone rabid. These cops WILL BE PUNISHED, because they grossly exceeded their authority, falsely imprisoned medical personnel, and showed force to BREAK THE LAW in order to assert their big swinging dicks...which they didn't actually HAVE under the circumstances.
There are legal forces - laws - superior in authority to the police. The police are people of above average bravery and generally average to below average intelligence. They enforce law that they do not have the authority to MAKE, and here, they tried to MAKE law because the ACTUAL LAW told them "no" and they were ignorant of the law.
Unaccustomed to being SUCCESSFULLY stood down, they escalated to violent force - and committed a crime, for which they should be VIGOROUSLY punished, as an EXAMPLE to the rest of the cops and their watch captains. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
#75. To: Tooconservative (#70)
The hospitals are the medical professionals' turf. The street is the cops' turf.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]