In message <[log in to unmask]
bath.swest.nhs.uk>, Taylor, Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
writes
>Patient arrives at GP surgery with correspondence from a Judge indicating
>that he should have a blood alcohol measured to determine whether he is
>alcoholic. Possible responses from lab:
>a we're not donig it - its not NHS
>b we're not doing it - its not clinically valid
>c we're not doing it - there's no chain of custody document with the
>sample you sent
>d thank you, that will be £25
>
>I'm sure you can think of others; are any correct?
>Andrew Taylor
>RUH Bath
You do not say whether:
1. a sample,
2. a sample and "patient"
3. or just a "patient" turned up.
but
Category d. fits nicely if a little cheapskate. Full caveats about the
quality of the assay and chain of custody must be made - and no
diagnosis offered. It would be wise also to contact the judge's or
magistrates' administrative support system and explain directly about
the caveats and explain that if a diagnosis of "alcoholic" is in
question, then that is more than a single blood alcohol measurement can
produce; suggesting that a psychiatrist may then be a better bet. I have
found that the judiciary is quite reasonable if faced by professionalism
in their "chambers" (but NOT in court though).
--
Henry Chandler
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|