> I don't believe any of the foregoing is correct, Jeremy. The police do not
> automatically test for alcohol in any serious RTA which requires the use
of
> an ambulance; breathalysers are sufficient for prosecution, blood tests
only
> being required in patients who cannot or will not provide a breath test,
or
> for equivocal breath-test results. Finally one does not need to wait until
> all medical interventions are finished before obtaining samples.
Agree
I don't believe a roadside/ portable breath test is sufficient - obviously
if the patient is well enough to go to the police station for the
Intoximeter that is different - it produces a level rather than a change of
colour on the meter, and the results are sufficient for court purposes.
You are correct in that it is up to the officer in charge of the case to
request blood sampling if he has reason to believe alcohol has been
involved, such as if the patient admits to having consumed alcohol, and that
itself depends upon the patient being well enough for interview.
> > I am occasionally in the situation where I have been with an entrapped
> > individual for an hour at the roadside, and then have to turn around and
> do
> > a sample of blood as a police surgeon.
> > I don't really see it as a conflict - as accident prevention and
treatment
> > are all part of the same spectrum.
>
> Legally and ethically there is a clear conflict; you could be sued for
> assault if you don't obtain a patient's consent for an alcohol test,
Absolutely - no action is taken without a patients full consent, no argument
there - I took this for granted - apols if it wasn't clear. If they refuse
consent, of course, they are charged on that basis unless there is
reasonable excuse.
> > I agree - after all all information can be requested by the courts - so
we
> > are not as independant as we think. I would also be delighted for all
> blood
> > alcohol examinations to be taken by A&E doctors!
>
> Again, not strictly true; it is unlikely that a Court would try to obtain
> confidential patient information without a very pressing reason. And if a
> Court did try to obtain such information for frivolous reasons, which is
> unlikely, a medical practitioner could reasonably resist such requests,
> notwithstanding such an order, with of course the support of his defence
> organisation. The duty of confidentiality is first and foremost an ethical
> one, albeit now heavily influenced by statutory and common law, but the
> basic duty is nonetheless ethical.
Again - no argument at all with this. I am only there to perform a duty
requested by the police. I make it clear to the patient that anything other
than confidential medical information would have to be disclosed, before
they have a chance to put me in that difficult ethical position!
> Personally I always try to avoid getting involved with such "police
matters"
> and I believe it's a very disturbing road for the medical profession to go
> down.
>
> Adrian Fogarty
Fair enough - but I suspect we were both visualising different scenarios! I
believe what I have written is true - but don't pretend to be a medicolegal
expert, just someone who is called to assist the police regularly.
If this doesn't answer all your comments - let me know and i'll dig up
something more definitive.
Jeremy
|