I think it is extremely important to clarify that nothing has changed
about WHO does the test: this is, and continues to be the exclusive
province of the police surgeon.
There has been a lot of rot printed in the press about the new act. The
only thing that has changed is that the sample can be taken without
consent if the patient is incapable of giving it at the time, and
consent can be subsequently sought to test the sample.
The legal and ethical quagmire the A&E SHO risks getting bogged down in,
has always precluded any involvement from A&E staff beyond excluding any
immediate risk to the patient from such tests. Our staff are advised to
resist firmly any requests from police to do forensic tests. The results
would be laughed out of court anyway due to the chain of evidence and
methodology loopholes ("did you use an alcohol swab?"). This argument
usually convinces any rooky traffic police office of the merits of
bothering the police surgeon if required.
Whilst on the subject, I can't think of any reason for an A&E doc to
refuse permission for a police surgeon to take a blood sample, unless
the patient is being actively resuscitated at the time. The sampling and
any subsequent approach for consent to test the sample should remain
completely independent of the staff caring for the patient.
Good for you Paul for correcting the bush Telegraph.
Gautam
In article <002201c26b29$356926b0$970f29d9@HOME>, Adrian Kerner
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Is this a scam to not pay Police Surgeons; since now it appears that the A&E
>doctor is acting as Police Surgeon.
>
>And exactly how do we preserve the chain of evidence?
Dr G Ray
A&E
Sussex
Reply to [log in to unmask]
|