3 ms·

>violate medical consent rights which prisoners generally retain. Do they? I complained to my state board when medical personnel performed "care" on me withou

>violate medical consent rights which prisoners generally retain. Do they? I complained to my state board when medical personnel performed "care" on me without my consent while I was detained (not arrested, not in prison/jail, and at the time no warrant/court order -- just 'detained' and dragged to hospital on a hunch by an officer that there might be drugs hidden up my ass). I was told by my state board the nurse/doctor can do what they want without my consent as they are basically acting as a police officer, and that my (extremely thorough, well documented, 100+ page) claim was denied -- not only that it was denied in triage and not even assigned to a detailed investigation. The medical records clearly listed I was alert and oriented and also expressed there was no clinical evidence of emergent situation, so this wasn't some normal civil exception. Considering the act in the article happened in Arizona and my own interaction with the state board is that it is legal for nurse/doctor to do as they wish without your consent if LEO is involved, it seems to be de facto legal. Not only that I got the bill and even though the "insurance" was listed as "ICE health care services" the debt in full was sold to debt collectors who are chasing me to this day.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> > violate medical consent rights which prisoners generally retain. > Do they? Generally, yes, but there are some exceptions, and it is an area that is complicated in the details because it involves multiple federal Constitutional rights and statutes interacting with state laws. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/nov/4/beyond-estelle-medical-rights-incarcerated-patients/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/nov/4/beyond-estel... > I complained to my state board when medical personnel performed "care" on me without my consent while I was detained (not arrested, not in prison/jail, and at the time no warrant/court order -- just 'detained' and dragged to hospital on a hunch by an officer that there might be drugs hidden up my ass). I was told by my state board the nurse/doctor can do what they want without my consent as they are basically acting as a police officer, and that my (extremely thorough, well documented, 100+ page) claim was denied -- not only that it was denied in triage and not even assigned to a detailed investigation. Well, yes, this sounds like a cavity search, where the legal issue isn’t medical consent but potentially unreasonable (and thus unlawful) search under the 4th Amendment as incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment. The state medical board is the wrong forum for that complaint. (Note that even for the actual medical consent issues in the above cited source, federal courts have been the forums; state medical boards are more convenient—because when they decide to get involved, they bear the cost of investigation—but are really not generally an effective method of holding state and local law enforcement and correctional authorities, and medical practitioners employed or directed by them, to task.)
- notch656c 4y ago
  I agree that it appears they should, but again recall this happened in Arizona. I personally have spoken with their board. They personally have expressed to me that it isn't even against the regulatory bounds of the license of medical professionals to act without consent. They refuse to even _investigate_ acts that happen under detainment without consent by a patient who was fully alert and oriented without any emergent condition. That is, there is zero effect to the license of anyone doing it as the board refuses to act on it in the state this article is in. The claims simply die in triage -- and this isn't some theoretical but my concrete experience. >The state medical board is the wrong forum for that complaint. The complaints I made to medical board was about medical staff at a private hospital acting without consent. I was even sent the bill this wasn't a prison or other state hospital. Why would the board be an inappropriate forum? I understand the board doesn't control actual police officers but they were not the direct subject of the complaint. >he legal issue isn’t medical And this is the problem I keep confronting to try and solve this situation. If you argue it was medically improper, suddenly it was a "criminal search and you need to hold accountable the process for the criminal search." If you argue it was an improper search, suddenly it was "medical care and you need to determine if the medical care was improper." This allows both the LEO and medical personnel to weasel out of it by flipping things to the other side, which is part of the reason why it is probably done this way as a slippery "be medical when you argue against the criminal aspect and be criminal search when you argue against the medical aspect." I know the game being played with that card because it gets played a lot.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> > violate medical consent rights which prisoners generally retain. > Do they? Generally, yes, but there are some exceptions, and it is an area that is complicated in the details because it involves multiple federal Constitutional rights and statutes interacting with state laws. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/nov/4/beyond-estelle-medical-rights-incarcerated-patients/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/nov/4/beyond-estel... > I complained to my state board when medical personnel performed "care" on me without my consent while I was detained (not arrested, not in prison/jail, and at the time no warrant/court order -- just 'detained' and dragged to hospital on a hunch by an officer that there might be drugs hidden up my ass). I was told by my state board the nurse/doctor can do what they want without my consent as they are basically acting as a police officer, and that my (extremely thorough, well documented, 100+ page) claim was denied -- not only that it was denied in triage and not even assigned to a detailed investigation. Well, yes, this sounds like a cavity search, where the legal issue isn’t medical consent but potentially unreasonable (and thus unlawful) search under the 4th Amendment as incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment. The state medical board is the wrong forum for that complaint. (Note that even for the actual medical consent issues in the above cited source, federal courts have been the forums; state medical boards are more convenient—because when they decide to get involved, they bear the cost of investigation—but are really not generally an effective method of holding state and local law enforcement and correctional authorities, and medical practitioners employed or directed by them, to task.)

notch656c 4y ago
I agree that it appears they should, but again recall this happened in Arizona. I personally have spoken with their board. They personally have expressed to me that it isn't even against the regulatory bounds of the license of medical professionals to act without consent. They refuse to even _investigate_ acts that happen under detainment without consent by a patient who was fully alert and oriented without any emergent condition. That is, there is zero effect to the license of anyone doing it as the board refuses to act on it in the state this article is in. The claims simply die in triage -- and this isn't some theoretical but my concrete experience. >The state medical board is the wrong forum for that complaint. The complaints I made to medical board was about medical staff at a private hospital acting without consent. I was even sent the bill this wasn't a prison or other state hospital. Why would the board be an inappropriate forum? I understand the board doesn't control actual police officers but they were not the direct subject of the complaint. >he legal issue isn’t medical And this is the problem I keep confronting to try and solve this situation. If you argue it was medically improper, suddenly it was a "criminal search and you need to hold accountable the process for the criminal search." If you argue it was an improper search, suddenly it was "medical care and you need to determine if the medical care was improper." This allows both the LEO and medical personnel to weasel out of it by flipping things to the other side, which is part of the reason why it is probably done this way as a slippery "be medical when you argue against the criminal aspect and be criminal search when you argue against the medical aspect." I know the game being played with that card because it gets played a lot.