3 ms·

These hospitals need to be sued out of existence.

reaperducer 4y ago
Chances are the hospitals are following the law. A hospital isn't going to risk losing its license because someone ate the wrong muffin at the wrong time. They don't "need to be sued out of existence" any more than their thousands of patients need to have their healthcare provider yanked out from under them. The law should be changed to give them some discretion.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Greeks had this procedure where you had to wear a noose have you planned to propose a new law. That one would be appropriate here.
- dahdum 4y ago
  > To guard against false positives, the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published in 2017, require a codeine cutoff of 2,000 nanograms per milliliter of urine. But the Hackensack University Medical Center's lab, according to Kate's complaint, used a cutoff of 300 ng/ml, less than one-sixth the federal standard. Virtua Voorhees Hospital's lab, according to Kaitlin's complaint, used a cutoff of just 10 ng/ml, 99.5 percent lower than the recommended level. This makes them look pretty negligent.
- gbear605 4y ago
  According to the article, they’re acting much more strictly than the law requires (or recommends).
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  They are not following the law. The law declares a specific threshold concentration level, and they are using a level 1/200th of that. They absolutely should suffer severe recompense and punative damages for doing that. Laws should not allow discretion. That is how you get abuse and discrimination through selective enforcement. If a law would be intolerable and inhumane with 100% enforcement, then that is how you know it shouldn't exist in the first place, and is in fact still intolerable and inhumane even with discretion and selective enforcement. In this case, the law doesn't in fact exist, and no selective enforcement is needed. The law already does not say that eating poppy seeds is illegal, because that doesn't approach the level to trigger the law.
logicalmonster 4y ago
Suing the hospitals sounds like a fine idea, but nothing that strikes at the root of the problem. So long as the War on Drugs exists, you're going to have dumb as shit people interpreting dumb as shit rules in dumb as shit ways. You have to choose between having a War On Drugs, or accept that there will always be nasty, unintended consequences to it.
whyenot 4y ago
No. If the goal is to stop this practice, then the doctors and administrators responsible should lose their licenses and be criminally prosecuted. Money and civil cases do not solve all problems. The responsible parties must be accountable for their criminal actions.

Chances are the hospitals are following the law. A hospital isn't going to risk losing its license because someone ate the wrong muffin at the wrong time. They don't "need to be sued out of existence" any more than their thousands of patients need to have their healthcare provider yanked out from under them. The law should be changed to give them some discretion.

thriftwy 4y ago
Greeks had this procedure where you had to wear a noose have you planned to propose a new law. That one would be appropriate here.
dahdum 4y ago
> To guard against false positives, the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published in 2017, require a codeine cutoff of 2,000 nanograms per milliliter of urine. But the Hackensack University Medical Center's lab, according to Kate's complaint, used a cutoff of 300 ng/ml, less than one-sixth the federal standard. Virtua Voorhees Hospital's lab, according to Kaitlin's complaint, used a cutoff of just 10 ng/ml, 99.5 percent lower than the recommended level. This makes them look pretty negligent.
gbear605 4y ago
According to the article, they’re acting much more strictly than the law requires (or recommends).
Brian_K_White 4y ago
They are not following the law. The law declares a specific threshold concentration level, and they are using a level 1/200th of that. They absolutely should suffer severe recompense and punative damages for doing that. Laws should not allow discretion. That is how you get abuse and discrimination through selective enforcement. If a law would be intolerable and inhumane with 100% enforcement, then that is how you know it shouldn't exist in the first place, and is in fact still intolerable and inhumane even with discretion and selective enforcement. In this case, the law doesn't in fact exist, and no selective enforcement is needed. The law already does not say that eating poppy seeds is illegal, because that doesn't approach the level to trigger the law.

logicalmonster 4y ago

Suing the hospitals sounds like a fine idea, but nothing that strikes at the root of the problem. So long as the War on Drugs exists, you're going to have dumb as shit people interpreting dumb as shit rules in dumb as shit ways. You have to choose between having a War On Drugs, or accept that there will always be nasty, unintended consequences to it.

whyenot 4y ago

No. If the goal is to stop this practice, then the doctors and administrators responsible should lose their licenses and be criminally prosecuted. Money and civil cases do not solve all problems. The responsible parties must be accountable for their criminal actions.