3 ms·

They didn't say that, they said the checklist is there for liability reasons and not for genuine care reasons. The "won't let mom walk to the door" thing is a

They didn't say that, they said the checklist is there for liability reasons and not for genuine care reasons. The "won't let mom walk to the door" thing is a great microcosm of that—it's a blanket policy applied to all mothers regardless of need. My wife had our youngest at home but we had to take her to the hospital afterward because her lungs were a little sticky and she needed a respirator for ~4 hours. I took our daughter in and my wife followed a few hours later, walking all the way into the hospital. The NICU wouldn't discharge us for two days (which is a whole liability > care story of its own), but when they finally did they insisted that my wife—who had had the baby at home and driven to and walked into the hospital while mere hours postpartum—needed to be in a wheelchair to the curb. We liked that shift of nurses, they clearly cared, but no one in that room looked at my wife standing by the warmer and thought "she needs a wheelchair". They had a checklist and they were going to be darn sure they followed it.

beaglesss 2y ago
You can always refuse. They can't kidnap you or the baby if for whatever reason you don't want a wheelchair, and it's almost always illegal to block the exits without a court order or documented altered mental status.
- lolinder 2y ago
  After 48 hours of putting up with hospital rules in order to avoid an AMA discharge, we were just happy to be done. They certainly didn't frame it as optional, and it wasn't worth the fight.
- secstate 2y ago
  I appreciate your willingness to push for your rights here. But the situation is surprisingly similar to refusing to let a cop search your trunk. You can say no, but that K-9 unit is going to take four hours to get there from the station 20 minutes away. They will make your life hell. I've definitely been in hospital situations with my children where I was honestly afraid (perceived or real threat, I still don't know) that they were going to report me for child abuse if I took my kids home and refused care. People with authority are kinda scary, and while I love for us to all choose rights over security, sometimes I just don't want to have to fight for everything. And this is where police states evolve from.
  - Zak 2y ago
    > You can say no, but that K-9 unit is going to take four hours to get there from the station Holding someone for longer than the traffic stop requires to wait for a drug dog is illegal in the USA. That's not to say it never happens, but it's grounds to exclude any evidence found, and for a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      Over half the population doesn't have the funds to enforce that and effectively ultimately has no such rights in this situation and many like it.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Not to mention that proving that the drug dog didn't actually need to take that long would probably be extremely difficult.
        Zak 2y ago
        How long the drug dog needs is irrelevant; if they want to use a dog without consent or probable cause to search, they need to get it there while they still have legal grounds to detain the suspect. A traffic violation is grounds to detain someone long enough to issue a citation, but not longer. The judge won't be amused if the police say it took them 45 minutes to write a speeding ticket.
        secstate 2y ago
        But for the judge to be amused would require the affected person to have the legal intelligence, moral fortitude and general life "legalness" (because maybe you doubt your US legal status even if your life is mostly above board) to pursue one shitty officer's stop. I've definitely been detained for what seemed to me an acceptable amount of time for a traffic stop, but who's to say the cop can't come up with myriad reasons it had to take that long? Is 35 minutes too long? Is 38 minutes? Who's keeping time, and who's word is taken as truth?
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
None of what you said supports that checklist following is only for decreasing liability and not towards patient wellness. It may be the case but it doesn't really follow though.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The story doesn't prove "only" by itself, but it's a good example of the checklist doing something for liability and not wellness.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It doesn't prove anything, but I consider it to be a strong anecdote supporting the argument that individual wellness is not the primary motivation for these checklists. I can see an argument that it's about increasing average wellness across all people ever taken care of by that NICU, but from the perspective of an individual patient there's no difference between the two motivations—the point is that your own care is not the important thing to the hospital at that time, what's important is the rules and regulations. In our case, we both felt that our care was actually actively hampered by NICU discharge rules that were designed for premature babies and were completely inappropriate for our late-term baby. The wheelchair was just the last hurrah of the situationally-inappropriate hospital regulations.

beaglesss 2y ago

You can always refuse. They can't kidnap you or the baby if for whatever reason you don't want a wheelchair, and it's almost always illegal to block the exits without a court order or documented altered mental status.

lolinder 2y ago
After 48 hours of putting up with hospital rules in order to avoid an AMA discharge, we were just happy to be done. They certainly didn't frame it as optional, and it wasn't worth the fight.
secstate 2y ago
I appreciate your willingness to push for your rights here. But the situation is surprisingly similar to refusing to let a cop search your trunk. You can say no, but that K-9 unit is going to take four hours to get there from the station 20 minutes away. They will make your life hell. I've definitely been in hospital situations with my children where I was honestly afraid (perceived or real threat, I still don't know) that they were going to report me for child abuse if I took my kids home and refused care. People with authority are kinda scary, and while I love for us to all choose rights over security, sometimes I just don't want to have to fight for everything. And this is where police states evolve from.
- Zak 2y ago
  > You can say no, but that K-9 unit is going to take four hours to get there from the station Holding someone for longer than the traffic stop requires to wait for a drug dog is illegal in the USA. That's not to say it never happens, but it's grounds to exclude any evidence found, and for a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    Over half the population doesn't have the funds to enforce that and effectively ultimately has no such rights in this situation and many like it.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Not to mention that proving that the drug dog didn't actually need to take that long would probably be extremely difficult.
      - Zak 2y ago
        How long the drug dog needs is irrelevant; if they want to use a dog without consent or probable cause to search, they need to get it there while they still have legal grounds to detain the suspect. A traffic violation is grounds to detain someone long enough to issue a citation, but not longer. The judge won't be amused if the police say it took them 45 minutes to write a speeding ticket.
        secstate 2y ago
        But for the judge to be amused would require the affected person to have the legal intelligence, moral fortitude and general life "legalness" (because maybe you doubt your US legal status even if your life is mostly above board) to pursue one shitty officer's stop. I've definitely been detained for what seemed to me an acceptable amount of time for a traffic stop, but who's to say the cop can't come up with myriad reasons it had to take that long? Is 35 minutes too long? Is 38 minutes? Who's keeping time, and who's word is taken as truth?

cscurmudgeon 2y ago

None of what you said supports that checklist following is only for decreasing liability and not towards patient wellness. It may be the case but it doesn't really follow though.

Dylan16807 2y ago
The story doesn't prove "only" by itself, but it's a good example of the checklist doing something for liability and not wellness.
lolinder 2y ago
It doesn't prove anything, but I consider it to be a strong anecdote supporting the argument that individual wellness is not the primary motivation for these checklists. I can see an argument that it's about increasing average wellness across all people ever taken care of by that NICU, but from the perspective of an individual patient there's no difference between the two motivations—the point is that your own care is not the important thing to the hospital at that time, what's important is the rules and regulations. In our case, we both felt that our care was actually actively hampered by NICU discharge rules that were designed for premature babies and were completely inappropriate for our late-term baby. The wheelchair was just the last hurrah of the situationally-inappropriate hospital regulations.