DUI charge

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You started this thread to ask a specific question, which is perfectly reasonable. But the attitude you seem to project is very selfish and immature -- "Oh, no, this terrible thing has happened to me! How can I mitigate the consequences?"

Despite what other posters have said, getting a DUI does in fact speak very badly to your character. You took the lives of innocent people into your own hands so you could get blasted. Many would argue that you belong in jail. You are unlikely to get much sympathy because now you might not get to go to school where you wanted to go.

My advice: Before you do anything else, figure out why you committed such an immensely stupid, dangerous felony. (And whether or not you are convicted, you know your actions were felonious.) What is the deficit in your soul, the damage in your brain, and/or the flaw in your personality that would lead you to drive while drunk? Only after you have determined the answer to this and completely corrected it in yourself should you bother to worry about getting into medical school.

Man, what a douche-nozzle.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Unbelievably stupid advice. In Alaska, Nebraska, and Minnesota, you will end up in jail for refusing the test. In Massachusetts, refusing a breathalyzer test immediately costs you your license for six months. In California and Vermont, you can go to jail for up to two years for refusing a test if you've had a previous DUI conviction. In one Ohio case, a man was acquitted by a jury for DUI, but the judge still suspended his license for two years because he refused the breathalyzer test. In many states, the fact that you are driving a motor vehicle implies consent to take the breathalyzer test, and refusal to do so is a prosecutable offense.

Drunk drivers murder people. Anyone who drives drunk is guilty of a morally reprehensible act. Anyone who defends a drunk driver or who tries to get him out of responsibility for his act is a scumbag.



Many states, such as New York and Wyoming, consider multiple DUIs a felony. The act is felonious, even if a conviction is not obtained.

I am appalled a the moral stuntedness displayed on this thread. I can only sincerely hope that the next deaths caused by drunk drivers take place in the families of those who so staunchly defend the drunk drivers.

It depends on the state. Refusing the breathalyzer is illegal, but it can often result in a lesser penalty than you would have gotten for the DUI. It depends on the state and the circumstances. Anyway, why don't you get off your high horse. Have you ever, even once, talked on your cell phone while driving?
 
It depends on the state. Refusing the breathalyzer is illegal, but it can often result in a lesser penalty than you would have gotten for the DUI. It depends on the state and the circumstances. Anyway, why don't you get off your high horse. Have you ever, even once, talked on your cell phone while driving?

bleg's horse:

work.3649000.1.fc,550x550,white.jpg
 
Members don't see this ad :)
bleg's horse:

work.3649000.1.fc,550x550,white.jpg

Right you are! And apparently, I have a much better view from up here than those of you who think drunk driving is not really a big deal.

And I most certainly was not hoping for anyone's death. Rather, I was acknowledging that drunk drivers will inevitably murder people, and hoping that the victims of those murders were those who support drunken drivers in their "rights", or their loved ones. If anyone must die for drunken drivers to have their right to drive around impaired, it should certainly be those who support them in their behavior.

Why should I and others who abhor drunk driving suffer for the douchebaggedness of the pro-drunk-driver contingent? Let them and theirs bear the tragic, horrific cost of drunk driving. It's only fair. This is not wishing death; it is acknowledging the inevitability of drunk driving murder and hoping it falls where its pain affects those who most deserve it -- namely, those who bring it on themselves by supporting such an abhorrent activity.
 
Man, what a douche-nozzle.

Maybe the "douche-nozzles" are those of you who support murderers in their driving "rights". Let it be your father, sister, child, or friend who dies from the next drunk driver's murder. Not mine.

Anyone who supports drunk drivers getting off for their transgression is the "douche-nozzle". Surely you can agree with that, Howie.
 
Maybe the "douche-nozzles" are those of you who support murderers in their driving "rights". Let it be your father, sister, child, or friend who dies from the next drunk driver's murder. Not mine.

Anyone who supports drunk drivers getting off for their transgression is the "douche-nozzle". Surely you can agree with that, Howie.

It's a little hard to define 'impaired' for a whole State full of people. Quite a broad generalization, if you ask me. For instance, I might not feel impaired at .08, but my little sister would be swerving around if she was on the road at .08.

Yes, drunk driving is irresponsible, but how can you really define drunk for a broad range of people?
 
Maybe the "douche-nozzles" are those of you who support murderers in their driving "rights". Let it be your father, sister, child, or friend who dies from the next drunk driver's murder. Not mine.

Anyone who supports drunk drivers getting off for their transgression is the "douche-nozzle". Surely you can agree with that, Howie.

You act as though I'm going to keep getting hammered and drive around until I either kill someone or I get locked up in jail. This certainly was a one time mistake (I've never taken the risk of driving after drinking), and I'm never going to risk doing it again. It certainly was a mistake, but it's one I've learned from.
 
Maybe the "douche-nozzles" are those of you who support murderers in their driving "rights". Let it be your father, sister, child, or friend who dies from the next drunk driver's murder. Not mine.

Anyone who supports drunk drivers getting off for their transgression is the "douche-nozzle". Surely you can agree with that, Howie.

It sounds like someone you care for was the victim of a drunk driver. This offers you a distinct perspective that others have (thankfully) not had to experience. Because they have not experienced anything like that they do not realize the toll it can take. As the OP said he has learned from his mistake, very thankfully with no harm done, and is moving on with his life.

One mistake is quite possibly costing him a life goal. It is not costing anyone else anything. Give him a break.

And if you have not made a mistake where you endanger someones life you probably will at some point in your career as a physician, whether you intend to or not. Step off your high horse.
 
You act as though I'm going to keep getting hammered and drive around until I either kill someone or I get locked up in jail. This certainly was a one time mistake (I've never taken the risk of driving after drinking), and I'm never going to risk doing it again. It certainly was a mistake, but it's one I've learned from.

Not all hope is lost, I know two guys who were convicted of DWI. One had to apply twice, with a year of graduate school in between, before he was accepted. The other was accepted off of a wait list his first cycle.

Have good grades, explain thoroughly how you have learned from your mistake and how your life has changed since, apply broadly. Drinking and making a mistake once will not make you a bad doctor.
 
You act as though I'm going to keep getting hammered and drive around until I either kill someone or I get locked up in jail. This certainly was a one time mistake (I've never taken the risk of driving after drinking), and I'm never going to risk doing it again. It certainly was a mistake, but it's one I've learned from.

If this is true, then I hope for the best for you.
 
And if you have not made a mistake where you endanger someones life you probably will at some point in your career as a physician, whether you intend to or not. Step off your high horse.

Making an honest mistake is one thing. Intentionally impairing your abilities and then endangering others as a result is something much different. The two are not comparable, except that you can use the general word "mistake" to describe both. But then, a human being conceived accidentally and the devastation of the WTC terrorist attacks can also both be called "mistakes"; that doesn't make them morally comparable.

What is this aversion to "high horses", anyway? If I'm right -- and I am -- what is so offensive about saying so?
 
Making an honest mistake is one thing. Intentionally impairing your abilities and then endangering others as a result is something much different. The two are not comparable, except that you can use the general word "mistake" to describe both. But then, a human being conceived accidentally and the devastation of the WTC terrorist attacks can also both be called "mistakes"; that doesn't make them morally comparable.

What is this aversion to "high horses", anyway? If I'm right -- and I am -- what is so offensive about saying so?

You are right about drinking and driving being bad. That is not your "high horse", your attitude is. Your general manner is offensive.

I'm not talking about you making an honest mistake leading to patient injury or death. I'm talking about the night you stay up too late watching the super bowl (or some other sleep depriving activity you choose) and coincidentally the next morning make a careless mistake. THAT is a choice you make that could/will kill someone. To me a doctor killing my grandmother because he/she stayed up late will emotionally be as taxing as a drunk driver killing her. Both accidents. Both avoidable. EVERY doctor in their career will practice medicine sleep deprived and put their patients at risk. Is it an honest mistake or negligence? I say negligence if it could be avoided. Tell me you won't be tired at work one day with a patients life in your hands and I will laugh at you.
 
You are right about drinking and driving being bad. That is not your "high horse", your attitude is. Your general manner is offensive.

If you find it offensive that someone says that drunk driving is morally reprehensible, then I don't know what to say.

I'm not talking about you making an honest mistake leading to patient injury or death. I'm talking about the night you stay up too late watching the super bowl (or some other sleep depriving activity you choose) and coincidentally the next morning make a careless mistake. THAT is a choice you make that could/will kill someone. To me a doctor killing my grandmother because he/she stayed up late will emotionally be as taxing as a drunk driver killing her. Both accidents. Both avoidable. EVERY doctor in their career will practice medicine sleep deprived and put their patients at risk. Is it an honest mistake or negligence? I say negligence if it could be avoided. Tell me you won't be tired at work one day with a patients life in your hands and I will laugh at you.

Do you seriously believe that getting too little sleep is morally equivalent to driving drunk? Again, I don't know what to say.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If you find it offensive that someone says that drunk driving is morally reprehensible, then I don't know what to say.

Do you seriously believe that getting too little sleep is morally equivalent to driving drunk? Again, I don't know what to say.

Again, it's not you saying that drunk driving is morally reprehensible. It's your attitude towards your fellow man. Your lack of care after someone has admitted they made a mistake which resulted in NO harm. God i'd hate to see a pregnant unwed teenager come into your office for treatment...god knows what you might tell her about morals.

And getting too little sleep on PURPOSE and then wielding a knife over someones body? YES that's morally equivalent!! How does that not register with you? There is a difference between being tired for natural reasons and then YOU being the cause of being tired.
 
Again, it's not you saying that drunk driving is morally reprehensible. It's your attitude towards your fellow man. Your lack of care after someone has admitted they made a mistake which resulted in NO harm.

Only by the grace of God. And my objection was not to his recounting of his predicament; rather, I pointed out that the OP spent more time worrying about the potential damage to his potential school career than the enormity of what he did.

God i'd hate to see a pregnant unwed teenager come into your office for treatment...god knows what you might tell her about morals.

If she came in concerned about her pregnancy and life situation? Probably nothing -- not the right time. If she came in concerned about whether she could fit into her prom dress and how the pregnancy might affect her summer plans? Uh, yup, she'd hear an earful.

And getting too little sleep on PURPOSE and then wielding a knife over someones body? YES that's morally equivalent!! How does that not register with you? There is a difference between being tired for natural reasons and then YOU being the cause of being tired.

So you're saying that I, as a doctor, might knowingly choose to stay up late just for the fun of it and thus endanger my patients the next day? Yes, if I did that, that is indeed the moral equivalent of drunk driving, and I would indeed be a complete douchebag.

But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.
 
But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.

I believe you man. It doesn't sound like you have very many friends to stay up with anyway.
 
Only by the grace of God. And my objection was not to his recounting of his predicament; rather, I pointed out that the OP spent more time worrying about the potential damage to his potential school career than the enormity of what he did.



If she came in concerned about her pregnancy and life situation? Probably nothing -- not the right time. If she came in concerned about whether she could fit into her prom dress and how the pregnancy might affect her summer plans? Uh, yup, she'd hear an earful.



So you're saying that I, as a doctor, might knowingly choose to stay up late just for the fun of it and thus endanger my patients the next day? Yes, if I did that, that is indeed the moral equivalent of drunk driving, and I would indeed be a complete douchebag.

But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.

Gluck during residency...u might not be tired from partying...but you sure as hell will not be sleeping alot....prepare for it and embrace it
 
You started this thread to ask a specific question, which is perfectly reasonable. But the attitude you seem to project is very selfish and immature -- "Oh, no, this terrible thing has happened to me! How can I mitigate the consequences?"

Despite what other posters have said, getting a DUI does in fact speak very badly to your character. You took the lives of innocent people into your own hands so you could get blasted. Many would argue that you belong in jail. You are unlikely to get much sympathy because now you might not get to go to school where you wanted to go.

My advice: Before you do anything else, figure out why you committed such an immensely stupid, dangerous felony. (And whether or not you are convicted, you know your actions were felonious.) What is the deficit in your soul, the damage in your brain, and/or the flaw in your personality that would lead you to drive while drunk? Only after you have determined the answer to this and completely corrected it in yourself should you bother to worry about getting into medical school.

I'm sorry, but you're so arrogant that I can't help responding here. The OP agreed that he/she needs to spend some time figuring out what went wrong here. You're just throwing stones, which is wholly unnecessary.
 
It's a little hard to define 'impaired' for a whole State full of people. Quite a broad generalization, if you ask me. For instance, I might not feel impaired at .08, but my little sister would be swerving around if she was on the road at .08.

Yes, drunk driving is irresponsible, but how can you really define drunk for a broad range of people?

Actually, that's not really true. Response to alcohol, is a relatively predictable thing. Unless you have a big tolerance to alcohol you will be drunk at 0.1. So will your sister, though it may take her less drinks to get there. We can't take into acount peoples' tolerance when setting impairment levels for the general public.

Making an honest mistake is one thing. Intentionally impairing your abilities and then endangering others as a result is something much different. The two are not comparable, except that you can use the general word "mistake" to describe both. But then, a human being conceived accidentally and the devastation of the WTC terrorist attacks can also both be called "mistakes"; that doesn't make them morally comparable.

What is this aversion to "high horses", anyway? If I'm right -- and I am -- what is so offensive about saying so?

I really don't follow that logic. The 9/11 attacks can be called a mistake?

So you're saying that I, as a doctor, might knowingly choose to stay up late just for the fun of it and thus endanger my patients the next day? Yes, if I did that, that is indeed the moral equivalent of drunk driving, and I would indeed be a complete douchebag.

But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.

Try staying up all night on call and then having to take care of patients in the morning. This is a situation you will face. Is it less morally comprehensible to care for people in an impaired state just because your residency director says you have to?
 
People make mistakes...1 bad decision doesn't make the poster a bad or even irresponsible person.

I swear this isn't going to be a bash the OP reply, but really I could not let this comment go. Yes, one bad decision does make an irresponsible person, it could incidentally make someone a killer. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Im actually thinking along the same lines. This whole experience really has been kind of an eye opener that I have some maturing to do. I was considering taking a year off regardless of whether the charges are dropped. What really worries me though is whether it will still haunt me even if I choose to apply later, and then again when I'm applying for licensing. I don't mind much if it takes longer, just as long as I become a doctor.

I'm sorry for your situation, but so glad that it didn't end up worse. I'm married to someone with 2, count 'em 2 DUIs !!!! (One was from before we met). The repercussions are huge. Won't go into the hairy details, since this is about helping you out. Legally, and insurance wise, it is advantageous to shoot for a wet and reckless- I don't know that it makes a difference for med school admission. Get a copy of your arrest records and whatnot. You'll be able to get a better assessment of the likelihood of getting a wet and reckless when you know your BAC and other details of the arrest. In California, the DUI is, oh what's the word?- enhanced? if your BAC is above 0.16, speeding, etc. Do a realistic assessment of your chances before you pay a lot of money for legal assistance which may be of very limited help. (This is just my opinion, and not a substitution for legal advice). As far as med school admission, the best advice will probably come from those who have been in your shoes and successfully made it to med school. Here is a suggestion: integrate DUI prevention/awareness into your EC work. There are many, many organizations to contact for this, SADD, MADD. Right now, it is Every 15 Minutes season- PM me if you want more details for that particular program.

Yes, it is if its intentional. But to deem all DUI offenders to be the same is reckless. The circumstances are all different. Consider an elderly man and woman who go out for a nice dinner and share a bottle of wine. On the way back home the man's tire blows out and he hits a pedestrian. Even though he didn't seem impaired and passed a FST, his BAC tested 0.01 over the legal limit. Now a consider a callous alcoholic who drinks at the bar every night and plans while sober to drive home drunk every night. He has 3 prior DUIs and a suspended license and he runs over a pedestrian with a 0.3 BAC (3-4 times the limit) and continues because he is too drunk to notice.

Are these two offenders the same level of scum? Don't cast judgment on others when you don't know the circumstances. Many people who get arrested for DUI never intended to drive drunk, but rather they got stuck in a situation with no other easy way home and could not make a rational decision due to their impairment. Alcohol impairment leads otherwise good people to do bad things. Unless you're advocating prohibition, then you are being ignorant.

It is every driver's responsibility to know what the legal BAC is and assumes the risk any time any amount of alcohol is consumed prior to driving. The onus is on the driver to be aware of how much is too much and too soon to drive safely, and if there is any doubt, don't risk it. Of course, many people arrested for DUI did not intend to drive impaired, but the results are the same. I see it every weekend rolling into my unit- when they make it. Intentions matter little when the end result is a 25 year old who is internally decapitated.

I don't excuse drunk driving in the least, but I have to disagree that all drunk drivers are the same level of scum. 0.02 is a lot different than 0.1.

Level of impairment varies, yes. But, we're all expected to know and follow the law. The reference to 0.02 in New Mexico refers to minors- in all 50 states the legal limit for 21+ is 0.08. For minors, the range is 0.00-0.02. States that have stricter DUI laws (such as California) have lower DUI related fatalities (compared to total traffic fatalities). I was reading an article in the paper the other day about the leniency of DUI laws and enforcement in Wisconsin, and sure enough, the NHTSA 2007 Traffic Safety Annual assessment lists Wisconsin as a state with high DUI fatality/total fatality rates.

I'm not here to justify my actions at all, and I do not appreciate the berating. I just wanted some advice on what I should do regarding my medical school plans.

I know you're not here to justify your actions. And I hope things work out well for you. I don't want you to take any of my responses as "berating".

This is my first offense. No prior DUI's or any other problems with the law. It happened in San Francisco, CA. I was not told my BAC. There were no accidents, injury, or traffic violations involved (ie speeding). The office pulled me over because he said I was swerving. I did speak to a lawyer, and he said it's difficult to tell what can be done until my court date. He did, however, say that it is possible to have it reduced to wet reckless reckless driving, which would have a significantly lower probation period, after which I could have it expunged from my record. In that case, medical schools probably would not see it, but it would come up when I apply for licensing.

Let me know what other info to provide. =) Thanks.
You should definitely get a copy of your arrest report before your court date, and before you decide to hire any lawyer. You need to know what your BAC was and if the police officer listed any factors that could be "enhancements". Do the research about what factors could alter your BAC, since that will be the only point that the attorney can argue. "Swerving" or other factors will be your word against the police officer.

This.

If you have a good enough lawyer DUI's rarely end up in actual convictions. Oh and also, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THE BREATHALYZER!!! But that's neither here nor there...

And what's up with the dude that keeps calling DUI's a felony?

I don't know where you get this information, but DUI cases- to quote one judge/former prosecutor that I know- 98% conviction rate (in Alameda County). I also have a family member in law enforcement in SF that probably knows what the conviction rate is there. I have a feeling that it is similarly high. However...

This is from NHTS (in 1999, though):

"The major conclusions of the study are:
� There is great diversity among and within jurisdictions in what is reported as their DWI conviction rate.
� Many jurisdictions have difficulty relating DWI convictions to arrests made within a specific time frame.
� In many jurisdictions, failure to appear (FTA) in court, is a frequent problem with DWI offenders.
� Many agencies and jurisdictions choose to neither calculate nor publicize their DWI conviction rates.
� There is a quite natural tendency for agencies within jurisdictions to calculate and report that form of conviction rate which places them in the most favorable light.
We recommend that:
� When requesting DWI conviction rates, specify both the numerator and denominator, and request the raw numbers and the time period that the data are from, in addition to the calculated result.
� NHTSA should consider the true conviction rate to be the number of DWI convictions resulting from and divided by the number of DWI arrests in a given time frame. FTAs clearly would not be counted as convictions because these cases have not been adjudicated. Plea bargains might be counted as convictions if a jurisdiction has more than one level of DWI offense and it is common practice to reduce the charge to the lower level. If a jurisdiction includes plea bargains, it should be explained clearly that the conviction rate includes these alcohol-related, plea bargained offenses.
� NHTSA should consider encouraging jurisdictions and agencies to keep detailed records on the disposition of DWI arrests so that meaningful and consistent DWI conviction rates may be developed, published and compared. Statewide case tracking systems using information from a uniform traffic citation should be encouraged as a means for maintaining such records.
We believe the lack of credible field calculations of DWI conviction rates and the inconsistent methods of calculations should remain under careful scrutiny. Furthermore, we believe that agencies such as NHTSA should publicly define how DWI conviction rates should be calculated. Only then can progress be made in identifying and correcting system deficiencies."

And it's too late after the fact, but if your breathalyzer was equivocal (close to 0.08), it might have helped you to get a blood test...... or not, but you probably would not have been worse off.
 
God the scary thing is that we will be working with tools like the holier than thou in this thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Unbelievably stupid advice. In Alaska, Nebraska, and Minnesota, you will end up in jail for refusing the test. In Massachusetts, refusing a breathalyzer test immediately costs you your license for six months. In California and Vermont, you can go to jail for up to two years for refusing a test if you've had a previous DUI conviction. In one Ohio case, a man was acquitted by a jury for DUI, but the judge still suspended his license for two years because he refused the breathalyzer test. In many states, the fact that you are driving a motor vehicle implies consent to take the breathalyzer test, and refusal to do so is a prosecutable offense.

Drunk drivers murder people. Anyone who drives drunk is guilty of a morally reprehensible act. Anyone who defends a drunk driver or who tries to get him out of responsibility for his act is a scumbag.



Many states, such as New York and Wyoming, consider multiple DUIs a felony. The act is felonious, even if a conviction is not obtained.

I am appalled a the moral stuntedness displayed on this thread. I can only sincerely hope that the next deaths caused by drunk drivers take place in the families of those who so staunchly defend the drunk drivers.

You sure are one dense and misinformed troll. If you believe you might be near the limit, never submit to a breathalyzer test. The officer will try to make you and scare you into taking it, but it is your right to refuse. They will arrest you on suspicion of DUI and perform a blood test at the station, which besides giving more time for your liver to cleanse your system, will be much more accurate than a breath test. Unless you have had nothing to drink, submitting to a breath test is usually a bad idea. Even if acquitted by a jury after refusing a breath test, any sane person would choose a license suspension over a DUI conviction.

A drunk driver is not the same as a murderer no more than someone who texts and drives or who applies makeup while driving and causes a fatal traffic ACCIDENT. They are all people who made conscious decisions to impair their driving abilities and got unlucky. Prohibitionist groups like MADD attempt to demonize recreational alcohol use and equate all BACs and have, as a result, created this culture of ignorance regarding alcohol and its effects on the body. If what you say were true, then everybody who gets caught DUI should end up with an attempted murder charge. The law doesn't work that way. In Arizona, if you cause a fatal accident while "under the influence" of alcohol then you likely will end up with a first degree murder conviction and may spend the rest of your life in prison. I suppose you think that is a fair punishment. Degrees of punishment should not be based on subjective things like luck. A guy who huffs a bunch of gasoline and passes out behind the wheel and kills somebody gets off scot free because there is no evidence and because the only form of impairment that is so demonized is alcohol impairment. Come on, use your head. Texting and driving has been shown to be at least as worse as drinking and driving, and it is an action that the driver knowingly undertakes while sober versus the drunk who never intended to drive while sober. You sound like a young person. Have you ever sent or read a text message while driving a car?

I'm not saying drunk driving is ok. It's a criminal act and the guilty need to be punished. What I am saying is that some of the demonizing that goes with it is unjust and that the punishment does not always fit the crime.
 
It is every driver's responsibility to know what the legal BAC is and assumes the risk any time any amount of alcohol is consumed prior to driving. The onus is on the driver to be aware of how much is too much and too soon to drive safely, and if there is any doubt, don't risk it. Of course, many people arrested for DUI did not intend to drive impaired, but the results are the same. I see it every weekend rolling into my unit- when they make it. Intentions matter little when the end result is a 25 year old who is internally decapitated

I'm not quite sure what internal decapitation is, but I think the strict BAC limits are ridiculous. Some people drink so rarely that they get impaired by one drink. Others, like habitual drinkers, have a higher tolerance to the effects of alcohol. As a result, I always tell people never to drive when they have had anything to drink because their is no real way to know what your BAC is or if you will pass a FST. It is not worth the risk. I know of one person whose life has literally been ruined because he had two beers with dinner and got pulled over and slapped with a DUI even though he did not seem impaired. Again, it's not worth the risk. Drivers need to follow the "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule pilots always have.

But you can kill someone texting and driving and the worst that happens to you is reckless driving. Is that fair? What about someone who is intoxicated while hunting and accidentally shoots and kills another hunter. Or someone who is drunk on the ski slopes and crashes into someone and breaks a neck. Or someone who serves a minor alcohol and the minor falls off a deck and dies. Sure as hell isn't going to get the same kind of punishment he would have if he had been drunk driving and killed somebody. The worst kind of accident to have with alcohol is a vehicular accident. Harsh DUI laws exist, we have to accept that, and promise to ourselves that we will never get behind the wheel after consuming any amount of alcohol. I don't want to see any more lives ruined by DUI. Perhaps the best thing is for this country to move towards a zero tolerance BAC level for everyone like other countries in the world.
 
I really don't follow that logic. The 9/11 attacks can be called a mistake?

So says my Muslim friend.

Try staying up all night on call and then having to take care of patients in the morning. This is a situation you will face. Is it less morally comprehensible to care for people in an impaired state just because your residency director says you have to?

No. It is more "morally comprehensible" to do what you must, not less.
 
God the scary thing is that we will be working with tools like the holier than thou in this thread

There ya go. The scary thing isn't that people intentionally compromise themselves and then drive around like that, filling up our ERs and morgues. The scary thing is that people like me object to it.
 
Last edited:
There ya go. The scary thing isn't that people intentionally compromise themselves and then drive around like that, filling up our ERs and morgues. The scary thing is that people like me object to it.

You are ridiculous, and I hope for your sake that you are just trolling and don't actually think like this.


Oh, and are you serious with this ****?

" Last edited by Bleg; Today at 08:52 AM. Reason: Removed gratuitous name-calling. Why be just like everyone else? "
 
Last edited:
There ya go. The scary thing isn't that people intentionally compromise themselves and then drive around like that, filling up our ERs and morgues. The scary thing is that people like me object to it.

What was that? Sorry, couldn't hear you with Laura Dean-Mooney's balls in your mouth.
 
.
 
Last edited:
What was that? Sorry, couldn't hear you with Laura Dean-Mooney's balls in your mouth.

So now you're mocking the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving?

Yeah, that's perfectly rational. I suppose that at least it demonstrates where your sympathies lie: With the drunk drivers.
 
.
 
Last edited:
This depends widely where you live. In my province if you refuse to blow you get charged with... well... refusal to blow. It carries the same charges as blowing over .08. The only difference is that you have absolutely no defense and pretty much no chance of getting charges dropped / reduced. So it is in fact much worse to refuse to blow than to blow over the limit.

And as a disclaimer I am not trying to get people off for driving drunk. I just hope everyone agrees that it would be tragic if someone who was actually legally okay to drive refused a breathalyzer because of inaccurate advice they got on the internet.

On the other hand, I welcome any and every drunk driver to follow Fritz's advice, especially in those areas where refusal to take a breathalyzer test means jail time.
 
So now you're mocking the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving?

Yeah, that's perfectly rational. I suppose that at least it demonstrates where your sympathies lie: With the drunk drivers.

I'm opposed to any organization that tries to use emotional/tragic stories to push their agenda through government and into law. This includes any anti-gun organization, anti-alcohol, etc.

And if you haven't noticed yet, I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here, no hard feelings. Drunk drivers just mean more patients for me in the future, right?
 
This depends widely where you live. In my province if you refuse to blow you get charged with... well... refusal to blow. It carries the same charges as blowing over .08. The only difference is that you have absolutely no defense and pretty much no chance of getting charges dropped / reduced. So it is in fact much worse to refuse to blow than to blow over the limit.

And as a disclaimer I am not trying to get people off for driving drunk. I just hope everyone agrees that it would be tragic if someone who was actually legally okay to drive refused a breathalyzer because of inaccurate advice they got on the internet.

My lawyer said that there is no law saying you HAVE to blow, and there are no repercussions to not blowing at the roadside (in CA at least).
 
I'm opposed to any organization that tries to use emotional/tragic stories to push their agenda through government and into law. This includes any anti-gun organization, anti-alcohol, etc.

Why? Emotions are the joy and pain of life. Why do you think we make laws at all? Because they're rational? Of course not. Rationally, monarchy or oligarchy is a much more efficient form of government than representative democracy. Does that mean you want the Nazis in charge?

Of course we base our laws on what we find joyful or horrible. Of course we try to convince others of our viewpoint based on the joy or sorrow things cause. How can a human being possibly find this objectionable?

And if you haven't noticed yet, I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here, no hard feelings. Drunk drivers just mean more patients for me in the future, right?

I'm all for occasionally playing devil's advocate. But life and death matters call for a more sober (no pun intended) demeanor. I must assume you are merely making a tasteless joke with your "more patients for me" crack. I certainly hope so.

In all seriousness, you show how to limit drunk driver damage and fatalities to the drunks themselves, or at most to them and their loved ones, and I won't object to leniency in drunk driving laws. Maim and kill your own loved ones, but keep away from mine.
 
I'm all for occasionally playing devil's advocate. But life and death matters call for a more sober (no pun intended) demeanor. I must assume you are merely making a tasteless joke with your "more patients for me" crack. I certainly hope so.

Haha yeah, just a tasteless joke. Anyway, I think this thread got off track, but driving drunk is no worse than talking/texting on the cell phone while driving, putting on make-up while driving, hell some people even read while driving. Lots of people make the mistake of doing these things, and some of them pay the unfortunate/tragic consequences. People make mistakes, they learn from them. And doctors put the pieces back together.
 
I'm not quite sure what internal decapitation is, but I think the strict BAC limits are ridiculous. Some people drink so rarely that they get impaired by one drink. Others, like habitual drinkers, have a higher tolerance to the effects of alcohol. As a result, I always tell people never to drive when they have had anything to drink because their is no real way to know what your BAC is or if you will pass a FST. It is not worth the risk. I know of one person whose life has literally been ruined because he had two beers with dinner and got pulled over and slapped with a DUI even though he did not seem impaired. Again, it's not worth the risk. Drivers need to follow the "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule pilots always have.

But you can kill someone texting and driving and the worst that happens to you is reckless driving. Is that fair? What about someone who is intoxicated while hunting and accidentally shoots and kills another hunter. Or someone who is drunk on the ski slopes and crashes into someone and breaks a neck. Or someone who serves a minor alcohol and the minor falls off a deck and dies. Sure as hell isn't going to get the same kind of punishment he would have if he had been drunk driving and killed somebody. The worst kind of accident to have with alcohol is a vehicular accident. Harsh DUI laws exist, we have to accept that, and promise to ourselves that we will never get behind the wheel after consuming any amount of alcohol. I don't want to see any more lives ruined by DUI. Perhaps the best thing is for this country to move towards a zero tolerance BAC level for everyone like other countries in the world.

Internal decap is when on the outside the skin is intact, but the vertebral column and ligaments/tendons are disrupted, displaced.

Like you mentioned, level of impairment will vary from person to person with the same BAC due to a lot of factors- tolerance being a big one. A person can be convicted with a BAC of .07 just the same as someone can get a DUI due to taking Benadryl as long as the judge decides there is sufficient evidence that driving was impaired.

In other scenarios you mentioned, it is illegal to operate a bicycle, motorboat, carry a loaded gun while intoxicated in California. It is also illegal to text or even talk on a cell phone without a handsfree device. I'm also pretty sure- though I don't have the time to verify it- that it is illegal to drive while impaired by fatigue.

In the courtroom it all comes down to what can be proved. A BAC is in most cases difficult to dispute- particularly if it is from a blood drawn specimen. A defense attorney can easily defend poor performance on FST by paying a doctor to certify that the defendant has an old sports injury, vertigo, etc.

I'm not about to make any argument about fairness of penalties (or even claim to know the details) regarding the cause or manner of driving/operating whatever while impaired by (fill in the blank).

My lawyer said that there is no law saying you HAVE to blow, and there are no repercussions to not blowing at the roadside (in CA at least).

Right, that's at the roadside, but once you are arrested on suspicion of of driving under the influence and are being booked in jail, by law you have to submit to some form of chemical test. It is a condition of receiving a license in CA. I don't know what the penalties in California for refusing a chemical test are at that point, but a case can still be made against you for DUI using FST, etc. as evidence and you'd likely lose- and then the penalties associated with the chemical test refusal would be on top of that (I believe).

Another thing to consider is that if your BAC is on the rise, you may have a higher BAC on breath or blood test at the police station. I think that the 2nd test at the station is done regardless of whether you submit to the field breathalyzer or not.
 
I am planning on applying to medical schools this upcoming cycle. I was, unfortunately, arrested for a dui very recently. Should I even bother applying this year? I am otherwise a strong applicant for med school.


YOU NEED TO GET THIS EXPUNGED!!!

IF YOU CAN GET IT EXPUNGED WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, THEN DO NOT PUT IT ON YOUR AMCAS APPLICATION.

If you have not plead guilty already, then you need to get a lawyer & do a 'defered judgment'.

This is a definite negative & will come to haunt you time & time again...

I know of people who have simple misdemeanors (such as Minor in Possession of Alcohol), and have had notes written on their applications by med school admission committees.
 
Unbelievably stupid advice. In Alaska, Nebraska, and Minnesota, you will end up in jail for refusing the test. In Massachusetts, refusing a breathalyzer test immediately costs you your license for six months. In California and Vermont, you can go to jail for up to two years for refusing a test if you've had a previous DUI conviction. In one Ohio case, a man was acquitted by a jury for DUI, but the judge still suspended his license for two years because he refused the breathalyzer test. In many states, the fact that you are driving a motor vehicle implies consent to take the breathalyzer test, and refusal to do so is a prosecutable offense.

Drunk drivers murder people. Anyone who drives drunk is guilty of a morally reprehensible act. Anyone who defends a drunk driver or who tries to get him out of responsibility for his act is a scumbag.



Many states, such as New York and Wyoming, consider multiple DUIs a felony. The act is felonious, even if a conviction is not obtained.

I am appalled a the moral stuntedness displayed on this thread. I can only sincerely hope that the next deaths caused by drunk drivers take place in the families of those who so staunchly defend the drunk drivers.

His advice isn't all bad imo. If you are in a state where they will take you into jail for refusing a breathalyzer. First they have to book you into jail and then they have to order a blood test. While the hour(s) go by for them to obtain the approval for a blood test you will sober up. duh
 
YOU NEED TO GET THIS EXPUNGED!!!

IF YOU CAN GET IT EXPUNGED WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, THEN DO NOT PUT IT ON YOUR AMCAS APPLICATION.

If you have not plead guilty already, then you need to get a lawyer & do a 'defered judgment'.

This is a definite negative & will come to haunt you time & time again...

I know of people who have simple misdemeanors (such as Minor in Possession of Alcohol), and have had notes written on their applications by med school admission committees.

Is it difficult to get a deferred judgment?
 
But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.[/QUOTE]

Uhh...yeah...I am a surgeon and finished residency a few years ago.
If you honestly believe that you "will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hands," you are headed for a BIG wake-up call, my friend. That wake-up call is called residency.

I don't even know how I got on this blog, but after reading some of Bleg's comments, I was compelled to post. Quite frankly, I predict that Bleg is going to have a hell-of-a-time in the future dealing with not only colleagues and staff due to his arrogance and righteous attitude, but he will be unable to treat patients from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in a non-judgemental manner. I wonder what he is going to do when he encounters the crack-head with multiple abscesses on his arms from shooting; or the pregnant crack-head withdrawling in the ER? Is he going to deny care to these people because he is repulsed by them? I wonder how he is going to react, especially after giving premed 67783 such a hard time.

Pre med 67783, it sounds to me like you made a mistake and you are remorseful. At this point, you must get a Board certified DUI attorney who can represent you; let them answer your questions and advise you. Every state is different and you need to be well-educated on all your options. Also, you must disclose the charges/conviction when apply to medical school because it is grounds for dismissal if they find out after you are accepted. If, however, the charges are dismissed, then don't even mention it to anybody --ever.

Most importantly, you made a mistake and thankfully no one got hurt.
You are human, and given the fact that you are simply applying to medical school means you are more responsible then the average American citizen.
Don't let one "screw-up" dissuade you from your dreams...you will help many, many people during your career as a doctor --it will make up for your mistake. Good Luck! Orthogirl
 
Bleg said:
But I will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hand for that reason.

Laugh away.

Uhh...yeah...I am a surgeon and finished residency a few years ago.
If you honestly believe that you "will never be tired at work one day with a patient's life in my hands," you are headed for a BIG wake-up call, my friend. That wake-up call is called residency.

For a bigshot surgeon, you don't read so well. I never said that I do not or will not be tired at work. Try using your critical reading faculties on the bolded part above.

I don't even know how I got on this blog, but after reading some of Bleg's comments, I was compelled to post. Quite frankly, I predict that Bleg is going to have a hell-of-a-time in the future dealing with not only colleagues and staff due to his arrogance and righteous attitude, but he will be unable to treat patients from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in a non-judgemental manner.

What is it with doctors condemning judgmentalism while they practice it full-tilt? What is it with doctors being so ready to pat themselves on the butt?

No wonder doctors have the reputation of being arrogant, condescending jerks.

I wonder what he is going to do when he encounters the crack-head with multiple abscesses on his arms from shooting; or the pregnant crack-head withdrawling in the ER?

Hmmm. Tough one. Probably...treat them?

Is he going to deny care to these people because he is repulsed by them?

Where have I indicated the slightest idea of refusing treatment?

Orthogirl, I don't believe you're a surgeon. No surgeon I know is that stupid.

I wonder how he is going to react, especially after giving premed 67783 such a hard time.

Again, I don't believe you're a surgeon.

I did not give "premed" a hard time. Rather, I responded to those who sought to minimize what was in fact a tremendously irresponsible and dangerous act. I did not condemn premed because of his stupidity in driving drunk; I simply pointed out that his attitude did not exactly portray sorrow for that stupid action. My thesis was that drunken driving was a tremendously strong demonstration of horrible judgment, and that those who claimed it was something less than that were doing society a disservice. I did not see premed as excusing himself, so I wasn't condemning his reaction.

What, exactly, do you find objectionable in that? If it's "judgmentalism", then of course you yourself are being highly judgmental, and thus a hypocrite.

And remember, I'm not the one who endangered everyone on the road by driving drunk. Shouldn't you save your righteous indignation for those who take others' lives into their own hands, rather than those who point out what a bad idea it is to do so?
 
Yes, it is if its intentional. But to deem all DUI offenders to be the same is reckless. The circumstances are all different. Consider an elderly man and woman who go out for a nice dinner and share a bottle of wine. On the way back home the man's tire blows out and he hits a pedestrian. Even though he didn't seem impaired and passed a FST, his BAC tested 0.01 over the legal limit. Now a consider a callous alcoholic who drinks at the bar every night and plans while sober to drive home drunk every night. He has 3 prior DUIs and a suspended license and he runs over a pedestrian with a 0.3 BAC (3-4 times the limit) and continues because he is too drunk to notice.

Are these two offenders the same level of scum? Don't cast judgment on others when you don't know the circumstances. Many people who get arrested for DUI never intended to drive drunk, but rather they got stuck in a situation with no other easy way home and could not make a rational decision due to their impairment. Alcohol impairment leads otherwise good people to do bad things. Unless you're advocating prohibition, then you are being ignorant.

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't entirely agree...nor would, I expect, the pedestrian hit in either example. For instance, the nice, drunken elderly man you describe might have been able to avoid hitting the pedestrian if he was not partially impaired. Yes, the two cases are different levels of egregiousness, but both made reckless decisions and have to deal with the consequences.

What I really wanted to respond to was the line I bolded....I don't buy that as a reason why DUI isn't a big deal, and that's not going to get you very far when it comes to a med school adcom. Yes, alcohol can make good people do bad things, but that good person made the choice in the first place to drink, and that person likely has a track record of making similarly bad decisions while under the influence. No one forced them to drink in the first place, and the fact that there are worse offenders out there doesn't make it not a big deal. The medical profession is takes alcohol and substance use among physicians very seriously...if your surgeon is a good person, does that make it okay if he shows up to surgery only just a little drunk and only kills one patient rather than several? Of course not.
 
Top