nurse arrested (but not booked) for trying to stop illegal blood draw

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I'm not sure if some of the course treatment you got from others in this thread is hindering our communication or if I'm just not as clear as I think I am so I'm sorry if the fault is mine here. I'll try to clarify.

If an officer openly says they have no warrant and a patient isn't under arrest and they have no consent. They aren't getting anything from that patient's body that I wouldn't give to a random stranger without arresting me. I'm not tussling with them, but I'm standing between them and making it clear that I'm non-violently resisting their improper actions and inviting the rest of the dept to record it.

That's a very different situation than a patient who is under arrest, who they have a warrant for, or who is consenting to a blood draw. That's a real clear, "sure thing officer". I don't have any problem with an officer acting properly with due process. I actually like cops that do their job well.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I have no problem now with your updated view. As I said previously, I personally would not risk false arrest. On the other hand, the nurse is right and brave for doing so, although from the video I think the cop's decision seemed unexpected. I'd have to watch it again, but he didn't even issue a clear warning: "If you continue to refuse, I am going to arrest you." At that point in time, I'd personally have backed off, although I am sure there are braver and more principled people who would stand up to the cop even after that.

Lastly, I wanted to say something on VA doctor's comments about how the law doesn't require you to prevent outside assault. But then I realized that rabbott1971 responded adequately to this. It seems that he has a much stronger command of medical ethics than some practicing physicians, which is a testament to our failure of teaching medical ethics during our pre-medical, medical, or residency training. This failure is something that is discussed in the medical ethics literature.



I disagree. The example rabbot1971 gave, i.e. telling a would-be assaulter where a patient is, is much closer to the situation being discussed than the example you give. When a police officer enters an ED, I have to tell him where the patient is and also give him permission to enter into a patient area. I can deny permission and also not tell him where the patient is. This is therefore much closer to the example rabbot1971 gave.
Then perhaps you can show me where in the Code of Ethics this duty to prevent assault is located since I'm obvious so ignorant.

As for the appropriateness of the analogies, unless I'm misreading the events then my analogy is correct. It looked to me like the cop knew where the patient was and wanted to get blood. The nurse stood in the way and stopped him. If I'm incorrect about the cops knowing where the patient was, then you are correct my analogy was not a good one.
 
You are wrong in most of this.

Having a medical license, I know what is legally required of me. Protecting my patients from assault is not. Period. End of story.

Ethically it is trickier since we're supposed to put patient's welfare above our own, but its obviously not a black-and-white statement. No one expects doctors to throw themselves in front of patients during active-shooter type events. Its more commonly upheld for things like "your patients need of care outweighs your need of sleep/kids' little league games/lunch". You're not expected to die for a patient's well being.

In your absurd analogy, there is a huge difference between telling a would-be assaulter where a patient is (your example) and not throwing yourself on a would-be assaulter who has already found your patient and is about to beat them (my example). The former is you actively helping the assailant assault your patient. The latter is taking no active action whatsoever. Its the difference between handing the bank robber a gun versus not trying to tackle the bank robber when he's pointing a gun at the teller.
You misstate my position, play dumb with simple analogies, and baldly claim I'm wrong because you're a doctor so King's X. This is a "pearls before swine" situation that I decline to continue, except to say, what I wrote is not wrong, and you would do well to investigate further on your own. Have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Then perhaps you can show me where in the Code of Ethics this duty to prevent assault is located since I'm obvious so ignorant.

Preventing your (in this case unconscious) patient from harm is exactly what duty of care is. Again, this does not involve you taking a bullet for someone, but as has already been said numerous times, it's not take a bullet or do nothing. There are all sorts of things in between, as Sb247's post shows.

As for the appropriateness of the analogies, unless I'm misreading the events then my analogy is correct. It looked to me like the cop knew where the patient was and wanted to get blood. The nurse stood in the way and stopped him. If I'm incorrect about the cops knowing where the patient was, then you are correct my analogy was not a good one.

You are not correct. Please read:

In bodycam video of the July 26 arrest, Payne demands that Wubbels draw blood from an unconscious patient, the victim of a road accident that left him badly burned. Wubbels refuses, citing hospital protocol.​

You paint the scenario of the police officer trying to draw blood from the patient, and then the nurse jumping in and throwing her body in between the police officer and the patient. This is not correct. Rather, the police officer is demanding that the nurse draw the blood.

Hasn't this happened to you ever before? I've had it happen twice to me. A police officer asks me to draw blood for them, and I refused as it was not pertinent to my medical treatment. If they want to get a warrant or arrest the patient, that's up to them.

So, let me ask you: do you not see how the duty of care is violated if I as a physician draw blood against the patient's wishes, while they are unconscious, in order to do (legal) harm to the patient?

Bottom line: Duty of care doesn't demand that I take a bullet or wrestle a cop, but yes it does entail refusing to draw blood in this scenario.

I'm not sure if some of the course treatment you got from others in this thread is hindering our communication or if I'm just not as clear as I think I am so I'm sorry if the fault is mine here. I'll try to clarify.

It's not you. Birdstrike does not understand logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You misstate my position, play dumb with simple analogies, and baldly claim I'm wrong because you're a doctor so King's X. This is a "pearls before swine" situation that I decline to continue, except to say, what I wrote is not wrong, and you would do well to investigate further on your own. Have a nice day.

100% nailed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The reason I made that comment, was that it was upsetting to clearly see the nurse in a very tense situation, with her in the middle of a fight between a cop and an administrative policy, and her being expected to enforce it, NOT administration, NOT security, not anyone else, but an unarmed nurse. Although the administrator was on the phone trying to diffuse the situation (which is better than not answering his phone) and said (paraphrasing) "If you arrest the nurse, you're making a mistake." What I would have liked to have heard, was "Stop. Leave the nurse alone. She didn't write this policy. We, the administrators did, along with your department. Leave the nurse alone, and I'll be down there to handle it."

So, it's infuriating to me, that she was put in the middle, and had to be subjected to unlawful arrest and assault, for a policy she did not write. And even though there are obviously also relevant laws that govern the situation, she didn't write those either.

Good point. This point didn't hit home until you phrased it this way. Here's what I mean:

Imagine you're in your doctor room charting. A nurse calls you and says, "There's a police officer here threatening to arrest me! I'm just trying to do my job."

Multiple choice -- Do you:

A - Ask her to speak to the officer over speaker phone and tell the officer, "You're making a big mistake..."
B - Come to the bedside to diffuse the situation in person.
C - Ignore her call and keep charting.

What's the right answer?
 
Last edited:
The analogies are ridiculous. There's a huge difference between providing a would-be assaulter assistance (patient location, permission etc) than standing back and doing nothing, or more likely (as everyone else is stating) peacefully objecting.

Even if you ignored the situation and went to the doctors lounge, if you saw the nurse telling the officer the policy and explicitly NOT giving permission I think that fulfills your legal obligation fully. I don't care if you could be sued - no way that's going anywhere.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Except cops aren't random people. I've never seen a random person off the street come into the hospital to collect blood. Cops do it all the time.


Good point. This point didn't hit home until you phrased it this way. Here's what I mean:

Imagine you're in your doctor room charting. A nurse calls you and says, "There's a police officer here threatening to arrest me! I'm just trying to do my job."

Multiple choice -- Do you:

A - Ask her to speak to the officer over speaker phone and tell the officer, "You're making a big mistake..."
B - Come to the bedside to diffuse the situation in person.
C - Ignore her call and keep charting.

What's the right answer?

The right answer is D - tell the officer (over speakerphone or in person) that you and the nurse cannot physically prevent the blood draw, but state you DO NOT give permission, and peacefully object, stating it's illegal and will definitely be bringing this situation to both the chief of police and the hospital legal team. Then you and the nurse step aside.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Preventing your (in this case unconscious) patient from harm is exactly what duty of care is. Again, this does not involve you taking a bullet for someone, but as has already been said numerous times, it's not take a bullet or do nothing. There are all sorts of things in between, as Sb247's post shows.



You are not correct. Please read:

In bodycam video of the July 26 arrest, Payne demands that Wubbels draw blood from an unconscious patient, the victim of a road accident that left him badly burned. Wubbels refuses, citing hospital protocol.​

You paint the scenario of the police officer trying to draw blood from the patient, and then the nurse jumping in and throwing her body in between the police officer and the patient. This is not correct. Rather, the police officer is demanding that the nurse draw the blood.

Hasn't this happened to you ever before? I've had it happen twice to me. A police officer asks me to draw blood for them, and I refused as it was not pertinent to my medical treatment. If they want to get a warrant or arrest the patient, that's up to them.

So, let me ask you: do you not see how the duty of care is violated if I as a physician draw blood against the patient's wishes, while they are unconscious, in order to do (legal) harm to the patient?

Bottom line: Duty of care doesn't demand that I take a bullet or wrestle a cop, but yes it does entail refusing to draw blood in this scenario.



It's not you. Birdstrike does not understand logic.
That's frustrating - I read 3 different news articles and none of them had that version of events (your's admittedly makes more sense). So yes, my analogy was incorrect in light of this.

It also does change my argument quite a bit. Telling a police officer "no, I will not draw a patient's blood just because you say so" is entirely different from stopping the officer from doing it themselves. The former is an obvious ethics no-no, we're not supposed to do unneeded medical procedures on patients. In that case you're not preventing an assault so much as not performing an unnecessary procedure yourself at someone else's direction. That's straight-forward, and hopefully why you assumed I am ignorant of medical ethics since that's not the scenario I was imagining.

I was arguing the latter situation where a cop is in the patients room (or about to enter) stating their intention to draw the blood themselves.
 
Birdstrike does not understand logic.

Okay. Let me try this "logic" thing, out.

The article in the original post, which everyone is using as the basis for discussion in this thread, says this:

"Footage from University Hospital and officer body cameras shows Detective Jeff Payne and nurse Alex Wubbels in a standoff over whether the policeman should be allowed to get a blood sample from a patient"

Link from OP: Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing to take blood from unconscious victim


Then you said VA Hopeful was "wrong" citing a source, so sloppy and unreliable, that it contradicts itself, while mocking my logic in the same post. Here's your post, linking to only part of a sloppy NBC news article, which contradicts itself:

You are not correct. Please read:

In bodycam video of the July 26 arrest, Payne demands that Wubbels draw blood from an unconscious patient, the victim of a road accident that left him badly burned. Wubbels refuses, citing hospital protocol.​

You paint the scenario of the police officer trying to draw blood from the patient, and then the nurse jumping in and throwing her body in between the police officer and the patient. This is not correct. Rather, the police officer is demanding that the nurse draw the blood.

It's not you. Birdstrike does not understand logic.

Then here's the full article that you used to claim VA hopeful was wrong, then mock other people's logic, which says in one paragraph the nurse refused to let police draw the blood, then in another paragraph says the cop tried to force the nurse to draw blood:

Utah nurse arrested over blood draw: This shouldn't happen again

" SEP 4 2017, 7:29 PM ET
Utah Nurse Arrested Over Blood Draw: This Shouldn’t Happen Again

by DANIEL ARKIN

The Utah nurse whose videotaped arrest provoked nationwide outrage says Salt Lake City police must work to win back public confidence.

"I'm not here to police the police," Alex Wubbels, 41, said Monday on TODAY. "The police need to do that if they're going to regain any kind of trust by me or, I think, the public."

The Salt Lake City Police Department has been roundly criticized after the release of body camera video showing one of its officers, Det. Jeff Payne, arrest Wubbels when she refused to allow officers to draw a patient's blood.


Payne and a second officer have been placed on paid administrative leave pending the investigation, police said Friday. The second officer wasn't identified.

In bodycam video of the July 26 arrest, Payne demands that Wubbels draw blood from an unconscious patient, the victim of a road accident that left him badly burned. Wubbels refuses, citing hospital protocol. Payne becomes agitated, and Wubbels doesn't back down.

"No, we're done," Payne says abruptly in the video, which may have been edited. "You're under arrest. We're going!"

Related: Two Officers Placed on Leave After Utah Nurse Confrontation

Payne can then be seen handcuffing Wubbels and dragging her from the hospital. She was later released and not charged.

In a written report obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune, Payne said he needed the blood sample to determine whether the patient had illicit substances in his system at the time of the crash.

Prosecutors have called for a criminal investigation. NBC News has reached out to Payne for comment.

Wubbels said the incident "resonates with people all over."

"I feel a sense of urgency for this conversation," she told TODAY. "We need to make this better. This can't be happening."

"If I have anything to say about it," she added, "it won't happen again."

Her attorney, Karra Porter, added that a civil lawsuit is "not off the table."

At a news conference Monday afternoon, hospital officials praised Wubbels for standing her ground, putting her own safety at risk to uphold hospital policy and defend patient privacy.

"Her actions are nothing less than exemplary," said Gordon Crabtree, the chief financial officer of University of Utah Health.

Hospital officials also announced changes to the facility's protocol with law enforcement. Among the changes, nurses will no longer work directly with law enforcement, Crabtree said.


Wubbels competed as an Alpine skier in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic Games. She has worked at the hospital since 2009.

The inquiry will be run by Salt Lake County's Unified Police. The district attorney's office will review the findings and determine whether they merit criminal charges.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that a blood sample can't be taken without patient consent or a warrant.

“We need to make this better. This can't be happening.”
Salt Lake City police updated their blood-draw policy "right away" to match the hospital's, and the department has already re-trained officers on the updated policy, police spokeswoman Christina Judd said.

Police also met with hospital officials within 24 hours to figure out "what we needed to change to make sure it didn't happen again," Judd said.

"We have a really strong tie to the nurses that we work with. The police interact with nurses multiple times a day sometimes, and we never want to fracture that relationship," she said.

"We took the incident very seriously from the moment we found out about it and have been working really diligently with Wubbels' attorney and ... herself and trying to make sure that no one in the medical profession ever needs to fear a police officer here," she added.

"It's so sad that we've had this rift in our relationship with the medical community, and we're working hard to fix that."




How's that for logic?
 
Last edited:
Double post
 
Last edited:
The right answer is D - tell the officer (over speakerphone or in person) that you and the nurse cannot physically prevent the blood draw, but state you DO NOT give permission, and peacefully object, stating it's illegal and will definitely be bringing this situation to both the chief of police and the hospital legal team. Then you and the nurse step aside.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Haha, actually I intentionally left out D - none of the above, because it's not point. I think the point of the post was lost/missed.

The point of my post was, GO TO THE BEDSIDE. Admin is hiding behind the phone. Admin should have come to the ED in person. No ER Doc worth anything would try to talk to the cop over speakerphone. No, we would all go there IN PERSON to try to diffuse the situation. Saying, "You're making a big mistake..." over the phone is not going to change the officer's mind, not offering any solutions, not helping the nurse, NOT GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING, and not the right thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Then perhaps you can show me where in the Code of Ethics this duty to prevent assault is located since I'm obvious so ignorant.

As for the appropriateness of the analogies, unless I'm misreading the events then my analogy is correct. It looked to me like the cop knew where the patient was and wanted to get blood. The nurse stood in the way and stopped him. If I'm incorrect about the cops knowing where the patient was, then you are correct my analogy was not a good one.

No medical school or residency in their right mind, is going to instruct trainees that they must subject themselves to false arrest and assault from a rogue cop, to prevent a blood draw, legal or not. And if any has that in their bylaws, please provide a link, now, so I can help each and every person working at those facilities get paid compensation for the fact that they are also doing double time as hospital security, without knowing it. Also, I'll do everything I can to help them get compensation, when they end up victimized by false arrest and assault as a result of institutional policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing to take blood from unconscious victim
Payne was suspended from the department’s blood-draw program — where officers are trained as phlebotomists so they can get blood samples — but he remains on duty with the Police Department, Shearer said. The department also has held training for the officers in the program as a result of the incident, he said.

I think the police draw their own blood. This is what I've always seen. My understanding is that it has to due with chain of custody for legal reasons. Maybe someone else has seen differently?

Either way, in this case it seems the nurse was NOT being asked to assault anyone with a 27 gauge needle (*gasp*).
 
Last edited:
(The nurse was right and the cop was wrong)


To any pre-med or medical student worried, reading this thread, let me ease your mind. And I don't care who says I'm a coward for saying it. You deserve better than what you're getting on this thread:


It is not, will not, and should not be your job to be a doctor or nurse, AND a security guard in your ED.

Ever.

It's all fun and good for people to talk about how brave they are online in their student doctor network posts, but let me bring some sanity back to this thread. I repeat. I repeat. It is not, and will not be your responsibility to provide security from angry and unreasonable armed people (uniformed or not) in your ED. That's what hospital security is for. That's an entire job, and profession in and of itself. You are the doctor, security is security. Security doesn't do the doctoring, and the doctors don't do the security.

Throw out everything previously posted in this thread by everyone, and everything yet to come and only remember this one thing: If you ever work at a facility, or interview to work at a facility, where the doctors or nurses are expected to practice the medicine, AND be security, where getting "arrested on principle" or "getting assaulted" is part of the job description, DO NOT WORK THERE. DO NOT ACCEPT A JOB THERE. Ever, ever, ever. No matter how much much or how great the job seems otherwise. I don't care what the internet cowboys say.

No. No. No.

IT.
IS.
NOT.
YOUR.
JOB.
TO.
BE.
A.
SECURITY.
GUARD.
OR.
COP.
IN.
YOUR.
ED.

Period.
Ever.


It is the hospital's job to provide the security from assaultive anyone, and it is your job to do the doctoring. Any advice of information to the otherwise is very bad information and very, very bad advice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
(The nurse was right and the cop was wrong)


To any pre-med or medical student worried, reading this thread, let me ease your mind. And I don't care who says I'm a coward for saying it. You deserve better than what you're getting on this thread:


It is not, will not, and should not be your job to be a doctor or nurse, AND a security guard in your ED.

Ever.

It's all fun and good for people to talk about how brave they are online in their student doctor network posts, but let me bring some sanity back to this thread. I repeat. I repeat. It is not, and will not be your responsibility to provide security from angry and unreasonable armed people (uniformed or not) in your ED. That's what hospital security is for. That's an entire job, and profession in and of itself. You are the doctor, security is security. Security doesn't do the doctoring, and the doctors don't do the security.

Throw out everything previously posted in this thread by everyone, and everything yet to come and only remember this one thing: If you ever work at a facility, or interview to work at a facility, where the doctors or nurses are expected to practice the medicine, AND be security, where getting "arrested on principle" or "getting assaulted" is part of the job description, DO NOT WORK THERE. DO NOT ACCEPT A JOB THERE. Ever, ever, ever. No matter how much much or how great the job seems otherwise. I don't care what the internet cowboys say.

No. No. No.

IT.
IS.
NOT.
YOUR.
JOB.
TO.
BE.
A.
SECURITY.
GUARD.
OR.
COP.
IN.
YOUR.
ED.

Period.
Ever.


It is the hospital's job to provide the security from assaultive anyone, and it is your job to do the doctoring. Any advice of information to the otherwise is very bad information and very, very bad advice.
I agree 100% with you that it isn't and shouldn't be a condition of employment to intervene.

My statement that I would interfere is in the same vein that if a guy is pushing a lady around at 7-11, I'm interfering. That is my philosophy as a person, not an employee at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We can always ask the poster, but I didn't see anything about law in that post.

I know what amendment you're referencing, and if it was always that clear cut we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to routinely tell us how each potential action by the police measures up to the amendment so yes, its obviously quite different from basic laws.

Once again misconstruing what I said...not always...this time.
Basic laws also are also interpreted by courts (including the supreme court)...it's kind of their job.

Either way the case law has clearly found this to be a direct application of the fourth amendment and hence my reference (ie they have already clarified that the fourth amendment does in fact cover this specific issue). They aren't pulling their interpretation from a hat, they are going based on the very words of the amendment. They don't have to then pass legislation (this is why it is called case law). In fact if it is applicable to their case, those with previous convictions can get a new hearing. Legislation is typically not retroactive. This is further evidence that the law itself is the constitution/bill of rights; the judges in the SCUS are not writing new law but interpreting old and there is therefore no new federal law to reference other than the case itself. Aside from digging up supreme court cases and referencing them just to make a smart aleck comment, I am left with referencing the original source (Which one can make very strong arguments is the law itself; I thought I would be given a poetic license, as it was very clear I was referring to it being a constitutional right).

EDIT:
We can always ask the poster, but I didn't see anything about law in that post.

I know what amendment you're referencing, and if it was always that clear cut we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to routinely tell us how each potential action by the police measures up to the amendment so yes, its obviously quite different from basic laws.
Right...that's my point. He attributed it to policy not law.

I'm going to stop replying now bc it's clear we aren't going to agree.
 
Last edited:
Once again misconstruing what I said...not always...this time.
Basic laws also are also interpreted by courts (including the supreme court)...it's kind of their job.

Either way the case law has clearly found this to be a direct application of the fourth amendment and hence my reference (ie they have already clarified that the fourth amendment does in fact cover this specific issue). They aren't pulling their interpretation from a hat, they are going based on the very words of the amendment. They don't have to then pass legislation (this is why it is called case law). In fact if it is applicable to their case, those with previous convictions can get a new hearing. Legislation is typically not retroactive. This is further evidence that the law itself is the constitution/bill of rights; the judges in the SCUS are not writing new law but interpreting old and there is therefore no new federal law to reference other than the case itself. Aside from digging up supreme court cases and referencing them just to make a smart aleck comment, I am left with referencing the original source (Which one can make very strong arguments is the law itself; I thought I would be given a poet licence, as it was very clear I was referring to it being a constitutional right).

EDIT:

Right...that's my point. He attributed it to policy not law.

I'm going to stop replying now bc it's clear we aren't going to agree.
And while reading up on this, I found that the SCOTUS did rule specifically on blood draws by police. But I don't expect physicians to know that. Not our job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's frustrating - I read 3 different news articles and none of them had that version of events (your's admittedly makes more sense). So yes, my analogy was incorrect in light of this.

It also does change my argument quite a bit. Telling a police officer "no, I will not draw a patient's blood just because you say so" is entirely different from stopping the officer from doing it themselves. The former is an obvious ethics no-no, we're not supposed to do unneeded medical procedures on patients. In that case you're not preventing an assault so much as not performing an unnecessary procedure yourself at someone else's direction. That's straight-forward, and hopefully why you assumed I am ignorant of medical ethics since that's not the scenario I was imagining.

I was arguing the latter situation where a cop is in the patients room (or about to enter) stating their intention to draw the blood themselves.
(The nurse was right and the cop was wrong).


Every article I've seen about this incident, including the one the OP linked in the the original post which is the one we've all been referring to, stated the the police wanted to draw blood and the nurse intervened in some way. The only article I've seen, stating the cop demanded the nurse go draw the blood, is the one @Angry Birds quoted which is sloppy and unreliable in that it contradicts itself saying in one paragraph the nurse prevented the cop from doing a blood draw, and in another paragraph in the same article, states the opposite, that the cop demanded the nurse draw blood and she refused.
 
Last edited:
And while reading up on this, I found that the SCOTUS did rule specifically on blood draws by police. But I don't expect physicians to know that. Not our job.

(The nurse was right and the cop was wrong).


I agree, @VA Hopeful Dr.

While I will not claim to be an expert on the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, what I do know about it, is that (amongst other things) the 4th Amendment it puts a limit on law enforcements ability to perform search and seizures and I'm even more sure that it sure as hell does NOT say, "When armed law enforcements violate the 4th amendment, unarmed medical personnel are expected to step in an police the police."

Regardless, all this talk about the 4th Amendment and the Constitution by @vernhart is a distraction. We are doctors and while it's our job to certainly know and follow relevant healthcare related law, it is not our job to be constitutional lawyers, judges or settle constitutional law disputes in medical settings, or as unarmed health professionals to police the police.
 
I agree 100% with you that it isn't and shouldn't be a condition of employment to intervene.

My statement that I would interfere is in the same vein that if a guy is pushing a lady around at 7-11, I'm interfering. That is my philosophy as a person, not an employee at all.

It makes a helluva big difference if the guy is armed or unarmed, doesn't it?

(The nurse was right and the cop was wrong).
 
not to me, at 7-11 I'm armed.....
Lol

Haha

Okay, this is getting good.

Alright. Here we go...

So you have a concealed weapon permit (as do I, by the way). Here's a hypothetical:

You're in a 7-11 which does not prohibit concealed weapons. You've got your gun on you and your valid and up to date CW permit is in your wallet. You see a guy "pushing a lady around at 7-11" as you say. You clearly see the imprint of a small pistol on his right side. What do you do?
 
Lol

Haha

Okay, this is getting good.

Alright. Here we go...

So you have a concealed weapon permit (as do I, by the way). Here's a hypothetical:

You're in a 7-11 which does not prohibit concealed weapons. You've got your gun on you and your valid and up to date CW permit is in your wallet. You see a guy "pushing a lady around at 7-11" as you say. You clearly see the imprint of a small pistol on his right side. What do you do?
Minus seeing the imprint on the guy, I've been in this situation twice, one coincidentally in a 7-11.....(gun hand intentionally hidden by a rack of items) ask the lady loudly enough for everyone in the store to hear, "ma'am are you ok? He doesn't have a right to touch you and if you want help all you have to do is say so". Then to the store employee," call the police, this guy is assaulting a lady.

In one case, the guy talked some crap on his way out the door but was gone in 5 seconds. In the other he stayed in the parking lot talking about beating me up as I stood in the doorway between them after she fled inside the store (stayed till cops came and he was arrested)

And I get it man, you think I'm just talking grave behind a keyboard. I didn't do it because I was brave, I did it because I feel it's the right thing to do....and i was scared but it was still right. I don't carry because I'm tough guy that thinks I'm invincible...I carry because I have a very real and respectful understanding of how easy I can die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Minus seeing the imprint on the guy, I've been in this situation twice, one coincidentally in a 7-11.....(gun hand intentionally hidden by a rack of items) ask the lady loudly enough for everyone in the store to hear, "ma'am are you ok? He doesn't have a right to touch you and if you want help all you have to do is say so". Then to the store employee," call the police, this guy is assaulting a lady.

In one case, the guy talked some crap on his way out the door but was gone in 5 seconds. In the other he stayed in the parking lot talking about beating me up as I stood in the doorway between them after she fled inside the store (stayed till cops came and he was arrested)

And I get it man, you think I'm just talking grave behind a keyboard. I didn't do it because I was brave, I did it because I feel it's the right thing to do....and i was scared but it was still right. I don't carry because I'm tough guy that thinks I'm invincible...I carry because I have a very real and respectful understanding of how easy I can die.



No, I get it. I'm not messing with you at all. I'm a gun owner and I carry, too. And believe it or not, I also help out little old ladies! But it makes a big difference if the guy doing the assaulting is armed and you're not. The reason I brought it up (other than the fact that you brought up the hypothetical) is that, this dovetails back to the nurse/cop scenario, where he's armed, aggressive and irrational, and the person being expected to take a stand is not armed.

Also, as someone who does have a CWP and who carries from time to time (where legal and permitted) I've thought through many of these scenarios and even read books on the legalities of self defense. The fact that you brought up seeing someone being "pushed around" while you are observing and happened to be armed peaked my interest. It peaked my interest because being armed with a self defense weapon and a permit, does not allow one to use that weapon for non-life threatening force or non-great bodily harm, i.e. being pushed around. This varies from state to state of course.
 
Last edited:
No, I get it. I'm not messing with you at all. I'm a gun owner and I carry, too. And believe it or not, I also help out little old ladies! But it makes a big difference if the guy doing the assaulting is armed and you're not. The reason I brought it up (other than the fact that you brought up the hypothetical) is that, this dovetails back to the nurse/cop scenario, where he's armed, aggressive and irrational, and the person being expected to take a stand is not armed.
I totally with you on that....which is why I wouldn't fault anyone for not intervening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I edited that post by they way and added to it. Sorry.
It's all good. That's why I wouldn't draw on someone for a few pushes on a third party. First because drawing when you aren't ready to fire is poor policy and second because It's an escalation that, while I can support it, is hard to defend in some courts. Now someone attacking me? when I know I'm armed and that them getting wrapped up in a scuffle with me could give them access to my gun? I just might fire. I have been struck once when carrying and did not draw because my read of the situation was that he wasn't going to continue and I didn't want to kill a guy over what he had done to that point. (long story)
 
I concede I was wrong about the police asking the nurse to draw the blood for him. The article, as well as several others, seems to be inaccurate on this point. Additionally, I never imagined that police officers would be trained as phlebotomists.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that the nurse wasn't throwing her body on top of the patient or physically blocking the police officer. In other words, there still is something more than doing nothing and less than physically fighting a cop.

Nonetheless, I concede the error. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I concede I was wrong about the police asking the nurse to draw the blood for him. The article, as well as several others, seems to be inaccurate on this point. Additionally, I never imagined that police officers would be trained as phlebotomists.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that the nurse wasn't throwing her body on top of the patient or physically blocking the police officer. In other words, there still is something more than doing nothing and less than physically fighting a cop.

Nonetheless, I concede the error. :(
I love how in the course of this thread we've all been wrong at least once... That's just impressive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So, it looks like hospital administration has admitted fault, that their policy contributed to placing the nurse in harms way in an "unfair and unwarranted position," which was a dangerous position in that there was an unreasonable expectation for unarmed medical staff to be the first line of defense against an aggressive, armed officer willing to commit assault and false arrest to collect evidence, and that there never should be an expectation of medical staff to have to do so.



"Gordon Crabtree, CEO of University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City, said hospital security should have intervened when burn unit nurse Alex Wubbels was arrested for refusing to allow a detective to take blood from an comatose patient.

"To our nurses and staff — this will not happen again," Crabtree said at a news conference Monday. "“Nurse Wubbels was placed in an unfair and unwarranted position (and) her actions were nothing less than exemplary.”

Crabtree said the hospital has changed its policies and now requires police officers to speak only to senior nurse supervisors. No contacts can be made in patient areas.


The Utah hospital dragged into the national spotlight after a Salt Lake City detective arrested a nurse for doing her job has apologized to the nurse and banned police officers from conversing with nurses in the hospital."




If only we had a hypocritical, authoritarian coward around Friday morning when we needed one, between 10:44 and 12:31 or so, to have correctly pointed out early in this thread in his first post that the nurse was doing the right thing, and that administration had an outrageous policy which threw the unarmed nurse defenselessly in harm's way of a ticked off, armed cop who was taking a poorly handled situation too far, and that no unarmed medical professional should ever be expected to have to intervene to stop an out of control armed officer looking to draw blood.

If only.




My first impression here, and what infuriates me the most about this, is that why the nurse who is standing there, trying to do the right thing by the patient, has some !%@$#-ing ADMINISTRATOR on the phone, essentially throwing her into harms way, when she's face to face with a guy with a gun. Although he's a cop, and in uniform and by that we expect him to behave responsibly, he's still a guy with a gun, and what does the administrator do?

He's pushing the defenseless nurse to defy the cop based on some pointy-headed policy created by suits in a boardroom, a cop who's armed to the teeth and already ticked off. How outrageous and spineless.

I can almost guarantee you that the nurse is thinking as the time, "I know damn well I'll lose my job, if I don't follow administrative policy to a tee. I know damn well they'll throw me under the bus in a second and I'll lose my job, if I deviate AT ALL. So I'm going to get them on the phone and get them involved, because they'll NEVER back me up if I don't." So, I sympathize with her on this front, because she was trying to enforce an insane policy that demands a nurse block law enforcement. What fresh hell is that?

It's absolute administrative madness, that what it is.

Now I myself, personally, would have taken the occasion to disappear to the doctors lounge for a tall drink of caffeine and a pop tart, and a camp-out on the crapper, long enough to let the situation "take car of itself," if you know what I mean. But my passive aggressive a$s-covering approach may not be right for everyone. And my impression here is the nurse was trying to do the right thing, and that the cop was too, until he took it too far. It's my guess that if he simply walked in the room and took the blood, no one would have stopped him, the nurse included, but you never know. It's a shame the nurse was put in this situation and that hospital administrators create cultures that make this all too likely to happen, when crossed with a cop with a temper problem.

As far as the cop goes, I think he handled it poorly. Whether his handling of it was technically "legal" I don't know. It may well have been. BUT, he'd be in a much stronger position to have simply walked in the room and taken the blood he will certainly claim he was entitled to draw. If a nurse or hospital security then tries to physically stop the cop, then you have an entirely different situation, where the officer looks much more favorably and the hospital personnel much less so.

Where the chips will fall on this legally, and who will lose their job and who will keep theirs, I don't know. But it takes me back to residency, when I specifically remember having this discussion with one of my attendings. Her advice was, "If a cop ever comes in and wants to draw blood, let them. If it turns out it was drawn illegally or is admissible in court, that will fall on them, not you."

After all, there's very little to be gained by refusing to complying with an angry guy with a gun, whether a cop, or otherwise.

Words to live by.
 
Last edited:
I think the police draw their own blood. This is what I've always seen. My understanding is that it has to due with chain of custody for legal reasons. Maybe someone else has seen differently?
That's actually pretty rare in my experience. As in, zero times. We actually stopped letting nurses do it because they get subpoenaed about 100% of the time, which means paid time off. So the techs do it, as they're more expendable.
At my FSED, we don't do it. Not because we don't want to help put bad guys behind bars, but because the economics is terrible. I can't afford to lose staff for a day or two of trial time. I don't need cussing, spitting, handcuffed people in my lobby verbally assaulting my patients.
There's nothing preventing cops from doing it but simple training. I trained for exactly zero hours before I became a phlebotomist. I'm sure they can do the same.
 
So, it looks like hospital administration has admitted fault, that their policy contributed to placing the nurse in harms way in an "unfair and unwarranted position," which was a dangerous position in that there was an unreasonable expectation for unarmed medical staff to be the first line of defense against an aggressive, armed officer willing to commit assault and false arrest to collect evidence, and that there never should be an expectation of medical staff to have to do so.



"Gordon Crabtree, CEO of University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City, said hospital security should have intervened when burn unit nurse Alex Wubbels was arrested for refusing to allow a detective to take blood from an comatose patient.

"To our nurses and staff — this will not happen again," Crabtree said at a news conference Monday. "“Nurse Wubbels was placed in an unfair and unwarranted position (and) her actions were nothing less than exemplary.”

Crabtree said the hospital has changed its policies and now requires police officers to speak only to senior nurse supervisors. No contacts can be made in patient areas.


The Utah hospital dragged into the national spotlight after a Salt Lake City detective arrested a nurse for doing her job has apologized to the nurse and banned police officers from conversing with nurses in the hospital."




If only we had a hypocritical, authoritarian coward around Friday morning when we needed one, between 10:44 and 12:31 or so, to have correctly pointed out early in this thread in his first post that the nurse was doing the right thing, and that administration had an outrageous policy which threw the unarmed nurse defenselessly in harm's way of a ticked off, armed cop who was taking a poorly handled situation too far, and that no unarmed medical professional should ever be expected to have to intervene to stop an out of control armed officer looking to draw blood.

If only.

Birdstrike, I reread your original posts and realized I erred by rushing to judgment and also conflating your response with others (outside of SDN). I was unfair to you and used offensive language against you. I was wrong and I apologize.

While I still disagree with you and your approach to the issue--as I lay the blame squarely on the side of the police--I do owe you that apology.
 
Last edited:
Birdstrike, I reread your original posts and realized I erred by rushing to judgment and also conflating your response with others (outside of SDN). I was unfair to you and used offensive language against you. I was wrong and I apologize.

While I still disagree with you and your approach to the issue--as I lay the blame squarely on the side of the police--I do owe you that apology.
Wow. Thank you. That was very nice. I appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Birdstrike, I reread your original posts and realized I erred by rushing to judgment and also conflating your response with others (outside of SDN). I was unfair to you and used offensive language against you. I was wrong and I apologize.

While I still disagree with you and your approach to the issue--as I lay the blame squarely on the side of the police--I do owe you that apology.

What is going on here I don't understand
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I have chuckled to myself reading this thread. I have police officers and nurses (and one nurse practitioner) in our family, and the discussion has ranged the same as in this thread. The biggest point being that with the hospital system that most have worked in (in our family) on both sides, if a trauma is brought in, there is tube of blood drawn, and labs are run, for the "basics-drug, alcohol". well, lots of blood is drawn for all kinds of tests, so this is in addition to. everybody knows this; if the police need it for their investigation, they know the route to get the warrant for the lab results. It is just the way it works here. (Mostly because there seems to be a large base of drug users, it helps the docs figure out what they are dealing with, on top of the injuries)
 
Top