Bill allows cops warrantless entry, detention

Actually, that is a common misconception.

There are certainly misconceptions however, refusal of treatment is not one of them.

There are many situations where a patient is not capable of an "informed refusal," these include:

1 Intoxication (drug or alcohol)
2 The patient is a minor (and no competent legal guardian or parent is available to give or refuse consent)
3 Head injuries
4 suicidal ideation
5 hypoglycemia
6 any other situation or condition which affects you ability to understand the medical ramifications of refusing care

On these we agree however;

Example: You are involved in a fall. You are angry and combative that the ambulance was called, and wish to refuse treatment. The Paramedic who arrives determines that you have altered mental status due to alcohol, or a bump on the head, or some other mechanism, so under the law, he has the power to take you to the hospital, and may use reasonable force to do so. That can include chemical restraint, or even physical restraints.


Not necessarily, and the paramedic has no "power" nor authority in the situation, any more than a physician has. In TN he may be placed in custody by LE and then transported against his will, but not on the "authority" of a paramedic. (who acts on authority of a physician)

And even given the inclusive list you have provided, none of that has anything to do with someone who may or may not have a communicable disease (unless he is unconscious) in which case he likely will not be aware he has/is being transported. Otherwise, he has full right to refuse treatment.
 
Last edited:
so..who pays?

Example: You are involved in a fall. You are angry and combative that the ambulance was called, and wish to refuse treatment. The Paramedic who arrives determines that you have altered mental status due to alcohol, or a bump on the head, or some other mechanism, so under the law, he has the power to take you to the hospital, and may use reasonable force to do so. That can include chemical restraint, or even physical restraints.

this is a catch 22. Obviously, because I refuse treatment, I must have and altered mental state. Kind of like the cops deciding that your refusal to permit a search is probable cause for a search. After all, why wouldn't an honest person, with nothing to hide, agree to a search?

So, say I fall down, go boom, bump my widdle head. Over protective nanny neighbor (girlfriend, whatever) call ambulance. Now, I have a bump on the head, have had them before, probably will again, and don't feel like spending $1,000 (after the insurance pays its part) to have somebody at the hospital tell me I have a bump on the head.

Now, divemedic shows up, and because I am a cheap curmudegon, who doesn't want to go to the hospital, decides I am having "diminished mental capacity", tranks me, trusses me, and off to the hospital I go! Against my wishes!

So, my question is, since you forced me to go to the hospital, are you going to pay the bill???

yes, I know sometimes you guys have to do these things for people's own good, but, why should I wind up stuck for thousands in bills, because of your opinion of what is in my best interest? And I am talking about those cases where there is nothing wrong with me, and we both know it.

My point is, that when it comes to refusing treatment, we do not have the free will we think we do. You can make a purely BS call, and we get stuck with the consequences.
 
My point is, that when it comes to refusing treatment, we do not have the free will we think we do. You can make a purely BS call, and we get stuck with the consequences.

Actually 44 AMP you do have the right to refuse treatment, the only "catch 22" is the part he slipped in about the alcohol. This gives the responding LE (yes, they will be there too) an opportunity to (if they wish) arrest you for "public intoxication" or something similar, and have you transported to the hospital, incidental to the arrest.

The LE around here will sometimes do this if they feel there may be a need for medical attention for someone with a diminished capacity, but the paramedic can only offer an "opinion", he has no authority to impose his own will in that situation...at least not in this State. And unless some sort of legislation is passed to allow for it, the same will apply to someone with a communicable disease.
 
Because there were cases where a paramedic took a refusal, and the patient later sued the paramedic and his employer for not recognizing the fact that the patient had a head injury and thus was incapable of comprehending the ramifications of refusing.

Sort of like the people who sue the bar for allowing them to get drunk. Like it or not, the law is what it is. If I document the medical reasons why I feel you are not capable, then there you go.

If you would like to read the general guidelines, here they are.

The point is that all of you are assuming that paramedics are out there just chucking people into the hospital willy-nilly. I get paid the same whether I take you in or not. This is not some power trip, but an honest treatment that favors the condition of my patient.

This has exactly NOTHING to do with arrest, and everything to do with your inability to refuse. Sort of the same concept like: A woman with mental retardation cannot consent to sexual contact. Why? Because she does not understand what that consent means. Same thing here. This is not an arrest, but an attempt to get you the medical care that the law assumes you would want if you had the mental capacity to decide for yourself.

Implied consent states that a person who is incapable of making a decision is assumed to consent. Altered mental states are under the same umbrella. Note that Tenn law (along with other states) says that a COMPETENT adult may refuse care. If the paramedic can document that in his best medical judgment you were not competent, he must assume that you would consent, and may use reasonable force to take you to the hospital. If his report in any way indicates that he knew r should have known that you were incompetent to refuse, and he allows you to refuse, he is guilty of abandonment and is open to liability.

The law is what it is. Are there medics who will abuse it? Of course there are, but that does not erase the validity of the law for the rest of us. Just as you cannot blame one gun owner for the illegal and immoral actions of another, the same is true of medics. The leading symptom of serious head injury is altered mental status.

Real life example: Just two days ago, there was a young man who slid a motorcycle under a car. No helmet. He had all of the skin avulsed on his hand all the way down to the bone. He had road rash all over his back, and blood was coming out of his right ear. He said he wasn't hurt, and did not want to go to the hospital. He asked me if he could call his wife. We helped him find his cell phone, and he called her. Then we tried to convince him to agree to be transported. He refused. He then asked if he could call his wife. WE let him call her again. We continued our evaluation, and he asked to call his wife. We told him that he already had- twice. He said he didn't remember doing that, and he wanted to go home. I then told him that in my opinion, he was not competent to refuse, and we put him on a backboard with a cervical collar, and he resisted, so we restrained him. He then asked us if he could call his wife. We flew him to the trauma center for a trauma evaluation. If he did not remember calling his wife, how could he possibly understand an important medical decision?

Are you folks still insisting that paramedics should be permitted to accept refusals from such a patient? If you are, I have no problem with that, but you need to lobby your state legislature to change the law and make me immune from liability for doing so.
 
Last edited:
Like it or not, the law is what it is

Correct, and you have not provided any "law" to support your claim, AMTS is a standardized test of cognition, but it is only a diagnostic tool, and has limited weight or bearing on legal refusal of treatment.

I would be interested to see exactly what State statutes grant a paramedic (or a physician for that matter) the latitude you perceive you have.


Are you folks still insisting that paramedics should be permitted to accept refusals from such a patient?

Absolutely not, and you make a great case for head trauma and the like, but that has nothing to do with the flu.

Having had the flu several times, chicken pox, scarlet fever, etc. I was never in a state of "diminished capacity" such that I could not make a rational decision about my medical condition, and unless I somehow became unconscious, would have the right to refuse treatment.

You continue to compare apples to oranges. speak to the issue.
 
Last edited:
Didn't mean to come off like I was picking on you...

Or anyone in your profession. You have a tough job, and most of you guys (and gals) do it well.

But, those kinds of situations do happen. Fortunately, they are the minority, if not outright rare. But I had something vaguely similar happen to me. In my case, the fireman/emt made it very clear that I was coming with him, and no amount of refusal would do me any good. So, I went. 5 hrs later, the professionals decided what I knew all along, that there was nothing wrong with me (besides being an old, fat, lazy, and ugly curmudgeon).

so, don't feel I am picking on you, I'm not. But I know the way the world works.
and I was stuck with the bill. Because I "agreed" to go.
 
I would be interested to see exactly what State statutes grant a paramedic (or a physician for that matter) the latitude you perceive you have.

Not a lawyer, but I do know procedure. Let me quote from the paramedic textbook used by a large portion of the country's paramedic programs:

A patient must be competent in order to give or withhold consent. A competent adult is one who is lucid and understands your questions and recommendations, and he understands the implications of his decisions made about medical care. Although there is no absolute test for determining competency, keep the following factors in mind when making a determination: the patient's mental status, the patient's ability to respond to questions, statements regarding the patient's competency from family or friends, evidence of impairment from drugs or alcohol, or indications of shock...

Unconscious patients cannot grant consent. When treating them or any patient who requires emergency intervention but is mentally, physically, or emotionally unable to grant consent, treatment depends on IMPLIED CONSENT (sometimes called "emergency doctrine"). That is, it is assumed that the patient would want life-saving treatment if he were able to give informed consent.

I would speak to the issue, but we keep getting dragged into irrelevancies. The legal authority is already there to allow health professionals to treat you against your will. Under the doctrine of involuntary consent, people are routinely forced to be treated for diseases that threaten the community- tuberculosis is a fine example. Sometimes the law specifies that a court order is necessary, sometimes a LEO must order it, and other times, a paramedic does so. The differences there aare small, and change little, unless you are a trial lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Can we say.... Wag the Dog?

This isn't about someone with a history of suicidal dendencies or mental illness being restrained/detained for thier own safety. It's about authorizing a forced vaccination with an experimental substance for a virus that, by many accounts appears to have been genetically engineered, in response to a so-called pandemic where the claims aren't even close to matching the events in the first place.

We live in a world where information travels faster than common sense. I read an article last may written by a doctor who was vacationing in Mexico with his family at the time of the supposed swine flu "explosion", right in one of the reported critical outbreak areas. He didn't even know anything was happening until he talked to his daughter here in the States, who in a panic filled him in on all the media claims puked out on every channel and station. Worried, he immediately went to the hospital with his creds as a doctor to inquire and offer his services in response to the "outbreak" only to find out even they--the hospital reported to have such a critical outbreak--had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. So how is it the US media had so much detailed information about the outbreak when the medical professionals IN that area had none? Seems a little fishy.

So--if I fall off my ladder, crack my skull open, and an EMT insists I get to the hospital with me mumbling "I'm fine, I'm fine" while sitting in a couple pints of my own blood---take me and I'll thank you later. BUT, if you think you're going to kick in my door SWAT style towing body restraints and needles full of some fast-tracked experimental substance, I got news for you---my needles are larger in diameter and the injections they give are gonna really screw up your day.
 
Back
Top