People are stupid.
Jan. 20th, 2009 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking"Pro-life" nurse sued for removing IUD from patient without permission, then lecturing her about how IUDs cause abortion.
Bonus points: She's done this repeatedly She does this, in fact, to every patient with an IUD she can get her hands into. And she insists it's legal because she's always "accidentally" pulling out the IUD and then refusing to help replace it because she has a "conscience clause" that says she doesn't have to perform any procedures the voices in her head tell her are icky.
Bonus points: She's done this repeatedly She does this, in fact, to every patient with an IUD she can get her hands into. And she insists it's legal because she's always "accidentally" pulling out the IUD and then refusing to help replace it because she has a "conscience clause" that says she doesn't have to perform any procedures the voices in her head tell her are icky.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:10 pm (UTC)Open and shut conviction, man.
Too bad there is no sentence for abuse of the Socratic Method.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:11 pm (UTC)It still makes me spontaneously spew a string of expletives.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:14 pm (UTC)First: They don't contain one.
Second: If they did, you'd be arguing the "reasonability" of someone's claim of "deeply held personal religious beliefs". Which is a First Amendment nightmare, with good reason.
Third: She's committed no crime. This is a lawsuit, not a criminal proceeding.
Fourth: By definition, a "reasonable person" cannot have a religious position that conflicts with their job duties.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:16 pm (UTC)That fulfills the criteria for spontaneous in my book.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:16 pm (UTC)OMG, what if this shit was a pacemaker????
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:21 pm (UTC)She's resting on the "freedom of conscience" law for not /replacing/ the IUD. Her actions in repeatedly removing them - and she will utterly convict herself if she attempts to apply the "freedom of conscience" to it - avows the "freedom of conscience" law.
She isn't a reasonable person, but the reasonable person of the reasonable person standard would know that her actions aren't medical, are on purpose, and are assault.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:22 pm (UTC)if she claims she told her co-workers that she tugged SO HARD on the IUD strings and pulled them out REPEATEDLY and she wasn't re-trained or written up or punished, that's INSANE.
obviously her own co-workers know what she's up to - she's against abortion, thinks the IUD causes an abortion, and she has a history of YANKING medical instruments out of women against their consent!
INSANITY.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:23 pm (UTC)definitely assault. repeated assault.
she's a serial criminal!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:34 pm (UTC)Twice is a problem, and an internal investigation and possible re-assignment of duties should have been brought up.
Three times is a pattern, and she ought to have definitely been re-assigned duties.
Failure of the supervising doctor to catch the pattern and prevent it is contributory negilgence, which is a tort, and might be some sort of misdemeanor if it can somehow be demonstrated that it was willful. But I'm fuzzy on the details, as I am so sleep-deprived right now that I can only think straight, and not curved.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:41 pm (UTC)/armchair lawyer
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:45 pm (UTC)First: Reasonable Person Standard is not a law, it's a legal test crafted (IIRC) to originally address workplace sexual harassment cases. Therefore, the standards don't have to be written into the laws.
Second: "Reasonability" applies not to the defendant, as you infer, but to the plaintiff. The court simply must answer whether or not a reasonable person placed in a similar position would consider the incident offensive and therefore actionable.
Third: Those workplace harassment cases were also lawsuits, not trials for crime, so the same precedents might apply.
Fourth: (See Second)
I agree, it should be an open and slammed shut decision.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:45 pm (UTC)/legs crossing in memory
EDIT to add: My boyfriend, upon being told of this, advises said "nurse" that the following phrase should be helpful to her in her new career: "Would you like fries with that?" And that if they ask the manager real nice, maybe all her former coworkers can be on the same shift!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:49 pm (UTC)It isn't a completely unreasonable statement to say that that process constitutes an abortion. What's unreasonable is the idea that a woman doesn't have the right to have an IUD, or to get an abortion, if she wants to.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 10:01 pm (UTC)*ducks, runs*
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 10:25 pm (UTC)The crime of "assault" covers the two torts of "assault" and "battery".
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 10:25 pm (UTC)And this is happening in my hometown. And so help me, I can't really say I'm surprised.