Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Rights in hospitals.

  1. #1
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Rights in hospitals.

    Had to take my wife to the er this week. Sucked.

    An hour in, a woman brought the treatment consent form for her to sign. Wife was puking non-stop. I said give me the clipboard. The woman complied and started waiting around for me to sign it. Just above the signature line was a the phrase " I have read all the above---blah blah blah. The woman had placed the fifth page for signature on top of the other four pages. I said she has not read this how can she sign. Puke, Puke, puke. I told the woman I might sign after reading the entire thing and possibly consulting an attorney.

    I left the treatment room and started reading the document, lining through and initialling in various areas. I mentioned to the woman that it was wrong to try to get someone to sign a legal document when they are in medical distress, could I please speak to an admitting supervisor. After a while, a snotty little woman showed up. I again expressed distress that they were trying to get a woman to sign a 5 page document while she was puking her guts out. I stated that under the EMTALA, or whatever it is, that aren't they required to treat anyone who walks in the door and complains (even though I don't necessarily agree with the law). She seemed taken aback, and said "you don't have to sign it" and I did not. Signed the discharge ppwk at 1:00 am though.

    Well, now the gun part. Here it is copied from the form.

    14. Other Acknowledgements.
    b) Weapons/Explosives/Drugs I understand and agree that if the hospital at any time believes there may be a weapon, explosive device, illegal substance or drug, or any alcoholic beverage in my room or with my belongings, the hospital may search my room and my belongings located anwhere on hospital property, confiscate any of the above items that are found and dispose of them as appropriate, including delivery of any item to law enforcement authoriites.

    The woman had left by the time I got to this paragraph or I would have *gasp* caused a "scene". Not sure if waiving your constitutional rights to self defense has any legal validity. I started writing in "as long as hospital agrees to provide 24 hour protective service to patient and will pay for any harm that comes to said patient due to hospital witholding any means of self-defense" but it was late, I was tired, and I was not and did not sign the damn thing anyway.

    Funny as hell anyway, as I had two concealed guns and two knives on me the whole time. I was bulging all over. Every pocket had something in it. Glad to have them as some drugged out dude wandered through looking for someone and was eventually escorted out. Security (Richmond PD) did walk through the area after I sent the first peon running for the supervisor.

    *rant off*












    '
    Last edited by riverrat10k; 10-18-2013 at 10:17 PM. Reason: spellin clarity and such
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Unless the hospital is a government one, they are not violating any of your rights by confiscating and disposing of your personal peropertry without due process and fair compensation. They would merely be stealing from you.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    There are private hospitals and public hospitals. Which one were you in?

    I imagine a private hospital can have whatever policies they wish, as long as they conform to any state laws that require them to treat someone expeditiously.

    Public hospitals will have the same laws (in most states, I imagine) as any other government buildings, which means they might also have policies in violation of those laws.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Unless the hospital is a government one, they are not violating any of your rights by confiscating and disposing of your personal peropertry without due process and fair compensation. They would merely be stealing from you.

    stay safe.
    I agree with this.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Here we go again, worshiping at the altar of "private property!" Those knee cushions must be well worn by now.

    ALL hospitals are entirely regulated by the government. As best I recall, they are licensed, regulated, and even rationed out by the state government. You are not free to go build your own hospital, no matter how much money you have. Try and build a hospital across the street from an existing one sometime and see what happens.

    As such, I strongly believe that hospitals, places where the public MUST GO for certain levels of emergency health care, should be required to accommodate at least some individual rights, including one that is clearly NOT supposed to be infringed.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 10-19-2013 at 12:34 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The section regarding taking your gun is worthless. What if you don't give them your gun?

    They going to sue you? For what? They have no interest in the property.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here we go again, worshiping at the altar of "private property!" Those knee cushions must be well worn by now.

    ALL hospitals are entirely regulated by the government. As best I recall, they are licensed, regulated, and even rationed out by the state government. You are not free to go build your own hospital, no matter how much money you have. Try and build a hospital across the street from an existing one sometime and see what happens.

    As such, I strongly believe that hospitals, places where the public MUST GO for certain levels of emergency health care, should be required to accommodate at least some individual rights, including one that is clearly NOT supposed to be infringed.

    TFred
    Actually, I know of many private hospitals. But I will concede the point that they are not open to the public. In fact, many of the ones I know of, the public is not even aware that there is a hospital there.

    But I disagree with your premise and your insulting way of stating it. I unashamedly support private property over nearly all other "rights."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Actually, I know of many private hospitals. But I will concede the point that they are not open to the public. In fact, many of the ones I know of, the public is not even aware that there is a hospital there.

    But I disagree with your premise and your insulting way of stating it. I unashamedly support private property over nearly all other "rights."
    Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a patient or a visitor from praying for the health or healing for themselves or for a loved one? Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a visitor or a patient from possessing a Bible or other religious text while they are on hospital property?

    These First Amendment issues are equal to the Second Amendment issues, including carrying a gun for self defense. Until we who claim to support gun rights wake up to these similarities, and recognize how ridiculous it is to allow others to intimidate us into giving up these rights, we are our own worst enemy.

    ETA: And to be clear, I'm not suggesting we remove the rights of hospitals to forbid EITHER religious activities and texts, OR guns... I AM suggesting that policies which do so (in either case) are ridiculous, and must be called out as such - and socially rejected until they are rescinded.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 10-19-2013 at 01:45 AM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    TFred, you are regulated by the government. Most of your daioly activities are supportred, directly or idirectly, by government funding. Does that make you a government entity or government agency?

    As such, I strongly believe that hospitals, places where the public MUST GO for certain levels of emergency health care, should be required to accommodate at least some individual rights, including one that is clearly NOT supposed to be infringed.
    Believe in your right hand and .... Show me where in the Constitution it says that anybody besides the gooberment (Congress specifically) is enjoined from infringing. And I say that while being well aware that Congress has carved out several categories of status and said that private property owners may not infring on certain specific rights (and some things that are not and never were rights) or discriminate against them on the basis of being a member of that status group. Strangely, I do not see firearms possessors as haveing a special carve-out.

    Your argument is sophomoric. You may either take it back to your desk and rewrite it or get an "F" if you insist on turning it in as written.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a patient or a visitor from praying for the health or healing for themselves or for a loved one? Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a visitor or a patient from possessing a Bible or other religious text while they are on hospital property?

    These First Amendment issues are equal to the Second Amendment issues, including carrying a gun for self defense. Until we who claim to support gun rights wake up to these similarities, and recognize how ridiculous it is to allow others to intimidate us into giving up these rights, we are our own worst enemy.

    ETA: And to be clear, I'm not suggesting we remove the rights of hospitals to forbid EITHER religious activities and texts, OR guns... I AM suggesting that policies which do so (in either case) are ridiculous, and must be called out as such - and socially rejected until they are rescinded.

    TFred
    Again, you are making no distinction as to who owns the hospital, so my answer is yes. A private hospital should be able to do those things. A hospital owned by a church, for example, that makes itself available to the public should be allowed to set conditions for admission, not counting emergency triage and stabilization which also may ban all visitors anyway.

    But your last sentence is the correct way to handle it.

    You are right that the First and Second Amendments are equal here. Neither apply.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    You miss my point.

    My point is that ALL hospitals (apparently with the exception of MAC's "invisible" hospitals) are PUBLIC hospitals, no matter whose name is on the dotted line. This is because the services they provide are a public necessity, AND their existence is 100% rationed and regulated by the government. You are NOT FREE to open your own hospital, even if you own the land and have a gazillion dollars to hire the best doctors and buy the best equipment in the world. That removes the private element.

    If you need to go to a hospital, it will be a hospital that exists, and is located solely at the discretion of the government. IF there were publicly available, privately owned hospitals that were free of all government oversight, such that the general public had the free choice to pick between a hospital that set its own policies, and one that cannot, then I could accept such an argument.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quite coincidentally, I just happened upon this quote:

    "I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it." | Dr. Thomas Hendricks, Atlas Shrugged

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Atlas Shrugged

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Quite coincidentally, I just happened upon this quote:

    "I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it." | Dr. Thomas Hendricks, Atlas Shrugged

    TFred
    Besides being my personal favorite, should be required reading in high school. Some of Rand's writings are out there, but I love this book.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here we go again, worshiping at the altar of "private property!" Those knee cushions must be well worn by now.

    ALL hospitals are entirely regulated by the government. As best I recall, they are licensed, regulated, and even rationed out by the state government. You are not free to go build your own hospital, no matter how much money you have. Try and build a hospital across the street from an existing one sometime and see what happens.

    As such, I strongly believe that hospitals, places where the public MUST GO for certain levels of emergency health care, should be required to accommodate at least some individual rights, including one that is clearly NOT supposed to be infringed.

    TFred

    "Should be" is not settled law.

    Hospitals are regulated by government, just as are restaurants, veterinary clinics, cosmetologists, etc. They are not owned or managed by government. No one is forced to go to a hospital for treatment; the decision to seek that level of care is (usually) an individual one.

    I don't disagree with your assertion of the RKBA, of course, but only of your assertion that hospitals are not private property.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    ya know you could be trespassed at a hospital. I'll even betcha that a government hospital could trespass you.

    Don't sign documents without reading them. Don't answer question not directly related to the ailment and the care there of.

    All you "my gun trumps your private property right" citizens just piss me off.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Unless the hospital is a government one, they are not violating any of your rights by confiscating and disposing of your personal peropertry without due process and fair compensation. They would merely be stealing from you.

    stay safe.
    Your assertion that stealing from me doesn't violate my rights is completely and utterly preposterous...

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Ah...

    But if you signed the form, YOU authorized that theft.

    I contend that places open to public access are not truely private property in regards the Second Ammendment. Service may not be refused except based upon the behavior of the person (shirt, shoes, etc., drunkeness). Your abode MAY be viewed differently.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wolfhound View Post
    But if you signed the form, YOU authorized that theft.

    I contend that places open to public access are not truely private property in regards the Second Ammendment. Service may not be refused except based upon the behavior of the person (shirt, shoes, etc., drunkeness). Your abode MAY be viewed differently.
    As a great believer in private property rights...this is the argument that holds more water than any other!

    If you open your doors to the public and encourage them to come in...are they the same as those that say flatly, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT?

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by roscoe13 View Post
    Your assertion that stealing from me doesn't violate my rights is completely and utterly preposterous...

    Roscoe
    Please show me where in the US or Virginia Constitution it says you have the right not to have your stuff stolen.

    ETA: Even the Bible does not say Thou Shalt Not Be Stolen From.

    Stealing violates at least one, if not several, laws. Nobody that I am aware of has attempted the novel approach of claiming that since stealing is illegal, a person convicted of stealing has also violated your civil right to due process. Probably because you can only receive due process from the government and its agents, and in this case at least the hospital is not, much to TFred's dismay, a government agent as that term is currently understood via case law.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 10-21-2013 at 04:58 PM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    "Should be" is not settled law.

    Hospitals are regulated by government, just as are restaurants, veterinary clinics, cosmetologists, etc. They are not owned or managed by government. No one is forced to go to a hospital for treatment; the decision to seek that level of care is (usually) an individual one.

    I don't disagree with your assertion of the RKBA, of course, but only of your assertion that hospitals are not private property.
    I did not say that hospitals are not private property.

    My point is that hospitals exist solely at the discretion of the government, therefore, unlike other businesses, where we can choose to go or not go, citizens do not enjoy the privilege of choosing a hospital that does not deny their right to self-defense. This is a situation that has been created by the government, therefore, the protection against the government infringing on our rights at these locations should apply.

    TFred

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Please show me where in the US or Virginia Constitution it says you have the right not to have your stuff stolen.
    Amendment V, US Constitution states (in part):
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    You have a right to not be deprived of your property without due process of law. Theft deprives you of your property without due process of law. Ergo, theft is a violation of your rights.

    Similarly, according to this section, you have a right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Murder deprives you of life without due process of law. Ergo, murder is a violation of your rights.

    This principle was clearly described in the Declaration of Independence, when they stated that the purpose of government is to secure your unalienable rights (including, but not limited to, life, liberty and "the pursuit of happiness"). It makes no sense to establish a government to secure your rights, if the only entity that can violate your rights is that same government. If you accept the philosophical underpinnings of our system of government, as expressed in the Declaration and implemented in the Constitution, then it is clear that private individuals can violate the rights of others without any government affiliation involved.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Amendment V, US Constitution states (in part):You have a right to not be deprived of your property without due process of law. Theft deprives you of your property without due process of law. Ergo, theft is a violation of your rights.

    Similarly, according to this section, you have a right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Murder deprives you of life without due process of law. Ergo, murder is a violation of your rights.

    This principle was clearly described in the Declaration of Independence, when they stated that the purpose of government is to secure your unalienable rights (including, but not limited to, life, liberty and "the pursuit of happiness"). It makes no sense to establish a government to secure your rights, if the only entity that can violate your rights is that same government. If you accept the philosophical underpinnings of our system of government, as expressed in the Declaration and implemented in the Constitution, then it is clear that private individuals can violate the rights of others without any government affiliation involved.
    Sorry, but those restrictions apply ONLY to the government and its actions. They have nothing to do with non-governmental persons or agencies. And the Declaration of Independence clearly states that those unalienable rights were being violated by an oppressive and unresponsive government that, among many other things, refused to allow the courts to proceed against criminal complaints.

    The only way the government can control the behavior of individuals is by 1) enacting laws saying X or Y or Z is criminal, 2) prosecuting someone for bcommitting X or Y or Z, and then 3) imposing some sort of punishment for being convicted of having committed X or Y or Z in defiance of the law prohibiting so. (Which, BTW, is your due process in action.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but those restrictions apply ONLY to the government and its actions. They have nothing to do with non-governmental persons or agencies.
    Where does it say that? It says that "No person shall", not "The government shall not".

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And the Declaration of Independence clearly states that those unalienable rights were being violated by an oppressive and unresponsive government that, among many other things, refused to allow the courts to proceed against criminal complaints.
    What you say is true, but it doesn't negate what I said.

    According to the philosophical basis for our government, governments exist to protect rights. It makes no logical sense to say that government only exists to protect rights against government itself, because the easiest way to do that is to simply abolish government entirely (aka anarchy). Instead, the Founding Fathers created a system of government for the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals. Some of those rights had previously been violated by the previous government, but those violations were not the entire focus of the new government.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The only way the government can control the behavior of individuals is by 1) enacting laws saying X or Y or Z is criminal, 2) prosecuting someone for bcommitting X or Y or Z, and then 3) imposing some sort of punishment for being convicted of having committed X or Y or Z in defiance of the law prohibiting so. (Which, BTW, is your due process in action.)
    And that is the mechanism by which government helps to secure those unalienable rights. The reason that the government has authority to make theft criminal is because we granted the government the authority to secure our right to property. The reason that the government can outlaw murder is because we gave the government authority to protect our right to life.

    The way our system of government is set up is specifically to protect our rights from both our fellow citizens and from the government itself. The government cannot violate my right to property without due process, but neither can another individual.

    Yes, there are some rights that only the government is prohibited from infringing (such as free speech), but that doesn't mean that all rights fall into that category.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Where does it say that? It says that "No person shall", not "The government shall not".....
    Can you quote the entire sentence, please? I think the answer lies there.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  25. #25
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a patient or a visitor from praying for the health or healing for themselves or for a loved one? Do you think a hospital should be allowed to forbid a visitor or a patient from possessing a Bible or other religious text while they are on hospital property?

    These First Amendment issues are equal to the Second Amendment issues, including carrying a gun for self defense. Until we who claim to support gun rights wake up to these similarities, and recognize how ridiculous it is to allow others to intimidate us into giving up these rights, we are our own worst enemy.

    ETA: And to be clear, I'm not suggesting we remove the rights of hospitals to forbid EITHER religious activities and texts, OR guns... I AM suggesting that policies which do so (in either case) are ridiculous, and must be called out as such - and socially rejected until they are rescinded.

    TFred
    +1 and *high-five*
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •