Rights in hospitals.

[riverrat10k]

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*












'

 

[skidmark]

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.

 

[MAC702]

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.

 

[mpguy]

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

 

[TFred]

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

 

[davidmcbeth]

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.

 

[MAC702]

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."

 

[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."

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

 

[skidmark]

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.

 

[MAC702]

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.

 

[TFred]

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

 

[TFred]

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

 

[va_tazdad]

Atlas Shrugged

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.

 

[Tess]

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.

 

[OC for ME]

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.

 

[roscoe13]

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 Wolfhound]

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.

 

[peter nap]

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?

 

[skidmark]

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.

 

[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.

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