Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does it say exactly what the policy is on taking an inmate to the doctor? Per the inmates request? If they determine a medical emergency, do they rely on their own untrained judgement or are they required to get approval? What if there is not enough employees on duty?
What do regular welfare checks consist of? Video monitoring, physically looking, physical interaction with the inmates?
The lawsuit will probably produce all that information through discovery.
Honestly, I understand what you are saying. The problem is deeper than that though. It took some time for this woman to die. It was not something that happened instantly. As an eight year old child, I was forced to determine on my own what a medical emergency was and the person lived. This isn't rocket science and I don't believe in letting people hide behind regulations. Additionally, the regulations can be the problem. If they don't set up an adequate structure for getting necessary medical treatment for inmates than all the obedience to them in the world will not stop a court from ruling against the jail.
What must be accepted is that the cruel and unusual punishment section of the Eighth Amendment prohibits jails in all fifty states from treating inmates in a manner that shows callous indifference to human life. That's what is alleged here and--from what I read--there is a good case to be made of exactly that.
Last edited by markg91359; 09-11-2018 at 02:52 PM..
let's not play shoulda/coulda/woulda. It is meaningless. The deceased made the decisions that put her in that spot, not me and not you. And she would have sold YOUR soul in a heartbeat for more heroin.
...
My point was that the concept that "it's all about choices", in real life; can be meaningless. Sometimes, **** just happens & we don't get a choice in the matter.
For people who consistently make excellent choices; this Has happened. It Is happening & it Will happen again. Real or false; your sense of superiority is giving you a false sense of security.
Any attempt to sell my soul for heroin would be an "insufficient funds" type of transaction; so that point is moot but I don't see heroin addicts sans heroin; as being viable dealers with the devil. I see them the same way a lifeguard sees a person drowning in the ocean:
A life worth saving that is to be approached with caution, as every experienced lifeguard knows that a desperate person gasping for air can take down even the strongest swimmer. And in the event that person cannot be saved; it is a tragedy versus a triumph.
How so? Did she overprescribe herself pain medication for the soccer injury she had suffered and thus become addicted to opioids? Lots of folks are addicted because the doctor prescribed oxycodone in too high a dose, and the manufacturer lied about how long it stays effective, which leads to patients taking more medication more often, leading to addiction.
Meaningless comment - no one hates the deceased. Fact is, she put herself into that position by her own choices. Not everyone can be saved, or wants to be saved.
"You wanna be a junkie, wow, remember, Freddy's dead"
I would never hope that this would happen to any of your relatives or friends. But if it did, I am sure your perspective would be much different.
Does it say exactly what the policy is on taking an inmate to the doctor? Per the inmates request? If they determine a medical emergency, do they rely on their own untrained judgement or are they required to get approval? What if there is not enough employees on duty?
What do regular welfare checks consist of? Video monitoring, physically looking, physical interaction with the inmates?
The 300 page report says they disobeyed procedures. So...whatever they did, they did it wrong. And "disobeyed" implies, to me, that they knew the rules and CHOSE to not follow the rules.
Otherwise, verbiage might've been, "where negligent" or "were unclear on the rules". But instead, the dept. of corrections said "they disobeyed."
How so? Did she overprescribe herself pain medication for the soccer injury she had suffered and thus become addicted to opioids? Lots of folks are addicted because the doctor prescribed oxycodone in too high a dose, and the manufacturer lied about how long it stays effective, which leads to patients taking more medication more often, leading to addiction.
And lots of folks don't become addicted because over prescribed oxycodone. Just because a doctor prescribes something doesn't mean you have to blindly ingest it.
I understand what your saying. Lot of folks have fallen to addiction due to prescriptions before they realize what has happed. Its tragic and it needs to stop. But there is help out there and at some point people are going to have to take some personal responsibility and stop blaming everyone else for their situations.
Which brings me to the family who now want to sue. Where were they and their concern when their daughter was becoming an addict, after she became an addict. What did they do to help her then. Where were they when she was arrested. If my child were an addict and prone to seizures I would be bailing her out even if she said not to. There is no reason to spend 4 days in jail for unpaid traffic tickets. Until I could get her out I'd make damn sure everyone at the jail knew of her condition and I'd call every 30 minutes to make sure someone checked on her. Now that she is dead and the stand to make bank they appear all concerned for her welfare.
The 300 page report says they disobeyed procedures. So...whatever they did, they did it wrong. And "disobeyed" implies, to me, that they knew the rules and CHOSE to not follow the rules.
Otherwise, verbiage might've been, "where negligent" or "were unclear on the rules". But instead, the dept. of corrections said "they disobeyed."
I kind of like to hear the details. Disobeyed policies (by the dept. of safety) by not taking her to the doctor is vague and still begs the question what exactly is the policy. Take inmates to the doctor upon every inmate request? If staff determine there is a medical necessity? What exactly is the rule?
I hardly think policy would dictate staff had to take every inmate that ask to go to the doctor every time they asked to go to the doctor. And again expecting staff to make medical diagnosis with no medical training?
When my brother began his career in law enforcement he started by volunteering in the jail. His duties were dispensing meds, checking on inmates and transporting inmates.
One time an inmate had a medical issue with his testicles. Several paid employees without medical training took a look to determine if he needed medical attention. They asked my brother, a volunteer with no medical background, to take a look and determine if the inmate needed medical attention. He politely refused because he was not qualified to make a diagnosis on this guy testicles. Did he disobey policy?
This is just an example of how grey policy can be.
I imagine more will be uncovered when this goes to court if the department doesn't go ahead and settle.
We know from the report the jailers didn't follow proper procedure. We know form the video these dipsticks gave her a mop to clean her own vomit. There is no arguing a certain level of ignorance or incompetence here. Unfortunately their credibility is in question.
Yes she is(was) absolutely responsible for being in jail on the first place. The outcome looks to be completely out of her control. Whether it is the jailers or the process, something is flawed. Drug withdrawal, especially heroin is a serious freaking condition often requiring rehab and medial facilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Where did I say she is suppose to die. I'm saying she is responsible for some of what happened.
Sorry but what happened to some personal responsibility.
You believe the officers would have taken her to the hospital for Xanax immediately when she asked and she would not have died.
Do you believe she had any responsibility to have initially told them of her medical condition instead of withholding that information until a later time?
You believe the officers should have checked on her every 15 to 30 minutes and she would not have died.
You believe the officers should have taken her to the hospital even though she said she was fine, she wanted to sleep.
Do you believe she had any responsibility to ask her parents to bail her out, or to have asked again for medical attention instead of saying she was fine.
Do you believe she had any responsibility to have paid her previous traffic tickets, not been speeding or whatever she did to get pulled over for the latest traffic violation, or to have gotten medical attention for her addiction.
Again if people want jailers to monitor inmates every 15 to 30 minutes, assess their medical condition, transport them to and from a medical facility at their request they need to see that jailers are trained as med techs with some psych training, and that there is enough personnel and funds to do that. They need to push for a medical assessment for every person initially brought into the jail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
