And yet that doesn’t stop you from making very specific statements as to what “is” done or must be done or should be done, while simultaneously admitting that in reality you don’t know what the hell the policies are in this case, and you don’t know what the hell the procedures are in this case.
There is nothing in the excessively authorative manner in which you’ve posted to indicate that you are “giving examples of policies you have seen.” You say things like “If there is no policy in place, there’s really nothing the staff could do” (Post 53) and “inmates are not denied medical care” (Post 62) and “The obligation [of a jail]doesn’t include continuing therapies which the doctors decide are medically unecessary,” all of which are not necessary accurate and the first two of which almost certainly aren’t. You talk like you know what you’re talking about in every circumstance – “this is just the way things work” – but then you try to deny that’s what you’re doing. Furthermore, to the extent you are giving examples of policies “you have seen” (whatever the hell that means, beyond that you probably actually have no idea how these policies work or don’t work on the ground), you are discussing and applying prison policies to a situation involving a jail, thereby further confusing the situation and making your examples that much less persuasive.
You have no idea what policies do or do not exist in this facility. You have no idea what was done or was not done in this circumstance. Yet you continue to post as if you have some special knowledge in this general area or the circumstances of this event, when in fact you have none. Worse, you continue to post a POV that is legally incorrect, and damagingly so – that is is better for a jail to withhold ONE DOSE of medication – to do nothing than to give the inmate the medication in good faith, after talking to the inmate and seeking guidance from superiors. All based on what your husband – not you – does, or used to do, for a living.
Cite? And don’t bother retreateing to your “probably;” the truth is you have no idea whether this was probable or not, you just pulled it out of your ass.
This is the point: Policy does not tie your hands. It is not a concrete entity that physically prevents you from doing what circumstances indicate to you is the correct thing under the circumstances. Again, if you try and are wrong, your facility is probably okay. If you do nothing and the inmate’s health is compromised, you have exposed your facility to a federal lawsuit. Policy should be flexible enough to understand that it cannot cover every conceivable occurrence, and to recognize that in some cases detention workers will have to exercise their best judgment and seek assistance as appropriate. The “their hands are tied so they had to allow the inmate to be harmed” argument is utter bullshit.
Neither can you trust that people will always make the wrong decision. Since a good-faith effort is in many cases the difference between mere negligence (not actionable in federal court for these types of cases) and “deliberate indifference,”
there should be no point at which your detention officers should be encouraged to DO NOTHING out of fear of making the wrong decision. Again, these officers do not work in a vacuum. They have chains of command and telephones, and they can use them.
You know, you keep saying things like this, as if they are not completely self-evident. It’s pretty irritating. Here’s another example: “Policies are in place for a reason.” Here’s another: “Jails are busy places.” Fucking duh. :rolleyes:
This is utter, utter bullshit. The FACILITY bears the risk for failing to see to the inmate’s serious medical needs, even if through its staff’s inaction, and if you don’t think shit rolls down hill and there aren’t consequences to the workers who cause that liability risk, it’s because that’s the sort of thing you don’t find covered in the policies you’ve “seen.”
For Chrissakes! THAT’S WHAT I FUCKING SAID! I said, “if the inmate told me just what pill it was and why she needed it, I sure as hell would be on the phone urgently punting the issue up my chain of command,” to which you immediately responded, “As would I, but there are other considerations at work” – no, there really aren’t in this case – and “medical services for prisons and jails sometimes operate like HMOs,” which is flat-out incorrect for the vast majority of jails. IOW, you picked apart my post to list “examples” based on policies you have “seen” – prison policies, not jail policies – while acknowledging that you don’t actually have any idea as to the events or policies in this case, when in fact YOU AGREE WITH ME, you’re just trying to be an authoritative pain in the ass – and not even on your own authority or expertise! On your husband’s! You are completely exasperating.
Honey, if I need an example of jail policy, I just turn my head. I have approximately 200 of them on the shelf behind me. Although for relevance, nothing beats a policy from North Dakota. :rolleyes:
No, it is assuming that the detention officers have been trained to recognize the signs of anaphylactic shock. Every detention officer should have that training, along training to recognize and respond to other time-sensitive emergencies. Yes, it also assumes the existence of the epi pen; every jail should have them in their emergency supplies. There is no diagnosis required when faced with anaphylaxis; all you have to do is recognize the signs, call for help, run get the pen, and administer the medication. Again “doing nothing” under such circumstances would be a massively stupid choice.
This is absolute, complete, and utter bullshit. BULLSHIT! It is factually incorrect, and it is legally incorrect, for reasons already amply set forth. Now you can parrot this POV until you’re blue in the face, but you are quite simply full of shit, and if you’re getting this from your sainted husband, then he’s full of shit as well.