Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, March 6, 2008

Proposed ‘Amanda’s Law’ hits roadblock

Measure would require drug testing at serious accidents

March 6, 2008

Advertisement

Senate reviews officers' injury accident protocol

A Senate subcommittee will study a bill requiring officers to test drivers for alcohol or drug use in accidents involving death or serious injury. Enlarge video

— Concerns about constitutional rights were raised Wednesday over a bill that would require drug testing of people involved in serious traffic accidents.

The measure, House Bill 2617, was written in response to a Feb. 14, 2007, wreck in Basehor that killed 19-year-old Tonganoxie native Amanda Bixby.

The driver who caused that wreck, Ricardo Flores, wasn't tested for drugs. He later was fined and placed on six months' probation after pleading no contest to failure to yield at a stop sign.

Amanda's parents, Tonganoxie residents Dennis and Denise Bixby, have lobbied for the proposed law, which would require law officers to order drug tests at accidents involving fatalities or serious injury. Currently, officers must have a reasonable suspicion that drugs played a part in an accident before they can order a person to undergo a drug test.

What has been called "Amanda's Law" sailed out of the House last month on a 117-5 vote.

But it hit a roadblock Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

State Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, said he didn't like the idea of his grandmother having to submit to a blood test if she was involved in a wreck. "They're going to have to hold her down and take her blood sample?" he asked.

Under the bill, people could refuse to submit to a drug test, but they could lose their driver's licenses.

But Dennis Bixby, Amanda's father, argued it would be better to collect as much evidence as possible after the wreck, and then let a judge later decide whether that evidence was admissible in court.

Ed Klump, representing the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, said it would be easier to require blood tests of everyone involved rather than force an officer to decide who was at fault because sometimes crash scenes are chaotic.

But Committee Chairman Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, referred to two complex flow charts Klump provided that were designed to show the difference between current law and how the system would operate under the proposed measure.

Officers will "need a flow chart to figure out what they can do," Vratil said.

Vratil assigned the bill to a subcommittee to continue working on it.

Comments

Janet Lowther 6 years, 9 months ago

Are we going to add a training requirement that all police become certified phlebotomists? (A phlebotomist is the "nurse" who takes blood samples at the lab.) Phlebotomy training usually takes four months all by itself. . .

Or would they require everyone involved in a serious accident to be arrested and transported for samples to be taken?

They just didn't think this bill through.

blahblahblah 6 years, 9 months ago

What happens to the samples that are deemed to be intoxicant free? Is the DNA destroyed or kept in a database?

july241983 6 years, 9 months ago

"Ed Klump, representing the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, said it would be easier to require blood tests of everyone involved rather than force an officer to decide who was at fault because sometimes crash scenes are chaotic."

And officers should be able to just search anyone anytime because it would be easier on the police than having to have probable cause or to get a warrant.

pimp11 6 years, 9 months ago

Question/Statement---

For those who have worked in a warehouse setting/ drive vehicles for a living. If you are involved in an accident isnt required you submit to drug/alcohol testing.

I worked in a warehouse once where forklifts were operated. If you were to have the slightest accident; you were required to submit to a drug screening.

Warehouse is in a way a controlled atmosphere. The roads are uncontrolled for the most part. I would think that the requirements would be for the screening to happen in the uncontrolled rather than the controlled. But thats just my opinion; I agree with the Bixby's that something needs to change. But how you go about getting drug tests from a crash site..........that is the question.

tvc 6 years, 9 months ago

If this passes, I would never submit to a drug test. It's time for a little civil disobedience. How in the world are we even considering it!!

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 9 months ago

pimp11, why does something need to change? The Bixbys are understandably upset that their daughter is dead, but that does not equate to a conclusion that the current system is broken. If an officer has reason to believe that a driver in a car accident is under the influence, that officer can pursue a search warrant to test the driver's blood. That was an option for the officer responding to Amanda Bixby's accident. The officer apparently saw no reason to pursue that option.

Why on earth should we mess with the Constitutional process for obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause?

pusscanthropus 6 years, 9 months ago

If I got smoked pot at a party Friday night, then got in a wreck two weeks later, the pot would still show up on a drug test even though I was not intoxicated. This is b/c the THC is fat soluble. But if someone smoked meth, snorted coke, shot herion, or got sh*tfaced drunk, it wouldn't show up two weeks later. So those who indulge in the mildest intoxicant will suffer the most severe penalty. Sounds screwed to me.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

jrlii (Anonymous) says:

"Or would they require everyone involved in a serious accident to be arrested and transported for samples to be taken?"

Yes, that is what the proposed bill provides for. If it becomes law, they will take you to a hospital and have your blood taken. And, incidentally, they are defining the collection of the sample as a non-medical procedure, therefore not requiring consent of the driver to perform the procedure and not giving the driver any control over release of the records. And medical professionals will be granted immunity for collecting the sample and releasing the results without consent.

You would have the right to refuse (at the cost of an automatic suspension of your license), unless you're unconscious (or dead) or otherwise unable to do so; then it gets taken regardless.

Great idea, huh?

pimp11 6 years, 9 months ago

ebyrdstarr --- The officer apparently saw no reason to pursue that option.------

You arrive at a fatal accident scene in a rather small town. The most action you get on normal nights is the occasional speeder or stop sign violater.

These officers are "highly" trained at what they do. But to come to a 'real life' accident scene; maybe the officers first one, is totally different than training. I think we can all agree on that.

I have heard this, I have heard that, about the accident. Living close to the scene and having had close encounters myself makes me wonder what was this guy thinking when he ran the stop sign at the speed that he was going.

Have you been to the intersection? If you have then I think that you would have to in some sort of way have to agree that this guy was either stoned, (obviously wasnt drunk, passed that test) OR he was in suicide mode.

With that said, I agree with you in ways that why change things. But in my opinion, I feel that the law enforcement at the scene messed up.

No way would anyone in their right mind drive at the speed he was and run through that stop sign. NO ONE!!

WHY 6 years, 9 months ago

I will never submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test. Losing my drivers license for one year would be totally worth avoiding the legal system, fines, insurance hikes, and loss of license anyway. Blood tests for drugs are bogus because they can not tell whether you are impaired. And what about all the sober people running into things, What is their excuse. I think people should lose their license for being stupid.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

pusscanthropus (Anonymous) says:

"If I got smoked pot at a party Friday night, then got in a wreck two weeks later, the pot would still show up on a drug test even though I was not intoxicated. This is b/c the THC is fat soluble. But if someone smoked meth, snorted coke, shot herion, or got sh*tfaced drunk, it wouldn't show up two weeks later. So those who indulge in the mildest intoxicant will suffer the most severe penalty. Sounds screwed to me."

It's a matter of degree. Although a matter of days rather than weeks, people using meth or cocaine would still test positive days after any intoxication or level of impairment was gone. Yes, it's screwed.

Staci Dark Simpson 6 years, 9 months ago

I agree pimp11. For Flores to zip thru that intersection, that is pretty obvious something had to be going on. I know that sometimes law enforcement doesn't always catch someone who is impaired. But driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't stay off drugs don't drive while you are impaired. Better yet don't do drugs. Maybe Flores didn't know the big red octagon meant stop. He is an illegal immigrant, maybe he is not aware of US driving customs. Either way this dude got off easy.

ksdivakat 6 years, 9 months ago

But wait! I was in a car wreck in 03 and messed up my back, every night when I get home I take a muscle relaxer and a pain pill which is a narcotic. I do not drive after I take my medicine, however, what if the next day I was in a wreck and they took my blood and of course its gonna test positive for opiates (sp) sorry, so now im in trouble and I have to "prove" that I wasnt under the influence when I was driving, but in the meantime, while im trying to prove this, the paperwork is all messed up in the courts, my license is suspended and i have to jump through hoops for something I didnt even do! We have given wayyyy to much athority to law enforcement, the patriot act basically takes all our liberities away if law enforcement thinks so anyway....so I agree....a great dose of civil disobedience is called for here, I am sorry for the loss of their daughter, but i think that the bloggers are right and that the police officer on the scene is who is to blame for being incompetent and not testing the driver. JMHO though.....

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 9 months ago

I do know that intersection well. I'm not going to agree that he obviously must have been stoned to blow through that stop sign. People are perfectly capable of being that stupid, inattentive, and/or reckless without any drugs in their system.

Regardless, not agreeing with how the responding officer handled this one accident scene is no reason for wildly overreacting and passing a blatantly unconstitional law. There is already a proper way to seek a drug test. Just because it didn't happen here doesn't mean something state-wide needs to be changed.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says:

"But driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't stay off drugs don't drive while you are impaired."

This is the problem. It has nothing to do with whether you're impaired or not. Drugs can be detected long after any effect wears off - it's not like alcohol where you're pretty much impaired as long as you blow above a certain amount in a breathalyzer test. You can do drugs and have a car accident several days after they've worn off and still test positive.


ksdivakat (Anonymous) says:

"I do not drive after I take my medicine, however, what if the next day I was in a wreck and they took my blood and of course its gonna test positive for opiates (sp) sorry, so now im in trouble and I have to "prove" that I wasnt under the influence when I was driving, but in the meantime, while im trying to prove this, the paperwork is all messed up in the courts, my license is suspended and i have to jump through hoops for something I didnt even do!"

Absolutely correct. And you forgot something - you might have a chance of being able to challenge the state's contention that you were impaired when it came time for the criminal charges, since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But then there's the civil charges - yes, you can count on being sued by the other party to the accident. And with the civil jury following a different set of rules, they just may award the other party the whole enchilada because of the inference that you were impaired.

Even better - the other party may have been whacked out of his gourd on LSD or mushrooms, and you'd still get the blame, 'cause those things are not usually going to be tested for.

Wonderful, isn't it?


ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says:

"Regardless, not agreeing with how the responding officer handled this one accident scene is no reason for wildly overreacting and passing a blatantly unconstitional law."

Especially when one considers that even if Flores had been tested and it was positive, it still wouldn't have told us if he was impaired.

kateku 6 years, 9 months ago

So your illegal drugs are in your system after you are no longer impaired? They are illegal... don't do them and you have nothing to worry about.

Chris Beilman 6 years, 9 months ago

Constitutional issues are for liberals .... So unconstitutional issues are for ??????? Morons ????

nomansland 6 years, 9 months ago

Kansas just keeps getting more backwards day by day. Thank god I moved out when I could! Funny how neo-cons don't like government interferance in their lives but don't mind something like this. What's next? Start going door-to-door and testing every Kansan for drugs?

firemedic301 6 years, 9 months ago

As a firefighter and paramedic in a neighboring county I am in favor of this bill. I challenge any of you to put my boots on for one day I see what I deal with. I have been doing this for going on 13 years and have lost count of how many accidents I have ran that were caused by drugs or alcohol. Until you're in a muddy ditch in the middle of the night trying to keep someones brains off your pants because some dilhole got high and drunk and decided to drive home, find something else to complain about besides this bill.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 9 months ago

Firemedic: I guess even the folks in the legislature aren't qualified to have an opinion either as odds are pretty good none of them meet your criteria either?

The bottom line is that law enforcement already has the ability to test for these types of imparements without this bill being passed. Unless the concern is to police the police in making sure they do their job I don't see the point.

Try enforcing the laws we already have instead of coming up with redundant feel good laws.

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, firemedic, but I will continue to complain about any bill that infringes on my constitutional rights. I do not doubt that you see horrible things and I thank you for doing what you do to help my family, friends, and neighbors. But you are simply wrong to suggest that the rest of us should essentially sit down and shut up about a proposal that has the potential to affect us all.

As I have repeatedly stated, police officers already have all the authority they need to seek a search warrant in any individual case where an officer has individualizd probable cause to suspect impairment. No legislative attempt to circumvent the warrant requirement passes constitutional muster and we shouldn't let our legislature try.

Kateku: that sort of simplistic thinking leads to the death of civil liberties. Gee, only those who are committing crimes have anything to hide. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then what possible objection could you have? Well, no, some of us just don't like needles or flat don't like being searched. The constitution protects me against being searched, so I'm going to invoke that right even though I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Plus, as has been repeatedly pointed out in posts to articles on this subject, a drug test would not do what people want.

a) It does not and cannot show impairment. It just shows that a substance is in your bloodstream, but it could have been ingested 3-6 days ago, or even 30 in the case of marijuana.

b) The tests reveal only byproducts of drugs. The byproducts of some perfectly legal substances (narcotic pain killers, for example) look just like the byproducts of illegal drugs.

I have very little patience for people who act like those of us interested in protecting our constitutional rights are doing something wrong. It is those of you willing to give away my 4th Amendment right (for a test that would yield no probative information) who are in the wrong.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 9 months ago

Multi: My point was more this logic excludes anyone from having an opinion unless they pass the "battle tested" litmus test. This is faulty thinking as it excludes most everyone.

On a side note: I don't think we know that firemedic is a "he". Could very well be a "she" I suspect.

classclown 6 years, 9 months ago

Frankly, I have a problem with any law - existing or proposed- that is named after a person. They are nothing more than official knee jerk reactions. Dump the whole lot of them.

Except for Murphy's Law which has me under it's fascist thumb and governs my life completely.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

kateku (Anonymous) says:

"So your illegal drugs are in your system after you are no longer impaired? They are illegal: don't do them and you have nothing to worry about."

Maybe I should have specified, but as I said in response to ksdivakat's post, the same goes for prescribed medications. Take a Vicodin after a wisdom tooth gets pulled? Don't plan on driving for the next few days (you'll notice from the extreme pain in your mouth that the drug is no longer working, but you'll still test positive). There are probably thousands of medications in the PDR that list drowsiness as a potential side effect. Theoretically, any of these that are in your system could result in your being charged, whether or not you actually are drowsy or even if they're no longer having any effect at all.


firemedic301 (Anonymous) says:

"As a firefighter and paramedic in a neighboring county I am in favor of this bill. I challenge any of you to put my boots on for one day I see what I deal with."

I have friends that are police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency room workers, and yes, it's horrible.

Now tell us all how this bill is going to have any - any - effect on that.


logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"I also fail to see how Informed's post was insensitive."

Ditto. The family's grief is certainly understandable and justified, their response is also understandable (they probably really do believe they are doing something to keep another family from being in their situation), but their actions are very misguided.

If Mr. Flores had tested positive for drugs after the accident, what would it have told them? Absolutely nothing. It could not have told them whether the drugs were a factor at all.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

I don't know why I never noticed this before, but the caption under Amanda's picture says it was a three car accident.

So if this law had been in place, Mr. Flores would have been tested, so would Ms. Bixby, and so would the driver of the car he hit before he hit her?

compmd 6 years, 9 months ago

This stupid proposed law would have no effect on the root cause of the DUI related accidents: people are not afraid of the consequences of driving under the influence. In the US (Kansas especially) the punishment is pretty much a slap on the wrist (fine, suspension). I'm sorry, but if you make the conscious decision to impair your brain and you then get in a car and do whatever, I have no sympathy for you, and I believe you should go to prison. You kill someone in a DUI accident, and the death penalty should be an available sentence. Amend the DUI statutes, make the punishments tougher, problem solved.

rammy says: "Id like to see you say that to the fathers face, coward."

I don't think its cowardly to come into a public forum and announce this to the world: One of my fellow citizens who can't move on with life does not have the right to infringe upon my rights, and the rights of everyone else in the state. The father can read this, and so can everyone else. Cowardly? No. It takes bravery to stand up to people who want to take something away from you.

HMcMellon 6 years, 9 months ago

What about prescription drugs? Some of what my doctor and dentist have given me made me downright loopy. I would never feel comfortable behind the wheel after taking some of that stuff. From what I have read about cocaine, speed and marijuana, there is little evidence of people being impared, while some of the narcotics prescribed by doctors and dentists definitely make people impared. Should people who are on heavy prescription medications be charged with a crime if they cause an accident? If you are impared, you are impared. It makes no difference to the person who is killed whether the drug you were using was legal or not, and most illegal drugs do not impare as much as some prescription drugs.

imastinker 6 years, 9 months ago

First, the guy that hit that girls car crossed two lanes of traffic, a median that's at least 50' wide there, and still hit her with enough force to kill her. I'd estimate that at about 45 MPH. Have any of you seen the area this accident occured? She was headed west bound on 24-40 between tonganoxie and Bonner Springs and he was headed northbound.

Second, I think what firemedic was saying is that many of the accidents he cleans up go unprosecuted because they are unable to prove that drugs/alcohol were involved in an accident even though they were found at the scene. I think many of you would be surprised how often this happens, and how often the accidents that he goes to are related to impaired driving.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

HMcMellon (Anonymous) says:

"Should people who are on heavy prescription medications be charged with a crime if they cause an accident? If you are impared, you are impared."

Yep, and that's already covered by existing law - anything that has the potential to impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle, essentially, can get you charged with driving impaired.

And, as I (and several other people) have stated, you will test positive for these substances anywhere from hours to weeks after any residual "loopiness" has worn off.

texburgh 6 years, 9 months ago

This is where our country is going. We are quick to surrender civil liberties and civil rights in a desire to be "more safe." From warrantless wiretaps to torture to proposals like this one. Americans should draw a line in the sand. Let those who would move us further and further into a police state know that we will no longer stand for these attacks on our constitutional rights. America is slowly slipping into totalitarianism.

firemedic301 6 years, 9 months ago

To reply to akreed I am a male. As to people speaking about their rights being infringed, they won't be unless you're doing something wrong. If you are doing something wrong, and you know it is wrong (i.e. putting the key in the ignition and driving off while impaired) then you should face the consequences. I agree that the DUI charges should be enforced more severly also. The point that I feel most people are missing is this: It is easy for people to sit on the sidelines and say they don't want their rights infringed (or that this type of incident would never happen to you or your family), which I don't want mine either, BUT when you go to bed tonight and kiss your kids as you tuck them in or lay in bed with your significant other, stop and think what it would be like to never do that again because somebody got behind the wheel when they shouldn't have. If you would not be upset one bit, then feel free to oppose this bill. If you would would want to see justice system work and take that person off the streets at least for a couple years, then it's a no-brainer.

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 9 months ago

No, firemedic, not just wrong-doers will have their rights infringed. People who display no signs of impairment will have their blood drawn even when it turns out there are no traces of anything in that blood. (As a radical thought, even wrong-doers still have the right to have that evidence of wrong-doing uncovered within the framework of the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement.)

Your appeals to emotion and passion are no doubt heartfelt but I refuse to allow emotional pleas to cloud the issues here. From a rational standpoint, this bill would violate the constitution for evidence with very little probative value.

I cannot overlook your request that I stop and think about what if it were my family member. Of course I would be upset if a family member were killed by an impaired driver. It's frankly insulting that you suggest those of us who are opposed to this bill wouldn't be. Those of us who value our rights do have hearts. Of course I would want to see the justice system work. The justice system will not work if we allow this kind of chipping-away at our constitutional rights.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

firemedic: I understand that there are people out there who do really stupid things. My question, and the question many have asked on here, is how will this prevent these types of accidents. You appear to believe that it will, but how? It seems to me like it is geared towards determining causality more than it is at prevention.

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 9 months ago

"You guys aren't really afraid you'll be proven impaired. You're afraid the cops will find out you use illegal drugs and you'll get busted later on."

That must be it, kubacker. There couldn't be any other possible reason for wanting to keep the police from conducting bodily searches. And since you don't have anything to hide, you won't have any objection to a strip search.

july241983 6 years, 9 months ago

And, if you males out there have nothing to hide, then you wouldn't mind a forced tube up your penis to extract a urine sample.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_forced_catheterization.html

Richard Heckler 6 years, 9 months ago

"kubacker (Anonymous) says:

You guys aren't really afraid you'll be proven impaired. You're afraid the cops will find out you use illegal drugs and you'll get busted later on."

Perhaps you would not mind if the LPD stopped by your place out of the clear blue and decided to search your house because an officer decided there was just cause?

What have you got to hide?

mommy3 6 years, 9 months ago

Firemedic, thank you for what you do. I can't imagine being in your shoes. My heart breaks everytime I hear of another family torn apart because of someone else' choice. I live in Tonganoxie, and drive that intersection everyday to go to Basehor from a clients home at 190th st. I can't see what that guy was thinking when this happened. I think this won't stop the stupid A$$ from getting behind the wheel, but it might make a few people stop and think there will be a worst fate than a fine and a few months with no license. Most of the people who loose their license drive anyway, maybe if more people would stop breaking the laws, they wouldn't have to keep adding more laws.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

Mommy, people aren't going to stop breaking laws. So lets make it 2 out of every 100 citizens in prison. That's the answer. The fact is, this law does nothing to prevent intoxication-related accidents; it only looks to further punish the people who get caught doing it. People will continue to do it regardless. Furthermore, it makes targets of people who are completely innocent.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

firemedic301;

I think everyone in here is in favor of getting impaired drivers off the road. And in favor of holding people accountable when they injure or kill someone while they're impaired.

Now, that having been said, you didn't answer the question posed by myself and several others: What would this bill do to accomplish that?

The answer, in case you're wondering, is absolutely nothing. In addition to not being able to tell whether someone who caused an accident was impaired by drugs, it also will hold people up to blame when they were not impaired in any way and may not have ever done any illegal drugs in their lives.

If you want to compare what this bill does to drunk driving, it would be like giving someone a DUI and blaming them for an accident if they had a beer a couple of days or even a couple of weeks ago. Is this what you are in favor of?


kubacker (Anonymous) says:

"You guys aren't really afraid you'll be proven impaired. You're afraid the cops will find out you use illegal drugs and you'll get busted later on."

Well, except the problems with this bill still exist even when talking about legally prescribed medication.


texburgh (Anonymous) says:

"This is where our country is going. We are quick to surrender civil liberties and civil rights in a desire to be "more safe.""

While there certainly might be cause for those concerns, I don't think that's what's behind this bill. I believe the Bixbys really believe they're doing something useful in their daughter's memory, and I think the legislators are caving in to the publicity raised by the Bixbys with a typical knee-jerk reaction to make it look like they're addressing the issue. If you actually read the bill you can see that they haven't thought out many of the details.

mommy3 6 years, 9 months ago

I really don't see what you are so upet about. I mean if you are in an accident that SERIOUSLY injures someone, or KILLS them, then I myself would be so upset..the last thing I would be worriy about was giving my blood.

ksdivakat 6 years, 9 months ago

mommy....anyone in their right mind would be upset if the accident caused harm or death....I dont think the issue is illegal drugs or being illegally impaired, but rather what about being on prescribed meds, as I am, and as I mentioned I do not drive after I take them, although Ive been on them so long they have no "high" affect on me, but still, I have teenagers and i am trying to be responsible, and not driving after the meds. So tomorrow afternoon, Im in a wreck, its the other drivers fault and unfortunately the other driver or myself is seriously injured, Im not "impaired" at the time of the accident, but the blood work they do that finds the "opiates" in my system says im guilty until proven innocent! Im all about tougher laws for DUI and what not, but you cannot make a blanket law that everyone is subject to because there are to many variable factors......my life should not be turned into crap because I drove the next day, off my prescription, but was in a accident...does that make sense?? I dont think anyone here would advocate for someone who was illegally imapired either by illegal drugs or alcohol to get off scott free.....but that law is too subjective and that could create big problems down the line for all of us. The police have the ability now to do something if they suspect that a driver is impaired, let them work within the bounds of that law.....

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

mommy3 (Anonymous) says:

"I really don't see what you are so upet about. I mean if you are in an accident that seriously injures someone, or KILLS them, then I myself would be so upset..the last thing I would be worriy about was giving my blood."

Which only compounds the problem. At a time like that, you're unlikely to think through the possible consequences. You're unlikely, for instance, to remember you took a legally prescribed medication a day or two ago, and that when traces of it are found in your blood, you'll not only be facing criminal charges, but somewhere down the road you're going to be sued and lose your house, your savings, the kids' college funds, etc.

DBAWalt 6 years, 9 months ago

And, as for the Viagra type ads stating if you have an erection lasting over four hours, see your doctor. I know a few men who've had the problem. Quote,"Those nurses did everything they could to try to make it happen.)

So thus, will men now take viagra and go in so as to be "worked on" by a nurse when they have no partner?

I am one of those nurses, and I am a 50 YO straight male. I have had many years experience in busy Emergency Rooms, and 10 years as an Ambulance attendent before that, but I am not currently working as a nurse, so treatments may have changed.

It's called priapism, and it usually leaves the man totally unable to get an erection EVER again. Wow, doesn't THAT sound fun!

Treatments the DOCTOR (not the nurse) may try are:

 Ice packs

(Oh my, fun!! It is one of the only treatments a nurse would do and, of course, no one would ever think of that at home...)

 Surgical ligation: The doctor will ligate (tie off) the artery that is causing the priapism in order to restore normal blood flow.

(Can I watch? I find surgery on some schmoes privates SO HOT, especially when there is the possibility of nerve damage, infection, and massive bleeding!!)

 Intracavernous injection: Used for low-flow priapism, during this treatment drugs known as alpha-agonists are injected that cause the veins to narrow reducing blood flow causing the swelling to subside.

(not so exciting, only involves multiple needles, painful injections, and waiting to see if it works. Of course, if it doesn't work, the other options still can be used. Maybe next time...)

 Surgical shunt: Also used for low-flow priapism, a shunt is a passageway that is surgically inserted to divert the blood flow and allow circulation to return to normal.

(Again, surgery on some guys privates....)

 Aspiration: Doctors will insert a needle and drain blood to reduce pressure and swelling.

(NOW YUR TALKIN'! Doctors, needles, pain, and lots 'n lots of BLOOD. Now THAT gets my motor runnin!!)


I just did a preview, and the sarcasm tags don't show, so for those humor impaired, this is a parody of the stereotypical "nurses" being refered to.

When someone walks into an ER with this problem, the nurse is not thinking "wow, that is sexy!" They (quite possibly a straight male) are thinking that, in addition to the puking kid in room two and the bleeding abusive drunk in three, the 5 hours yet to go on their shift, and their aching feet, now they are going to have to set up for a possible surgical procedure and assist, which will leave them even farther behind in their charting on the auto accident that caused two admissions and four dirty rooms (which are still waiting to be cleaned).

Yeah, nurses really want to jump your bones when you walk in with an erection.

Riiiight.

you're an idiot.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

DBAWalt (Anonymous) says:

"you're an idiot."

Geez, get a grip. I think most of us here recognized multi-D was joking - something you might have heard of if you lighten up a little.

mommy3 6 years, 9 months ago

I can see what your talking about with the meds, and I totally understand. I lost my father 3 years ago after a horrible battle with cancer. he was 50, and I know how hard it was on him to realize that with the pain, meds, and sickness...he had to settle to be driven around. However, I think it is sad that someone can kill someone else and get a slap on the wrist. Like I said I know the intersection well, so I can't see how this happened. When you come over the hill, you can clearly see that you are about to come to a 4 lane highway. I don't see why we should leave it up to the police, I mean they are human. Shouldn't everyone have to abide by the same laws, and not just someone who sparks questions??

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

mommy3 (Anonymous) says:

"I don't see why we should leave it up to the police, I mean they are human. Shouldn't everyone have to abide by the same laws, and not just someone who sparks questions??"

Then shouldn't the police pull over all cars and search them for drugs (or enter all houses for that matter) rather than only those that draw attention through some form of illicit, inappropriate, or suspicious behavior?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.