If you are drunk, don't drive! - page 14

If you are a nurse, and you drive while you are drunk; the Board of Nursing can suspend your nursing license for good!!! This is hard to believe...but it is true!!!!... Read More

  1. by   Tweety
    Jim if the guy had been sober perhaps he wouldn't have lost control of his car. It sounds like he admits this and feels responsible for his friends death. Maybe this is how the courts looked it when they convicted.

    A person my size would have no trouble drinking two drinks and being over the legal limit. We don't know the size of this person who is in jail. Hopefully, the courts didn't send an innocent man to prison who was under the legal limit of driving under the influence. People think two drinks don't affect them, and really it does, especially smaller sized people who people without a tolerance. This is a proven fact.

    The BON is not sticking their nose into your private life as a deterrant. I think they allow the laws of drinking and driving to deter you, and if you disobey the law, then they stick their nose into the publics business to see if you are a safe practioner or not. Like it or not a high number of people with DUIs have a drinking problem. Yes, there are the people that have a drink or two who get roped up in the system, but for the sake of public safety, I think they do have a right.

    You already stated that those who support the BON in this matter have operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. I'm not sure what that means. People, learn and grow and see the err of their ways. I used to smoke and I'm an avid anti-smoker, does that make me a hippocrit.

    Your arguments are all weak to me. That's o.k. because obviously you think the same and that's ok.

    To me it's not necessarily a moral issue that offends the BON's it's a legal issue, and a potential to be impaired on the job. Promiscuity is not illegal. But they might butt into peoples lives if they started having a lot of sex with patients.

    Perhaps there is too much grey and you're a black and white thinker. I'm a pretty grey thinker myself.
  2. by   Spidey's mom
    On a tangent here . . . .but the term "legal limit" is arbitrary.

    It is like what we tell our kids when we drive with them. We tell them to slow down and the invariably say "I'm going the speed limit". Then we say, "yes, but are you driving according to the conditions"? Driving the speed limit on a snowy road is not smart. Driving the speed limit in fog is not smart. Etc.

    It may be the limit to have a certain amount of alcohol in your system, but as Tweety says, it effects everyone in a different manner.

    We can't fall back on "under the legal limit". People are impaired whether they know it or not.

    The legal limit in California is .08 . . . . . at that point the legal system assumes that you are impaired. In the officer's judgment, you may be impaired with less than that and still be charged with DUI.

    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Feb 9, '07
  3. by   mgalloLPN
    Quote from allantiques4me
    this is exactly what my point was on my response.this truly made me cry.i have a 16y/o daughter.for sure some of the responders might have a different veiwpoint now.

    i just wanted to say that today makes 4 years ago that my friend in this picture was killed by that drunk murderer.
    Last edit by mgalloLPN on Feb 9, '07 : Reason: typo
  4. by   jimthorp
    Quote from Tweety
    Jim if the guy had been sober perhaps he wouldn't have lost control of his car. It sounds like he admits this and feels responsible for his friends death. Maybe this is how the courts looked it when they convicted.
    Perhpas not but perhaps so. That is irrelevant as it cannot be proven either way. We still don't know the charge he was convicted of nor the details of the case. Until we read the court documents we cannot make an informed opinion of the case.

    Quote from Tweety
    A person my size would have no trouble drinking two drinks and being over the legal limit. We don't know the size of this person who is in jail. Hopefully, the courts didn't send an innocent man to prison who was under the legal limit of driving under the influence. People think two drinks don't affect them, and really it does, especially smaller sized people who people without a tolerance. This is a proven fact.
    I'm a big guy...6'1" 220lbs and there is no question that two pints with dinner have some amount of effect.

    Quote from Tweety

    The BON is not sticking their nose into your private life as a deterrant. I think they allow the laws of drinking and driving to deter you, and if you disobey the law, then they stick their nose into the publics business to see if you are a safe practioner or not. Like it or not a high number of people with DUIs have a drinking problem. Yes, there are the people that have a drink or two who get roped up in the system, but for the sake of public safety, I think they do have a right.
    The BON's job is not to assure public safety in general but only as it relates to the job. A DUI off the job has no bearing on the job. I don't understand the rationale of those who support their meddling in their off the job lives. Can you explain it?

    Quote from Tweety

    You already stated that those who support the BON in this matter have operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. I'm not sure what that means.
    It means exactly what I said. I'd bet many have done so as nurses even if they have realized their poor judgement and now refrain from it. I have to wonder if these individuals have also deemed themselves as incapable of making sound nursing judgements (their rationale for the BON's actions) as they have said is the rule for others that drink and drive?

    Quote from Tweety
    Your arguments are all weak to me. That's o.k. because obviously you think the same and that's ok.
    I'm not clear what you are saying here.

    Quote from Tweety
    To me it's not necessarily a moral issue that offends the BON's it's a legal issue, and a potential to be impaired on the job. Promiscuity is not illegal. But they might butt into peoples lives if they started having a lot of sex with patients.
    Again, the rationale used by supporters is that it is indicative of poor decision making or poor judgement and will make them a dangerous nurse. My statement was simply to point put that this is a generalization of human behavior and you cannot make the presumption that because a person makes poor judgements in their personal lives they are going to make poor nursing judgements. EVERYONE makes poor judgements in their personal lives and on the job.

    Quote from Tweety
    Perhaps there is too much grey and you're a black and white thinker. I'm a pretty grey thinker myself.

    I am a black and white thinker and a grey area thinker. As there is no evidence to support your, et al, contention that someone with a DUI off the job is more likely to be a dangerous nurse than someone who does not have one, it is black and white.

    You know as well as I do that far more people drive after consuming alcohol than ever get charged. Could one of them be that excellent ICU nurse everyone looks up to, or that honored PEDS nurse, or that respected physician, or that surgeon everyone wants?

    Quote from Tweety
    but for the sake of public safety, I think they do have a right.
    What caused you to change your undecided mind from your post yesterday?
  5. by   Tweety
    perhpas not but perhaps so. that is irrelevant as it cannot be proven either way. we still don't know the charge he was convicted of nor the details of the case. until we read the court documents we cannot make an informed opinion of the case.

    correct. but he was convicted and sent to jail, so something was definately proven.



    i'm a big guy...6'1" 220lbs and there is no question that two pints with dinner have some amount of effect.

    my point exactly. two drink have an effect.


    the bon's job is not to assure public safety in general but only as it relates to the job. a dui off the job has no bearing on the job. i don't understand the rationale of those who support their meddling in their off the job lives. can you explain it?

    we all take an oath when we graduate nursing school, or at least most of us do, check the ana website if you've forgotten. public safety is of primarily concern and fundamental to all nurses. i know most of us go to work and take care of our patients only and aren't concerned with the state of public health and safety, but we should be and i have no problem with the bon taking that into consideration when licensing nurses.

    it means exactly what i said. i'd bet many have done so as nurses even if they have realized their poor judgement and now refrain from it. i have to wonder if these individuals have also deemed themselves as incapable of making sound nursing judgements (their rationale for the bon's actions) as they have said is the rule for others that drink and drive?

    thanks for the clarification.


    i'm not clear what you are saying here.

    never mind then. i'm saying you're not very convincing and that for sure i'm not either. but let's not nit pic this.


    again, the rationale used by supporters is that it is indicative of poor decision making or poor judgement and will make them a dangerous nurse. my statement was simply to point put that this is a generalization of human behavior and you cannot make the presumption that because a person makes poor judgements in their personal lives they are going to make poor nursing judgements. everyone makes poor judgements in their personal lives and on the job.

    this is where it's grey to me. for sure i make poor decisions and exercise poor judgement in my personal life. i am definately one of those humans that makes mistakes and learns from them. god knows i've made some poor judgements professionally, and made an med error or two. however, drinking and driving is a crime and is a red flag, not just for "poor judgement" but for criminal behavior and potential alcholism. perhaps the poor judgment of drinking and driving in and of itself doesn't necessary say anything, but it could mean so much more and is a red flag. there are lines that have to be drawn. we can't observe and regulate every poor judgement a person makes, but perhaps a criminal convinction of dui should be one of them.



    i am a black and white thinker and a grey area thinker. as there is no evidence to support your, et al, contention that someone with a dui off the job is more likely to be a dangerous nurse than someone who does not have one, it is black and white.

    did i make the contention that someone with a dui off the job is more likely to be a dangerous nurse? i don't remember that. i do think i made the contention that they are more likely to have a drinking problem than the average person.

    you know as well as i do that far more people drive after consuming alcohol than ever get charged. could one of them be that excellent icu nurse everyone looks up to, or that honored peds nurse, or that respected physician, or that surgeon everyone wants?

    yes of course. getting a dui may indeed say nothing about the person. one of our administrators got a dui and is beloved by her coworkers. she didn't report it to the bon. she recently got another job with another hospital.



    what caused you to change your undecided mind from your post yesterday?

    i'm sorry for sounding so wishy washy. i am on the fence. i don't think that getting a dui is justification for taking away someone's license. i also disagree with your notion that it's none of their business. so if i gave the idea i supported the idea that they should butout of people's lives that get a criminal conviction, i apologize and retract that. if 99 percent of nurses who get dui's are good solid nurses, then dui convinction investigation by the bon should allow them to remain so. if during this investigations they catch the one rip roaring alcoholic, that has been having some troubles at work, then it's a worthwhile intervention. no we can't intervene on every single nurse, and every single nurse that makes a poor judgement. again, lines need to be drawn. so promiscuity and poor judgement in our home lives, no. but criminal convictions for sex crimes, drinking and drugging crimes........yeah, i don't have a problem with that.
    Last edit by Tweety on Feb 10, '07 : Reason: typos
  6. by   jimthorp
    we all take an oath when we graduate nursing school, or at least most of us do, check the ana website if you've forgotten. public safety is of primarily concern and fundamental to all nurses. i know most of us go to work and take care of our patients only and aren't concerned with the state of public health and safety, but we should be and i have no problem with the bon taking that into consideration when licensing nurses.

    i took no oath upon graduation. there is not a nursing graduation ceremony where i went to school. i, as do all other pn's at my school, graduate in august. we could have participated in the prior may or following may general graduation ceremony. neither interested me. we as a class tried to put together a ceremony but there was too much bickering between a couple cliques so the program instructor put the nix on it. me and the other guy in class stayed out of the fray.

    the ana is an organization for rn's not lpn's, as far as i can tell.

    i am not a public health nurse and while i do hold a concern about public health it is not something i get involved in outside of work with the exception of volunteer work for the american red cross and some charity cycling and running events i participate in.

    i guess i'm just an idiot as i just don't see what effect the bon's involvement in an off the job dui case has on public health.


    thanks for the clarification.

    you're welcome. care to opine on: "i have to wonder if these individuals have also deemed themselves as incapable of making sound nursing judgements (their rationale for the bon's actions) as they have said is the rule for others that drink and drive?"


    never mind then. i'm saying you're not very convincing and that for sure i'm not either. but let's not nit pic this.

    at minimum i hope this debate has caused people to think about an issue objectively before they form an opinion.


    this is where it's grey to me. for sure i make poor decisions and exercise poor judgement in my personal life. i am definately one of those humans that makes mistakes and learns from them. god knows i've made some poor judgements professionally, and made an med error or two. however, drinking and driving is a crime and is a red flag, not just for "poor judgement" but for criminal behavior and potential alcholism. perhaps the poor judgment of drinking and driving in and of itself doesn't necessary say anything, but it could mean so much more and is a red flag. there are lines that have to be drawn. we can't observe and regulate every poor judgement a person makes, but perhaps a criminal convinction of dui should be one of them.


    disobeying the speed limit, reckless driving, and those driving uninspected potentially dangerous vehicles are also unlawful. are they less of a public hazard than someone with a dui conviction or someone who drives home after a meal and a couple drinks? doesn't this criminal activity raise a red flag, especially the deceitful latter one? the bon could care less about these.


    did i make the contention that someone with a dui off the job is more likely to be a dangerous nurse? i don't remember that.

    no but others have.


    i'm sorry for sounding so wishy washy. i am on the fence. i don't think that getting a dui is justification for taking away someone's license. i also disagree with your notion that it's none of their business.

    this sounds contradictory to me. you don't think they should take away your license yet they should know about it?


    again, lines need to be drawn. so promiscuity and poor judgement in our home lives, no. but criminal convictions for sex crimes, drinking and drugging crimes........yeah, i don't have a problem with that.

    crimes directly against another human being with intent to do harm are clearly different than those without intent to do harm.

    we do need to draw the line somewhere and i say it should be drawn at the employer's property line when it comes to illegal acts without intent to do harm.

    we are slowly losing our freedoms and rights in this country and this is a perfect example of invasion of privacy. another example is employers who do a credit check before making a job offer. still another is the patriot act.


    the discussion aside, this has certainly been a heated, emotional, and civil debate free of personal attacks. all participants should pat yourselves on the back as not many heated debates remain civil.
  7. by   Tweety
    we all take an oath when we graduate nursing school, or at least most of us do, check the ana website if you've forgotten. public safety is of primarily concern and fundamental to all nurses. i know most of us go to work and take care of our patients only and aren't concerned with the state of public health and safety, but we should be and i have no problem with the bon taking that into consideration when licensing nurses.

    i took no oath upon graduation. there is not a nursing graduation ceremony where i went to school. i, as do all other pn's at my school, graduate in august. we could have participated in the prior may or following may general graduation ceremony. neither interested me. we as a class tried to put together a ceremony but there was too much bickering between a couple cliques so the program instructor put the nix on it. me and the other guy in class stayed out of the fray.

    the ana is an organization for rn's not lpn's, as far as i can tell.

    i am not a public health nurse and while i do hold a concern about public health it is not something i get involved in outside of work with the exception of volunteer work for the american red cross and some charity cycling and running events i participate in.

    i guess i'm just an idiot as i just don't see what effect the bon's involvement in an off the job dui case has on public health.


    just about all nursing organizations, student nurses associations, ana and i'm sure lpn associations are involved in public health. but you don't have to be. i'm merely pointing out that it is a fundamental function of nurses. you're not an idiot, and you're entitled to your opinion. i'll no longer shove mine down your throat.

    thanks for the clarification.

    you're welcome. care to opine on: "i have to wonder if these individuals have also deemed themselves as incapable of making sound nursing judgements (their rationale for the bon's actions) as they have said is the rule for others that drink and drive?"


    i'm sure they didn't. no more than the nurses who claim "why are all nurses catty" believe themselves to be catty.
    never mind then. i'm saying you're not very convincing and that for sure i'm not either. but let's not nit pic this.

    at minimum i hope this debate has caused people to think about an issue objectively before they form an opinion.

    absolutely jim! i'm sure there are people that you have personally caused to stop and think "yeah, he's got an excellent point there!". kudos to you for speaking you opinion and employing a mature friendly debate without degrading those of us who feel different.

    this is where it's grey to me. for sure i make poor decisions and exercise poor judgement in my personal life. i am definately one of those humans that makes mistakes and learns from them. god knows i've made some poor judgements professionally, and made an med error or two. however, drinking and driving is a crime and is a red flag, not just for "poor judgement" but for criminal behavior and potential alcholism. perhaps the poor judgment of drinking and driving in and of itself doesn't necessary say anything, but it could mean so much more and is a red flag. there are lines that have to be drawn. we can't observe and regulate every poor judgement a person makes, but perhaps a criminal convinction of dui should be one of them.


    disobeying the speed limit, reckless driving, and those driving uninspected potentially dangerous vehicles are also unlawful. are they less of a public hazard than someone with a dui conviction or someone who drives home after a meal and a couple drinks? doesn't this criminal activity raise a red flag, especially the deceitful latter one? the bon could care less about these.

    again, jim a line has to be drawn. it goes past the criminal behavior of running a red led, but not past a dui. it's not an all or nothing situation to them. they pick and choose and i support that idea.

    did i make the contention that someone with a dui off the job is more likely to be a dangerous nurse? i don't remember that.

    no but others have.

    true enough.
    i'm sorry for sounding so wishy washy. i am on the fence. i don't think that getting a dui is justification for taking away someone's license. i also disagree with your notion that it's none of their business.

    this sounds contradictory to me. you don't think they should take away your license yet they should know about it?

    not quite what i'm saying. let me clarify. in every instance they shouldn't take away a nurses license who gets a dui. in some cases, say in multiple dui offenses, or where a closer look reveals alcoholism, or a drug screan reveals something, then perhaps yes, their license should be taken away. but the fact that someone gets a dui shouldn't be the sole critieria. and yes, as i've stated, they have a right to know.


    again, lines need to be drawn. so promiscuity and poor judgement in our home lives, no. but criminal convictions for sex crimes, drinking and drugging crimes........yeah, i don't have a problem with that.

    crimes directly against another human being with intent to do harm are clearly different than those without intent to do harm.

    i gave my opinion above on this matter. when you get into a car after drinking you clearly intend to commit the crime of drinking and driving. i'm certainly not saying it's evilalent to the intent to cause bodily harm. nonetheless it is still criminal.

    we do need to draw the line somewhere and i say it should be drawn at the employer's property line when it comes to illegal acts without intent to do harm.

    i disagree.

    we are slowly losing our freedoms and rights in this country and this is a perfect example of invasion of privacy. another example is employers who do a credit check before making a job offer. still another is the patriot act.

    i somewhat agree. as long as i've been a nurse, which is only 16 years they have asked "have you ever been convicted of a crime". so the dui thing is nothing new.


    the discussion aside, this has certainly been a heated, emotional, and civil debate free of personal attacks. all participants should pat yourselves on the back as not many heated debates remain civil.

    ditto
    Last edit by Tweety on Feb 10, '07
  8. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from stevielynn
    on a tangent here . . . .but the term "legal limit" is arbitrary.

    it is like what we tell our kids when we drive with them. we tell them to slow down and the invariably say "i'm going the speed limit". then we say, "yes, but are you driving according to the conditions"? driving the speed limit on a snowy road is not smart. driving the speed limit in fog is not smart. etc.

    it may be the limit to have a certain amount of alcohol in your system, but as tweety says, it effects everyone in a different manner.

    we can't fall back on "under the legal limit". people are impaired whether they know it or not.

    the legal limit in california is .08 . . . . . at that point the legal system assumes that you are impaired. in the officer's judgment, you may be impaired with less than that and still be charged with dui.

    steph
    ". . . when you get into a car after drinking you clearly intend to commit the crime of drinking and driving. i'm certainly not saying it's evilalent to the intent to cause bodily harm. nonetheless it is still criminal." (tweety)

    my nephew is a chp and i was surprised that if in an officer's judgment you may be impaired, you can be charged with dui, even if you are under the legal limit. i think that is good. tests by insurance companies and others have shown that people who think they are not impaired actually do show impairment. surprise. :d

    as to whether a person who decides to violate the law and drink while driving may also make decisions on the job that cross the line . . . i think you should be able to make some generalizations regarding behavior - we aren't compartmentalized - what we do in one place has an effect on other areas of our life.

    as to whether the bon can take your nursing licence if you are convicted of a dui - i'm pretty sure that isn't true in ca. nurses who are impaired have a chance to enter a program first. guess i should look into that before i write, huh?

    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Feb 10, '07
  9. by   jimthorp
    Quote from stevielynn
    My nephew is a CHP and I was surprised that if in an officer's judgment you may be impaired, you can be charged with DUI, even if you are under the legal limit. I think that is good.
    That IMHO is too subjective for an LEO on the street to decide. Subjective judgements should be left up to judges.

    What criteria or test does the LEO use to determine impairment?
  10. by   lauralassie
    well yeh-I would say so, they can suspend or revoke for many other reasons as well. Same with pilots and Dr's.
  11. by   Tweety
    Quote from jimthorp
    That IMHO is too subjective for an LEO on the street to decide. Subjective judgements should be left up to judges.

    What criteria or test does the LEO use to determine impairment?

    I think she's talking about if they fail a field sobriety test, which they are trained to administer. If a person blows below the legal limit, yet fails a field sobriety test (which nowadays might be videotaped) they may be charged with driving while impaired. It's still up to the courts to convict them. The cop merely arrests them. The cop isn't the judge and jury.
  12. by   jimthorp
    What specifically is a field sobriety test?
  13. by   Tweety
    Quote from jimthorp
    What specifically is a field sobriety test?

    I don't really know precisely. From what I've seen on TV and such, they make you walk a straight line, have you close your eyes and spread your arms out and make you touch your finger to your nose, and stuff like that. It's a way to check your coordination and check for impairment.

    My internet connection is slow and I'm trying to Google it, so I'll edit in a minute if I find something interesting.
    Last edit by Tweety on Feb 10, '07

close