Lawnurse

lol :) The law has to try to 'accomodate' all people, including people who aren't very smart. It was only a short while into my nursing career when I realized that human beings have an infinite capacity to be stupid, and no matter what you think the absolute floor of stupidity is, some human being, somewhere, will be below that. Hence a whole lot of annoying reminders like the above example! Coincidentally, I just about to leave for my exam in Food, Drug, and Biotechnology Law (ie FDA law) which discussed exactly this sort of thing. Happy to know it actually applies to read life!

What her obligations are is the issue. If there are circumstances that void the contract, or there are circumstances under which a court is unwilling to enforce a contract, her obligations could change. I'm not saying a court would rule it inequitable (unfair), or that its even worth hiring a lawyer. I do, however, think its worth getting in the 'face' (ha) of the agency and explaining that these were extenuating circumstances, becasue perhaps the agency would lower the fine to only the amount they actually lose.

"weasal out"? Her son is recovering from EYE SURGERY. I'm sure the OP would rather her son did NOT have eye surgery so that she could easily fulfill the contract...I doubt she is celebrating the eye injury... Gosh, I brag about lacking compassion (hence the move to law), but you're really upstaging me.

I'm not saying she had no contract - exactly the opposite. Verbal contracts are nonetheless contracts. The OP is definatly bound by the contract. However, there are extenuating circumstances here, and the existance of those circumstances may affect the contract. The courts are sensitive to the "little person" when its the "little person" against the "big bad company." The OP should argue that the agency is charging her merely to be punitive (punishing), not because they actually lose money on her. The courts won't like the idea of the company punishing a worker when the reason for breaking the contract was her need to take care of her son after his emergency. Punishing a worker for just flaking out is one thing, but this is a unexpected circumstance. I'm not saying any of my ideas of for voiding the contract are good; I'm just saying there are options - not the least of which is just explaining the whole situation and asking the agency to make an exception. The fact is, charging the OP breaking the contract isn't going to perent eye accidents in the future.

And drug companies need a way to pay for it all this research. Drug companies create new drugs because they bring in money. Where else would we get new drugs if drug companies did not have an incentive to make them? BTW, although my opinion may sound biased for drug companies, I've been victim to the adverstising myself - although by proxy. I suffere from bad eczema and my boyfriend pratically begged me to try Elidel, even though the first time I asked a doctor about it she didnt' know enough about the drug and chose not to prescribe it. Finally I did ask my doctor for the Elidel prescription, partly to quiet my boyfriend about it (after lecturing him on how he was a victim of drug marketing). Literally the day I finished the giant tube of Elidel, my doctor email me to tell me about the black box warning they are adding to Elidel. Also, you have to consider that shows like GMA depend on ratings - people love to hate big drug companies, so GMA designed a study to show how very bad they are. GMA is not peer reviewed - we have no idea if they conducted a study previously that showed there was no bias, then reconstructed the "research" to show the desired result. This wouldn't be nearly such a problem if more people had Tivo. :chuckle

It's part of the Miranda rights - the stuff they have to tell you when they get arrested and taken into custody. 1. You have the right remain silent 2. Anything you say can be held against you in court 3. You have the right to the presence of an attorney 4. If you cannnot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you prior to any questioning. (from the Supremem Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966) These lawyers are called "public defenders."

Criminal court. Crimes are heard in criminal court, where all defendants are entitled to a free lawyer.

Knowing there will be some false accusations, our justice system provides every defendant a FREE lawyer. As well as the right to call witnesses to back up their own story, and the right for their own lawyer to shred to other witnesses to peices on the stand. They also have a right to have false/fake/unreliable evidence excluded at trial, as well as actual good evidence that was collected wrongly (ie the cops search something without the necesary warrent) even if it proves guilt. The defendant also has a right to another trial if procedural and reversible mistakes were made. Furthermore, the defendant has a right to sue the accuser (if the accusor know the allegations were false) in civil suit or the government for malicious prosecution. There are ALSO judicial actions against someone who knowingly brings false accusations (ie calls up the police and lies.) I'm not saying our justice system is fantastic, but it has tried to take into account that there will be false accusations. And no, these safeguards don't make it worthwhile to be accused falsely, but few juducial remedies ever make up for the crime (ie no amount of money makes it okay that your loved one was killed). Conversely, the victim doesn't get anything special in the even that the crime against them goes unreportred. In fact, they get nothing at all. For these reasons, the justice systems asks for every reasonably held belief that abuse has occured, and they take it from there.

I bet the admis. office of those schools would LOVE to tell you their rank - perhaps you could call them.

There are MANY male MDs who are OBGYNs - women docs don't dominate that specialty in medicine...should nursing be any different? IMHO, perhaps a male obgyn nurse would have a little bit of uphill battle, but if there's something admin, fellow staff, and pts love, its competence - perhaps above all other things. If you feel you have the potential to be a great obgyn nurse - please, do it!

Rocknurse, you did exactly the right thing by calling the PACU nurse (in case there was some reasonable explanation) and then writing up an incident report, esp. considering she did not take the blame for her mistake. Whether or not the incident report will truly solve the problem is not your primary concern- after all, NO good will come out of not writing one. Who knows why the PACU nurse gave such an inacuate report? There's a small chance its a sign of something really going on with the reporting nurse (cognitive deficit, "impaired nurse" syndrome, actual incompetence) which you may have shed light on. Good for you for standing up for yourself! IMHO, nurses standing up for themselves more frequently is one of the things the profession needs the MOST. :1luvu:

What is a baskethold?

anything from the ombudsman? :icon_hug:

I have, too (not in health care - in the education system). However, our justice system is set up so that 10 guilty people would go free before 1 innocent person would be convicted. Ergo, some innocent people will suffer in the process. Anyway, none of that changes the good-faith requirement for reporting suspected abuse.

No, catagorically wrong. Hearsay is used in law enforcement all the time. "Hearsay" is only banned in the actual court of law when it is used to prove the truth of a matter, and there are almost 30 exceptions to that rule (literally). The standard for nurses reporting sexual abuse is "good faith." Not reasonable suspicion, not clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Merely good faith. I believe this is the *lowest* requirement in all of law enforcement. If there is a lower burden, please let me know. If you report what you know, the police will conduct in investigation - not an arrest, not a prosecution, not a death sentence. The police then find out if this "hearsay" (although I think the correct term is 'report' or 'allegation') is based in fact. Only THEN will they make an arrest, indictment, etc. The investigation (and even grand jury if it comes to that) is confidential. If someone honestly (in good faith) believes that that this CNA was fired for sexually abusing a patient, and is under the belief that it has not been reported (not that you said this - i'm referring to the hypothetical) that person is passively allowing this man to go out and do this again. Does that seem like a good idea? Are you proposing that if the people directly involved don't go to the authorities, then the perpetrator should be allowed to get away with the crime?