I'd wish you'd pick what your argument is, you tell us that we can't legal diagnose a featured ankle your proven wrong
No, if you bothered to read and understand, you'd know that's not in fact what I said:
So, if I go to hospital with a knacked ankle, a nurse/paramedic would make an initial medical diagnosis based on obvious signs. But just say I was to make a claim against someone for injury caused, then a doctor would be the only person legally qualified to write down 'this patient has a sprained/broken ankle' etc. Am I correct? IE, nothing a paramedic or nurse sez would have any legal weight. No?
See, I'm asking a question, not making a statement.
Here's another:
Are you qualified to refer a patient for surgery?
you say no I mean take bloods which we can
Are you legally qualified to present the results of a blood test which you have undertaken yourself, in a court of law?
And by that, I don't mean the pinprick blood sugars thing, I mean a proper blood toxicology report. The kind of thing what would be required if you were to be making a claim as to a person's medical condition/level of inebriation etc. So, blood sample taken, sent off for analysis, results examined, medical conclusion produced.
And now you on about court of law which err guess what we can.
To what level? Are you qualified to give evidence as I've mentioned above? What is the nature of the 'evidence' you've bin asked to produce in court?
See, what I've actually done, is asked quite a lot of questions, which jolly well have not actually bin answered in any real depth. Basically, and I'll repeat myself again, what I'm talking about is legally admissible evidence, which could be contested. Are you, as a 'paramedic', qualified to produce and present such evidence, in a legal context?
So, the charge is 'Defendant X was drunk'. Defendant X says 'no I was not, prove it'. Who has the legal authority, in such a situation (Which is the kind of thing relevant to this discussion), to present such evidence as that which would be required to prove a person's drunkenness in a court of law?
Now do you understand what I'm getting at? The difficulty in being able to impose any such charges/fines?
In order to do someone for drink driving, the police have to produce physical evidence. In the instances where blood or urine samples are produced, these samples must have bin analysed and verified by a qualified doctor.
So, instead of being knobs and posting daft tags and generally having a pop, why not try to understand what I'm actually saying?
