Drink driving ban

[Crankarm]

BTDTGTTS! When I trained 20+ years ago, our nurses home had a reputation for the most wild parties in town, I know doctors who would plug themselves into IVs in order to rehydrate and everyone had access to the drugs cabinet.

Nowadays things are much stricter - and rightly so!

Yes, now they have to queue like everyone else .

 

[gavintc]

"There are two certainties in life: Death, and a nurse."

Yes, I still remember that nurse with fond memories and that was the line she used. What a night.

 

[Jonathan M]

They are. It's well documented and has been flagged as a cause for concern in the binge drinking debate. Some are now 250ml, 1/3 of a bottle in each glass and double the standard size used for the unit per glass approximation.

I have to be careful of that because I drink wine, and one of the medicines I take roughly doubles the time taken to break alcohol down. (I was told that the alternative is to drink loads of water afterwards and flush it out but wouldn't want to rely on that for driving!)

The ABV of wines has also been increasing over recent years, so that compaunds the issue of exactly what this person though she was drinking.

I have a feeling that a "standard" glass is 125ml, but I know that the wine glasses we have at home are roughly twice that, and there are wines glasses readily available in places like Ikea that claim to be 1/2 bottle glasses.

So the person in question may be content to say "I only had a couple of glasses of wine" in the knowledge that this constituted a significant amount more than 2 standard glasses would provide.

 

[Jonathan M]

why did the police treat her differently because she is a nurse?

Police also work quite closely with nurses in places like A&E, and I think that there can be some common sympathy between the two professions, police are often quick to attend problems in hospitals, and the nurses appreciate that, equally nurses tend to ensure police are treated well if they attend A&E due to injury in the course of duty.


Plus she will presumably have been in uniform whilst she was on duty, and if Lancashire breathalyse everyone involved in an RTC then the police might have seen rather embarassed at having to ask her to perform the test - hence their surprise that she failed, and the roadside re-check, even though they are likely to have faith in the roadside test kit as a screening tool.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

+1
Originally Posted by Noodley
What a load of bollocks

sorry paulb, couldn't have put it any other way.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

isn't that similar to how the masons work? or nepotism? or some other cultish bollocks? a kid was involved!! she was on the way to a kid!!! from the point of her failing she SHOULD have been treated the same as any other criminal, because she, let's not forget, is a criminal. she should be suspended with immediate effect, banned from driving with immediate effect. imagine now, she's an addict under stress, therefore will fall back harder onto her addiction, ergo in a less fit state to administer drugs correctly. let's face the reality, would you like a pisshead injecting you????

 

[PaulB]

Whether you like it or not Shaun, it's the way the world works. Take it up with them.

Anyway, the latest is that the woman was only let out of the cells at 2am this morning and she said that they told her if the reading is above 50, then the blood test is not available as it's a definite fail. The blood test is only available if there's some dispute. Another thing she said is that they told her one possibility of the reading if she was so adamant of the time of her last drink is that if she was a regular drinker, there's a possibility the alcohol takes longer to leave the body. Either way, she's toast.

On the admin side, they've had to send letters to all nurses in the department telling them in no uncertain terms not to speak to the press if approached as once they get hold of it, they'll be all over it. Lastly, it's a serious disciplinary offence now she's been charged and it looks like she may well be struck off. There's no doubt she's lost her job but what she did represents a serious breach of discipline and it could be the end for her as a nurse.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

sorry that didn't sound as harsh when i was typing it

 

[PaulB]

sorry that didn't sound as harsh when i was typing it

Also Shaun, read again what I wrote in the opener. They gave her the benefit and were pleasant only after the first fail. Once the second had come up bad, their attitude changed.

 

[marinyork]

I agree with Noodley, although I wouldn't put it like that (Noodley gets elevated to God status).

I still think she should be given a blood test though and the medical condition explored were she to say anything along those lines.

 

[addictfreak]

Whether you like it or not Shaun, it's the way the world works. Take it up with them.

Anyway, the latest is that the woman was only let out of the cells at 2am this morning and she said that they told her if the reading is above 50, then the blood test is not available as it's a definite fail. The blood test is only available if there's some dispute. Another thing she said is that they told her one possibility of the reading if she was so adamant of the time of her last drink is that if she was a regular drinker, there's a possibility the alcohol takes longer to leave the body. Either way, she's toast.

On the admin side, they've had to send letters to all nurses in the department telling them in no uncertain terms not to speak to the press if approached as once they get hold of it, they'll be all over it. Lastly, it's a serious disciplinary offence now she's been charged and it looks like she may well be struck off. There's no doubt she's lost her job but what she did represents a serious breach of discipline and it could be the end for her as a nurse.

I agree that is probably the way it will go. But is that fair? Maybe she has a problem. Maybe that problem is a result of stress at work, or even in her home life. What will sacking her achieve, apart from making her problems even worse. It maybe be better for employers to look at the facts and offer help, that way you keep a fully trained and experienced nurse. She gets the help she may need.
I dont think the knee jerk reaction to sack someone is always the correct thing to do.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

sorry i totally disagree with any corrupt actions. she failed, end of story. get her to the nick, get her tested on the big daddy machine. if it proved she wasn't pissed then apologize and give her lift back to the car. from the moment she failed she was effectively a criminal. all that time and effort wasted on a pisshead. 2 cop cars, 2 breathalyzers. how many other drunks got away with being pissed whilst in charge? because they were treating her special? did a drunk driver get thru the net and cause someone innocent some harm whilst at least 4 coppers were taken for mugs?

 

[PaulB]

I agree with Noodley, although I wouldn't put it like that (Noodley gets elevated to God status).

I still think she should be given a blood test though and the medical condition explored were she to say anything along those lines.

Yes but Noodley got it wrong. And as has been mentioned, you're only entitled to a blood test if the reading is between 35 and 50. If it's over that, there's no point as it's a definite fail. They only entitle you to a blood test if it's close and it's recommended you ask for one as by the time the doctor who performs it turns up, the time that's elapsed reduces the level of alcohol.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

and another thing, did the kid crash into her or was that another cover up? did this info come from her or independent witness's?

 

[PaulB]

I agree that is probably the way it will go. But is that fair? Maybe she has a problem. Maybe that problem is a result of stress at work, or even in her home life. What will sacking her achieve, apart from making her problems even worse. It maybe be better for employers to look at the facts and offer help, that way you keep a fully trained and experienced nurse. She gets the help she may need.
I dont think the knee jerk reaction to sack someone is always the correct thing to do.

There's no wiggle room here though. She signed a contract of employment and fell foul of the terms. The job necessitates having a driving licence and she hasn't got one (or won't have soon) so therefore can't do the job. It's the same in my job and I certainly don't think it should be any other way. Whether she's got problems or not, they're not her employers.