Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
As a teacher, if I see evidence of abuse of a student, I'm legally required to report the abuse to some authority (there are different avenues). Should I also be required to give a Miranda warning to the parent I'm reporting for abuse?Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody.
The answer, of course, is no. The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created/discovered, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody.
After a little research I found that in 2001 SCOTUS ruled that hospitals cannot perform drug tests on pregnant women without their consent. Doctors had run drug tests on urine samples taken for other purposes as well and had reported the results to the police. SCOTUS says that is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Ferguson v. City of Charleston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What isn't apparent is now when doctors ask permission to do a drug test do they tell the pregnant women they may report the results to the police? If they aren't required to tell them that I think they should be.
No, I was partly wrong.Other than you are entirely wrong about when police have to Miranda someone
Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
Miranda Warning FAQAn officer must only read you the Miranda Warning if he or she plans on using your answers as evidence at a trial. Therefore, in many instances you may be stopped and asked questions without being read those rights. You have the right to politely refuse
Not technically true, as I've shown above. But I do not disagree with your general point.In fact, anytime the police question someone with the police considering that person even remotely a suspect, the police must first give Miranda.
Which means your question is answered, since doctors are not police agents.This also applies to police agents
Can you show me where doctors are acting as agents of the police?So it is back to my original question. IF law REQUIRES doctors to act as agents for police
I'm confused...are veggie burgers with poppy seed buns against the law?There also is, in my opinion, a very real issue otherwise of doctors secretly and without consent doing blood tests on patients. With this, could ANY woman in her right mind go to her doctor if she has used any illegal drug in such states? A woman goes to the doctor for a routine exam - and the next day SWAT kicks in her door, CPS takes her children and she's hauled off in handcuffs. Guess she shouldn't have gotten the veggie burger with a poppy seed covered bun.
This is beyond absurd. The offense is not going to the doctor, the offense is illegal drug use. We already have laws against illegal drug use, so why exactly would we create another law to say the exact same thing?should it be law that it is - essentially - a felony offense for a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs to go to a doctor?
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.
This sounds like a question for....
... The SUPREME COURT!!!
I'm curious - what does blood tests that find drug abuse have to do with the subject of abortion?
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.
This sounds like a question for....
... The SUPREME COURT!!!
No, I was partly wrong.
The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Miranda Warning FAQ
However, Miranda does have to be read to anyone arrested or in custody (which probably encompasses a greater number of situations than you gave credit to) before "pertinent" questioning. Furthermore, I believe Miranda refers to the questioning of a suspect, not the gathering of evidence against him/her. A blood test would be evidence, not questioning.
[/LEFT]
Not technically true, as I've shown above. But I do not disagree with your general point.
Which means your question is answered, since doctors are not police agents.
Can you show me where doctors are acting as agents of the police?
Again, we come back to: The answer, of course, is no. In fact, your entire premise that a law requiring one to report illegal activity means one is an agent of the police is rather ridiculous. I think you might be confusing lawmakers with police. If it's a law, then it's a duty imposed upon the doctor by lawmakers, not the police.
I'm confused...are veggie burgers with poppy seed buns against the law?
This is beyond absurd. The offense is not going to the doctor, the offense is illegal drug use. We already have laws against illegal drug use, so why exactly would we create another law to say the exact same thing?
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.What you do not address is why you think it a good thing to make so pregnant women fear going to a doctor?
Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*In fact, such laws would be highly encouraging of getting an abortion. A woman who has used an illegal drug has 3 choices: 1.) Go to the doctor and go to jail plus lose any child you have and/or have drug user put in your permanent record, 2.) continue the pregnancy but do not see a doctor and opt for a home birth or 3.) terminate the pregnancy.
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.
Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to find ways to make it okay for women who are pregnant to take illegal drugs to the potential detriment of their child. It seems to me a woman should be far more worried about consuming illegal drugs than a blood test.
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.
Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to find ways to make it okay for women who are pregnant to take illegal drugs to the potential detriment of their child. It seems to me a woman should be far more worried about consuming illegal drugs than a blood test.
So...the doctor should just turn a blind eye to the fact the woman is taking illegal drugs while pregnant? It's a terrible alternative, but only one can be recognized as accepting a law breaker putting a child in danger.That sounds nice in theory, but in reality these types of requirements do more damage than the problems they attempt to solve. First of all, a woman who would actually do drugs while pregnant obviously has a SERIOUS addiction. If she can’t bring herself to quit out of fear for her child, she sure as hell isn’t going to quit out of fear for jail. So now the woman just won’t go to the doctor, thus doing even more damage to the child due to lack of prenatal care.
No...her option is to not do drugs.No, the woman doesn't have to worry about illegal drugs. Just about going to the doctor. If she doesn't go to the doctor, then there is no problem for her. That's her option. If she has already used drugs recent to learning she is pregnant, "NOT using an illegal drug" is no longer an option. Her only option is to not go to a doctor.
No, the woman doesn't have to worry about illegal drugs. Just about going to the doctor. If she doesn't go to the doctor, then there is no problem for her. That's her option. If she has already used drugs recent to learning she is pregnant, "NOT using an illegal drug" is no longer an option. Her only option is to not go to a doctor.
So...the doctor should just turn a blind eye to the fact the woman is taking illegal drugs while pregnant? It's a terrible alternative, but only one can be recognized as accepting a law breaker putting a child in danger.
No...her option is to not do drugs.
You seem to be arguing the doctor should be okay with the idea of a pregnant lady doing illegal drugs to the potential detriment of her child, all under the guise of some silly notion of making doctors, who are not law enforcement, read Miranda warnings to pregnant women, as if THAT will protect the child.
Your idea is very far moved from what I'd consider rational.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?