On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:05:04 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> Especially when JITB nuggets are so much better! <g>

<boggle> Jack in the box doesn't have chicken nuggets.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:54:57 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what else was going on in her life that not being able to
>> get McNuggets pushed her over the edge.
>
> My vote is a little crystal meth or crack....

I voted meth when I first saw her. Probably hasn't eaten for 3 or 4 days
and that's probably all she eats when the need arises.

Although crack is still a pretty close runner up. But I fiugure if she had
money for McNuggets, then she has money for crack. So she'd be smoking
that rather than wasting time eating.

-sw

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:08:17 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> The video link you posted doesn't show where she actually smashed the
>> drive-thru window with a bottle.
>>
>> http://www.onlykent.com/20100811/mcd...do-plus-video/
>>
>> Good lord. What a nutcase. And over something as stupid as chicken
>> McNuggets?
>
> She's not bad-looking. That's all that matters.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301900

Girls like that are a dime bag a dozen up in Eat Palo Alto.
Go for it, Mark.

=sw

On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote:
> You need to wake up to the fact that "professional" or not, you work in
> a *service* industry and your job is to provide service to your
> customers. Doctors are no different.

Yes, we provide service to the patients, but we are not SERVANTS. We do
not have to rearrange the furniture in the rooms because patients and
families tell us to. We will not go out to the parking lot and bring
your car up to the front entrance for you. We do not have to call your
food orders to the late-night fast food outlet, hold the money, pay the
guy when he gets here then truck your food down to your room for you. We
will help the patients with cares and activities of daily living, but we
won't provide the same assistance to your family members and visitors
while they're here. These are a few of the things that folks like you
think we're really expected to do and get bitched off when we don't.


> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if
> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and
> take their business elsewhere.

Our patients don't give us care orders. We get care orders from
physicians, therapists and so on, and operate under established
standards of care. The "orders" that we get from patients more
accurately fall into the category of "commands," and as I explained
previously, some of them are truly stupid.



> It has nothing to do with victim mentality or entitlement mentality. If
> the customer is not getting acceptable service, they have every right to
> fire you and take their business elsewhere.

Then do it--and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
The fact is that they are NOT going to "fire" us and take their business
elsewhere, at least not this trip. The ploy is to make us feel
threatened and intimidated, to make us feel as though we will be on the
unemployment line if we don't let the brittle diabetic eat a bag of
Oreos (not a little bag but a big bag, a big big package smuggled in by
enabling family because "Mama wants it, she called me and told me to
bring it") or expect patients to adhere to their plans of care at least
as long as they are hospitalized.



> It is *your* entitlement
> mentality that makes *you* think that somehow your service industry is
> different from every other one and *you* somehow have a right to tell
> the customer what to do. That's like walking into McDonald's, ordering a
> Big Mac and having the droid at the register tell you your getting
> McNugets instead, you have every right to tell them off and take your
> business elsewhere. Get over your ego, you are a service worker just
> like most everyone else.

We don't sell burgers and chicken parts and what we do it not analogous
to the fast food industry. Patients sometimes do have the knowledge to
order up their care, but it doesn't mean they're going to get it that way.



> It's not "noncompliance", it's "noncomplacence" and it saves lives that
> would otherwise be lost to your screw ups. I have personal experience
> with this and *I* would be dead if I was complacent and didn't trust my
> instincts and tell an idiot doctor NO. I have at least one relative who
> *is* dead due to blindly following a negligent doctor.

I can see that you think little of health care workers, which causes me
to wonder if I should continue trying to get through to you or just send
you down the slide, as it were, instead. Let it be enough to say that
we're all going to be dead someday, no matter who we follow.



> Your time is not worth as much as your ego thinks it is.

And what is yours worth?

On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> We are treated like
>> waiters and waitresses every day we work by the people we work for and
>> the people we are there to take care of, valued as warm bodies that take
>> orders and not for our reasoning brains and adeptness with skills that
>> can save your life. Patients and their families yell at us, swear at us,
>> threaten to have us fired, hit us, spit at us, make ridiculous demands
>> of our ever-decreasing time and resources, insult and demean us every
>> time we show up for work. Verbal and physical abuses that used to be the
>> privilege of psych patients are now hurled at us by otherwise functional
>> and rational patients who are highly unrealistic and intolerant of not
>> getting what they want when they want it, and our employers, under the
>> new and improved "customer service" approach to health care delivery,
>> stoke and stroke and feed and encourage these shitty behaviors in a
>> schizophrenic *******ization of the-customer-is-always-right philosophy
>> to the detriment of workplace functionality.
>
> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if
> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and
> take their business elsewhere.

So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.

You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
everywhere, huh?

Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
"fire" the patient, so to speak. So to bring this back into its original
context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
business, customers are not always right.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:08:17 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> The video link you posted doesn't show where she actually smashed the
>>> drive-thru window with a bottle.
>>>
>>> http://www.onlykent.com/20100811/mcd...do-plus-video/
>>>
>>> Good lord. What a nutcase. And over something as stupid as chicken
>>> McNuggets?
>>
>> She's not bad-looking. That's all that matters.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301900
>
> Girls like that are a dime bag a dozen up in Eat Palo Alto.
> Go for it, Mark.
>
> =sw


Yummy Palo Alto

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Pennyaline wrote:
> >> We are treated like
> >> waiters and waitresses every day we work by the people we work for and
> >> the people we are there to take care of, valued as warm bodies that take
> >> orders and not for our reasoning brains and adeptness with skills that
> >> can save your life. Patients and their families yell at us, swear at us,
> >> threaten to have us fired, hit us, spit at us, make ridiculous demands
> >> of our ever-decreasing time and resources, insult and demean us every
> >> time we show up for work. Verbal and physical abuses that used to be the
> >> privilege of psych patients are now hurled at us by otherwise functional
> >> and rational patients who are highly unrealistic and intolerant of not
> >> getting what they want when they want it, and our employers, under the
> >> new and improved "customer service" approach to health care delivery,
> >> stoke and stroke and feed and encourage these shitty behaviors in a
> >> schizophrenic *******ization of the-customer-is-always-right philosophy
> >> to the detriment of workplace functionality.
> >
> > Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if
> > you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and
> > take their business elsewhere.
>
> So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
> threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
> they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.

If you don't follow your customers instructions, you are at fault. Your
options are simple, follow their instructions or walk away, they have
the right to refuse you and take their business elsewhere.

>
> You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
> everywhere, huh?

I expect so, since I don't ask them for anything out of the ordinary,
and I always receive the expected service. Flight attendants and fast
food workers generally do not have ego issue like those in the medical
service industry do.

>
> Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
> that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
> and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
> will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
> "fire" the patient, so to speak.

Yes, you do indeed have the right to turn away a customer, but you do
not have a right to force yourself on a customer as some of your ilk
with inflated egos seem to think.

> So to bring this back into its original
> context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
> abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
> airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
> business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
> business, customers are not always right.

Certainly if the flight attendant was actually physically assaulted by
the passenger, and not a case of them getting in the way when heavy
stuff was being moved and being accidentally hit, that is a criminal
matter. A doctor or nurse forcing themselves on someone who is clearly
refusing "treatment" is also a criminal matter.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:
>On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Pennyaline wrote:

(people astonishingly rude to other people who are trying to keep them
alive)

>> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if
>> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and
>> take their business elsewhere.

Um, no, the doctors and other medical professionals give the orders.

>So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
>threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
>they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.

Nor do I.

>You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
>everywhere, huh?

And customer service staff, IT staff ...

>Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
>that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
>and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
>will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
>"fire" the patient, so to speak. So to bring this back into its original
>context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
>abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
>airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
>business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
>business, customers are not always right.

On an airplane, causing that sort of ruckus could get you arrested these
days. It's sad that it takes that to instill the idea of basic
self-control and consideration in.

Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines once "fired" a person in the ticket
line once who was loudly abusive to a staff member who was making
considerable efforts to help by pulling the cost of the woman's ticket
out of his pocket, giving it to her, and asking her to never fly his
airline again.

ObFood: I've taken food to the hospital, but that was mostly to
substitute something not covered in cream gravy or fruit not out of a can
for the hospital food. Which was in a really sorry state. God knows I'd
want someone to bring me something if I were in.

Charlotte
--

On 8/12/10 6:33 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:54:57 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> I do wonder what else was going on in her life that not being able to
>>> get McNuggets pushed her over the edge.
>>
>> My vote is a little crystal meth or crack....
>
> I voted meth when I first saw her. Probably hasn't eaten for 3 or 4 days
> and that's probably all she eats when the need arises.
>
> Although crack is still a pretty close runner up. But I fiugure if she had
> money for McNuggets, then she has money for crack. So she'd be smoking
> that rather than wasting time eating.

Note that according to news reports, this happened at around 6:00-6:30 AM on
New Year's Day of this year. So she could have been out partying all night
on New Years Eve. One my friends speculates that she had the serious case
of the munchies.


- Peter

On 8/11/10 7:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> First it was the CostCo rotisserie chickens, then the airplane steward, and
> now it's McNugget rage! This one tops the first two, IMNSHO.
>
> http://www.wpxi.com/video/24572107/index.html
>
> Has the world gone completely nuts?
>
> -sw

Note this McNuggets rage happened back in January. It's in the news now
because they just released the video of it.

Here's a small Fox News article reporting the incident back in January:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/01/04...dow-mcnuggets/

Also note that in the last paragraph of that article it mentions another
woman, in Florida, who was cited by police when she called 911 *three times*
to complain about not getting McNuggets she ordered back in March of 2009.


- Peter

"Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Pennyaline > wrote:
> >On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> Pennyaline wrote:
>
> (people astonishingly rude to other people who are trying to keep them
> alive)
>
> >> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if
> >> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and
> >> take their business elsewhere.
>
> Um, no, the doctors and other medical professionals give the orders.

No, sorry, they give *recommendations* and the customer has the legal
right to refuse those recommendations. Just because historically the
customers have blindly followed those recommendations does not change
the legalities. The fact that more and more of those customers are
waking up, educating themselves and saying *NO* is a very positive
change.

>
> >So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
> >threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
> >they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.
>
> Nor do I.

They have the legal (and inalienable human right) to refuse your
recommendations.

>
> >You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
> >everywhere, huh?
>
> And customer service staff, IT staff ...

Nope, it seems the medical service industry is the only one plagued by
ego issues. All those other service industries you mention realize that
they are a service industry and are there to service their customers,
not the other way around.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:08:17 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> The video link you posted doesn't show where she actually smashed the
>>> drive-thru window with a bottle.
>>>
>>> http://www.onlykent.com/20100811/mcd...do-plus-video/
>>>
>>> Good lord. What a nutcase. And over something as stupid as chicken
>>> McNuggets?
>>
>> She's not bad-looking. That's all that matters.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301900
>

Bottom line, it doesn't matter where you work, your customer has no
right whatsoever to attack and assault you. If you feel threatened,
you have every right to use whatever acceptable force is needed to
repel the attack. Glad to see she got 60 days in jail.

Meth heads like that blond wanting mucknuggets may pull that shit on
an employee someday and get a bullet. "But officer I thought she was
going to rob me".

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Nope, it seems the medical service industry is the only one plagued by
> ego issues. All those other service industries you mention realize that
> they are a service industry and are there to service their customers,
> not the other way around.

The other industries are not responsible for their customer's physical
well being and are not routinely sued when a client's health
deteriorates or life terminates.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Nope, it seems the medical service industry is the only one plagued by
> > ego issues. All those other service industries you mention realize that
> > they are a service industry and are there to service their customers,
> > not the other way around.
>
> The other industries are not responsible for their customer's physical
> well being and are not routinely sued when a client's health
> deteriorates or life terminates.

That's why they are paid better than those other service industries.
More risk = more pay. It does not however justify the ego issues seen,
nor does it change the legal and human right of the customers to refuse
their recommendations.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:33:42 -0700, Peter Lawrence >
wrote:

> Note this McNuggets rage happened back in January. It's in the news now
> because they just released the video of it.

Probably because the trial is over. She received two months in jail
followed by a year of probation and she was ordered to pay for the
broken window.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 8/12/2010 09:41, Pete C. wrote:

Pennyaline wrote:
> > So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
>> threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
>> they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.
> If you don't follow your customers instructions, you are at fault. Your
> options are simple, follow their instructions or walk away, they have
> the right to refuse you and take their business elsewhere.

So you DO think they have the right to use verbal and physical abuse,
and to threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves
while they're inpatients?



>> You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
>> everywhere, huh?
>
> I expect so, since I don't ask them for anything out of the ordinary,
> and I always receive the expected service. Flight attendants and fast
> food workers generally do not have ego issue like those in the medical
> service industry do.

Are all of your requests from health care workers within what is
considered "ordinary" in the health care setting?



>> Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
>> that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
>> and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
>> will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
>> "fire" the patient, so to speak.
>
> Yes, you do indeed have the right to turn away a customer, but you do
> not have a right to force yourself on a customer as some of your ilk
> with inflated egos seem to think.

Patients have every right to refuse care as it is ordered. They do not
have the right to alter their care arbitrarily and demand that we go
along with it. Their insurance companies won't go along with it, either.
It has nothing to do with ego. It's to do with why a patient was
admitted and what they expect from hospitalization.



>> So to bring this back into its original
>> context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
>> abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
>> airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
>> business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
>> business, customers are not always right.
>
> Certainly if the flight attendant was actually physically assaulted by
> the passenger, and not a case of them getting in the way when heavy
> stuff was being moved and being accidentally hit, that is a criminal
> matter. A doctor or nurse forcing themselves on someone who is clearly
> refusing "treatment" is also a criminal matter.

We are not allowed to force ourselves on anyone refusing treatment. If
they refuse, we leave it alone and the event is documented. If there are
enough documented refusals the facility will discharge them. They may
not arbitrarily adjust the terms of their treatment as it suits them,
just as an airline passenger may not put oversized items in overhead
compartments, may not block the aisle, may not smoke in the bathroom,
many not have as many drinks inflight as they damn well please, may not
stand up and start collecting their items before the plane comes to a
full stop... and may not abuse the crew about it.

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 09:41, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
> > > So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
> >> threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
> >> they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.
> > If you don't follow your customers instructions, you are at fault. Your
> > options are simple, follow their instructions or walk away, they have
> > the right to refuse you and take their business elsewhere.
>
> So you DO think they have the right to use verbal and physical abuse,
> and to threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves
> while they're inpatients?

That depends on exactly what *you* are doing. Trying to force
"treatment" on someone who has clearly refused it constitutes criminal
assault, and the victim of such assault has every right to defend
themselves in any way necessary. They also have the right to have you
charged criminally for that assault.

>
> >> You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
> >> everywhere, huh?
> >
> > I expect so, since I don't ask them for anything out of the ordinary,
> > and I always receive the expected service. Flight attendants and fast
> > food workers generally do not have ego issue like those in the medical
> > service industry do.
>
> Are all of your requests from health care workers within what is
> considered "ordinary" in the health care setting?

I maintain a minimum of contact with the health care industry. My only
regular contact is my allergist who is great and has no problem dealing
with me as I expect. The only remotely unusual requirement I have is my
self administered allergy shots. I work from home, and live 60 miles
from my allergist, so it's certainly not an unreasonable expectation.

My allergist has a number of patients/customers who do self administered
shots and many more who come into the office for shots. Certainly self
administered shots aren't appropriate for everyone, but that's not an
excuse to refuse them for everyone. At this point I've done about 300
shots and I'm still not dead yet, my allergies are also nonexistent now.

>
> >> Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
> >> that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
> >> and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
> >> will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
> >> "fire" the patient, so to speak.
> >
> > Yes, you do indeed have the right to turn away a customer, but you do
> > not have a right to force yourself on a customer as some of your ilk
> > with inflated egos seem to think.
>
> Patients have every right to refuse care as it is ordered. They do not
> have the right to alter their care arbitrarily and demand that we go
> along with it. Their insurance companies won't go along with it, either.
> It has nothing to do with ego. It's to do with why a patient was
> admitted and what they expect from hospitalization.

They have a legal and human right to terminate any treatment at any time
for any reason. The only right you have is to *ask* them to sign a
release form indicating that they know what they are doing is against
your recommendations. You do not even have a right to force them to sign
such a release form, all you can do is note in their file that they left
against recommendations.

>
> >> So to bring this back into its original
> >> context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
> >> abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
> >> airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
> >> business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
> >> business, customers are not always right.
> >
> > Certainly if the flight attendant was actually physically assaulted by
> > the passenger, and not a case of them getting in the way when heavy
> > stuff was being moved and being accidentally hit, that is a criminal
> > matter. A doctor or nurse forcing themselves on someone who is clearly
> > refusing "treatment" is also a criminal matter.
>
> We are not allowed to force ourselves on anyone refusing treatment. If
> they refuse, we leave it alone and the event is documented. If there are
> enough documented refusals the facility will discharge them.

That part you have correct.

> They may
> not arbitrarily adjust the terms of their treatment as it suits them,

That part you have incorrect. They have the right to specify a change in
terms at any time and for any reason. If you choose not to comply with
the specified change, all you can do is terminate the treatment that
they refused and discharge them.

> just as an airline passenger may not put oversized items in overhead
> compartments, may not block the aisle, may not smoke in the bathroom,
> many not have as many drinks inflight as they damn well please, may not
> stand up and start collecting their items before the plane comes to a
> full stop... and may not abuse the crew about it.

An entirely different situation.

On Aug 11, 10:55*pm, Pennyaline > wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 11:03, Pete C. wrote:
>
>
>
> > The human psyche is particularly susceptible to "victim mentality" and
> > we are seeing that more and more. It's all part of the Great Global Tidy
> > Bowl Swirl (tm)...
>
> Hey look, I have no sympathy for the Costco cow and the McNuggets nut,
> but I am full to the brim with understanding for the flight attendant.
> I've been a nurse for three decades, an occupation that is treated more
> and more by the public and employers alike as a servant class rather
> than educated professionals with specialized skills. We are treated like
> waiters and waitresses every day we work by the people we work for and
> the people we are there to take care of, valued as warm bodies that take
> orders and not for our reasoning brains and adeptness with skills that
> can save your life. Patients and their families yell at us, swear at us,
> threaten to have us fired, hit us, spit at us, make ridiculous demands
> of our ever-decreasing time and resources, insult and demean us every
> time we show up for work. Verbal and physical abuses that used to be the
> privilege of psych patients are now hurled at us by otherwise functional
> and rational patients who are highly unrealistic and intolerant of not
> getting what they want when they want it, and our employers, under the
> new and improved "customer service" approach to health care delivery,
> stoke and stroke and feed and encourage these shitty behaviors in a
> schizophrenic *******ization of the-customer-is-always-right philosophy
> to the detriment of workplace functionality. I understand what this guy
> has been seeing and hearing for the last twenty years. In the last two
> days, I've heard more people say that they wish they could grab a beer
> and take a slide out of their crappy work environment AND chew the
> stupid ****ing patients and their stupid ****ing families and stupid
> ****ing visitors out before they go too. It would seem that any idiot
> would know better than to behave the way these people do, but the Victim
> Mentality in conjunction with the Entitlement Mentality have hold of
> them and make them insufferable at a time when they need to shut their
> ****ing traps, do what they're told, show more gratitude and at least
> say "thank you" once or twice instead of a constant litany of "gimme,"
> "you have to," "I pay the bill so I can have anything I want," "if you
> don't, I'll _________ (fill in the blank with stupid threat)," "so the
> sign says we can't smoke in the rooms. Who's going to stop me, a sign?",
> etc., etc., etc. *There are good patients, to be sure. But the patients
> who fill their and our time with their tantrums, noncompliance, abuse,
> petty complaints, following us into other patients' rooms to hog our
> attention, calling us out of other patients' rooms to hog our attention,
> calling us at the nurses station from the phones in their rooms or their
> cell phones to hog our attention, having their families make endless
> phone calls to us for information, playing staff against each other,
> playing managers against each other and, yes, even playing patients
> against each other can be a total waste of time and breath.

==
I have been in hospitals as a patient perhaps eight times total. I
always respected nurses and never had any problems other than once
after major surgery.

If ever I wished for a person to have a major accident it was a nurse
who hated men and showed it every time she had to do anything for me.
I believe they call it elder abuse and this woman specialized in it.
Anyone who denigrates those unable to fight back because of illness or
incapacitating condition should be fired. I should have reported the
miserable harridan...thank gawd I will never have to enter that
facility again. It was only by chance that I had emergency surgery in
a city far from home but an experience that I will not soon forget.
==

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:30:02 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Jill wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the Michael Douglas film 'Falling Down'. For those who
>> haven't seen it, the guy was having a really bad day. He goes into a
>> place and tried to order breakfast. Except it was about 5 minutes after
>> the joint stopped serving breakfast. So he pulled out an Uzi or something
>> similar (another part of his bad day, some punks tried to mug him; he got
>> the best of them then picked up a sachel containing all kids of weapons).
>> The manager finally talked him into ordering a burger instead. Then he
>> got upset because it looked nothing like the picture. Do they ever? LOL
>> It was a very strange, dark movie.
>
> Heh... one of my coworkers here bears a resemblance to the Michael Douglas
> character in that film. We expect him to snap any day.
>
> Bob

keep your head down, bob.

your pal,
blake

Roy wrote:

>
> If ever I wished for a person to have a major accident it was a nurse
> who hated men and showed it every time she had to do anything for me.
> I believe they call it elder abuse and this woman specialized in it.
> Anyone who denigrates those unable to fight back because of illness or
> incapacitating condition should be fired. I should have reported the
> miserable harridan...thank gawd I will never have to enter that
> facility again. It was only by chance that I had emergency surgery in
> a city far from home but an experience that I will not soon forget.


My father had a nasty nurse when he was hospitalized for about a month
before he died. He was in a palliative care ward and his room mate had
crapped his bed. The nurse yelled and screamed at the poor guy, and the
man died a few hours later.

On Aug 12, 1:00*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Roy wrote:
>
> > If ever I wished for a person to have a major accident it was a nurse
> > who hated men and showed it every time she had to do anything for me.
> > I believe they call it elder abuse and this woman specialized in it.
> > Anyone who denigrates those unable to fight back because of illness or
> > incapacitating condition should be fired. I should have reported the
> > miserable harridan...thank gawd I will never have to enter that
> > facility again. It was only by chance that I had emergency surgery in
> > a city far from home but an experience that I will not soon forget.
>
> My father had a nasty nurse when he was hospitalized for about a month
> before he died. He was in a palliative care ward and his room mate had
> crapped his bed. The nurse yelled and screamed at the poor guy, and the
> man died a few hours later.

==
Its too bad that there are incompetents who seem to slip under the
radar of supervisors and management. They can do incalculable harm
before being exposed.
==

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:34:07 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:53:38 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2010-08-11, sf > wrote:
>>
>>> middle of their public temper tantrums along with noting them being
>>> charged and arrested. A little public shame will be good for people
>>> like that.
>>
>> ....as would a bullet to the brain pan.
>>
> Who's going to do it? No me and certainly not the police. They have
> enough trouble as it is. Just look at the Mehserle case.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Po...of_Oscar_Grant

got in trouble? the ****ing cop shot a man in the back who was face down
on the station floor. he was lucky to get away with a verdict involuntary
manslaughter.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:39:34 +0000, Gorio wrote:

> notbob;1517357 Wrote:
>> On 2010-08-11, sf wrote:
>> -
>> middle of their public temper tantrums along with noting them being
>> charged and arrested. A little public shame will be good for people
>> like that.-
>>
>> .....as would a bullet to the brain pan.
>>
>> nb
>
> Perpetrators have all the rights. I think cops should be able to use
> deadly force more; but so many cops are unstable, it's nuts.
>
> I loved Falling Down, though the traffic jam scene at the beginning is
> excruciating.
>
> I would venture a guess to say that most with rage issues were enabled
> by mom and dad as kids. Tantrum gets you what you want.
>
> Heaven forbid a cop taze somebody, like that idiot in the Red Sox game.
>
> I love it when the cops get sued because of some meth head losing it.
> Yeah, Rodney King beating was the wrong thing to do. Guess what? he went
> through all his settlement money on dope. Smoke it up, Rod. I know we
> should all be equal under the law; but when you've proven that you can't
> follow the laws at all, maybe it's time to forget about rehabilitation
> and think about throwing away the key and focusing on those who desire
> help. You can't counsel someone who doesn't desire change. These raging
> folks , if enabled as kids, think they are in the right. Mom told them
> so.

so it's o.k. for the cops to beat the shit out of an unarmed man because
he's a drug user? really?

blake

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:00:12 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> My father had a nasty nurse when he was hospitalized for about a month
> before he died. He was in a palliative care ward and his room mate had
> crapped his bed. The nurse yelled and screamed at the poor guy, and the
> man died a few hours later.

Too many people mix up the different levels of nurses. People seem to
think that everyone is the same because they all wear white. I look
for RN on the nametag. That was probably a nurse's aide or assistant.
I know when I'm hospitalized, the people who change bed sheets can be
downright unprofessional, but a full fledged registered nurse is
competent at her job and has a good bedside manner. That's all I ask.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:15:56 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:34:07 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:53:38 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2010-08-11, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >>> middle of their public temper tantrums along with noting them being
> >>> charged and arrested. A little public shame will be good for people
> >>> like that.
> >>
> >> ....as would a bullet to the brain pan.
> >>
> > Who's going to do it? No me and certainly not the police. They have
> > enough trouble as it is. Just look at the Mehserle case.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Po...of_Oscar_Grant
>
> got in trouble? the ****ing cop shot a man in the back who was face down
> on the station floor. he was lucky to get away with a verdict involuntary
> manslaughter.
>
Have you seen those tasers? They are gun shaped. It was an accident
waiting to happen. In any case, BART police should not be carrying
guns IMO. Why do they need guns? To protect the public against fare
evaders?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 8/12/2010 12:45, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> So you DO think they have the right to use verbal and physical abuse,
>> and to threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves
>> while they're inpatients?
>
> That depends on exactly what *you* are doing. Trying to force
> "treatment" on someone who has clearly refused it constitutes criminal
> assault, and the victim of such assault has every right to defend
> themselves in any way necessary. They also have the right to have you
> charged criminally for that assault.

You comment tells me that you haven't really read my posts, or haven't
read them with any intent of actual comprehension. Your responses so far
tell me that you are just another of the entitled masses who think that
everything must bend their way and everything else is wrong and unjust.


>> Are all of your requests from health care workers within what is
>> considered "ordinary" in the health care setting?
>
> I maintain a minimum of contact with the health care industry. My only
> regular contact is my allergist who is great and has no problem dealing
> with me as I expect. The only remotely unusual requirement I have is my
> self administered allergy shots. I work from home, and live 60 miles
> from my allergist, so it's certainly not an unreasonable expectation.

That is neither unusual nor unreasonable. Patients are taught to
self-inject all the time.


> My allergist has a number of patients/customers who do self administered
> shots and many more who come into the office for shots. Certainly self
> administered shots aren't appropriate for everyone, but that's not an
> excuse to refuse them for everyone. At this point I've done about 300
> shots and I'm still not dead yet, my allergies are also nonexistent now.

Why would you be dead? We teach patients and their families to do
injections routinely.




>> Patients have every right to refuse care as it is ordered. They do not
>> have the right to alter their care arbitrarily and demand that we go
>> along with it. Their insurance companies won't go along with it, either.
>> It has nothing to do with ego. It's to do with why a patient was
>> admitted and what they expect from hospitalization.
>
> They have a legal and human right to terminate any treatment at any time
> for any reason. The only right you have is to *ask* them to sign a
> release form indicating that they know what they are doing is against
> your recommendations. You do not even have a right to force them to sign
> such a release form, all you can do is note in their file that they left
> against recommendations.

We document the refusal of care, we document waiver offers, we document
if waivers are signed or not. We do not "force" anyone to sign release
forms, and we document it with witnesses signatures if they refuse to
sign. Either way, persistent noncompliance with treatment gets patients
discharged. If patients don't want medical treatment they shouldn't come
to the hospital demanding help, and if they don't want to continue
medical treatment once they start feeling better, they should go home.

You have this thing going on in your head that everything we do is in
violation of patient rights. Get over it




>> We are not allowed to force ourselves on anyone refusing treatment. If
>> they refuse, we leave it alone and the event is documented. If there are
>> enough documented refusals the facility will discharge them.
>
> That part you have correct.

I have all of it correct.



>> They may
>> not arbitrarily adjust the terms of their treatment as it suits them,
>
> That part you have incorrect. They have the right to specify a change in
> terms at any time and for any reason. If you choose not to comply with
> the specified change, all you can do is terminate the treatment that
> they refused and discharge them.

Yes, that's what I said.

I've already said that they can specify changes, but that doesn't mean
they'll get what they want.

Patients do not write their own orders. If they don't want to comply
with treatment while hospitalized, they need to go home and pursue their
noncompliance there. When patients who sought treatment then choose to
follow treatment, it is they who are considered out of compliance.



>> just as an airline passenger may not put oversized items in overhead
>> compartments, may not block the aisle, may not smoke in the bathroom,
>> many not have as many drinks inflight as they damn well please, may not
>> stand up and start collecting their items before the plane comes to a
>> full stop... and may not abuse the crew about it.
>
> An entirely different situation.

It's not. The mindset that airlines and flight attendants exist to kiss
customer ass and do what they're told is the same attitude found in
patients.

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:15:56 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:34:07 -0700, sf wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:53:38 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2010-08-11, sf > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> middle of their public temper tantrums along with noting them being
> > >>> charged and arrested. A little public shame will be good for people
> > >>> like that.
> > >>
> > >> ....as would a bullet to the brain pan.
> > >>
> > > Who's going to do it? No me and certainly not the police. They have
> > > enough trouble as it is. Just look at the Mehserle case.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Po...of_Oscar_Grant
> >
> > got in trouble? the ****ing cop shot a man in the back who was face down
> > on the station floor. he was lucky to get away with a verdict involuntary
> > manslaughter.
> >
> Have you seen those tasers? They are gun shaped. It was an accident
> waiting to happen. In any case, BART police should not be carrying
> guns IMO. Why do they need guns? To protect the public against fare
> evaders?

I've seen and handled Tazers, and I own several handguns. The law
enforcement market Tazers are more gun shaped than the consumer market
Tazers, but shapes are still only somewhat similar and certainly the
feel in the hand is quite different. A key difference is the grip which
is shorter than that of any service pistol, something you would clearly
feel when only two of your finger s fit on the grip. The bright yellow
color of most of the Tazers used by law enforcement as well as the very
bulky front end of a Tazer are instantly recognizable when acquiring a
sight picture. You can check the 'net for pictures of a Tazer and a
handgun to see the clear difference yourself.

The claim that the officer in question meant to draw the tazer would be
supported or not by their reaction in the seconds following the
shooting. I don't recall the video of the shooting, but it should be
clear if there was a reaction of shock / horror on the officer's part
indicating it was really a mistake.

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 12:45, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Pennyaline wrote:
> >> So you DO think they have the right to use verbal and physical abuse,
> >> and to threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves
> >> while they're inpatients?
> >
> > That depends on exactly what *you* are doing. Trying to force
> > "treatment" on someone who has clearly refused it constitutes criminal
> > assault, and the victim of such assault has every right to defend
> > themselves in any way necessary. They also have the right to have you
> > charged criminally for that assault.
>
> You comment tells me that you haven't really read my posts, or haven't
> read them with any intent of actual comprehension. Your responses so far
> tell me that you are just another of the entitled masses who think that
> everything must bend their way and everything else is wrong and unjust.

I've read you posts, and I disagree with them. You claim to know you are
not allowed to force care on someone who refuses it, however I'm aware
of many cases where medical service providers did just that, often with
serious consequences, so it is not an unfounded concern (I've spent a
lot of time with trial lawyers).

>
> >> Are all of your requests from health care workers within what is
> >> considered "ordinary" in the health care setting?
> >
> > I maintain a minimum of contact with the health care industry. My only
> > regular contact is my allergist who is great and has no problem dealing
> > with me as I expect. The only remotely unusual requirement I have is my
> > self administered allergy shots. I work from home, and live 60 miles
> > from my allergist, so it's certainly not an unreasonable expectation.
>
> That is neither unusual nor unreasonable. Patients are taught to
> self-inject all the time.

That was my point. As I said "remotely unusual".

>
> > My allergist has a number of patients/customers who do self administered
> > shots and many more who come into the office for shots. Certainly self
> > administered shots aren't appropriate for everyone, but that's not an
> > excuse to refuse them for everyone. At this point I've done about 300
> > shots and I'm still not dead yet, my allergies are also nonexistent now.
>
> Why would you be dead? We teach patients and their families to do
> injections routinely.

Exactly. My point however was that some egocentric doctors have an issue
with that.

>
> >> Patients have every right to refuse care as it is ordered. They do not
> >> have the right to alter their care arbitrarily and demand that we go
> >> along with it. Their insurance companies won't go along with it, either.
> >> It has nothing to do with ego. It's to do with why a patient was
> >> admitted and what they expect from hospitalization.
> >
> > They have a legal and human right to terminate any treatment at any time
> > for any reason. The only right you have is to *ask* them to sign a
> > release form indicating that they know what they are doing is against
> > your recommendations. You do not even have a right to force them to sign
> > such a release form, all you can do is note in their file that they left
> > against recommendations.
>
> We document the refusal of care, we document waiver offers, we document
> if waivers are signed or not. We do not "force" anyone to sign release
> forms, and we document it with witnesses signatures if they refuse to
> sign. Either way, persistent noncompliance with treatment gets patients
> discharged. If patients don't want medical treatment they shouldn't come
> to the hospital demanding help, and if they don't want to continue
> medical treatment once they start feeling better, they should go home.

That is the correct way, however that is not how things are always
handled.

>
> You have this thing going on in your head that everything we do is in
> violation of patient rights. Get over it

I've heard the court cases when you ilk have indeed violated patients
rights, often with fatal consequences, so don't try to tell me it
doesn't happen.

>
> >> We are not allowed to force ourselves on anyone refusing treatment. If
> >> they refuse, we leave it alone and the event is documented. If there are
> >> enough documented refusals the facility will discharge them.
> >
> > That part you have correct.
>
> I have all of it correct.
>
> >> They may
> >> not arbitrarily adjust the terms of their treatment as it suits them,
> >
> > That part you have incorrect. They have the right to specify a change in
> > terms at any time and for any reason. If you choose not to comply with
> > the specified change, all you can do is terminate the treatment that
> > they refused and discharge them.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>
> I've already said that they can specify changes, but that doesn't mean
> they'll get what they want.
>
> Patients do not write their own orders. If they don't want to comply
> with treatment while hospitalized, they need to go home and pursue their
> noncompliance there. When patients who sought treatment then choose to
> follow treatment, it is they who are considered out of compliance.

Those who disagree with the recommended treatment are frequently proven
to be correct in refusing it and have better results with a second
opinion from a more competent provider.

>
> >> just as an airline passenger may not put oversized items in overhead
> >> compartments, may not block the aisle, may not smoke in the bathroom,
> >> many not have as many drinks inflight as they damn well please, may not
> >> stand up and start collecting their items before the plane comes to a
> >> full stop... and may not abuse the crew about it.
> >
> > An entirely different situation.
>
> It's not. The mindset that airlines and flight attendants exist to kiss
> customer ass and do what they're told is the same attitude found in
> patients.

Care to tell me what the purpose of those flight attendants is then, if
it is not to service their customers? Certainly it isn't to be a puppet
to the safety video, nor is it to be a security guard. In the event of a
crash, the unseated flight attendants are more likely to be injured than
the seated passengers, so they can't be relied on for any evacuation
assistance. They aren't trained EMTs, so they can't be relied on to
provide emergency medical care in flight either. Getting coffee, pillows
and asking the obliviots to quiet their screaming hell-spawn are about
the only things the flight attendants are there to do.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> The claim that the officer in question meant to draw the tazer would be
> supported or not by their reaction in the seconds following the
> shooting. I don't recall the video of the shooting, but it should be
> clear if there was a reaction of shock / horror on the officer's part
> indicating it was really a mistake.

I believe there was and that's why he got a lighter sentence.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0500, "Pete C." >

>> The claim that the officer in question meant to draw the tazer would be
>> supported or not by their reaction in the seconds following the
>> shooting. I don't recall the video of the shooting, but it should be
>> clear if there was a reaction of shock / horror on the officer's part
>> indicating it was really a mistake.

>I believe there was and that's why he got a lighter sentence.

The problem with the "I thought it was my Taser" defense is that
any cop could claim such a defense in any shooting. If a defendant
makes a statement that is information-free in the sense that any defendant
could make the same statement, the jurors should ignore it and should
be instructed to ignore it.

I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
can use the Taser Defense.

Steve

Pete C. wrote:

> That's why they are paid better than those other service industries.
> More risk = more pay. It does not however justify the ego issues seen,
> nor does it change the legal and human right of the customers to refuse
> their recommendations.

....and then there are the "customers" who refuse or are non-compliant
with the care and later sue because they're not perfect or healthy.

Goomba wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > That's why they are paid better than those other service industries.
> > More risk = more pay. It does not however justify the ego issues seen,
> > nor does it change the legal and human right of the customers to refuse
> > their recommendations.
>
> ...and then there are the "customers" who refuse or are non-compliant
> with the care and later sue because they're not perfect or healthy.

And they loose in court.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:39:34 +0000, Gorio wrote:

> > I love it when the cops get sued because of some meth head losing it.
> > Yeah, Rodney King beating was the wrong thing to do.

> so it's o.k. for the cops to beat the shit out of an unarmed man because
> he's a drug user? really?

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. After the fact, it turned out
that both Oscar Grant and Rodney King were unarmed. Neither cooperated
to let the police determine whether they had deadly weapons. When they
both refused to keep their hands away from their bodies, the police
claimed that they assumed they could be reaching for a deadly weapon.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> The problem with the "I thought it was my Taser" defense is that
> any cop could claim such a defense in any shooting. If a defendant
> makes a statement that is information-free in the sense that any defendant
> could make the same statement, the jurors should ignore it and should
> be instructed to ignore it.
>
> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
> can use the Taser Defense.

For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
the first place. WHY???

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Steve Pope wrote:
> sf > wrote:
>> "Pete C." >
>
>>> The claim that the officer in question meant to draw the tazer would be
>>> supported or not by their reaction in the seconds following the
>>> shooting. I don't recall the video of the shooting, but it should be
>>> clear if there was a reaction of shock / horror on the officer's part
>>> indicating it was really a mistake.
>
>>I believe there was and that's why he got a lighter sentence.

The video was popular for a while. It's clear he thought it was a taser
until he pulled the trigger and the wrong thing happened. He was
astonished and mortified. It was tragic.

> The problem with the "I thought it was my Taser" defense is that
> any cop could claim such a defense in any shooting. If a defendant
> makes a statement that is information-free in the sense that any defendant
> could make the same statement, the jurors should ignore it and should
> be instructed to ignore it.

So they should pay attention to the video that tells what actually
happened.

> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
> can use the Taser Defense.

And video tape *everything*. Sure. There are lots of times when a perp
is shown the video and stops asking for a jury trial and accepts a plea.

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),

>> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
>> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
>> can use the Taser Defense.

>For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
>the first place. WHY???

I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
as well.

Steve

J. Clarke > wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 10:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> First it was the CostCo rotisserie chickens, then the airplane
>> steward, and now it's McNugget rage! This one tops the first two,
>> IMNSHO. http://www.wpxi.com/video/24572107/index.html
>>
>> Has the world gone completely nuts?
>
> I do wonder what else was going on in her life that not being able to
> get McNuggets pushed her over the edge.

Actually it's all part of a new BK Corp PR campaign. We've planted subminal
messages worldwide which encourage irrational hatred. These messages are
subconsciously loaded and triggered by the image of the hated golden arches.
We call the new program Ronald Rage.

We've just placed advanced mind-control kiosks in participating BKs which
will automatically install the sublminal messages in your brain. Everyone
who participates* gets a free Whopper, with fries, drink, and dessert!

*Offer good for a limited time only. Legal fees, fines, and bail bonds are
not the responsibility of the BK Corporation.

Burger King King
All fear my shiny plastic head

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:

> >For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
> >the first place. WHY???
>
> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
web site:

http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit
district's board of directors recommended that local police and
sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and
other BART-owned properties that were within their respective
jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's
proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of
police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation
was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police
Department.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:34:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Goomba wrote:
> >
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > > That's why they are paid better than those other service industries.
> > > More risk = more pay. It does not however justify the ego issues seen,
> > > nor does it change the legal and human right of the customers to refuse
> > > their recommendations.
> >
> > ...and then there are the "customers" who refuse or are non-compliant
> > with the care and later sue because they're not perfect or healthy.
>
> And they loose in court.

Not before dragging the Dr and nurse's names through the mud, keeping
them out of work & in court, paying for lawyers & court costs and
generally causing needless stress.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.
>
> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
> as well.

Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
transit from their home to the station.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.