Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 1 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
Letter To Editor
From'Virginia Traffic Safety News, Richmond, which is edited by Hiram M. Smith.
We cannot help but wonder why our implied consent law provides so many safeguards in the taking of blood from accused persons. A blood test today is. a relatively simple matter yet the law spells out Just who may withdraw blood and the exact procedure, even to the sterilization of instruments. Similar provisions are not made for the withdrawal of blood for other purposes. The fact that a qualified, but unauthorized, person withdraws blood is not going to affect the result of a test. Neither is an unsterilized needle. If the patient suffers harm, he has recourse to a civil suit, Just as he does if a physician of his agent should be guilty of malpractice or gross negligence. Under the present law, soap only may be used in sterilizing the skin area. If a physician desires his medical assistant to withdraw blood and the assistant is not a registered nurse, or a graduate laboratory technician, the physician no matter how much faith he might have in his assistant's ability, must get court permission for her to withdraw blood. The old law, superseded July 1, did not permit use of the medically accepted, factory sterilized, pre-sealed needle and the defendant went free if one was used. In a recent Supreme Court case, under the old law, the defendant was dismissed because it was not proven that the needle was sterilized, as definitely requiredJ»y ihe law. However, the court noted that the difference between the Medical Examiner's test reading and that of private laboratory could well be at
73.1%