OneLongjumping4022 t1_j8zxcf2 wrote
Yes I did do it! I plead not guilty,!
jnmjnmjnm t1_j8zyuoj wrote
Guilt is based on criminal action and intent. I am not sure about the criminal charges, but it would definitely be professional misconduct - that would be a surgeon’s job, not a nurse’s. (IANAL or D)
reikipackaging t1_j901cdb wrote
removing someone's body part without their (or their guardian's) consent is very much a criminal act with intent. I wouldn't argue whether the foot should come off, but this is some serial killer business, even if she did it for /good/ reason.
PigSlam t1_j92eba8 wrote
Did you see the details of what she removed? Calling it a foot, or even “attached” at this point is a bit of a stretch. Not saying it’s right, but it’s definitely in some sort of moral grey area. Definitely gets weirder after that with the idea of keeping it, though that might be misunderstood gallows humor.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j901o0i wrote
There is “assumed consent” if a patient cannot communicate. There is also likely a general consent signed at admission giving the facility staff discretion.
reikipackaging t1_j902mee wrote
yeah, no. the waivers are going to cover consent to things like washing and ensuring nutrition... restraints for the patients safety... impromptu surgery in the patients room by a nurse is so far out of the parameters of standard practice that I'm baffled anyone would see this as a reasonable measure.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j902vb8 wrote
It will be an interesting case for the jury to consider! My point was that one can admit to an action and still plead “not guilty”.
reikipackaging t1_j903hei wrote
I won't argue that point.
frisbeesloth t1_j90doql wrote
Maybe if this was at a hospital....but this happened at a nursing home!
jnmjnmjnm t1_j90inom wrote
They have these types of general consent as well. This is not a slam-dunk case, especially in a jury trial.
notapolita t1_j90ef1j wrote
You don't need a criminal intent to be guilty. You can be just so irresponsible and stupid that you cause someone harm without any intent at all.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j90ik0l wrote
Law_Student t1_j9243nw wrote
You might be misunderstanding just how limited the mes rea requirement is. All that's necessary is intent to engage in the criminal act, not the intent to knowingly commit a crime. That's what the jury instructions will say, too.
So unless she can argue that she somehow didn't mean to cut off the foot and it just happened by accident, mes rea is met here. Yes, it's a very low hurdle. People can commit crimes even if they don't believe what they're doing is a crime, and they can be punished for it.
And mens rea isn't even necessary in many situations where someone has a special duty of care for a specific person. Here, a medical professional may well have a sufficiently elevated duty of care for a patient that even a failure to act could give rise to criminal liability.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j92827j wrote
I understand. You must know that the few paragraphs published in the media are not either side’s case. :)
Law_Student t1_j928vzf wrote
I don't understand your point. Are you saying mes rea is or is not met?
jnmjnmjnm t1_j929ogd wrote
I don’t have the evidence. That is my point. There are many things which could sway a jury.
notapolita t1_j90ixcf wrote
This does not say that you cannot be considered guilty unless you had criminal intent.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j90jzfl wrote
No, but it will likely be part of her defense. A sympathetic jury will give it consideration.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments