Hi, Folks -

There's so much that could be said about this, I hardly know where to start. :)

Found here:

SD Cops Using Forced Catheterization To Extract Urine From Suspects
http://policestatedaily.com/sd-cops-using-forced-catheterization-extract-urine-suspects

...with original source here:

Police use catheters, force to collect urine samples
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2016/07/01/police-use-catheters-force-collect-urine-samples/86577942/

...the article says cops in South Dakota have for years been using forced catheterization to obtain urine samples, in cases where they suspect someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and refuses to provide a urine sample voluntarily and a court order for blood or urine samples has been obtained. The catheterization is done by medical personnel in a nearby hospital.

Under South Dakota state laws, this is legal. But as one person quoted in the article points out, it "borders on rape". Further, it's hard to see how this could be Constitutional, if for no other reason than it seems to be a case of forcing someone to provide (?) something that might incriminate him- or herself, or for the reason that it should qualify as "unreasonable search and seizure".

Issues of legality and constitutionality aside, I'm wondering what sort of person thought to make this legal in the first place. And I have to wonder what this does to the cops involved. At the least it would seem to lead to their viewing suspects more as objects than as human beings.

Shifting gears a bit:

The article mentions "there's a lot of screaming and shouting".

What could be worse than being catheterized against your will? Desperately needing catheterization and being denied it.

On certain broadcast TV channels these days there are commercials in which an older man or woman calmly says, "I use catheters." The commercials are for a company that offers home delivery of catheters and related items.

Recently, as part of my "medical system tour" that resulted from some broken bones at the start of this year, I found myself in need of some help defecating; that was thanks to "opiod-induced constipation" from the Percocet I was encouraged to take while in the hospital, the idea being that rehabilitation would be easier and would progress more rapidly if I wasn't being held back by the pain involved. I was given some drugs to help with that, only they didn't help, or at least not in timely fashion. One nurse wisely said, "They don't work - but I'll get you some prune juice." Sure enough, _that_ worked. :)

Then also, and I'm not sure what caused it, there began a period of "urine retention" and being unable to urinate. One can be constipated for days without much suffering, but one cannot go for very long without peeing if his/her kidneys are functioning. Within just a few hours the experience can go from "urge to pee" to "finally understanding what the word 'excruciating' really means".

The immediate short-term solution: catheterization, which involves insertion of a smooth, flexible, lubricated tube into one's urethra and gently pushing it until it reaches the bladder - at which point, relief is almost instantaneous. This is why the man or woman in those ads is calmly (and with a slight smile) saying, "I use catheters." They're aware that catheters can provide "blessed (temporary) relief" though they do not generally do anything regarding the cause of needing one.

All that just to say: I do understand the remark in the article that there's a lot of "screaming and shouting" but I doubt if it's from any actual pain; more likely it's from the sense of outrage over having one's body taken over and invaded against one's will and from the _fear_ than it will be as painful as it is unwanted and alien to one's normal living.

If my own recent experience is any indicator, the procedure is more creepy than painful. :) Maybe it will help someone to know that.

Blessings.

--hobie

**************************************************************************