Re: civil penalty for medical violation

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

Bill Lipton wrote that:

>I'm even more astounded by the multiple responses which seem to 
>imply that, "If a
>regulation doesn't make sense to me, I don't have to follow it." 
>You are making
>a good case that these violations are, in fact, willful, and deserving of
>criminal sanctions.  I hope that this does not reflect our 
>profession's approach
>to public safety.



>Like Bill, I hope that the "If a
regulation doesn't make sense to me, I don't have to follow it." is 
an exception.

There is a stretch of Interstate highway that I drive almost 
everyday. The speed limit was 65 until about a year ago when it was 
decreased to 55. I feel that there are times when 55 is best and 
others when 65 is safe. Which do I follow? The answer is "It 
depends." If I am in my car and ready to face the consequence (the 
ticket) I may choose 65. If I am in a State vehicle the answer is 
simple - 55. The issue here is that when working for my employer it 
is not my decision as to which laws to follow and which to ignore or 
violate.

That is, safety is not the issue I see. The issue is that state and 
federal law  require semiannual leak tests for sealed sources and 
that is the frequency that we leak test them. No questions.

Sometimes safety is not at issue and is not the issue - the issue is 
following the law, the regulations, the license, etc. I believe that 
willful and intentional violations are cause for discharge from most 
jobs, I am sure that it is for mine.

Bill Lipton says "It's not about dose, it's about trust." Well that 
applies to those who granted us a license too. They trust (but 
verify) that we will follow the state or federal laws. They expect we 
will follow all of the laws and not just the ones that we think are 
required for safety.

And yes, intentional and willful violations can be charged as 
criminal. In California it has been made clear that violation of 
regulations can result in criminal charges. I even saw one case where 
the violation was a willful and intentional act, but was due to an 
honest misinterpretation of a license requirement. The US Justice 
Department investigated this event in preparation for criminal 
charges.

If you feel that if a law or regulation should not apply, then ask 
for a variance.

It is my belief that the above does represent my employer's views.

Paul Lavely UC Berkeley <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html