This is written to strongly suggest that county Commissioner of Jurors be upgraded to an elective office.
Within this week, I have been made aware of a case where a jury duty summons may impact the health of a sexagenarian woman.
The woman's situation as I understand it is this.
(1) The woman was called for jury duty in very late November, 2018. She was not feeling well, and asked for, and received, a postponement.
(2) In December, 20
18, the woman underwent a major surgical procedure for the removal of a large tumor from her intestines and a related bowel resection.
(3) The woman was permitted to return to work but under significant restrictions, including, but not limited to, flexibility concerning eating schedules, exercise periods, certain supervisory duties, and was assigned an aide to assist her in her normal activities.
Moreover, the business has shown flexibility in her use of sick leave in order to accommodate her physical status on a day-by-day basis.
(4) When summoned to appear as per postponement arrangements in November, her physician asked that the prospective juror be granted an additional six-month delay.
(5) I understand that the Commissioner of Jurors deemed the physician opinion insufficient, and insisted that such a request could not be granted absent the prospective juror's waiver of her HIPPA rights, so that the Commissioner may question her in detail about her medical history and current status. Only then, based up his merit-less medical insights, would consideration be given to granting the requested medical postponement.
My one word reaction: SERIOUSLY?
While some will hold that there are those who abuse the existing system to secure exemption, absent a showing of probable cause, I discern no reason whatsoever, for the state to substitute the judgment of an un-elected Commissioner of Jurors for that of the appropriate medical professional.
What confounds me is that government relies exclusively on objective medical evidence to impact driving privileges, Workman's Compensation, military service, disability, and to determine public health emergencies. But in the case of jury duty, the government seemingly insists on extending the limits of medical expertise to include personal, if not whimsical, perception(s), and also appears to apply coercive measures to reduce citizen rights under the HIPPA.
If such is the sad case, the government has apparently embraced the inclusion of non-professional insights, anecdotes, seeming intimidation, self-diagnosis, and perhaps personal and political prejudices, to determine the health suitability of a prospective juror.
As I simply do not understand why a proper, qualified physician, duly licensed by New York State, fails to meet the professional standards to exclusively reach such a determination, equally, I certainly must protest the over-value of an un-elected Commissioner, whose only credential seems to reflect the exact same vetting standards observed in the cases of Al Dirschberger and the personnel of the Erie County Water Authority.
Although I protest, I am not surprised. New York State, in this year alone, has left it to non-doctors to perform nine-month abortions, and is now inching toward approving "End-Of-Life" medications. New York, like many Socialist, big government entities, has applied a cold thumb on the scale for the devaluation of life, and imposes upon the human condition, its will with a dark and indifferent tyranny.
If this singular Commissioner is to be the holder of such power which would permit substitute of its judgment over that of the medical professional, that office must, IMHO, necessarily have a check on that authority, and, in the American tradition, such a check comes from the ballot box, not from the evil spirit of the Beria axiom, "Show me the man ( or in this case the physician and the patient), and I'll show you the crime."