context: The appellate court agreed that unresolved factual questions existed with regard to the existence of an emergency and the question of whether intoxication vitiated the consent requirement. Moreover, the amicus brief directs our attention to several cases that hold that alcohol intoxication can legally impair a patient's capacity to refuse medical treatment.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 525 A.2d 926, 929
citation_a.parenthetical: intoxication may be grounds for diminished-capacity defense such that an assailant cannot form specific intent necessary to commit murder
citation_a.sentence: See Blackman v. Rifkin, 759 P.2d 54, 58 (Colo.App.1988) (intoxication coupled with head trauma permits emergency-room physicians to restrain patient and imply consent necessary to treat medical condition); Grannum, 70 Wash.2d at 307, 422 P.2d at 814; cf. State v. Hockenhull, 525 A.2d 926, 929 (R.I.1987) (intoxication may be grounds for diminished-capacity defense such that an assailant cannot form specific intent necessary to commit murder).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 759 P.2d 54, 58
citation_b.parenthetical: intoxication coupled with head trauma permits emergency-room physicians to restrain patient and imply consent necessary to treat medical condition
citation_b.sentence: See Blackman v. Rifkin, 759 P.2d 54, 58 (Colo.App.1988) (intoxication coupled with head trauma permits emergency-room physicians to restrain patient and imply consent necessary to treat medical condition); Grannum, 70 Wash.2d at 307, 422 P.2d at 814; cf. State v. Hockenhull, 525 A.2d 926, 929 (R.I.1987) (intoxication may be grounds for diminished-capacity defense such that an assailant cannot form specific intent necessary to commit murder).