Leaderboard

Nope.... read again. I said I mentioned nothing about any other groups bringing any less or more drama. Same rule goes for these idiots sticking huge holes in thier ears, or facial piercings and large visible tatoos. If you appear to me that you are there to "Make a statement" other than "Look at me, I am a competent professional healthcare provider" you will not get the job. You know.... Like picking a screename like "FLAMINGemt" don't expect any cudos from me that you identify yourself first as a gay, and second as a healthcare provider. In fact.... you can expect some hostility because "your kind" (your words not mine) is less than welcome in my profession. I would be acting no different if you came here as GOTHemt, and started touting discrimination aginst your black lipstick and slashed arms.

Most of my experience working with gays was when I was a tech at an ER. In one place, depending on the shift, I as a hetero male- was the minority. Lesbians, gay men, bisexual doctors, nurses, staff- we had them all. We had great relationships with these folks- some were more flamboyant and open, others were not. One area I worked was heavily gay, as were many of our patients. The gays actually HATED dealing with the princesses, and drama queens more than I did- they said they made them look foolish. One guy-a nurse from India- was one of the funniest people I have ever met. Quick wit, brutal, and often ended his sharp tongued comments and barbs with- "Well, you know how us fags are", or- well, you're hetero- you don't get it. All in good fun, as no offense was intended or taken from it. As brash as he was, he was painfully shy when it came to his own interests. A new young male resident doc would arrive, and I would make a comment to the nurse- "hey- check out that guy"- without even knowing if the person was gay or not. He would become flustered, and if you want to see something funny, watch an Indian blush. One nurse- who simply could not decide if she was gay, straight, or bisexual- she was married to a man, partnered with a female, and played around with both sexes- and I hit it off. We'd go out for drinks after work(we had a great group of folks who were very tight), and we'd have these incredibly deep conversations on straight/gay issues for hours on end. She had a unique perspective on lifestyles. I don't think it's discriminatory to say that context is all important in this. If some heavily tatooed, multiple piercing, rainbow haired, or very flamboyant gay provider shows up in a rural area- or in the middle of a staunchly conservative area- it WILL raise some eyebrows. Is it right? Maybe not, but as an employer, I think you should have the right to set standards for appearance, comportment, and dress. They may be the best provider in the world, but perception is a huge part of this. Right or wrong, many people make judgements based on appearance, and if we are supposed to be serving the public, we should not be adding to the stress of the patient or their families, nor should we be a distraction. If that same provider showed up in a trendy/hip part of LA, Miami, NYC, or Chicago, their appearance may not even generate a second glance. Obviously as an employer you cannot hire providers to staff only areas comfortable with a strange looking provider, so a balance must be struck. Mandate certain hair standards(fire departments have done it forever, as do most businesses), maybe cover up tats, remove obvious piercings, etc. We are projecting an image, and are supposed to instill confidence and an air of professionalism. I see nothing wrong with limiting self expression in such cases. You have a job to do, and while you are working, it does not include expressing your personal habits and preferences, whatever they may be, or taking a stand on some issue. It's supposed to be about caring for patients and their families. Period. When was the last time you saw a doctor or other professional running around with gems in their earlobes, multiple facial piercings, multi colored hair, or flaunting their sexuality-whether it be straight or gay? Time and place.

"My kind"? You realize that with those two little words, you have just proven yourself to be as much of a narrow minded BIGOT as you claim to be rallying against? It seems that not only have you turned your own brush on yourself, you've helped yourself to a THICK coat of the same paint you're slinging onto every heterosexual you're claiming is discriminating against you. You have also removed ANY 'credibility' that your story MIGHT have had....good job! Far be it to speak for 'My Kind'....but as far as I am concerned, you've got NOTHING left to say of any significance!

^ This. I was practising then, although not in NY. MAST were still common frontline intervention at the time, however the debate had already begun over they were really a good idea or not. Consequently, many systems had already removed them from penetrating trauma protocols. New York tends to lag far behind the current literature, so what their specific protocol was at the time would have to be researched through the NY dept of health, and good luck with that. The warnings about field removal were written before we realised that MAST were killing people, so that would not apply at a time when they were contraindicated. Think about it. Any time you can undo something that was wrong in the first place, that is a good thing, right. And if the EMT demanded their immediate removal, regardless of what the protocols of the day said, we now know that he was correct, medically speaking. That said, with today's knowledge, and regardless of what the protocols of the day said, we now also know that the first responders were medically wrong to inflate those trousers. However, in NY, unlike many states, responders do not have the liberty of contradicting their protocols. They have to cook strictly by the book, even if the book is out of date. So, procedurally, they were probably in the right. Again, you won't know until you have copies of the official protocols from that day in your hands. You may indeed come to show that one or more responders violated their protocols on that day. And you may indeed come to show that one or more of them did something that was medically incorrect by present or past standards. However, I can assure you that you will not find either possibility to have played a role in this man's death. The only factor that EMT's may have lent to his demise would be if they delayed his transportation significantly. But again, the protocols of the day would define the time parameters. Fifteen minutes on scene before transportation was the generally accepted standard of the time. Any longer would have to be justified by complications, such as a mechanical failure or difficulty removing the victim from the scene. Of course, if it is anywhere documented that the victim lost his pulse or breathing, or that CPR was initiated before his arrival at the hospital, then forget about all of this. That would mean he was already dead. And the inability to resurrect the dead does not by any convoluted stretch of the imagination equal a contribution to the death. If you have not yet been successful articulating the self-defence justification, then there is zero chance that the medical angle will help you out. You simply will not find a competent medical expert today to testify that MAST pants are or were a good intervention for penetrating chest trauma. I never understand why some here get all paranoid about questions like these. I could not care less why our new friend wants to know. Accurate information and discussion is good for us all. Who cares if it is someone involved in litigation? Nothing from an open forum like this is going to be taken as qualified expert testimony in any court. There is no harm in an academic discussion to help him decide if this is something worth even pursuing an expert for. And I believe we are all in agreement that it is not.

Agreed here. If I can tell your a "flaming homosexual" as soon as you enter the room, your prolly not going to get the job. Not because your gay, but because you are an attention whore, and attention whores are synonymous with causing drama.

Dwayne, my mouth dropped open at your excellent, well thought, intelligent post. But I digress. I have worked both at a private service, and a hospital based EMS system. At the private service, I worked with one lesbian woman, and one gay man. At the Hospital based system, I can name at least 6 gay or lesbian providers, and those are only ones that I know of. (Not to say there aren't a ton more that I didn't know.) One of them was a lieutenant and went on to become assistant chief. I hate generalizations. To say that "gays" are relegated to 2nd tier services, and have no chance for advancement, is crap. It is like saying all white people are racist, or all black people are criminals. Do either of these statements have any merit? Not at all. You can't paint every person with the same brush. I think that sometimes people "create" discrimination because they are not getting what they want. Every situation is different. I could say that as a woman in EMS, I get stuck with "bad" jobs, and I can't advance. Is that really the case? Am I really qualified for other positions? Is there jobs available? How many other people are competing for those positions? I could be bitter that I did not receive one of those jobs and say that I did not get the position because I was a woman, my race, weight, sexuality etc. But is it discrimination or just my perception of the situation?

Yep. Definitely management material.

yeah, they also should get someone to the hospital in a timely manner. Not waste time

So you are claiming that straight people do not bring any drama to the job ? WROOOOONNNNNGGGGG ! You have never worked with a female EMT who just broke up with her soulmate, the fireman/emt that just discovered his wife is doing a guy at another station, arguements over race, religion, politics, abortion, illegal aliens. Straight people are the biggest drama queens around, it is just accepted because it is your kind doing your silliness. This is no different than the situation involving the two muslims that were thrown off the airplane after Osama's death, just because they were "different" and made the other passengers uncomfortable. I can promise you that somewhere on that plane was a criminal, a tax cheat, a cheating spouse, a drug dealer or user, and a child molester --- but they didnt "look" abnormal, so they got to stay on the plane. All that should matter at my job is how well I perform patient care, and other social preconditions shouldn't matter.