crotchitymedic1986

Yes, D50 is very deadly when given to diabetics. You guys kill me (and your patients). The coma cocktail was invented for medics who treat the equipment and not the patient, because they would not push D50 for patients who obviously needed it, because their glucometer said no. If you arent familiar there are a host of issues that can cause a false glucometer reading. Here is a small list: Abnormal blood sugar levels can also be found in patients who: Are pregnant. Have hepatitis. Have head trauma. Are septic. Have diarrhea. Exercise strenuously. Consume large amounts of alcohol or are chronic drinkers. Are on medications (beta blockers, quinine, prednisone). Overdose on medications (lithium, acetaminophen, antihistamines). Have Addison's disease. Have taken someone else's diabetes medications. Have expired medications. Have an unusual Hematocrit Level Not to mention, glucometers/strips/and control solutions are supposed to be maintained at a certain temperature extreme, which is often violated in ambulances. If you need a glucometer to treat a diabetic patient, you need to go back to school.

We had two patients like you have, that called multiple times per day/week. Our Director went to their homes and just told them that from that day forward, we would only transport once per 24 hour period, and that we would only transport them to the closest facility (they had started going further and further out, after they wore their welcome out at the local facilities). You may also be able to convince the ER Doc to check with the patient's pharmacy to get a list of how many prescriptions and what prescriptions they are on (not a HIPPAA violation, as it is related to their care). With that print out, he will have enough to mandate a rehab admission at your local psych facility.

me thinks some arent telling the truth.

You also have to realize that a person who has these kind of habits may not just dabble in the prescriptions at hand. Alcohol, illegal drugs, and other prescriptions may have been involved. And obviously those who abuse multiple prescription drugs have a higher tolerance, and tend to take enough on a daily basis, that would kill one of us. To the derrogatory comment about the "old coma cocktail", if this patient were an unconscious, diaphoretic diabetic with a normal d-stick, would you withhold D50 ?

Again, attack the messenger when you cant debate facts, but i have come to expect that. I will answer those that are "new" attacks, I have already answered the old ones: 1. I have emailed EEOC regarding what protection EEOC offers to homosexuals. Since you will not accept my facts, maybe you will accept theirs. As soon as i get a response, I will post it, and then will appreciate your immediate apologies. 2. I am not a homophobe, but I will admit that the phone conversations did creep me out at first. I heard the phone conversations because I was in the ambulance with him as he made the calls. I think to lie about that would make me hypocritical. I would also be uncomfortable around an eskimo the first time I met one, that doesnt make me an eskimophobe. 3. Funny, how you guys want to continue to make derrogatory comments as if I have been proven wrong in every conversation, but as a matter of fact, I have been proven right in every post (as I will in this one). Its a shame that many of you are not mature enough to admit when you are wrong. No one is 100% right every time, there is no shame in admitting you were wrong. 4. As far as those who say this is not a problem, only one or two people have written in to admit that they currently have an openly homosexual male working in their service. The fact that you have zero or one, may indicate that there is some bias at your service, or atleast with the person who makes the hiring decisions. Just because you do not care if they are homosexual or not (and I hope you do not), does not mean that you coworkers feel the same way. P.S. Ruff: Thanks for the suggestions, but by the comments I am receiving in my inbox this week, I think I will continue to pick my own topics. My fans (who call themselves crotchies) seem to enjoy my rants and views (Attn Crotchies: please feel free to email me any topics you would like to see debated).

No, I am saying there is no protection of gays when it comes to discrimination.

Again, when you cant deal with facts, attack the messenger. I am the only one brave enough to stand up for gay rights in this forum, and somehow that makes me the homophobe ?

Cmon guys, I know you dont want to answer the poll, because the truth is ugly -- but the truth shall set you free. Its anonymous, be honest, and lets see where we stand.

discrimination and bias are interchangeable terms to the EEOC --- I am the one argueing that it is not sexual harassment.

I am suggesting that discrimination against homosexual males is still alive and well in Fire-EMS, and I dont think we are overly concerned about righting this wrong. I imagine that if i surveyed 1000 male medics and told them we were about to hire a "gay man", but changed our mind cause we dont want those queers sharing our showers and beds, and then surveyed another 1000 and said we were about to hire a black guy, but changed our mind cause we dont want those spades sharing our showers and beds, I think I would get two dramatically different responses.

And as i just posted on the other page, "refusing to hire a homosexual is not sexual harassment, just like not hiring a woman because she is a woman is not sexual harassment -- it is gender bias, which is covered by EEOC. But as I asked the other person, please call the EEOC and ask them (they may even have a 24 hour hotline you can call), dont take my word for it. P.S.: I have participated in 6 EEOC complaint resolution meetings, so I am pretty well versed on EEOC.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Not hiring a homosexual is not sexual harassment --- just like not hiring a woman is not sexual harassment, it is gender-bias. But dont take my word for it, please call the EEOC tomorrow, and then let me know what you found out.

and where did you see the words gay or homosexual in all that ?

Maybe this will help you-- its from the EEOC website: http://search.access.gpo.gov/eeoc/SearchRi...mosexual+rights Homosexuals do not have any rights. here is the list of "types of discrimination" from the EEOC website: Age Disability Equal Pay National Origin Pregnancy Race Religion Retaliation Sex Sexual Harassment

You are missing the subtle difference between being hired or not. It is not sexual harassment if you are not hired because you are gay. It is sexual harassment if you put vibrators in his locker or touched him inappropriately. Not hiring a woman because she is a woman is GENDER BIAS, not sexual harassment.

I will grant you that one Mike, as long as you would be willing to tell the same joke in front of 4 or 5 brothers who dont know you. If you do not wind up dead, then I would say the joke is OK. If you wouldnt dare tell it in that company, then I would say it is probably racist.

I have to disagree, I thought about it, but they are two different animals. I think mixing the two could be confusing, if there is anyone who has the guts to be pro-discrimination. For instance, someone who is super-religous, could have a problem with homosexuality (the bible still condemns it, I think). But you cant use religion to be against african americans, I dont think. And as stated, African americans have protection that homosexuals do not.

I thought EMS stood for: E - Earn M- Money S- Sleeping

This was not my idea, but someone who was answering in the homosexual discrimination post, asked why I wasnt talking about racial discrimination ? So I told them I would start a thread about it. Does racism still exist in your organization or are you predjudiced towards african americans ? Here are some sample questions to help you figure it out : Workplace: 1. How many african americans are employed in your workplace ? If you dont know the number, you can guess a percentage ? 2. How many african americans are in leadership positions in your organization ? 3. In 2008, did you hear any person in your workplace use the "N" word or tell AA jokes ? 4. If you looked at all of your transports and refusals, would you have a higher number of refusals among african americans than you do whites (you might be shocked by the real data, so think before you jump to a conclusion --- AA refusal rates are usually double whites, even though they are only a small percentage of calls). Personally (If you are white, answer these questions): 1. Have you used the "N" word or told an AA joke in 2008 ? That includes all the Obama jokes. 2. How many african americans have you dated ? 3. Did you marry an african american ? Would you ? 4. In 2008, I invited ___________ (how many) african americans to my home for dinner.

Its not back-tracking. It is the homophobic fear among straight males that keeps the homosexuals out. If you are willing to work with them, great; but i imagine that if most men in this room would be honest, they would say they would prefer not to have a homosexual partner on the ambulance.

Oh, I will admit that I was uncomfortable at first, but I got over it. I was just being honest. Just because I was uncomfortable, didnt mean I was going to burn a cross in his yard. I think race has been covered many times, and we have remedies for overt racism. But since you brought it up, I will start a thread on it.

If a homosexual were hired, and then he was harassed by males in a sexual way, then you might be able to claim sexual harassment (if they did overt acts to make the workplace hostile, or used sexual language). The problem is that this protection occurs after you are hired, and if you can prove it. But if the gay applicant is never hired, he has no protection, unless the company was dumb enough to send him a letter that says, "we didnt hire you because you are queer". But if the homosexual employee was "outed" by someone, and then fired for cause (even a made-up cause), he has no protection. There is a reason that Tom Hanks used the American with Disability Act as his defense in the movie Philadelphia, because there was no legal protection for being fired for being "gay".

Type 1: Pick-up chassis with box -- more room in cab and box, usually has horrible ride, even with air-ride. Type II: Van --- better ride, better fuel-mileage, cramped space (cheaper in price to buy) Type III: Usually van chassis with box attached - has a walk through area to get from cab to chassis if you are skinny. Better ride than type 1.

because I believe that they are the ones who are most discriminated against. And they have no protection.

And the EEOC, nor any federal agency protects the employment rights of homosexuals. EEOC covers discrimination dealing with gender, race, religion. Handicap rights were added under the americans with disabilities act. But homosexuals do not have any protection.