HERBIE1

I cannot believe I am defending the church(sort of) since I am generally the first one to point out their faults and hypocrisy, but... Since churches do not pay taxes, their charitable work is not a write off, which means THEORETICALLY they are in it for the right reasons. I guess it's the chicken or the egg here- do churches engage in more charitable work because that justifies their tax exempt status, or simply because they believe in helping their fellow man? So-would they still engage in charitable work without the tax exempt status? One would hope so or it would clearly expose a hypocrisy, but I would imagine it would not be at the same levels. In truth, it's probably a combination, and it's hard to what-if something like this. It's clear to see why someone like yourself- who eschews religion- is suspicious of the church and anything they do. I get that. I really do. Many folks who do ascribe to some religious feelings-either current or formerly active- agree with you- as do I. Gawd knows most religions have given us plenty of reasons to be suspicious or downright distrustful and negative of their intentions, not to mention the secrets they have kept over the decades. Do folks donate to score brownie points with their deity and the church? Sure, on some level that has to be a consideration, but I also think many folks truly feel(or have been convinced) their church IS doing good work with the money and want to help their fellow man. I do think that regular church attendance is down- for many reasons. Scandals, malfeasance, and secrets have been revealed that cast organized religion in a negative light. People now ask questions, when before questioning the church was akin to treason and cost you a one way ticket to hell. Now, couple those problems with a lousy economy and folks really question where their charitable dollars are going. I think with the advent of the internet, folks can do their own homework and easily decide where those dollars should be going. They now have more choices than ever before, and no longer need to simply trust their church to do the right thing with their contributions. Interesting thread, dude...

OK0 maybe the time share analogy wasn't the greatest but it was the first thing that popped in my head. Mea culpa. My point remains about the shelters and religion. I get that you do not think highly of organized religion or the existence of a God. Either you believe or you don't- neither side has ever been able to offer concrete evidence to support their opinions either way. (Truth be told, recent events in my life have made me doubt the existence of a God, but that's another story.) That's fine you are entitled to your opinion. I am far from a religious person myself- I believe in a God, but I don't consider myself as practicing any formal religion any more. You act as if making a person sit through a sermon/homily/ whatever- is akin to inflicting physical harm on them. Whether or not they believe in a God is irrelevant. They are being offered a place to stay, food, showers, and in some cases even basic medical care. I think having to listen to someone who is trying to turn a life a round- by whatever means- is a small price to pay for getting those basic needs satisfied for a night. You can agree with the message or not, and as long as they do not force someone to pledge allegiance to some religious order, I fail to see the egregious harm done here. The cost of this charity is nothing besides a little time- and for most folks living on the streets, that is about the only commodity they have in abundance. Like I said, around here, there are city run shelters, but the faith based charities are far more numerous. The city shelters here do also offer pick ups from hospitals and police stations, so these folks do have a choice. I've never sat through one of these sermons, but based on what the homeless tell me, they talk about responsibility, the evils of drug and alcohol abuse, and of religion as one way of refocusing your life in a positive direction. I see nothing wrong with such ideas- and besides the religious aspect, I doubt you would disagree with the other stuff. The city run shelters here simply offer safe clean beds, out of the elements. To my knowledge none of them offer food or any other services.

Gotta love Sven and Ole. LMAO

Exactly what I was thinking, bud. I left that part out as implied... LOL

I get the difference, but my point remains. Rules are still rules, and I honestly don't think it's a problem, imposition, or inappropriate to subject someone to a sermon about God if that is what the shelter is all about. How about this for an analogy- albeit a bit odd? Time share condo presentations. They offer you a free TV, a pair of airline tickets etc, if you attend a time share condo sales pitch. If you want the freebie, you must listen to the high pressure pitch for the joys of time share condos. You'll get your freebie in the end, but you don't have to actually buy the condo- regardless of how hard they pressure you. Same for the God lecture at a shelter.. They can't force you to "find God", but you do need to listen to the sales pitch to get your freebie. In both cases you know going in what will be expected of you.

What about being lectured about the evils of drug and alcohol abuse? Lots of folks have zero desire to hear about those things either. What about lectures on proper handling of finances so you don't end up on the streets? It's just talk. Unless they are being forced to convert to Christianity in order to eat, I see no harm in listening- even if you don't like what someone has to say.

I have no problem with the sign. Private donations, private company put up the sign- perfectly acceptable. If you believe in some flavor of deity- fine. If you worship a rock, a shrine of Elvis, or nothing at all- your business. I will disagree with AK on one thing about the homeless guy being forced into listening to a God lecture. If a religious group is offering the meal, then they get to dictate the terms of that meal. Around here, there are many shelters run by private firms- either churches or other religious groups. The city shelters may have more beds but they have far fewer locations. I've dealt with a few homeless guys who cite not wanting to hear the religious service as a condition of their bed and/or meal. Actually, I think they really object to the idea of no tolerance for alcohol or drugs in these facilities. Many also claim their belongings are not safe in these shelters, diseases are easily transmitted, or some folks are simply happier living on the streets, on their own terms. But- these folks DO know what the requirements of their local shelters are- curfews, times doors open and close, which allow smoking, how many beds,- and yes, which ones subject them to a religious sermon. You don't like God with your meal and cot-fine- you move on down the road to the next one, or simply take your chances on the streets- as many of them do every day.

The problem is not the racial composition, it's WHY the numbers are what they are. For decades, it has been all about racism. Clearly, the only reason the CFD/ACME organization/ Company XYZ/Rah Rah Med school etc, was because the organization and system is racist. For a long time, that may have been true, but not for the last couple generations now. SO- now, after decades of complaints, a department officially "evens" the playing field, but STILL cannot get the correct numbers. Can't blame the exam, can't blame the test writer, can't blame the city, can't blame the department, so let's blame the RESULTS. It's the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard: "Disparate" results. How can you argue that? Yes, the results are indeed adversely affecting one group, but instead of addressing the WHY and analyzing it, an end run is done around those nasty questions and a lawsuit is filed. So 111 folks get a lotto payout and they pave the way for the next group to do the same damned thing. No solutions, no suggestions as to how to improve those results, no explanations(other than playing the race card). And what have we accomplished? More division, more suspicion, more resentment, more entitlement- more of the same. Simply throwing money at a problem never accomplished anything. When will people realize this?

Wow Kaisu. Any words I can think of seem completely ineffective. Hoping you have support of family, friends, and your cyber friends here. Deepest condolences to you and your family.

Tell me about it, bushy. I vividly recall reading the story in the paper and I had to read it twice- I thought it was a parody. I also remember thinking this story should have been plastered all over the news, but it never was.

Well, I originally signed up on March 15, 2005 (As HERBIE), but I never really started posting until much later. I lurked from time to time, but rarely contributed, When I decided to jump in and get involved, I had trouble registering, so I simply added a number to my original handle and started from scratch with another account.

Actually Ruff, that's not true. A few years ago we had a smaller manufacturing company here that was family run, and had been around for decades- 2nd generation, and always in the same location- a working class area. If I recall, there were less than 100 employees, but most had worked there for years. It was also 100% hispanic. Not big money, but apparently enough to support families- simple assembly line type work- hot in the summer, tedious, and certainly not glamorous. Well, seems the local poverty pimps decided that this company was not compliant with Affirmative action and hiring rules- there were no blacks employed there. (I honestly cannot recall why this company came to be targeted by the community activists but it may have been a question of the legal status of the employees) A suit was filed with the EEOC, and the owners said they never get black applicants but would be more than happy to hire any that applied. The owner was ordered to be compliant with a certain percentage of the "right" minorities, but he simply could not hire enough blacks to round out the numbers the EEOC mandated- his business volume would not support it.. Long story short- after his legal bills mounted and he could not comply with the EEOC mandate, the owner ended up closing down his business- he could not afford to keep going and keep going to court. So now 100 people were out of jobs because even though his company was 100% minority, it wasn't the "right" minority. The area lost the taxes paid by the business, and hundreds were affected. I used to have this story bookmarked but I can no longer find it, My hand to God- it is all true.

That's gotta hurt like hell...

I work with plenty of black chief officers. In fact, there are a disproportionate number of them, when you consider how many of them, scored on their promotional exams. Some are dumb as a bag of hammers and the ONLY reason they have their title is because of affirmative action, statistical gymnastics, and preferential treatment MANDATED by a collective bargaining agreement. Others are whip smart, and in nearly 30 years of being in this profession, my favorite, most qualified, most professional and most intelligent boss happened to be black, He EARNED his promotions, EARNED the MBA he got, EARNED the respect he received, and sadly he retired early- in large part because of how backwards the system is. He was tired of seeing mediocrity and stupidity being rewarded. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Study harder next time. NO, sounds like simple math to me. 12% of this country is black, and there are entire areas of this country where there are no black folks. You do realize that by constantly playing the victim, you actually perpetuate the stereotypes you hate so much, right? By promoting the notion that the only way a black man can succeed is by set asides, lawsuits, and special considerations, it plays right into the hands of those who think your race is inferior. Forget the nonsense about paybacks for past injustices- this is about the here and now. If I were an intelligent, hard working black man- the norm- I would be pissed about decisions like this one. If someone cannot do well on a race neutral exam written at a 6th grade level, then I suggest they look to a more suitable job- like pushing a broom. The reason you use such a wide brush is because if you actually addressed the individual points made here, you would have no argument. Simply regurgitating age old, race baiting talking points is NOT a debate, or even a discussion.

It sounds like you have a plan Mobey. Do what you can for as long as you can, but get your ducks in a row for when the time comes and you cannot work in the field anymore. The key is to make those decisions before they are made for you and maximize your options. Teaching is a great idea. You're obviously a very bright guy, and brains, education, plus experience make for a great educator. That's exactly why I went back and got my Masters. Between my ticker and my back, I know there will come a day when I may be forced to change gears. If I can last a few more years, I can retire with my full pension, and keep teaching- on my own terms.

No medical or treatment advice Moby- just a show of support. Hang in there, bud.

Well said as usual, Dwayne. I have no idea how old crochity is, but he reminds me of the old school, and increasingly irrelevant poverty pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They see EVERYTHING through a prism of racism. Every alleged wrong perpetrated on a minority HAS TO BE RACISM. There simply is no other possible explanation in their eyes. It has become such a pervasive belief that entire regulatory agencies exist because of this notion-and use this as their "business motto" to pursue cases such as this. In the case of the CFD, I'll repeat something that crochity and the race baiters always seem to ignore. This exam was RACE NEUTRAL, written by a black PHD consultant who's speciality is creating unbiased exams. So the only way this lawsuit could have moved forward is to say that since blacks were under represented in the results, thus racism must exist- even though the test was NOT biased. Thus, in the eyes of EEOC type groups, discrimination isn't necessarily even an action, it's simply about the results. It boggles the mind of any rational thinking person. Ahem- there are plenty of alternative explanations why the disparate results happened, but none that would generate press for the poverty pimps, none that would justify an agency's existence, and none that would generate a lotto pay out for folks who have no right to receive one. The problem is, this ruling also affects every current member of the CFD, since these lotto winners also get back dated seniority, which bumps every person hired after the date of the exam. That in turn affects promotional exams, retirement plans- all because of unPC exam results. Not to mention many of these folks will never be able to work enough years to even qualify for a full pension before they reach mandatory retirement age(unless of course they change that rule for them too). I want to make a disclaimer here. I will NEVER claim that racism or any type of bias does not exist in this country. We are human beings- with all the associated faults and failings. We envy, we covet, we distrust those who are different, ie we are not perfect. BUT- and this is a big BUT- There are laws that exist to protect folks from real bias. When cases like this go through, I think it cheapens every single legitimate racism claim. Folks are tired of hearing the cries of racism- especially when too many times, it simply does not exist. Do I sound bitter or angry? Damn right. I'm sick and tired of this BS. I've been adversely affected by crap like this years ago, and every time it happens, I am utterly astonished that we have yet to move beyond this point. \\\End rant. Sorry- a bit edgy lately...

I know you probably don't care, but in case you wonder why your rating is double digit negative, making sweeping- and TOTALLY INACCURATE statements such as these would be a good reason. You really need to think before you leave a steaming pile like that. The exact opposite is true around here, and many other places I have visited. EMS is quite integrated ethnically, gender wise, and race wise in our area and has far fewer of these issues. The "age" of EMS is completely irrelevant.

Like many of our medical supplies- IO needles included, we have replacement agreements with the local hospitals. If they happen to run out of an item, we can go to another facility. We also have strict guidelines regarding when we need to exchange soon to expire medications/items. That said, it is not uncommon for us to be forced to hang onto a infrequently used specialty item past the expiration date-like a WMD antidote kit until a replacement can be secured. We of course have been assure that the medications will still be effective. As some have said/implied here, often times those dates are indeed only suggestions. If properly stored and protected, many of these items are perfectly effective and safe long past those dates. The problem is, unless you are the only person who handles these items, you have no idea if that medication or item could have been exposed to extreme temperatures, humidity, or excessively rough handling that could damage it. Example- "expired" autoclaved items in hospitals (surgical trays, suture trays, chest tube trays, etc) are removed from their packaging and resterilized but we're also talking primarily about durable metals in those instances.

"Was what he said while off-duty worth a suspension and possible loss of job." Yep. Free speech is not the issue. Nobody is denying him the right to speak his mind, but it does not shield him from possible consequences of that speech. I am assuming his department has a personal and/or professional code of conduct with catch all phrases like "conduct unbecoming" that cover nearly any possible transgression. I recall hearing of a Florida? teacher who recently is in big trouble for a similar anti-gay rant, although the root of his complaints was that homosexuality violated God's word. This guy was teacher of the year, well liked by faculty, parents, and students, had around 30 years experience in education, and had posted something on his Facebook account. I seem to recall he has been put on administrative leave.

I'll be honest. The BS calls DO piss me off. Do I treat the patient crappy? Of course not, but I also do not pretend if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have a job. As someone mentioned, the BS calls come from folks who do NOT have to pay for the service. They are either self pay or Medicaid, which means we get nothing for the ride, or pennies on the dollar at best. They have no deductible to meet, they have no copay, they have no screening process to get an ER visit approved, much less an ambo ride. I've been in homes of our frequent flyers where they have a dozen or so unopened bills from previous rides, strewn across their table. They know they will never be forced to pay, nobody will deny them service because they do not pay, so they continue the process. There is simply no penalty for those who abuse the system. Doc hit the nail on the head. A good portion of our patients do NOT need an ER, nor do they need an ambulance ride to get there. Yes, some folks- primarily the elderly- have mobility issues and an ambulance is the only way they can get help. That's fine- I will always go the extra mile for the seniors. I don't care why they call, but in our case, we are a 911 service, and although we have some BLS units, the system is so screwed up that calls get over or mis- triaged and too often ALS is sent for a basic call. A person has a cardiac history, but tripped, fell, and sprained an ankle. Cardiac history gets them an ALS response. It's all about liability and everyone is afraid of getting sued. Abdicates soap box...

If you were honest about the comparison Ruff made about dumbing down ACLS with the CFD case, you would see they are EXACTLY the same. I wouldn't be so quick to cite this court case as anything but a court case. It has nothing to do with facts. The way the laws are written have equated anything with a disparate OUTCOME with discrimination- at least in terms of legal recourse, I would not say that makes the 2 concepts equal in anything but a discrimination type lawsuit/court action. Minorities were adversely affected by the test. The test WAS NOT BIASED, but the results clearly showed the blacks did poorly on the exam. So instead of figuring out WHY they did poorly, they simply played the race card. Congrats- it's lotto time. Problem is, this will happen on the next exam, and nobody has the guts to offer honest reasons for that. Short of saying- any minority with a pulse will get the job, how do you ensure you get the results you want to see? Do you have any idea how many concessions are made to ensure they get enough minorities to even take the test? They waive the application fee, they hold special study sessions held only in the black communities, they even have people hand out applications in these neighborhoods so nobody even needs to make the effort to pick up the application like everyone else, and then of course, they dumb down the test, ensure it's not biased, have it written by a black man, and they STILL cannot get the numbers they want. At what point do these ridiculous lengths become too much? At what point do folks start asking the tough questions- regardless if they are uncomfortable or unPC? Relating this to the ACLS course, I don't know why they dumbed down the test, but I'm thinking whatever the reason, it cannot be justified. You really don't want to go down this road with me with the bias route, Crochity, you will look VERY foolish.

Alcohol nebulizer? That's a new one on me, but nothing surprises me anymore. New and creative ways to catch a buzz, I guess. I've heard of damn near anything with alcohol being consumed in desperate times. We had a regular female- always drunk, but one time she had a sickening, sweet- but familiar- smell to her breath. Of course we're thinking she finally developed diabetes and was in DKA. As we were gathering her worldly possessions, I had a lot of clinking from one of her bags. Turns out she had approximately 2 dozen small bottles of vanilla extract, She cleaned out the local store of their supply and was pretty darn drunk. I knew there was some alcohol in this stuff, but these bottles actually are about 35%. I cannot imagine being so caught up in my addiction that I would turn to mouthwash, vanilla extract, or anything else like that.

I have never shaved anyone prehospitally and have never had a problem defibbing. Maybe it's a function of how much gel and adhesive is in contact with the skin but I seem to have far more problems with the electrodes staying put than the defib pads. When using the paddles it was easier to ensure good contact, but even with the defib pads, and now the combination pacer/defib pads attached directly to the monitor it seems to be OK. I really mash down on the pads to ensure good contact, no arcing, and the best possible delivery of the "edison medicine".

Gawd help me for saying this, but I agree with crochity- to a point. Yes, there easily can be a false reading on the glucometer. Problem is, you need to keep your options open and have a high index of suspicion, and that's when experience takes over. If a patient presents with classic hypo(or even hyper) glycemia symptoms, it should correlate with the reading you get on the machine- especially if the patient is a known diabetic. There have been many times where I do not believe the reading, so I take an extra second to compare results from one machine, run another sample with the second meter we have in our quick response bag to verify the values. If I am getting a reading that says 30, but my patient is fully alert and oriented, I will recheck my readings. Has it happened that a person is extremely low and still functional? Yep. Many times. I have also had people completely unresponsive with a reading of 75. It depends on the patient and their particulars. As for treating chest pain- I don't have the luxury of getting serial cardiac enzymes, or EKG's, so I will be erring on the side of caution for a possible MI. An early stage MI may not be readily apparent. ASA and NTG are relatively innocuous drugs, so other than a possible drop in BP, it's not going to hurt someone, but it may very well save heart muscle or their life. Yeah- sometimes the family is too freaked out to relate to you everything they should. Certainly not your fault, and better to err on the side of caution. I had one family tell me the patient had a seizure, and swore up and down that he had no medical problems whatsoever. His heart was fine, BP fine, no diabetes, no medications... A quick exam revealed he had an implantable defibrillator/pacer which apparently had fired. I pointed this out to the family and they said oh yeah- he has heart problems but his heart has been fine since they put in the device last year. LOL