WolfmanHarris

emtb4life, Thank-you for sharing. You have my deepest condolences. I'm sure I speak for every member here that if there is any support we as a community can provide, don't hesitate to ask! My thoughts for you and your department at this time. - Matt

For Christmas I wish for a job when I'm done school. And a new bike!

Agree or disagree with whether it was deserved here's the one thing I don't get. The protests over his arrest in Iraq. If I assault someone in protest, I expect to be legally prosecuted and to pay the consequences of my protest. You can't do these things and not be accountable for your actions.

Thanks Spenac. Trust me you're not alone in your frustrations. I just hope I'm not among the idiots you mentioned.

Age isn't just a number. It's a pretty good indication of what to expect in terms of maturity and life experience, with a caveat that some exceptions apply.

Did you possibly read that, I don't know, on this thread a few posts above yours?

My reading in a few Police trade journals found a far amount of awareness on positional aphyxia. Particularly with regards to "excited delerium." My understanding is this is no longer considered acceptable practice any more than us restraining a patient face down on the stretcher. I don't doubt this still occurs, anymore than I doubt that there's incompetent EMS providers, but it seems that on an industry level they've recognized this issue. I know it's covered at the Ontario Police College. The taser's gotten such a bad reputation that I sometimes feel like if a cop took the crazed guy with the knife and beat the crap out of him, it would get less press than if they tasered him.

This is why zero tolerance doesn't work. It's an all or nothing proposition that throw's the baby out with the bathwater. "If we have an exception for this asinine rule than we'll have crack dealers in every kindergarten. Sorry about the Vic's drops but you're suspended." We definitely shouldn't tolerate drug dealers in school. But our rules shouldn't be such BS that the well meaning kid with the cough drop is painted with the same brush as the kid pushing crack.

Happy B-day! Remember time measurement is fairly arbitrary. So you're not getting older, your body is just coming closer to its ultimate failure.

I received it.

I'd like one as well.

I'll get the pitchforks, everyone make up your torches! :wink:

Thanks zzyx, those videos were excellent! The epiglottitis was a real eye openner and helped put that condition into context that the drawings in the text couldn't. The others will give me a good comparison point for the first time I see pediatric respiratory distress. Appreciate it! Emtdumbass, (what an unfortunate handle) take a closer look and you'll see they're all videos from clinical settings. The kids are getting treatment and we're given the chance to learn a bit. Look past the emotional knee jerk of a child in distress and you'll see that there's no harm done and some room to learn a bit more than the textbook can show.

Crotch are you referring to glyconeogenesis? This would occur (I'm doing this from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong) when glucose demand in the cells causes glucagon to breakdown glycogen via gylcolysis which would increase the BGL but not necessairly the cellular glucose as the insulin deficiency would prevent the glucose's uptake. So BGL would be up but the cells would still be starving, so now fat and protein would be broken down into glucose via glyconeogenesis. This creates free fatty acids and ketones and creates diabetic ketoacidosis. Or in the case of some insulin activity HHNK. I'm not sure how this would happen in hypoglycemia as the glucose demand would be high and wouldn't any source that would be used could be by the insulin that is present? And if both the BGL was low and the insulin was also so low that it wouldn't uptake any of the circulating glucose, wouldn't the patient already be in such poor condition that we'd be seeing arrhythmia and likely be doing CPR? Once again, I'm not being rhetorical. This is my understanding of it and it could be faulty in all or part but I wanted to try it from memory not just parroting from my text. - Matt

Well we'd have to have seperate sleeping quarters and facilities. Separate, but equal. I mean I'd be okay with a glow in the dark partner as long as they didn't hit on me or touch me or anything.

1 Black Student 1 Middle Eastern In my program, none. Two white male full time instructors. Two white female full time instructors. One vacant. No. Doubt it. Peterborough county is predominantly white and rapidly becoming a bedroom community for other areas for professionals. The visible minority population of this county is more skewed towards post-secondary students and the middle class. Refusal rates in general are low but I don't have access to that data. Further, even if I did, since we don't collect racial data on ACR's I would have no way of demonstrating any facts. Personally (If you are white, answer these questions): No None. But I only dated three other girls before I dated my fiancee. (one was Chinese) We've been together since High School. No. And I would marry anyone I was in love with regardless of race. My good friend and colleague multiple times. Lunch and the movies too.

I'd actually prefer it if my partner glowed in the dark.

We had some students in my program that came right out of high school. The others had done a year of Pre-health in College, had completed a Bachelor's at University or a few had worked for awhile and three have their Masters degrees. We've lost all but two of our High School students to attrition. (We're down to 20 from 45)

You're right. TORIT is research being fone by University of Toronto's Prehospital and Transport Research Program (now called Rescu). I think of them first as being involved in ROC even though TORIT and the other studies are not part of it.

Welcome to the City!

Thanks Doczilla! Now I went and hit my patho book this afternoon, but I can't figure out what about the aneurysm causes the difference in BP's. Any direction or where I might want to look to figure this out? A starting point concept to consider?

Excellent point Dust and one that is a huge pet peeve for me as well. Here transfer services can't put "Ambulance" on their vehicle, but they can do just about anything else as they have no legislation or regulation. They have a single sentence in the Highway Traffic Act. These vehicles have NO equipment (except maybe oxygen), can be staffed by totally untrained staff (though first responders and unemployed PCP's are the norm) yet can be decorated however they like. The lights are not removed and they often have stripes and the like all over. EMS agencies have received complaints about these vehicles and poor driving (even though they are not part of EMS) or worse, driving past an accident (they are not required nor qualified to stop). They should be required to say in big on the sides and front "Medical Transfer Service" or the like and "Not An Emergency Vehicle" somewhere on them. It wasn't so bad before all the EMS services started going to their own markings (instead of the orange stripes all of Ontario had before), now it is very difficult to tell them apart for afar. Don't get me started on the uniforms either. Or the staff's competence.

My apologies Great and Powerful Admin. Crotch, I don't think I'm clear on what your views are. I will attempt to lay them out. Please clarify where I have this incorrect. You are homophobic. Is anyone else or their service homophobic? Working for a municipality means working for a Fire Department in your mind and that FD's must be homophobic, while by omission other service models are not. No basis for this in any of your argument. It's illegal to discriminate. Wait not it's not. It doesn't matter anyways as employers who are homophobic will place that above anything else when considering applicants. Regardless of the previous inquiry, you believe that EMS is predominantly homophobic. No basis provided to back this up. No attempt to compare to population at large or other industries. There are no protections for LGBT under the law. This will than we argued with direct citations by other members of the forum. You don't accept these arguments as you do not believe that discrimination based on sex includes LGBT people. "I'm not homophobic I swear." Since you are a straight male and are uncomfortable with gay men, than obviously most other straight men must be. No basis in poll or in presented facts or arguments. Solution: Claim that men on this forum are not being honest. You don't understand the definitions of harassment or discrimination and confuse them. You also don't understand what constitutes harassment or you have chosen to rely on the most overt and extreme examples. Based on your previously unsupported claims about the prevalence of discrimination on LGBT people within EMS, based on your own unresolved homophobia, you believe that the issue isn't being dealt with. Though you haven't demonstrated anything about the issue. You will now use a hypothetical situation (lacking a clear claim mind you) to illustrate something you haven't argued well to begin with. You have at this point continued to reject evidence to the contrary on legal protection for LGBT with regards to hiring and employment. You also have failed to accept that you may be in the only member in this discussion who is not homophobic and in the minority of the members on this board. Though I can't provide proof to support the second part of that. You have provided no facts as shown above. You have not made any attempt to stand up for LGBT rights. You have argued they have none under the law and refused to accept other interpretations of the law. That doesn't make you a champion for rights, only contrary. Your previous expressed issues with gay men are what make you the homophobe. The entirety of these non-arguments as displayed above along with my previously mentioned issues with how you choose to argue (see above) are what lead me to the conclusion that, you clearly do not understand yourself (in this issue) or the issue. You do not understand that you're not arguing anything at all or advancing anything into the argument. You don't realize that this isn't accomplishing anything worthwhile in discussion because of this failure to argue intelligently or engage in those discussing with you. Because of all of the above premises and my previous posts, you are being an idiot. (Still no name calling)

Crotch, I've have tried incredibly hard not to call you any names or come at your character directly. That is getting harder and harder. I have tried to respect the many years in EMS that you had, but experience only lasts so long in the face of ignorance and stubbornness. I will still grant you benefit of the doubt that you're honestly seeking frank, forthright discussion of important issues and not here just to get a rise out of people. However, you are constantly and consistently undermining your own discussions by refusing to accept information that disagrees with you and opinions that don't match yours, providing outlandish hypothetical examples and claims, demonstrating arrogance and in this thread intolerance. When people attempt to point this out and encourage you to discuss at a higher level, you ignore it and continue. When people point out your actions, you fall back on righteous indignation and accuse people of name calling and personal attacks. When analysis of your debating techniques is laid out such as this you tend to ignore as much of the content as possible to latch on to either a single sentence within it, or just respond to the next response to take personal offense to instead. It would be amusing if it didn't prevent any real meaningful discussion from occurring since we're all so busy fighting your crap. So please take this to heart as the result of a long thoughtful process and notice that it is still not "name calling." You're being an idiot.