DwayneEMTP

Before you go all jungle fever Underworlder, go back and read the rest of the thread. As has been asked multiple times, what about this dog makes him an essential piece of equipment in this environment? Seems like a simple question really... Do you take every pet of every patient that asks? I sure don't. But why, when grandma sheds a tear while petting and saying goodbye to her old dog, why don't you offer to take it? It would serve the exactly same purpose as here, only be even more kind in her case. And depending on the reason I'm taking grandpa, I may or may not take his wheelchair....they have em all over the hospital, as they DO actually serve a purpose in that environment.

Not sure why he accepted this situation. I certainly wouldn't have. Nor can I imagine that the airlines actually took off and landed without all passengers properly restrained. Dwayne

I've seen quite a few diabetics with BGLs over 500, yet none of them have been in big trouble when there were no comorbidities, at least not that I could determine or learned of later. Chbare are you saying that there are times when pts crump, (not talking zebras), from straight forward uncontrolled diabetic issues at this level? What would be the likely mechanism in such a patient? Not a challenge but a genuine question. The only time that I've really seen even altered hyperglycemia they've been around 1000 or so. But my experience with such things is certainly not deep. One other time I had an altered diabetic at 1550 per ER blood work, and he was dead about 5 hrs later, though there was no reliable information as to how long he may have been in such a state before discovered and EMS activated. Pretty cool thread... Dwayne

Yeah Wendy, I get that there was a bunch of stuff in there regarding patient privacy and policies regarding them, many that may or may not get this douche jammed up. But the ongoing conversation, for pages and pages now has been specific to HIPAA. The challenge wasn't to show that there was 'some way' that he could get jammed up, but to prove that he can get jammed up in regards to HIPAA by posting the relevant language that would do the jamming. Mike, Ruff's link went to a huge summary of HIPAA. If it can be proved, I'm sure it's in there somewhere. Could you be more specific? Ladies and gentlemen. This really takes me back to the thread about removing people from their homes against their will. I asked for the legal reasoning used to justify that and the argument that won the day was, "I'll just take them. Everyone knows it's ok." followed by about a hundred resounding comments of, "Yeah, that's right!" Why does no one see a problem with saying, "This is what HIPAA covers and what it doesn't. I have no idea where it's covered or what it says exactly, but I know that it says something about it.That is my proof." I'm truly confused by some of the smartest posters on the City being comfortable with that argument.

No Mike, I think we're on the same page. The problem arises for me in how he obtained the information, certainly, but also in how he used it. I've been over and over HIPAA and can't find any place that it claims that he used it improperly according to HIPAA law. Had he left a message saying, "Hey! This is mike. I was just calling to check on your ankle." Then he's screwed as we have no idea who has access to that message with obvious medical information on it on the patients personal answering machine. But change it to, "Hey, this is Mike! We met the other day? Would you like to have some coffee sometime?" And he's now used information that he had a legal right to collect to make a call that didn't violate any HIPAA rules. It seems that so many have been claiming that every patient privacy issue is actually a HIPAA violation for so long that now they're having a hard time letting that go. If this was any other medical conversation it would go, "So you say that hyperventilating the head injury patient is once again the standard of care? Could you site that for me?" And that would be the end of it. Yet in this thread I'm willing to bet that I've asked those that are claiming that I'm wrong nearly a dozen times to please quote the language that makes me so and not a single person has done so, and yet still feel comfortable stating their arguments as fact. I can't remember the last time that 'Because I say so' was considered proof at the City, yet where HIPAA is concerned that seems all that is considered necessary by most. Not counting your arguments Mike, making the above point is separate from my response to you. It's obvious that you are exploring possible options and logic trees instead of stating unsupported ideas as fact. Wendy, I'm not being a Nazi at all. She continues to state her thoughts as facts, and if you remove the fact that they happen to be patently bullshit, I've asked over and over for her to back them up and other than posting a bunch of random Google shit that had nothing to do with the issue, she's made no attempt to do so. Speaking of random shit (said with love too of course :-) )....I just breezed over the links you posted, but other than containing the acronym HIPAA a few times, I could find no way that they related to this discussion. I'm not pretending I didn't miss it, but if so could you cut and paste? Dwayne

What part did we agree on? Dwayne

Could you please, please, please post the part of HIPAA that states this instead of just repeating the same unsupported shit over and over? Dwayne

I'm not saying that it has nothing to do with the blind guy and is all about feeling good about yourself, but yeah, that is much of what I'm saying, as the rest isn't logical to me. They didn't take a man's 'lifeline' they took a tool. That was a foolish thing to do, but not the horrendous injustice that many seem to feel that it is. He's pissed because he wanted his pet with him. He's using the "They stole my eyes!" line to fuel his lawsuit and many here seem onboard with that plea.. But in this case they stole nothing but his companionship, something that happens to many, many patients that we treat. He wasn't raped, or beaten, or abused, he was inconvenienced. We take patients from what they know, do to them things that they don't understand, make them scared and uncomfortable. This man had no special horrors. He suffered no more than anyone else that is scared and injured. But because he's visually challenged in some way, we're supposed to be outraged. And I'm not. He was put out because his pet was not brought along, per his orders. His reaction to that wasn't to educate the responders and the organization that they work for but to call a lawyer and the newspaper. That is not the reaction of someone that was scared, but someone that wants to get sympathy and get paid. Despite popular opinion his vision status doesn't make him any less of a whiney opportunist than anyone else that chooses to get paid instead of work for positive change. It sucks that he has vision issues. But having those issues does not preclude for him having to sack up sometimes when the shit hits the fan. He has a million ways to be productive and yet he chose to be hateful and aggressive. He gets no sympathy from me for that. My son has many more challenges every day than this man does, yet has almost none of the protections. Many times I've shed tears for the things that I wish were possible to make his life easier, but you know what? Sometimes having special challenges mean that you sometimes have additional pain. That doesn't mean that the world is obligated to remove every possible inconvenience at every possible opportunity or you should get a fat wad of cash. He's nearly 70 years old, and visually challenged, (I continue to use that term instead of blind as the majority of 'blind' people had some level of vision, sometimes significant, but it was limited in some way, though most that hear the term assume a complete lack of vision) and pissed off that he was treated like everyone else. Would I have taken the dog? Of course. Do I think that they should have taken the dog? Very little question, though I can think of a ton of scenarios where they shouldn't have. The news article is severely skewed toward the injured with no comment from the crew involved and yet nearly everyone here was outraged at their actions. That shows a complete lack of balanced thought and true curiosity as to what may have happened. That is really illogical to me, which is what led my argument down the 'PC' path, a common view that I find nearly always emotionally charged yet intellectually vapid. Dwayne

No question Brother, but I'm still looking for the language that they would use to burn him with.. Dwayne

Verify, run some fluids if there were no contraindications, transport. I don't believe that this is an immediate life threat, nor do I think that it requires immediate prehospital intervention. Or am I off in the ditch somewhere?

I hear you Herbie, the problem that I have is the inflated value that this dog has been given in this man's life. As I stated, I would certainly have tried to do the compassionate thing, as I try to do with all patients. The article, and this thread has made this out to be a life altering event for this man. It isn't. Sometimes uncomfortable, inconvenient things happen. Because he's been given an aid dog we've decided that anything that happens to him, particularly if the aid dog is involved, is catastrophic. And that just simply not the case, right? Every fireman is not a hero, though society feels good when they pretend that they are. Every grope is not a violent rape, though many would equate a groped boob with the actual, life altering event. And people seem to feel good when every inconvenience for someone with different needs is considered a catastrophic and life altering. But that just doesn't make it so... Dwayne

Doc, can you quote the language from the document that makes it so? I can't find anything that they could use to make that legal case....but perhaps I'm missing it. Again, he hasn't transmitted any protected in formation, and even if he did so, it was only to the patient involved. I didn't see a clause there for illegal use of information in regards to dating. I get it if you don't have time to find it, but I think you're wrong on this, or at least if you're not, I can't find the language in HIPAA that makes you right. Dwayne

You know, I can't imagine not taking the dog in this situation, in the front seat if necessary. But as I've said in another thread like this, what does this dog have to offer this person in this environment? Nothing really. There is nothing for this man to see that his dog can see for him. No information that the dog can provide, no service that he can offer. As some of you know, I was involved in the training of service animals before becoming a medic, so this isn't me making random guesses. I know these things for a fact. I can see the outrage if the medics took the dog and then forced this man to walk to the hospital, as the dog would possibly serve many purposes there. But this man had a human attendant, one much more capable of fulfilling the pts needs in this environment than a dog would have been. They did not take away his pacemaker, not his insulin pump, in this scenario they removed his pet. Let's change the scenario to a significant trauma. Altered mentation, hypotension, developing tension pneumo, 15 minute transport to the ER. You and your partner are busy, you get fire to drive, how much time do you take to accommodate the dog? If his wife wants to ride as well, where do you put him then? I'm not making the case that they made a good decision. I'm simply making a counter argument as the opinion of the thread, to my reading, seems to be, "Ridiculous! There is no possible reason that this would ever be acceptable!" I'm curious if it truly is so black and white for you. My guess is that this guy was a major asshole and they did it to make him pay for that. My guess, as I don't see any other good reason for it. But bottom line is that he and anyone else can scream that this dumbass crew removed a vital element to his interface with the world, though non of the services that this dog can offer are possible in this environment. In this case they did nothing more to this man than most of us have chosen to do to many elderly patients, when prudent, that wanted to bring their fat, smelly dogs and cats in the ambulance. They denied him the emotional security he derives from his pet. Those that disagree, I'd be interested to see the list of non emotional benefits that this dog would provide. And why would having glaucoma give you a special right to the emotional support denied others? I've seen disabled veterans in nursing homes that can hardly catch their breath when taken away from their pets, yet those pets aren't allowed in any stores, or restaurants, nor most ERs that I've been in. (I'm leaving aside the fact that he was a disabled Marine. All bets are off in that situation. I'll bring his fucking horse if that's what he wants. But that muddies the basic issue here...) I truly get exhausted from the outrage of political correctness. This was an evil thing to do simply because it's been labeled evil by the masses. I believe that when it's looked at more honestly, without the PC glasses, that it wasn't evil at all. It was foolish, and inconsiderate, but ultimately harmless, except for the outrage it caused for this guy not getting the special privileges that he felt that he deserved. Dwayne

That depends, did you draw a little lipstick heart with a smiley face under it on my locker before clocking out after work? If so, then yeah.... You knew all of that off the top of your head? Holy shit...I think I'm in love!

That's right over by, or across from the mess hall, isn't it?

Welcome to the City TC, Where did you go?? Dwayne

Yeah Asys, I'm with you completely. I was just curious where you drew the lines. And you know what? It is friggin' creepy. It just seems like such a completely common sense thing that to see someone that can't get that causes me to question everything about them. I they can't get this simple, professional concept, then what other important things are they missing? Plus, if you're looking at porn, (defined by me as explicit, hardcore sexual action) then I've gotta believe that you're also thinking of taking care of a little Bi'ness, and I REALLY don't want to have to sit and wonder if you're really poopin' when you're in the bathroom and if poopin' normally makes you need a little nap after. That's just TMI....Know what I mean?... :-) Sensuality and sexuality are good, and healthy. I don't think that showing your partner a beautiful nude woman that you found on the net is the end of the world any more than I believe that it's wrong to point out a beautiful woman that you see while posting, but it's a fact that the majority of the world just isn't very good at drawing lines. My nude woman, or respectful appreciation of the hot chick walking down the street is the knuckle dragger's Mexico pony show...it seems that the differences should be obvious, but man, they just don't seem to be for many... I doubt this guy was fired for sexual harassment, but fired he certainly should have been if there was any reason to believe that this was more than a one time thing.. Dwayne

So Asys, would you then have fired me for the scenario as presented in my previous post? Too often I think we have these conversations, like spanking and rape, without defining terms. And arguably pornography has one of the most elusive definitions in our history.. Dwayne

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Mobes...but it seems like you're all over the board on this one? And I do believe that in a cultured and civilized world there would be no fighting, but until then? Yeah, the world is a better place after some douche bags get punched in the head.... I know, as it's what helped me to develop my timid, submissive personality.. Dwayne

Yeah, I'm with those that are saying no harassment. The one caveat that I do see is that if she would normally follow him at work, and she was known to be prudish, and he had reason to believe that she would use the computer next, and particularly if he's known to be a pig, it would be really hard to defend against, "I think he did it on purpose." Having said that, I've broken the rules many times by coming to the City after hitting the OK button on the "You know that this computer is for work only, right?" message, or whatever it says. I'm sure that some of those times I looked in the humor forum, and it would be conceivable that I might forget and leave it open. Should the next chick that comes along find offensive material, should I then be fired for that? Nah, I don't think so. Probably I should be fired for not following the policies regarding company computer use, but some people need to sack up a bit. As long as we keep screaming 'rape' every time someone is forced to survive a minimal moment of uncomfortableness the problem is just going to keep getting worse. Assuming it was legal porn I would probably have handled this the same way I would any other bonehead move. "Hey, hotshot. You left your ugly shit on my computer. No blood, no foul this time, but you know the rules. Next time I'm gonna burn you down, ok? Just so you know." At which time he would run to HR, claim that I called him names and threatened to set him on fire, causing the company to give him a medal and I would get fired...just sayin'...welcome to my politically incorrect life... :-) Someone doesn't have to be damaged each time that someone else is offended. That's all I'm sayin'...well, that and I don't think it's harassment. Dwayne

That was at BAF, before I moved to KAF, and years ago now. But I'm grateful for the offer. You at KAF now? There's at least one City member that goes there regularly, and perhaps others working there...maybe you could try and hook up? Dwayne

What a dork. You don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Denny's waitress to sleep with you by flashing that around....Obviously a beginner... Dwayne

Yeah, get your ass into your profile and change your 'B' to a 'P'! Good on you girl for taking the next step. Truly my best advice is to participate here. Get involved, post run reviews, answer questions, ask them. I learned much more here about the EMS world than I have working as a medic. Are you working as a medic now? Where abouts are you in Colorado, if you're comfortable saying? Dwayne

Great question, but again, to many variables to really be able to say... Maybe be more specific and build the conflicting interests? Dwayne

Excellent point! I have a good friend that's a flight medic and he once told me that on the helicopter it's, "Three to go, one to say no." I think this is a great rule unless you're partnered with a real pussy, or someone that will play the 'safety' card in order to sit and do nothing instead of running calls... Dwayne