Eydawn

With this rapid, weird weight loss after having been hospitalized, I cast my vote with you going in to be evaluated and get advice about workout routines before you continue further. Losing weight like that is not good. Good luck! Wendy CO EMT-B

Thanks for all the replies, folks... it is greatly appreciated. Now, just wish me luck on that stupid lift test on the 25th... I know I can do one part of it, (125 pounds solo waddle 90 feet) but the 60 pounds with one arm is scaring me slightly. Wendy CO EMT-B

Yes. It might be several years, however... my long term career goals include getting my RN-BSN and my paramedic. Not sure which order yet; that will hinge on whether or not I get into the accelerated BSN program right away. If not, then I'm planning to work and go to paramedic school... JP and Mateo- thanks... appreciate the replies. Wendy CO EMT-B

This may sound kind of stupid. This post is an exploration of some of my own emotion and confusion. Here's the setup. I've been an EMT since 2005. I have worked in wilderness and Boy Scout settings. The entire time, I've been participating in discussions here on the City about prehospital education standards. I agree that the EMT-B level of education is severely lacking. I now have a conditional hire with a local ambulance service, for the first time since I've been certified (long story as to why this is only happening now... ask me in a PM if you don't know.) Just have to pass the lift test and the drug test and the IV class. Am I a poser for accepting a position as a prehospital medical provider, with the *full knowledge* that my level of education is substandard? I feel as though I might have an advantage over some EMT-B's due to my biology undergraduate background and my continued self-education. But I have this sudden emotional conflict; is it hypocrisy to accept a position that perpetuates the brokenness of our system? This is an ALS service, that runs basic/paramedic teams. It pays much better than the job I am leaving. It is a job that I have wanted for several years. Tell me I'm not crazy... I've wanted to work EMS for so long, and have outgrown the adrenaline appeal... is this hypocrisy? Wendy CO EMT-B

Good for you, I hope leave is good to you and congrats on the marriage plans! You deserve it. Wendy CO EMT-B

Perhaps he wanted to respond to that particular series of statements. When I hit "reply" it doesn't auto-quote, so I'm not sure what you're referencing... Wendy CO EMT-B

Just outta curiosity (not saying that she's wonderful or anything) but what's wrong with a female fire chief? I mean... if we can let women run for president and vice president, one would assume that they can be competent fire chiefs... hell, there's no little red button in the fire chief's office... so PMS shouldn't even be a concern, right? But seriously... why's that a strike? Wendy CO EMT-B

Wups! Never mind, I misread what was being asked.... :oops: :oops: Wendy CO EMT-B

I believe that it is assumed to be the same measurement for an OPA. Use your thumb and forefinger to measure from the corner of the mouth to the angle of the jaw... Anyone else? Wendy CO EMT-B

With the potential new job (conditional hire with a real EMS agency! I'm ok being the paramedic's gofer, it pays better than what I'm doing now...), I can't afford to waste my precious allotted absences from class on the convention, even though I would dearly love to go. Gotta save the absences for orientation. Not to mention that I'm broke! Wendy CO EMT-B

I believe the issue at hand is the vehemence with which you approach the situation and seem to indicate that anyone who takes into consideration extenuating circumstances surrounding DUI convictions is morally inferior to yourself, or doing society a grave disservice if only they would think about it. The problem is, your position seems to display more of a knee jerk reaction than thought, and your subsequent responses have done little to aid your position as an important position for debate. I gave you some validity in previous posts, but you failed to acknowledge and expand on that. It would seem to many of us, who post frequently, that you don't desire a dialogue at all, but rather to cling to your opinion and refuse to refute points that countermand your position. If there were more meat to your posts, and less over-exaggerated statements with no reasoning to help illustrate where you're coming from, you'd be getting a much more conciliatory response, brusqueness aside. And yes, posts mean something here. You display your character, your depth of thought, and your communication ability through your posts. Lurking is fine, but it benefits only you and deprives the entire community of useful, instructional dialogue. The inflated posters get no respect. The individuals truly participating, whose post count reflects actual participation, are afforded respect because they have in a way, earned it by contributing to the discussion. Wendy CO EMT-B

Just to clarify who said what from page one of the thread with time-stamps... It would behoove everyone to re-examine what they've posted before they insist they didn't say something or did say something.... 6echo25 said: So Ruffems responded: And then 6Echo25 later said: Everyone pay attention. Let's get back to the actual question here, about hiring criteria and DUI convictions. I think 6Echo25's position and modus operandi is sufficiently clear that further pursuing it will only lead to thread constipation and lockdown... Wendy CO EMT-B

Oh man, it took me about three readings of this thread to figure it out. I am really dumb today. :oops: :oops: :oops: Wendy CO EMT-B

What a nice old lady! Bet the pastor wouldn't turn down the money, even considering the source. I mean, what's he gonna do, tell the old lady not to take her son's money that he dutifully sends? He could be in the Mafia, after all... that would be worse... Wendy CO EMT-B

Happy birthday, dude. Stay safe. --Wendy

Remember the little twit that hawked Lucky Charms cereal? He was a.... wait for it..... wait for it..... LEPRECHAUN! Green, smoking pipe, gold... Wendy CO EMT-B

You do have a valid point about our culture being one that over-reacts to some degree, especially where the involvement of lawyers is concerned. That I'll give you. What we are trying to say here is that it IS in fact a question of medical and ethical responsibility, unless you have some sort of *special* isopropyl alcohol solution that says it's ok to use in any fashion internally. And yes, we are basing that on operating within a US framework. But it rather shocks me that *any* MD, regardless of country, would advocate for this procedure or tolerate it... Have you ever put alcohol up your nose? Have you ever gotten it accidentally up your nose? Try it. Come back and tell us how it feels. Perhaps unlike many on this forum, as a child I *DID* get isopropyl 70% up my nose by accident, and I can vouch for the fact that it is very painful, dries out the mucous membranes, and results in nosebleeds later in the day. Yes, we have too many lawyers in America and it colors how we think. I would like to state that most of us, however, attempt to do our best for every patient we see within this system, and most of us prefer the do-no-harm mentality, rather than the "he's drunk, let's give him a 14 gauge so he remembers how much this sucks" or "Let's do a sternal rub because I *know* she's faking" or "Just ignore the fact that he's screaming in pain from an obviously broken leg, he's got a history of drug abuse" type deal. That make more sense as to *why* we are reacting the way we are? We feel that it is medically inappropriate, lawyers aside... Hey, maybe you should start a thread about the Dutch EMS system and how you work, since many of us are not aware of it. That could be very enlightening for a lot of us. How does it work over there? Wendy CO EMT-B

If this is a physician approved procedure, NOW I start questioning your educational standards. Before that, I assumed it was a badly learned habit. If the docs are that unintelligent, maybe there IS something amiss. I don't think anyone is superior. I do, however, think that putting alcohol in someone's nares is assault, as I stated previously. I'll bet I could ask one of our friendly lawyers at Student Legal Services and get a similar answer, too... But hey, who knows where you are. That's the standard of care I'd expect from a very very developing country in oh, say... really rural South America or Africa. At least you're using alcohol... (SARCASM! SARCASM! NOT A FLAME!) Just saying, it oughtta be grounds to pause and really think it through if several professional paramedics of all different experience levels have the same reaction to your idea of dealing with fakers... Wendy CO EMT-B

The position that someone with any DUI in their history should be excluded from positions of responsibility has merit, if one is only examining the offense and failing to take into account context at the time of the offense *and* the immediate context of the situation being presented. No one will argue that DUI is one of the most deadly, stupid, selfish mistakes that a person can make- whether they actually kill someone or not (including themselves). No one in our field can argue that much of the distress and mayhem that we see could be avoided, had someone only made a better decision. However, human beings have the capacity to learn and develop better judgment. And every individual, no matter how hard their effort to avoid making mistakes, will make a mistake at some point that is irrevocably stupid. We can only hope that the consequences of that decision apply only to the individual in question, rather than to innocent others. If you haven't made mistakes, welcome back, Jesus! (SARCASM! SARCASM! SARCASM! PLEASE DON'T DERAIL THE THREAD!) :wink: Let us examine some hypothetical context that may have preceded the DUI incident. Perhaps someone hadn't had something to drink in quite a long time, and had underestimated their level of sobriety after imbibing. A perfectly honest mistake, and a fairly common one. Still a bad decision to drive? You bet. That shouldn't have happened, and is inexcusable. But unless every citizen vows never to drive after having even one drink in an evening, it will continue to happen. Should we only penalize those who happen to be caught? Perhaps the individual was a repeat offender, a "this will never happen to me" sort of person, who really realized how ignorant they had been after being caught. Might indicate a higher level of stupidity than the other scenario; however, if the person learns from the experience, they may never repeat it. It is more likely to re-occur with this scenario however, since frequent drinkers often have a level of dependence that they are unaware of. Now... it's been four years later. The person obviously is aware of the ramifications of their decisions. Should they be permanently excluded based on one catalogued offense? I say it depends on the context. If it was simply a single bad decision, with no evidence of multiple DUI incidences, then I believe the person has probably learned to *never* do that again, especially since it may exclude them from their chosen profession. If it was one of a series, with luck aiding the person's escape from the police, I might suggest that they could display personality traits and other bits of history that would possibly exclude them from being hired... Then again, I know an RN who seemed to BRAG about the DUI's of her youth... and she was indeed a poor practitioner, but unfortunately licensed. It is not a cut and dry idea. For your own moral satisfaction, it may seem to be so, but fortunately courts of law and hiring panels don't operate on singular moral concepts of the world. If they did, it would be a very totalitarian experience... To the OP: Don't do it again, and prove that you're a worthy candidate despite your past shortcomings. You also may consider working as a paramedic in a capacity that doesn't require you to drive... such as in an ED setting... until your record becomes clear to a satisfactory level for field employers. Good luck to you, and thanks for the honesty in your inquiry. Wendy CO EMT-B

Congratulations, Kaisu! I'm very stoked for you! You're going to absolutely own that town, and I'll bet you get to move out of mother-may-I territory fairly quickly. Wendy CO EMT-B

I saw that picture as the right ventricle extending (where we can't see it) into the space where the left usually should be, with the left only being the open part shown... But maybe I'm wrong. Visual arts has never been my strong suit. Wendy CO EMT-B

Oh oh! Here it comes.... *ducks* Wendy CO EMT-B

Yikes! Ignore the tongue in cheek that lead to thread derailment... Back to where you'd like to work... I'll answer that after I hear about the job I interviewed for. Don't want to jinx myself. Wendy CO EMT-B

Doctor Bryan Bledsoe is in Texas, and is one of the most involved doctors in the world of EMS. If you don't know who he is, you need to google it and figure it out. That's like saying in nursing "Who the hell is Florence Nightengale? Never heard of her..." or in Catholicism, "Who is Mother Teresa? John the Baptist who?" Wendy CO EMT-B

I think if one is Jewish, then as a requirement of religion, it should be performed if the child is being raised in accordance with Jewish principles. If one, however, is NOT Jewish, I think the decision depends on the feelings of the parents. I think improperly managed foreskins can lead to nastiness. I don't know if I really have an opinion universally on whether it should be done or not. I mean... parents do things to their children all the time... choose the gender, if the child is born ambiguous... pierce infant girls' ears... determine the child's haircut... different levels of choosing something physical for a child... but choices made by the parents nonetheless. Do we have the same level of indignation for babies having their ears pierced? Does anyone here envision *missing* that foreskin, of either status (cut or uncut)? Do the benefits of quicker healing as an infant outweigh leaving the decision to choice? *Shrugs* I think there are much larger issues in the world to contemplate... the social and ethical ramifications of circumcision are interesting, but really... I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. Because fellows who are circumcised and uncircumcised alike seem to get along ok and don't seem to have lasting psychological or physical damage... Wendy CO EMT-B