emtannie

Oh Dwayne, you KNEW I had to reply to this one!

I have a plan.....

http://www.revirgination.net/

For only about $9000 I could become a virgin again..... and then I could sell my virginity for $5 million.... that is a heck of a profit margin!

Hmmm...... and maybe in a couple of months, I could "re-invest".... what a retirement plan......

Our friend MedicNorth was on the crew that responded to this mvc... Please pray for him and his team, and the friends and families of those in the crash. I do know the names of the deceased and the other medic, but as my sources are not official sources, I don't think I should name them.

Be safe everyone.

http://www.emsworld.com/article/article.jsp?id=15507&siteSection=1

An Alberta Health Services paramedic was killed yesterday morning in an ambulance crash near McLennan, according to The Edmonton Sun.

An eastbound truck hauling empty propane tanks lost it trailer, which went flying across the highway and into the oncoming ambulance shortly after 11 a.m.

The unidentified paramedic -- who was driving the ambulance with a partner, patient and the patient's family member on board -- was killed on impact.

The ambulance's passengers suffered non-life threatening injuries.

The RCMP is currently investigating the incident.

RSS Feeds for EMSWorld.com: Top EMS News Section

Semantics? Maybe.

Semantics? Yes… I have to agree with Dwayne on this one… we could consider lots of calls we go on “saves” in the broad sense of the word, but to me, a true save is when the person is apneic and pulseless and we have ROSC. I deal with serious trauma calls on a regular basis where my interventions save their lives, but those to me aren’t “saves” in that they were never clinically dead when in my care. When I go to an unconscious hypoglycaemic person, my interventions save them, but I don’t consider that a “save.”

I am not saying that a peds call where the child is blue is not a scary call, and that the provider shouldn’t be pleased and proud that they were able to stabilize that child. Most of us have probably had some pretty scary peds calls that had good outcomes.

It would have been nice to get more details on the calls in the original post – vitals, past hx – that would have given us more to go on, and made this more of a learning experience for the rest of us. Given the limited information provided, I too think that the calls were respiratory, not cardiac in nature.

I tried to behave, and give a legitimate, logical post... but since now that is done, I can add my other thoughts to this thread...

We have had the shoe bomber, and the underwear bomber... did the TSA agent think the passenger was the penis bomber?

How much time does it take to go "wow - those piercings must have hurt!" or maybe he is interested in getting some, so he wanted to take a really good look...

Or maybe he thought they were a zipper... "what happens when I pull...."

OK, I will stop now...

OK.....

I vote that the passenger was assaulted, and here are my reasons:

As Richard said, the passenger would have to be stimulated before ejaculation - obviously he was touched enough by the TSA agent that he ejaculated. It is possible that the passenger was anticipating the patdown and did not require a great deal of stimulation; however, it is my understanding that a man can't completely control the timing of ejaculation, so if that is true, the passenger was not able to control his response. (guys, please correct me if I am just being incredibly naive and wrong)

The physiological response of the passenger is really no different than the physiological response of a patient who has someone look into their mouth using a tongue depressor, and the patient gags and vomits on the other person.

Just my thoughts...

Saakatchewan 31 Montreal 17

I am watching TSN with 5 hours to gametime, and Montreal is already whining about how SK got the better dressing room, that none of their fans are there, they have so many injuries, blah blah blah..... it appears they are already coming up with the excuses for losing...

GO RIDERS!

And it just gets more and more bizarre.... now Fred Horne went to the Alberta Medical Association president, allegedly claiming that Dr. Raj Sherman has mental health issues... if that is in fact what happened, that is completely out of line!

Front page - today's Calgary Sun

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/11/25/16321861.html

"EDMONTON — Maverick MLA Raj Sherman defended his state of mind as a marathon debate on the province’s ailing health-care system wrapped up.

The punted Tory also accused his former government colleagues of being “corrupt.”

“Look, I’ve been up all night tonight,” Sherman told reporters Thursday, after an all-night filibuster.

“Do I look crazy to you guys? C’mon. If I stay up another 24 hours I may get a little kooky. My record is about 96 hours I can stay up.”

The comments came after Sherman and NDP Leader Brian Mason told reporters Tory Fred Horne had a conversation with Dr. Patrick White, the head of the Alberta Medical Association, on Wednesday about the state of Sherman’s mental health.

Horne is parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Gene Zwozdesky, a position Sherman held until being suspended by the Tories.

Sherman said he was alerted to the conversation by a colleague.

Horne acknowledged he spoke with White, but said it was out of concern for Sherman. He said all three men have been friends for years, and there was nothing malicious meant by the call.

“I basically just expressed my concern for my friend and the stress that he’s been dealing with,” said Horne.

“He’s been very courageous in coming forward the way he has, but we’ve had a long three days here and I could see … he was under a lot of stress in the house.”

Mason called this a serious issue.

“It was an attempt to undermine him and prevent him from carrying out his parliamentary duties,” Mason charged.

Mason said he plans to bring the matter up next week in the legislature, arguing Horne breached his parliamentary privilege.

Meanwhile, Sherman also said he was told by longtime Tories weeks ago that he should watch his back because “they’re going to get you. You made somebody mad.” He called the Tory government “corrupt” and asked them to “come clean.”

Cam Hantiuk, spokesman for Premier Ed Stelmach, said he was in “disbelief” after hearing that allegation. Hantiuk said he’s not sure which Tories Sherman was referring to about watching his back.

Sherman’s comments came at the end of a long day.

The opposition filibustered an amendment Sherman wants to the Alberta Health Act, which would limit emergency department wait times.

MLAs spoke on the matter throughout the night Wednesday, ending Thursday afternoon. Bleary-eyed politicians were chugging back energy drinks and coffee as they rallied around Sherman.

Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson said he didn’t sleep, adding it was worth it because Sherman’s proposed amendment gives the Alberta Health Act “some teeth.” But the government argues it would open up the government to lawsuits, should legislated wait times not be met."

Good question, but I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Dwayne positioned the question with "morality". As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that allows for murder. I think all other religions do not condone murder for any reason. We as humans like to interpret religous rules to meet our desires. If you ask "what would Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or Billy Graham do ?" The answer is that they would not murder someone for any reason. So if you consider yourself religous/moral, you can not be for capital punishment, abortion, murder, or war.

I can see where you are coming from on this one, crotchety, and from a religious standpoint, you are right.

However, morality does not necessarily have to be based on religion, as Dwayne stated when he gave the definitions of morals and ethics in one of his later posts:

If we are to accept the definitions of morals as:

mo•ral•i•ty (m -r l -t , mô-). n. pl. mo•ral•i•ties. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. ...

www.thefreedictionary.com/morality

…….

if we are to accept the definition of ethics as:

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:medical ethics; Christian ethics.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ethics

Doesn't it then remove the decision from the grasp of the individual and place it in the hands of the body responsible for the development of the ethical guidelines of the group, in this case prehospital care providers?

Morality/ethics can be related to a particular group, not necessarily religious. In this case, I think Dwayne’s intent was to discuss this with regard to EMS staff as a group, without religion being involved. The focus is on the obligations of us as EMS workers to do no harm, and protect life, and the potential conflicts if we had to deal with this situation.

Oh, and crotchety, can you please get rid of that “Bed Intruder” video that always shows up on your posts? It slows down loading my screens, and sometimes locks up the page. Thanks.

I read the initial post, and the link to it, and really really wanted to add to this thread, but when I started typing, every sentence I typed was followed with a “yeah but…”

So, here goes.

Should EMS personnel be allowed to make their own moral/ethical decisions concerning being involved in the taking of a life when the unique situation of capital punishment is involved?

We make moral/ethical decisions every day. Some of those may not be what others would deem appropriate, so why should this be any different? For example: today is the fourth shift in a row that you have been called to the same residence for the same person for the same problem which does not need an ambulance. You are abrupt and do not show empathy to the patient. You did your job, but did you do it to the level of compassion you could have, and ethically “should” have? Probably not.

So, let's extrapolate that to the case of capital punishment. You make a personal decision whether to be involved in it. Whether others see it as appropriate or ethical is their decision. You and only you have to sleep with the decision you made today.

If an EMT can be prevented from participating in a legally sanctioned killing while off duty, as in a state sanctioned execution, should they then also be disallowed from using lethal force to defend themselves and/or others based on the same 'do no harm' ethos?

Hmmm…. I don’t consider those two events as equal. The legally sanctioned killing was a product of the legal system, and if you agree with the legal system, you have to support the decisions and the process that got that person there. If someone were to attempt to cause me or mine harm, I would do my best to beat them into a bloody pulp to protect myself and my family/friends. Should someone deliberately attempt to cause harm to me or a member of my family, I would have no qualms about using lethal force if necessary to protect myself or them.

If a physician, who is held to the same or perhaps higher standard of morals and ethics, is allowed to participate, then doesn't it become a no brainer that inclusion of EMS personnel is a given?

Here, I am unclear as to the role of the physician – does the doctor administer the lethal dose, or does someone else? Does the doctor only determine time of death? For the sake of discussion, if the doctor does administer the lethal dose, then they are doing harm to that patient, and violating their code of ethics. If they are only confirming death, they are not.

It could be said that the doctor is not standing by the medical code of ethics by allowing the execution; however (see where the “yeah but” stuff comes in here?) the doctor did not make the decision to sentence that person to the death penalty. Does the code of ethics mean that anyone in the medical field should be against the death penalty as a whole? Hmmmmm – I sense a big debate there, and a quagmire of “if I can put a criminal to death for a crime, why can’t I put a terminally ill patient to death to relieve their suffering?”…

I'm hoping that we can get into the spirit of exploring the morals and ethics of EMS and go beyond "I would never do that as I'm tasked with preserving life and not taking it!" as I'm also a human being and have a family to support. So perhaps my stance changes if I get $10,000/execution? $50,000?

So, just thinking out loud here (or typing out loud?) if I am tasked with preserving life, could it be seen that I am preserving lives by allowing capital punishment? Follow me here… Criminal Joe has been convicted of doing some very nasty things, and has been sentenced to die by lethal injection. By killing Criminal Joe, the legal system is saving itself hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars since they don’t have to house and feed that person for the next 20, 30 or 40 years, and protecting those who could potentially be victims of Criminal Joe in the future. Those are tax dollars that could go to put a roof over a homeless person’s head, or shelter a battered family, so, using a ripple effect theory, I can say that I am saving others by having this person put to death.

Yeah but…. What if Criminal Joe really wasn’t guilty, and the legal system made a mistake? Isn’t it better to pay those hundreds of thousands of dollars so that he is still alive? Hmmmm – a quandary…

I am trying very hard to leave my personal views on capital punishment out of this discussion.

Dwayne, I hope that I have added discussion and thought to your thread, and haven’t just wandered aimlessly through it….

A late afternoon article from the Edmonton Journal says in part:

“EDMONTON — Stephen Duckett will no longer serve as CEO and president of Alberta Health Services, the board announced late Wednesday afternoon.

The decision is effective immediately, and at least three board members are expected to resign in protest, chairman Ken Hughes said at a news conference.

“The board would like to thank Dr. Duckett for his dedication to improving Alberta’s health system during a challenging time of transition,” Hughes said.”

Full article: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Stephen+Duckett+loses/3878209/story.html#ixzz16GBcB9CE

At least 3 board members are expected to resign in protest? Protest of what? They didn’t get cookies? And thanking Dr. Duckett for his dedication… well, … ummmm..

And, back to Dr. Sherman being removed from caucus… Liepert says he doesn’t want an apology, but he wants Sherman to retract the statements he made about Liepert being rude. When I look back on Liepert’s term as Health Minister, I remember him blaming nurses for the budget problems because of overtime paid (remember when the PC’s cut how many nursing jobs, and now Alberta is short staffed in nursing positions?) and when several public service doctors resigned at the same time, he put a gag order on their severance packages, so that they couldn’t say why they left? (July 2008) . If I tried hard enough, I could probable google a few things and see what dirt I could come up with. It’s only slander or libel if it’s not true, right?

We have GPS in all our units, and I love it. I work for a regional (well, now it is provincial) service, and I work in 2 different towns, and 2 different cities. I know my way around each of these areas fairly well, but there are some neighborhoods where GPS gets me to and from the scene easily.

Our GPS systems are updated regularly as part of a contract with the company who provides it, so they are relatively up to date, even with new neighborhoods. I regularly work with medics who don’t go on rural calls very often, and have no idea how to read a rural county map (for example, they have no idea what the rural legal land description of NE10-21-16-W4 is). I can find it on a paper map or GPS, but being “city folk” they are better at just using the GPS for those calls.

One of the areas I really like GPS for is those neighborhoods where all the roads start with the same thing. In one of the cities I work in, there is one area where all of the roads start with “Ross Glen….” That area is a HUGE pain to navigate, and my GPS has saved my a** more than once in finding a residence there.

The OP asked if GPS is a waste of money – for me, absolutely not.

I like how Premier Stelmach says he's "tired of theatrics" and removes Dr. Raj from caucus.... but nothing is mentioned about Dr. Cookie Monster's antics...

What is truly disappointing is that Dr. Raj Sherman was doing exactly what he is supposed to do - represent his constituents - and since he wasn't being a mindless follower, he gets penalized for it. Pretty darn sad....

And, may I add another proud moment for AHS....

Already dubbed "the Cookie Monster" in print and internet media (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/11/20/16235061.html), our fearless leader, Dr. Duckett:

I want to hear what Dr. Raj says about the cookie incident.

And Squint.... do you think this would be a good time for me to ask why I can't have winter tires for my ambulance??? I am trying very hard not to derail this thread with a rant on that...

Well it's about time that someone WITHIN the government stood up and hollered about this problem!

I was aware of the letter that Dr Paul Park sent a few weeks ago (he is the head of the ER in the Hat, and I work with him regularly). The letter he sent was circulated throughout the hospital. He spared no polite words to say how disappointed he was with the current government and AHS' handling of ER wait times.

Dr. Raj Sherman is my new hero for being as vocal as he is (and it helps that he is a Russell Peters fan - that guy is hysterical!)

Squint - remember the Dr. Oberg era? Now ther is someone who, if at all possible, did less than nothing for health services in Alberta. My favorite quote from him was "I had no idea that Ralph KLein had a drinking problem..." enough said..

..I'm one of the freaks that actually looks forward to my recerts.

How come you are never in one of my classes???

I wish I had more freaks in my classes... I get tired of the staff who come in whining before the class even starts, when it is just a CPR recert which only takes a few hours. I have never understood why it is so painful to get through a few recerts and do some continuing education, to maintain a professional certification. We don't want a doctor who hasn't done any upgrading for 20 years, so why do we think we should be able to get away with it?

And like Ruff said - how can people expect to be considered professional, when their actions don't show that they are? A few bad apples....

Wow.... that one certainly gets the point across...

Unfortunately, drunk driving is dealt with leniently in this area, and a slap on the wrist seems to be the norm, not the exception.

As well, there will always be people who will have one or two or more too many drinks, and still feel that they are competent to drive.

Hopefully, this message will get to the frisnds and family of those people, and they will do their best to take the keys away, offer them a ride, or get them a cab, or a place to sleep so they don't end up on the road, and we don't end up responding to the aftermath.

This PSA goes a long way to educate, educate, educate... and like docharris, I have posted in on FB for more to see.

Thanks croaker for posting this.

Oh sure…. I wanted to watch the video, and I get “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy on nudity or sexual content.”

I think Dwayne should have to provide his own video, acting out what happened on the YouTube one...... just a thought...

Yeah. Admin didn't remove it. Squint initially coloured it white so as to blend in and not be seen unless someone either quoted him (that's how I saw it) or highlighted everything he wrote.

Ahh thanks..... that makes sense... I thought maybe Admin had removed it from the first post, but it had been quoted before it was removed, so it showed upin the second. My mistake.

OK, I had backed away from this thread, because I didn’t like the direction this thread was going… but when I see this post, I will comment once more…

Seriously, Squint? I thought you were smarter than this. This type of response from you, especially your little hidden message at the bottom, seems very unlike the rest of your posts throughout this site. I understand you feeling passionately about this. I even understand why the protest upsets you. However, resorting to name calling and telling those who present a respectful counter argument what they can do with themselves is really beneath your usually astute replies.

Although I don’t agree with Squint’s last comment, I don’t think you can say that JP has been entirely respectful. I took offense to JP’s comment “Canada can go pound sand.” I didn’t find that to be a respectful argument.

As for your comment “This is the protest you were upset about? A small group of people making fools of themselves…” It was a group of 40 people, which really isn’t that small.

I suspect you would treat this differently had it been at a function you were attending, and you wouldn’t be so willing to dismiss it as not a big deal. How would you have felt if this had happened at your Veteran’s Day function where you were honouring the memories of your family members? Would you have been so open-minded? I'm not saying would you have wanted them arrested, or is it illegal, but would you have been offended enough to say or do something about it? I don't need an answer to drag this thread out any longer, but I would like people to be honest with themselves in what they would do if they were in that situation.

My intent in posting this thread was because I thought the actions of these few were offensive, and I wanted to post it so others could see the news article. I am disappointed that some have chosen to turn it into a contest where I should be getting a ruler out…. This thread wasn’t about me, or JP, or Lone, or Happi, or Squint, or you…. It was about the disgracing of the memories of those who died for their country.

Thanks Mike, I didn't actually notice it as I was ignoring the all too desperate reply. I'm not going to reply to Squint anymore in this thread as he's shown himself incapable of discussing important issues (and the issue of rights is an important issue) as an adult. That post earned my only negative point in this thread. I don't negative people who disagree with me, I negative people who can't conduct themselves properly.

Color change removed

Not sure how you reposting Squint's comment is relevant, JP. Admin removed it for a reason, and Mike's comments served the purpose of showing he said something unacceptable. If you were ignoring the reply, you shouldn't have reposted it. That shows me that you want the attention of "Look, Squint is being an a** to me." You are right, he was.... what positive thing could come of you reposting it?

Thanks, I win.

And you know the expression about winning an argument over the internet.....

No one has made an argument about safety. So far the entire discussion has been about the message and the symbolism of the means. They could have taken scissors to it, conveyed the same message, and the safety issue wouldn't have been a factor.

You made the argument about safety in your comments, so I was applying your argument to the original incident in the original post.

Lots. To say that you can't disrupt something in public and open to the public by shouting as part of a counter protest would be to make illegal all counter protests, regardless of the message. However, if you're counter protesting you don't get to run into the other group and start pulling down signs, pushing people, etc.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The pencils were an example. I don't care what you, as an individual, does with a pencil nor a crucifix, and I value crucifixes much more than pencils. Should you be allowed to destroy them publicly at my event? Yes, you legally should. There may be limits on the specific mechanism of destruction, but the intent and final state of being destructed shouldn't be banned.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, freedom of speech isn't an absolute, but the test for when speech can be limited isn't, "I vigorously disagree with your message."

As far as the tit-for-tat, I didn't ignore it. I just pointed out that the flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that you have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property because you place a high level of value on my property. I'll ask again, what right do you have to tell me what to do with my property? If I build a large model poppy, do you now have veto power over what I do with it because of what the poppy means to you? Does that veto power include compelling via police action to acquiesce to your demands? Do you have the right to be free from offense?

My exact words were:

“Again, it goes back to intent – if your intent is to offend, and create chaos, then, no, you shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a street corner with your wood chipper. Feel free to do that in your own yard.”

I never said you couldn’t do that on your own property, which makes your above argument moot…

Yes, coming in late to the discussion. I've been reading intently, however. Just haven't been in a position to reply.

This is an interesting thought. So if freedom of speech isn't an absolute, who limits speech? You? Someone who's offended by what you say? If you're willing to accept that someone may limit speech then why have it specifically protected as an inherent freedom? Why not remove it altogether? What happens then when someone decides to limit your speech because she doesn't like it?

What's more, if someone destroys something important to me and I, in turn, destroy something important to him then I am no better a person than he is. That's a rather childish approach, isn't it? From the US side of things I think an avoidance of that type of behaviour is something that's helped us reach the point we're at now. If everyone responded in a tit-for-tat manner we'd all be dead.

Freedom of speech isn't designed to protect speech with which we agree. It is specifically designed to protect speech with which we *disagree*. Remove that protection and we open up the proverbial slippery slope.

I understand the argument regarding respect. But respect and freedom of speech are two different concepts.

-be safe

I see where what I wrote and what I intended to write were not the same thing.

JP has spoke a lot about freedom of speech, and the problem with freedom of speech is the actions that come with it. Speech in and of itself isn't the problem. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, or my beliefs. I have a problem with them disrupting things that are important to me, starting fires, burning things that are important to me at an event that is important to me. None of those are speech - those are actions.

And you are right - if someone destroys something important to me and I, in turn, destroy something important to him then I am no better a person than he is. And, I agree, that is childish. However, this is what happens in some cultures - you injure me or my family, I kill someone in your family... the eye for an eye mentality is alive and well. I don't believe in that mentality, even though others may, but I also don't believe that those that publicly interfere with ceremonies and act deliberately to offend should be allowed to continue those actions under "freedom of speech."

They can destroy what ever pieces of their own property they want regardless of what meanings other people want to proscribe to to those objects provided they are not presenting a danger to others. Can I go burn a cross in my front yard? No, but because the fire is a danger to others. However nothing is stopping me from renting a wood chipper and throwing in as many religious symbols that I want. If I want to run a Koran, Bible, and Torah (to hit the 3 main monotheistic religions) through a shredder while standing on a street corner, I can. That doesn't mean others can't judge me on it though.

As far as disruption, being in public it depends on how the disruption is occurring. Picketing, chanting, etc? Perfectly within their rights. Running on stage? Nope. However everyone in attendance is free to pass their own personal judgment on the jack wagons disrupting the event.

So, given that they burned something while in a public place, within a close distance of thousands of people, you are saying that fire is a danger to others, and they shouldn’t have done that. Why couldn’t you just say that?

And, what is the difference between running on stage, and shouting and disrupting a moment of silence? I disagree with your splitting hairs here. The intent is the same, the effect is the same, and the result is the same.

What right do you have to proscribe what someone else does with their property because of the symbolism you proscribe to the object? If I believe that pencils are sacred, can I force you not to sharpen your pencil because I believe you are destroying it?

As someone else said, you are being deliberately obtuse. Knowing that you believe pencils are sacred, the question is should I be allowed to publicly, at your event, be allowed to destroy them, knowing that my actions will be offensive to you and others, and potentially endanger you and others? Again, intent is the issue.

Additionally, having the legal right to do something doesn't mean free from the judgment of others. As with the above use of a wood chipper, I completely believe that I should be allowed to do so unfettered by the police. That doesn't mean that you can't come out and yell at me and treat me forever after as a persona non-grata. After all, that's your right to do so to. All actions have consequences, however not all consequences need to come from the government or agents of the government.

Again, it goes back to intent – if your intent is to offend, and create chaos, then, no, you shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a street corner with your wood chipper. Feel free to do that in your own yard.

Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. By granting freedoms in absolution, we risk, and potentially create the completely lawless society we try hard not to have. I think you either missed my point earlier, or are deliberately trying to avoid it when I asked “And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end?” If you throw a stone, then I throw a stone, then you throw a bigger stone, then I throw a grenade, then you throw a bigger grenade, where does it end? I can argue it is my right, that I have the freedom to do it, and so do you, but what does that gain us? Someone has to have the good sense to say enough is enough, and that your rights end where someone else’s start.

JP, you ask a lot of thought-provoking questions, which have promoted a lot of discussion...

But let's get back to the original article. A group of people in London disrupted a ceremony that is important and emotional to many, and completely disregarded the opinions and feelings of those who were attending that ceremony. Did they have the right to do that? If they did, does that give others the right to disrupt and destroy symbols of their beliefs? And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end? If those that disrupted the Remembrance Day service were citizens of England, does that make it any more right? Does that make it any more acceptable?

JP, I would like to hear your opinions on that, and await your reply.

One of my frustrations as an EMT working a rural BLS service is the lack of pain medication I can provide. I feel that a medic can provide far superior care in a lot of situations that I find myself in (hence one of the reasons I am currently in paramedic school).

Do I think that basics should be able to provide more meds? No. Anyone working in the medical field should have a thorough education to know the anatomy and physiology, pathophysiology involved, and risks and benefits of the medication before giving it.

For example, not that long ago, I had a call for a 24yo male who had a leg caught in a piece of machinery.. he was in excruciating pain, and the only pain med I am allowed to give is Entonox (nitrous oxide) which really wasn’t enough in this situation. After a 15 minute extrication, and 25 minutes to hospital, this poor guy had been in pain for a long time. Since pain can increase shock, by not trying to control this guy’s pain, I am really not helping him as well as I could, since I cannot control his shock well either. ALS was over an hour away, so my only hope for pain control was to get him to the hospital.

Did I do as much as I could for that patient? Absolutely, as I did all I could within my scope of practice. Was it enough? Absolutely not. I am not advocating handing out pain meds like a Pez dispenser. I am advocating providing pain medication as part of a thorough treatment, after a thorough assessment and history is obtained.

Pain control is as much a part of patient care as holding a hand, or consoling a patient, or providing airway management or fluid resuscitation. It is part of what we should be doing. Dwayne said it so well when he said “Every patient has a right to have an ambulance come to them. Every patient has a right to a professional, thorough assessment, and every patient has a right to complete and competent treatment based on that assessment up to and including emotional support and pain management.”