JPINFV

Somewhat tangentially related, physicians are required to inform people who have been threatened by a patient with a psychotic disorder of that threat. So if a patient says specifically that the voices are telling him to murder his neighbor, by case law (Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California) the physician (or other provider) has a duty to warn or protect the intended victim. This is normally done by notifying the police agency local to the provider, who then notifies the police agency local to the target of the threat.

How much haldol is he on? Was there any recent increase in his dose. Sounds more like a dystonic reaction than TD. Benadryl is the go to drug for acute treatment of dystonic reactions/extra pyramidal symptoms.

Let me clarify something. I'm not saying call medical control. I'm saying if someone at the hospital complains that you had a person sign AMA who was comptent, that the best action is to ask them what they would do with that patient. The "hospital" has no right to complain when EMS does something that they would have to do anyways when presented with the same situation.

I would have asked the hospital directly what they would do if this patient presented and then refused care at the ED.

Philosoraptor asks is it really withholding supplemental oxygen if supplemental oxygen isn't indicated in the first place?

No, but none of the places I've worked required something stupid like everyone gets a NRB at 15 L/m

Anyone remember this thread? Remember how it was, "But but but Respect for Ground Zero!" Yea, about that... apparently what was really meant was any mosque anywhere in NY. Stay classy NY. Link

How about start with "Would this be something you would call an ambulance for?" and start moving the marker from there?

As have been mentioned, I can't think of any reason to go this route. Does your pre-nursing include physics, organic chemistry, general chemistry, and general biology courses? Don't make the mistake a friend of mine made and think that anything other than "general chemistry" and "organic chemistry" fullfills those courses (i.e. don't take a "Chemistry for _____" course)? If you want to go to med school, then go to med school and jump into your pre-med courses head first.

One thing to note is that Viagra (technically under the generic "Revatio," but I have seen it in charts as Viagra) is also used to treat pulmonary hypertension.

When even the Land of Fruits and Nuts allows you more leeway in protecting yourself and property from someone who just broke into your house, you know there's an issue.

Murder is 187. Justifiable homicide is 197. Homicide itself (murder, manslaughter, justifiable) is covered between 187 and 199. Any time you kill another human being you've committed homicide, so there needs to be a section, such as 186, which says that it's legal for an individual to execute someone who has been convicted and sentenced to death (186, which also gives peace officers more liberal use of force than other civilians).

It depends on a lot of things. Speaking from a California law standpoint, there's a few things to consider. First, it's up to the DA to press charges, and the DA is an elective representative of "the people." Second, it's justified per the California Penal Code. 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; ... 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged. http://www.leginfo.c...00&file=187-199 Third, murder requires malice aforethought (CPC 187(a), same link), which is not present in 'moment of passion' or accidental homicides except when a "malignant heart" is present (i.e. "I know this can cause death and I just don't give a darn). The case where 2 parents murdered their daughters pimp would be a good example of malice aforethought in contrast to this case. Assuming that the homicide wasn't justified (I think it is, though), then the proper charge would be voluntary manslaughter since no malice aforethought was present. The best example, albeit of involuntary murder, was the San Fransisco transit (BART) officer who was convicted for killing a suspect because he pulled his firearm instead of his taser (lawful act which produced death due to a lack of "due caution and circumspection" CPC 192( . Ethically, I agree with castle doctrine (assuming you aren't running away, the fact that you broke into my house is enough to cause a reasonable fear of a violent felony or a felony by surprise) and justifiable homicide (we should be able to take a life to save a life). However I'm on the fence with 'stand your ground' style laws since the Florida Zimmerman/Martin case highlights the issue of, "What if both sides are idiots (Zimmerman for leaving his car to follow the 'burglar', Martin for confronting the man stalking him) who gave the other side a reasonable fear for the other's life?" Heck, I'm even sympathetic to the parents who murdered their daughter's pimp (I think the choice of a drive-by shooting was incredibly stupid, but I digress). The difference between the "I killed the man who is in the act of raping my daughter" and "I killed my daughter's pimp" is one was done to protect another person from an act being committed right at that moment, and the other was done as a replacement for law enforcement. To quote a cliche popular in CCW/open carry groups, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Well, Sandusky faces up to, what, 400 years in PMITA prison? Guilty on 45 of 48 counts.

The problem right now is we're doing everything backwards. We're determining a minimum training time and then trying to see what we can fit in there, instead of determining what we need to have providers capable of and then going from there. We're also trying to have a 1 size fits all style of training. The training for a pure non-emergent IFT should be different than a basic level paramedic (using the term "paramedic" as someone who can lead a call), which is going to be different than a paramedic assistant (Certified Paramedic Assistant?) which can focus only on procedures. The problem is that right now we're trying to have a paramedic assistant (all of those "ALS assist" and let them do X, Y, and Z like IVs when supervised to free up the paramedic), an IFT guy, and a basic paramedic all at 150 hours, and that's simply not enough time to do everything competently while providing an appropriate minimal level of care.

Post 2 of 2 Read the rest of the thread. I've spent 12 pages now arguing that "Just because you disagree with a legal action doesn't mean you get to force the guy to stop" and having half the posts disagreeing with me throw some sort of insult to the point that I've placed one person (Pox on this Place) on my ignore list (which is a short list of people like Vent Medic) and it's a wonder that I'm starting to get aggressive when people start going down that road? Regardless, I stand by the fact that just because someone else is acting like a douche bag doesn't mean that any of us should act like a douche bag back, and when one of us acts like a douche bag that we should be prepared to face the consequences. So, let me have 2 or 3 other people spend several pages abusing you, but hey, now it's my turn and how dare you get aggressive against the fact that now I made a mistake and decided to take the same tact. After all, after 12 pages, you should be able to take 1 more post of people arguing that you're some sort of Occupy hippie communist ACLU pinko liberal because you recognize the importance of freedom of the press." So, yes. I'm coming out and saying it as blatantly as I can after 12 pages of people thinking that just because I recognize the difference between a legal right and morally/ethically right (judgement) and people confusing the two. Engaging in a legal right can be a douche bag action. However, just because someone else is acting like a douche bag doesn't give me the moral or ethical right to lower myself to his level. Acting like a douche bag is always morally and ethically wrong. You do realize that some of the most powerful images are of people suffering? I hope you're outraged over the fact that the famous napalm girl photo got a Pulitzer. Are there better terms for someone willing to resort to violence to deprive someone else of their enumerated rights? Is there better terms for someone who wants to take action outside of the legal system for no better reason than they disagree? Here, let me smash someone's radio because they're playing it too loud. After all, why should I run to the police when I can handle it myself? So apparently you can only hold a valid opinion if you have to fight gangs to get to school, choose to live in the middle of no where, or join the military? What sort of special wisdom is handed down in basic training, by choosing to live in the middle of no where, or by living in a gang infested slum? Might is right? Cute. I guess next time I get mad at someones driving I should get all road ragey on them and break their mirror or windshield. After all, I'd hate to follow the law and appear impotent over their poor driving.

Part 1 of 2... too many quotes. I'll post part 2 after someone else replies so it doesn't break this post when it's merged. The problem is where do we stop? If a bunch of racists decide to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, do I get to silence them because I don't agree with their message? Do I get to silence people of the opposing political party because I find their message distasteful? If my neighbor decides to play his radio too loud and refuses to turn it down, do I now have the right to break it instead of engaging the police to enforce local noise ordinances? Yes, it's the slippery slope argument, but when dealing with something so subjective, it's hard to say where the argument that, "I should take ___ into my own hands" should end, especially when we're dealing with an enumerated right that's being engaged in public. Apology accepted. I'm not attempting to ignore arguments, but I feel this is something that's been asked and answered several times. I agree that they aren't absolute. However in general the limitations are present either because a public good is being used (i.e. airwaves, which is why over-the-air broadcasts have much greater content limitations than cable channels), safety ("FIRE!" in a crowed theater), or because they are false (libel or slander). You don't have the right to limit someone from publishing negative stories about you, however you have the right to limit someone from publishing false stories. However even that is limited when it comes to obvious parodies. There's a few problems though. International conventions are always going to be subservient to the Constitution when it comes to mandating and protecting action in this country. I wouldn't want to go into a court and cite a UN treaty as why I should be found not guilty for assault or vandalism. Furthermore, many of those just aren't applicable to other parts of the law. A traffic infraction in California is a criminal offense (infractions being below misdemeanors, California Penal Code 16), and are held in a criminal court specifically set aside for traffic infractions, but I don't have a right to a public defender in violation of Article 14 (from the Wiki article, "establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, against self-incrimination,"). Furthermore, (again, from the Wiki article) the United States put several limitations on it, "included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",[75] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."" So we said, "Yep, we agree with it, but we don't want it to change how we do business." Sorry, there's a typo there. It should read, "I disagreed with someone engaging in a legal action I don't need to physically accost them or run crying to the police, then so be it..." What are the limitations on this. I disagree with the Casey Anthony decision, therefore I should engage in street justice or I'm impotent? I've already said multiple times that things like holding up sheets or moving to the ambulance are preferred and should be engaged, but I can do that without getting into a measuring contest with some dude with a camera. ...and yes, the argument is in large part about what's best for me. I don't plan on going to prison, jail, or court because someone's taking a picture, especially when options that don't involve me risking jail, my future family's well-being, my job, or my license is available. We don't enter dangerous scenes (scene safety) because we don't want to risk our job, license, or health, but we're willing to surrender it for much less? I put someone's life well above someone's dignity, and if I'm not willing to risk those things to make a calculated risk to save a life, why would I be willing to risk those things to keep some creep from getting a picture? ...and don't get me wrong, given an appropriate risk vs benefit situation, I'm willing to risk my life to save a life, but that doesn't involve, say, walking into a leaking chemical plant without protective gear. ...and that's why I limited the Boston case to, "Here, read these 3-4 pages where they specifically address the 1st Amendment issue." The problem is that if you end up in court those cases becomes incredibly important. Heck, any discussion of the legal ramification of enumerated rights without discussing case law is a waste of time because often the issues being addressed are already answered. For example, it would be easy to argue that you have to work for a news company to be covered under the freedom of the press, but that's not what the courts have ruled, and that takes precedent over all else in a discussion like this. ...but you keep asking the same question and accusing me of not answering it because I'm answering with court cases where the issues have been addressed because, agree or disagree, those court cases are what's going to end up deciding a court case.

I'm also not going to let this gem pass as it wasn't the first time in this thread that I've been accused of ivory tower thinking. How dare you? No, serious, how dare you? This isn't about fancy schools. This is about the rule of law. This is about the fact that just because we find it distasteful (because, as I said before, I agree that it's distasteful and a douche bag action) doesn't mean I get to push my views on everyone else. Furthermore, for how risk adverse EMS is, and rightfully so, I find it amazing that everyone seems so willing to put their life, liberty, family, and income on the line is to assault some jackass with a camera. What's even more sickening is that we're expecting someone else (the police) to do so, even though they'd incur greater civil and criminal penalty since they're enforcing your whim with their badge. But I digress. If it's my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because someone else is a douche bag that I shouldn't lower myself to their level, then so be it (I like to think my parents had something to do with that). If it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because I disagreed with someone engaging in a legal action I need to physically accost them or run crying to the police, then so be it. Finally, if it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me to read (because, again, I've posted numerous court cases, and the discussion in the Boston ruling regarding the legal background for their decision is pertinent even if EMS providers aren't always public employees, but I guess you didn't read that section because, well, reading is hard?) and that I shouldn't ask the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for no better reason than I didn't like the answer, then again, so be it. ...but I guess the answer is to be a thug (because your opinion on right and wrong is the only one that matters). So, fine, want to be a douche bag (like the person filming)? Go ahead. However when you be a douche bag to the wrong person with a camera and they take you to civil and criminal court because you decided to smack them, I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer because you're going to need him, and I hope when your family is living off the dole, you remember to tell them about how glorious you were smacking down some idiot with a camera, because that's obviously better than feeding your family.

...and every time I've responded with court cases, it's dismissed because, "Well, they didn't directly discuss private entities." I could post the same set of court cases again (which goes well beyond the Boston ruling that directly discussed public employees, but which I feel can easily be extrapolated), but it's just going to be ignored again. So, were you taught to ask the same question over and over again until you get an answer you want and claim that anything else is ignoring the question? Similarly, every time I've asked, "What law gives you the right to stop the person filming?" it hasn't been answered. So, what law gives you the right to engage in physical or legal action to stop someone from filming? So here we go, readers digest version from an earlier post. "There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," -Houchins v KQED That's a copy paste from post 83 and was never addressed. There's more there besides that one.

I got a little out of breath just reading the title.

True, but I was limiting it to unfenced areas, which I should have mentioned. There's no need for a sign if the area is fenced, but if it's unfenced... Once you start targeting certain people for engaging in otherwise legal action you're going to run into problems if it can be shown. What's different between targeting someone only because they are using a constitutional right and targeting someone because they're black? This is the sort of "discretion" that leads to lawsuits. . Your superiors is going to be happy that you're taking an hour to process a camera that you took because you didn't like what the photographer was taking pictures of? Don't police officers generally carry cameras for processing crime scenes?

At least in California it's only trespassing if it's marked "no trespassing" or once the owner requests the person to leave. It's not a prima facie violation to just stand in someone's front yard. Better be issuing everyone a citation that's watching. Furthermore, what if the person isn't blocking the flow of pedestrian traffic? If I'm standing on a bench, then I'm not blocking anyone's traffic. Furthermore, there's generally going to be a clause about lawful activity, which 1st amendment protected activity definitely is. Only for a reasonable amount of time necessary to copy the pictures. Deleting them is destruction of property. Hey, look, we finally have a legal response. It's always amazing that people want to respond to douche bags by acting like douche bags. "Am I being detained? No? Bye.

When doing a search an asterisk alone indicates "all" or anything starting with the term.

* /surprised I'm the first to post this

So you missed the entire part where he talks about when you would want to do an awake intubation?