JPINFV

...and it's funny because the 'out' for physicians, as taught to us by lawyers when covering jurisprudence, when we forget to document something is the term "customary practice." If it wasn't written down, it may have happened, but a written record is a lot stronger than, "Of course I listened to lung sounds, even if I didn't mark the boxes."

I think this is a non-argument. Just because someone is born with specific desires doesn't mean they have to, or should, act upon it. A quick disclaimer. I do not equate homosexuals to the group I'm about to discuss. However I believe it is an appropriate alternative to explore the difference between thought and action. I would be willing to bet that most pedophiles would love not to be pedophiles. Similarly, I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of pedophiles who will never end up in jail. Why will they never be in jail? Because while they are attracted to little children, they have control to not act on that attraction. The want or desire can be controlled in some pedophiles, while others are unable to control it and act upon it, which is against the law. Now, what's the difference between pedophiles and heterosexuals or homosexuals? Simple. Consensual sex can cause major and long lasting physical, but more importantly, emotional and mental harm. As such, we (society) has set laws declaring that, in general, individuals under 18 lack an understanding of the benefits and risks of sex and will chose to control those risks poorly. This leads into another discussion on age of consent and maturity, which I do not want to go down. However, homosexual and heterosexual sex not involving pedophilia (as an umbrella term for underage of consent sex) occurs between two individuals who are legally presumed to have the maturity to properly engage in those acts. As such, pedophilia is not illegal because of the possible age difference (after all, there's nothing wrong with a 90 y/o having sex with an 18 y/o), but because one party is presumed to be unable to consent to the act. As such, the act itself is what is illegal, not the thoughts that propel the act. Hence, regardless of the origin of the compulsion to have homo or heterosexual sex, the question is, "Can we reasonably expect people to control their actions?" However, this does not address what the legal status of homosexuals should be. Since the USA is not a theocracy (albeit, yes, religious codes have influence on the modern legal system, among other historical influences), the law should be concerned with protecting the rights of individuals instead of enforcing any specific moral code on citizens. Whose rights are being infringed by granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? Whose rights are being infringed by government recognition of homosexual marriage(note: government recognition does not compel individual religions to recognize, endorse, or provide homosexual marriage)? Regardless of the origin of the compulsion and the ability to control the action past ensuring both parties are able to, and do, freely and independently consent to any specific action, does the government have a legitimate reason to regulate it beyond some people find it dirty and some religions believe it to be morally wrong?

The practical interpretation of that passage, as well as some literal translations, would read "Thou shall not murder."

However, several million Christians love to pick and choose which passages of the bible to follow. I can understand discarding the more barbaric phrases, such as murdering non-virgin women who try to marry. However, what good reasons are there to discard kosher meals or the prohibition of wearing clothes made of mixed fiber?

...and the only way to reliably meet the 4 minute mark is either widely available public access AEDs (there's an AED in every building at my school, and the new building has one on every floor by the main elevator), or police first response equipped with AEDs. Why the police? Who else is constantly in their vehicle more? For EMS and fire to have a similar response time, they would have to be waiting in their vehicle, engine on, ready to go at all times unless using the facilities, getting food, or while on a call. The minute it takes to throw the boots on and walk to the ambulance is pretty long when it's a 1/4th of the response window, and this isn't even counting the call received to call dispatched interval. Oh, and no more storing response vehicles at the same location. Medical first response engine and an ambulance at the same station? Well, one can go post in the east side of the district and the other in the west side. Gotta cut down on that response time, after all.

Yea! Welcome to the dark side. I've added a link to your blog from mine.

Two good things will come from this. 1. More people can enlist without being concerned about their family situation. 2. Our armed forces can truly be fabulous now.

Ignoring the tone that the article took, I am a little conflicted. On one hand, yea, if everyone is saying it's perfectly safe, then I can see rescuers not wearing masks. However, if the masks are actually clogging, then I think that's a good indication that maybe not all is as safe as it seems. Similarly, it doesn't take long to find a lot of videos, definitely more than a handful, of fire fighters working fires and standing in smoke without using SCBAs. They might not have them on or they might be wearing the tank without the facemask, but the fact is that they're standing in smoke breathing in a ton of nasty crud that they don't have to be breathing in, and I have no doubt that they will sooner than later be on disability because they wanted to be cool and not use the gear provided. However, I think 9/11 is a special case because of the rapid pace of events on the actual day, in addition to the length of the operation afterwards.

...and unfortunately (albeit I haven't reviewed the studies) all of those is still taught as the standard of care.

I've actually been doing some Googling on the video and based on some of the threads I saw and since there is no actual news articles connected with this, it does appear that this was a very well staged training video. Additionally, if the officer did die with the accident occuring in 2000, was he the officer that died in 2001, 2003, 2006, or 2007? http://www.isp.state.il.us/aboutisp/memorial.cfm

You were linking to the info page for the image, not the specific image file.

I might get a Fark headline out of this. I'm kinda of surprised that it hasn't been submitted yet. Headline: "I know where you live and your teenage daughter is pretty cute. Is she available?" Tag: Scary.

That argument can be made for any collision when using lights and sirens. If you're going 10 MPH and using the legal exemptions allowed by the use of lights and sirens, you're going too fast.

...except the person who claimed to be able to cut transport times by 40 minutes clearly stated that they were in a rural area. That's a lot of stoplights. Also, at 2 minutes a stoplight, you're getting really unlucky by hitting the stoplight just as it turns red. Similarly, how often does that 8 minutes really matter?

Source? Every study I've seen has shown a statistically significant difference, but not an amount of time likely to be clinically significant. I've always wondered how much time would be saved if Opticon (signal preemption) was used without lights and sirens.

Speed limits by themselves? No. Setting speed limits too low on purpose? Yes. If everyone is "speeding" than the speed limit is not properly set.

...and see, I have a problem with this type of thinking. If you're on a road that allows you to normally go 70 MPH, and with the emergency lights you can go 80, then it's safe, if not safer, to go 80 without lights (siren is useless at 80). I say "safer" because the last thing I want traffic doing at any sort of sustained high speeds (say, above 40-50 MPH) is moving out of my way. If the speed of traffic (even if N=1) is 70, then I'm happy going the speed of traffic instead of having everyone recognize that an emergency vehicle with lights activated is approaching, and then attempt to find someplace to the right to put their vehicle. Of course I need to put my standard disclaimer on here. My view on freeway speed is warped since in Southern California it's extremely common outside of rush hour for the speed limit to be 65, traffic moving somewhere between 75-80 (80-90 in the number 1 [carpool] and 2 lanes of a 8-10 lane freeway), and the highway patrol passing people. Speed does not kill. Speed differences kill. Edit: Also, unless the travel time is about an hour or more, there's very little reason to speed. At an hour, a difference in 10 MPH saves 10 minutes. The best example is a car going 60 MPH goes 60 miles in an hour. A car going 70 MPH goes 70 miles, a difference of 10 miles. The car going 60 MPH goes a mile a minute, and thus would take 10 minutes to catch up with the other car if the other car stopped. So a 10 MPH difference saves a minute every 6 minutes traveled, and that's assuming no starting or stopping along the way.

Baring special situations, in the US the speed limits are generally supposed to be set at around the 85th percentile of the average speed of traffic in good conditions as determined by a speed study. If you set the speed lower, you generate revenue by increasing the amount of cars in violation as well as increasing the size of the violation. If the speed limits were set to where they are supposed to be set, then there would be much less vehicles "speeding." Here's a good position paper regarding 85th percentile speed limits. http://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdf

The speed limit rarely limits my speed regardless of what I'm driving and who's on board. The speed limit should be near the bottom of concerns whereas the driver should be more concerned with the capabilities of the driver to ensure a smooth ride, the capabilities of the vehicle, and road conditions including weather and traffic. Going from 75 minutes to 45 minutes is decrease of 40%, which correlates to a rather large increase in the average speed of the unit. I find it hard to believe that the speed limit is almost half the actual safe speed of the road, and if it was that the crews regularly obeyed that limit. Additionally, just because something isn't "allowed" doesn't necessarily mean that it's enforced and the crews obey said limit. Thus, the problem isn't lights and sirens or the lack there of, it's the fact that the local government is using speed limits as revenue generators and not for safety. A speed limit set too low is more dangerous that a speed limit set too fast.

I'm curious to know how you can cut travel time down by half if rural areas are supposed to have less traffic and traffic lights. Is it that the drivers feel like they're allowed to speed* with lights and sirens or something similar? *Note: I take a pragmatic look at speeding, especially since a lot of speed limits are set to generate revenue, not increase safety.

For online medical control? Probably not. My understanding is that the majority of the components of the fellowship are designed towards system design and QA/QI, which the average online medical control physician is not engaged in. However, there should be some sort of local requirement for introduction into the system, training, and ride alongs if a system uses specific people to provide online medical control (e.g. Mobile Intensive Care Nurses (MICN) in California).

There really isn't going to be much of a change at the ground level. What it does do is lay the ground work for requiring an EMS subspecialization to be medical director.

In terms of how the USA is governed, the Declaration of Independence isn't worth anything. It holds zero legal weight in determining the rights of the citizens and how the government is ran. Does it carry historical significance? Sure, but that's it. In regards to pounding sand, see my comment to Annie. Considering that they appear to fit within the zone set aside for them by the local authorities and assembled in a space set aside by the local authorities, yes, I believe that they did not exceed the limits placed against them. The limits set up by the local authorities apparently didn't believe it to exceed reasonable limits. So citizens are now required to follow all traditions of their country? Should the US kick out any citizen that doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving? What should the UK do to their citizens who didn't show up to a Remembrance day rally?

I didn't think it was disrespectful in the context that I don't have to follow Canadian laws while living in the US just as you don't have to follow US laws living in Canada. Hence, US authorities can go pound sand if you're doing something they don't like. I'm sorry if you took offense to that. If the setup was similar, I wouldn't have a problem with the police taking no action or demand that any citizens involved exile themselves. There's a difference between disliking the action and demanding people leave the county, and the thread took the "I don't like your message, get out of the country" starting on post 4. Similarly, in your third post (8th post in the thread), you advocated that what they were doing was illegal and that police action should be taken for disturbing the peace. Are you changing your position from the start of the thread? Huh? I just checked and it's still there, just colored white.

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