JPINFV

If it was a vent dependent patient on an interfacility transport, why were they using an oxygen powered ventilator anyways? If the ventilator isn't oxygen powered, then you don't need oxygen to run it and, while there would be a lower FiO2, the consequences aren't quite so grave when the on board oxygen system shuts off.

However, by the Vatican not alerting the local authorities (to the point of possible criminal negligence) is essentially the church giving a tacit green light. The Baptist church story I posted earlier is using a bastardized version of Christianity to blame the victim. Can we ban Baptists now since they are relying on specific teachings? Alternatively, radical Muslims are an aberrant group of individuals who engage in a deviant and criminal behavior whom the majority of Muslims, at the very least in this country and most likely the majority of Muslims worldwide, find abhorrent. I don't understand your assistance that things like pedophilia is some sort of straw man argument. ...and the entire "All Muslims are evil (at least to the point that we need to control where they build mosques" is an appeal to emotion. Taking an issue and transposing it to something less emotional (because there's much less "ZOMG 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11") is somehow bad? I guess consistency is too much to ask for. How is saying "You can't build here for no reason other than it's a mosque" not a condemning the entire religion? How is it not collective punishment? Aren't they protected under the first amendment just like every other religion? Would you be complaining if it was a synagogue, or church, or a house of worship from any other religion than Islam? If so, how is restricting one group anything but punishment? So you have no issues at all with the SCOTUS decision in the Skokie case? Also, have you considered that the actions taken in this case is people speaking out at the local government meeting where the plan was approved? We have a group of people here trying to use the government to stop a mosque, you invoke Skokie (which required a SCOTUS decision to not deny a group their rights, regardless of how hideous their views are), and try to transpose the issue to Neo-Nazis in Germany (which has very strong anti-Nazi laws) and you want to say that this isn't about the government denying one group of citizens their rights as citizens? You could have picked much much better examples then because your major examples is exactly what you're now claiming not to support. The government denying citizens first amendment rights based on emotion. Racism isn't illegal. Advocating racism isn't illegal. Advocating a crime, in the name of hate or anything else, is a crime. So I guess the moral of the story is don't commit crimes? What crimes has this group of Muslims committed? What action, other than practicing a religion, has this group committed? You brought up the USS Arizona. Is it wrong for there to be Japanese culture centers in Honolulu? Can I understand the objections? Sure. I think the objections are built on an unrational hatred though. So, apparently, fighting against the building of a house of worship for no better reason that the house of worship represents a religion where a small different segment bastardized the teachings is not denying rights? How much closer to attempting to deny a group religious freedom do you have to get to actually be denying rights? If we, as Americans, are so wound up that we have to complain like this, then the terrorists are winning the war because their actions are changing the very foundation of the current US government, namely freedom of religion and freedom of association.

Maybe the patient needs to drink a little more Brawndo.

I think people are missing the point that I was trying to make. I don't find being restricted from driving as being that big of a punishment.

I almost hate to say it considering that it's the Nazis at Skokie, but so what? Sure, it's easy to say ban the Nazis because they did X and seeing them reminds you of X. Ban the Muslims because of Al Qaeda. But how far should we go and who's opinion of "offensiveness" is important enough to give them veto power? The Catholic church gets a lot of criticism over hiding pedofile priests, so should we no longer allow Catholic Churches to be built within sight of schools? It's the same damn thing, the only thing that's disconcerting is that it's a lot harder to distance ourselves from Christian groups than Muslim groups. You have a problem with a more modern issue, like the priest sex abuse issue? I didn't realize that to take an issue and transpose it on similar groups at home is considered a straw man now. You're saying that Islam, as a whole (hence the no mosque argument) is at fault for Islamic terrorists. As such, then why isn't it fair to blame all of Christianity when ever someone does something evil in the name of Christianity? You say that this is about Jihadists, yet seek to punish people that are, unless you have proof to the other wise, Jihadists. It's like saying no churches within sight of cemetaries because of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, the vast majority of Christians don't agree with his beliefs, but almost 100% of the protests at US military funerals are because of him. Therefore, it's insensitive and insulting to build a church near a cemetery. Do I see something wrong with it? Yes. Do I think it's the governments job to step in? No. Sorry, but just because I disagree with a group doesn't mean I get to take away their rights. If someone wants to go stand on a street corner handing out racist fliers, then so be it. That's his right. I don't have to agree with the fliers and I retain the right to denounce the fliers and protest against him, but I do not support the government stepping in and silencing any group short of them advocating open rebellion or an actual material threats that would meet the requirments of, say, attempted murder or conspiracy (i.e. "I want ____ to die" isn't enough). If the Neo-Nazis want to go build a shrine outside of Auschwicz, so be it. The opposite (government censorship) is much worse. Silenced lunatics become martyrs and more rational (although not always completely rational) people see conspiracy theories. Additionally, where does it end? As I've maintained, it's easy to sit here and kick down small groups, but these restrictions have a tendency to grow out of hand and start impacting the mainstream. That's why it's "Congress shall make no law regarding..." (extended to the states through the 14th amendment, and incorporated through the doctrine of selective incorporation under Cantwell v Connecticut) and not Congress shall make no laws regarding... unless we don't like them." What actions have consequences? A fringe group of a religion committing acts of terrorism is now justification for group punishment or are you going to claim that these Muslims are members or supporters of Al Qaeda? Since you seek to deny them of their rights because of their religion, I completely disagree that it is immaterial in how it is looked at. I hate to bring out a cliche, but if our political and ideological beliefs includes belief in the freedom to practice a religion of ones own choice, banning a mosque for no better reason than its a mosque would mean abandoning our beliefs. The terrorists have won. Except this entire issue is that people are arguing that that is exactly what they represent. 9/11 terrorists were Muslim and claimed to do it in the name of Islam. Mosques are a sign of Islam. Therefore no Mosque. If the mosque doesn't represent the views of Al Qaeda any more than every church represents Fred Phelps, then it shouldn't be a problem. Either all Muslims are terrorists by no other reason than Islam, or they aren't. You can't say in one line that a religious building doesn't represent the extreme segments of a religion, and then in the next sentence act as if they do. The only other interpretation is that terrorism is a mainstay of Islam. What legal consequences do you see happening? If you're talking about something like vandalism, then I expect the police to do their job and punish the vandals. That's kinda of hard to qualify. These were 110 floor buildings, so do we go by sight of where they used to stand, or sight of the property line? If just the property line, are we talking from the entrance or the top of the building? While I get that "within sight" is supposed to be a general "really close by," but there has to be a hard number because what is too close for one person won't be too close for someone else. On a completely serious note, thank you for being consistent with being against all religious buildings instead of just one. So all Arab groups represent or supports terrorism? Do you stand up and denounce every crime that someone commits that who are connected to you? I don't mean on line or in idle conversation. I mean running advertisements, talking to the media, etc. After all, I don't stand in front of my class and denounce EMS providers who provide shitty care or make shitty decisions like the current MA CME scandal. Does that mean I support what happened in the scandal since I'm not making sure strangers know my view?

...and you know. I bet in 300 some odd years (Salem Witch Trials) or 900 years from now (1st Crusade), the people living is going to look back at us uneducated, primitive humans of the 2000s...

On the other hand, where I can be so lucky as to not be required to drive?

I took a first aid course. I was in scouting growing up. Would you like to take over caring for the patient? (Seriously, I bet most people who want to quarterback wouldn't take you up on this offer).

Skokie (which was the National Socialist Party, but the point still stands) was a freedom of assemblage case, not a freedom of religion case. Besides, freedom of ____ will always be directed towards actions that the general population doesn't like. If there was majority support then there would be no need for protection. Yes, sometimes the views being exposed is disgusting, but the alternative is mob rule. Inquisition!= Crusades? Ok, Salem Witch Trials? Current pedophile cases throughout multiple Christian denominations? Regardless, thank you for proving that when we do it, it's ok (or we'll just ignore it because it's helpful for our side), but when other people do it, it's bad. However, apparently, all Muslims are represented by Al Quada. All I'm trying to do is show a little consistancy, however again. When Christians do it, they're nut jobs. When Muslims do it, they represent all of Islam. Cheeky. How can you claim that all Muslims are radical, which going "ZOMG MOSQUE!" is doing? And a strict reading of the Bible have lead Christian denominations, both large and small, to argue that anyone not following their brand of religion (both brand of Christianity and non-Christianity) aren't true Christians. However, again, the underlying theme us=nut jobs. Them=all Islam. That's just bass ackwards to say that the abortion clinics should have to be concerned about churches while Muslims have to be concerned about Ground Zero. Oh, and no one has yet answered the question about whether the Americans who died in the WTCs and were Muslims are real Americans or not. Apparently only non-Muslims worked in the WTC?

Er. I think there's a bit of a difference between a mosque and a burning cross. A better analogy would be no white owned churches in black neighborhoods. Ted Kacynski, Tim McVeigh, and the abortion clinic bombers all send their regards. Also, there was a pretty lengthy period when the Christians were the world's terrorists. It doesn't make terrorism right, but neither does claiming that any one religion is someone the religion of terror. Well, gee, we weren't expecting a Spanish Inquisition or anything. Also, what about the numerous Muslims who who weren't terrorists that died on 9/11? Oh, wait, their death means less than those real, red blooded Christian Americans who died, right? Also, how far away is "appropriate." Should any mosques currently in that radius be torn down? Should churches be torn down near abortion clinics because radical Christians bombed abortion clinics? I'm sorry... you lost me here. Are you saying that Christian religions aren't homophobic or contain scriptures that consider any non-Christian religion as being sinful? Also, there's a very large difference between not ignoring a child who hits other people and blaming an entire religion for the acts of a few, regardless of what that few claim that their actions are for. Any response to this conversation being turned around? ..and, for the record, child molestation is not an issue unique to the Catholic Church. Example, those crazy Baptists who blamed a girl for getting pregnant after being raped. No more Baptist churches with in 1000 feet of a playground or school? http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/police-girl-raped-then-relocated

2 things. 1. Would I stop? It's location dependent. There are areas with extended response times (I-15 and I-5 going down to San Diego) where I would stop. Pretty much everyplace else the only thing stopping is the radio, and that's until I get off the phone with the 911 operator. 2. What am I planning on doing? Mostly either holding c-spine, talking to and reassuring the patient(s) or keeping other people from doing stupid things. All I need is a pair of gloves to do the first and no special equipment to do the other two.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to downplay the fact that there's additional difficulties due to the depth, but it seems like the basic concepts (clear wreckage from around the pipe, modify pipe to something that can be capped, cap the pip) wouldn't change. Is it easier on land though? Definitely. Additionally, from the news reports I've read, there were both serious malfunctions (such as the blowout preventer failing to activate) as well as serious command issues where it seemed that all critical decisions were required to be made jointly by both the rig captain and a representative from BP.

Basically, yes. I'm going to assume that capping an undersea well was a lot like capping the oil well fires after the Gulf War minus the fire and being on dry land. If you ever catch a documentary on the oil well fires on the History Channel, it's an interesting watch. Basically the fires were fought following the same procedure for every well. Remove the damaged rigging, cut off the top part of the well head, put out the fire (it was less disastrous to let it burn than let the oil coat everything. There was also a few interesting methods, like dynamite), then place a well head to stop the flow.

Pfft... this is Massachusetts we're talking about here. The fire unions were fighting drug testing even after 2 fire fighters died while fighting a fire while under the influence.

I thought that the first step was to find the hidden porn folder...

Dwayne, I'm going to disagree with you on a few things. Your case with the elderly woman doesn't exactly fit here. There's a big difference between someone who is refusing care, even if it brings additional harm to them self by lack of action and actively seeking to harm them self. Actively attempting suicide, as a rule (exception being physician assisted suicide), is a sign of acute psychiatric illness which precludes the patient understanding the true consequences of their actions (I'll get back to capacity in a minute). Suffering an injury and then refusing treatment is not the same since the patient did not want the injury as a part of a disease process. What this all comes down to is capacity to make decisions. Capacity is important because being able to answer who/where/when/why doesn't really indicate capacity. It indicates that you know where you are, who you are, when it is, and why you're there. If a disease process makes it so that a patient can't properly make decisions, then it doesn't matter. A patient who has major depression with psychotic features where the voices are telling them to commit suicide lacks capacity even if they're A/Ox4 because the disease process itself makes it so that the patient can't make decisions. I'll give a non-psychiatric example. A patient who is hypoglycemic to the point that they begin to lose mental function loses the ability to refuse medical care until the hypoglycemia is corrected. Even if they are A/Ox4. Why? Because the disease process is affecting their ability to make decisions and you don't know if they're refusing care because they don't want help for legitimate reasons or because of the disease process itself. Now, sure, amp of D50 later, "Thanks guys, I'm gonna go fix myself a sandwich, where do I sign?" is fine because the acute disease process affecting their ability to make decisions has been reversed. To take the concept of A/Ox4=everything's peachy to the extreme, then there should be no any such thing as involuntary committal.

Close... The digital copiers have a hard drive that saves all of the images. The problem being when the copiers are sold, very few companies or resellers take the time to wipe the hard drive.

You know what's funny? They (as a part of an organized sanitation system) are saving more lives every year by picking up trash than EMS is by responding to medical calls. Never happen short of some sort of drastic adverse event (and I doubt that any adverse event will reach that level because EMS primarily operates at the individual level). What's going to need to happen is either the public demands more or the providers demand more. Organizations like NAEMSP, NAEMT, NASEMSD, or the other alphabet soup EMS organizations are going to have to be the ones to call for higher standards.

Actually, with the new levels, the NHTSA is dropping the "EMT" from "EMT-Paramedic."

Er... that's more likely than you'd probably want to know. There's a reason why boards of medicine have alcohol and drug diversion programs to treat and reinstate physicians with substance abuse problems.

Nope... sorry. Once you get used to wearing a seat belt (like any change in routine, it is awkward at first), there's very little reason to be sitting down and not seat belted. Have you tried shutting off your light bar during that maneuver. With just the box lights on (primary or secondary), you are less noticeable to the traffic in front while giving a, "Don't follow us" message to those behind you. This might be the only situation where you don't want to the people in front of you to see you since you want them to stay where they are.

The first thing to do, then, is to check your state website and, if need be, check state law to see what statute says your scope of practice is. To be honest, I don't see much of a need for a protocol, per say, at the first responder and, for the most part, at the EMT-B level. The scope just isn't that large or complex in most cases.

INR stands for "International Normalized Ratio" and is a measure of the extrinsic clotting cascade. It's what's used to determine dosing for Warfarin (Coumadin).

Quick... memorize as much as you can in this region. Borders of the area where calls are being taken is the 710 freeway to the west, San Clemente to the South, and the North-West to South East mountain area (basically that swath at the top that isn't built). Now I'm not going to tell you whether I'm going to put your unit in Long Beach, Whittier, Anaheim, or San Clemete (or anywhere else in this area). Additionally, while you may start off in one part in the morning, you might end up in an entirely different area in the afternoon. Oh, and since this area is memorizable, you can't have any maps or GPS (to be fair, I prefer maps over GPA anyways). http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.67864,-117.869568&spn=0.571398,1.234589&t=h&z=10 Personally, I'd settle for the hospitals (around 40 all in all), major facilities (SNFs, etc), and the freeway system.