A SWAT Team instead of an RMA

[Just Plain Ruff]

if we had government healthcare for all this would not be an issue.

[spenac]

This case based on what has been said by eye witnesses was just a pissing match. The first responder saw the kid the day after the injury. The first responder got into an argument and got feelings hurt. Called child services and convinced them child was in danger.

I'm all for protecting those that can't protect themselves but this whole incident crossed the line big time.

SWAT really endangered and probably will cause these kids nightmares forever. Have you ever stared down the barrel of a gun? It stays with you.

I mentioned the other danger of swat entry heres the link:

http://www.emtcity.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph...sc&start=15

[zippyRN]

The first responder that forced their way into the house needs to lose their job. Even if you suspect abuse you are not a cop and have no business making a raid and trying to force care. This confirms to me to many idiots have patches and should not be allowed in EMS. I may have to cave on my opinion that EMS should be allowed to deny transports as this idiot has no business deciding anything.

wrong answer !

as Eydawn says remember the defintions in use of neglect and abuse, plus the reported mechanism of injury ...

here in right pondia SWAT would be an overreaction, but Social Services, EMS and the police would work cooperatively to enable a proper Emergency Department or field based Health professional ( e.g. Emergency care Practitioner or field MD) evaluation of the child ...

but thanks to the 2nd amendment misinterpreters in the USA SWAT is a proportionate response to toa ex military man who refuses to allow his child to be properly assessed following a potentially life threatening (mechanism of) injury

[Eydawn]

Uh, spenac... reread the articles. The paramedics saw the kiddo on day zero, when the injury happened. Then social services got contacted, and SWAT invaded a day after the injury had occurred based on both the report from the medical responder and social services. Sounds like it's the judge here and the SWAT boys that need smacking. Not to mention the medic who forced entry.

And, Zippy, with a competent adult in the house, they have no legal bounds for forcing entry. Forced entry is for unconscious or whacko patients. Usually best left to the police so there's no doubt as to your (the medic's) intentions. Some paramedic tries to barge into my house, I'm going to be ticked off! And they have no grounds to do so.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[spenac]

wrong answer !

as Eydawn says remember the defintions in use of neglect and abuse, plus the reported mechanism of injury ...

here in right pondia SWAT would be an overreaction, but Social Services, EMS and the police would work cooperatively to enable a proper Emergency Department or field based Health professional ( e.g. Emergency care Practitioner or field MD) evaluation of the child ...

but thanks to the 2nd amendment misinterpreters in the USA SWAT is a proportionate response to toa ex military man who refuses to allow his child to be properly assessed following a potentially life threatening (mechanism of) injury

Wrong answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The injury happened the day before being seen by the first responder according to some of the reports. What happens to the appearance of an injury to the head hours later? It looks worse. This provider was not smart enough to understand this. This provider broke the law by forces his way into the house to check on a child w/o parental consent and should go to jail. This provider was wrong. Then a non medically trained person went to see the child and did the same thing panicked because of how ugly it looks. The doctor found nothing wrong and sent the kid right back home. Why do we immediately assume the parent is bad because he says no to an undereducated first responder? This gentleman was a military medic and was probably better educated than the first responder and obviously knew enough to know it was nothing.

The second amendment does clearly give the right to own guns. In fact the USA was founded on the idea of not having government interference. Why did the colonys kick the brits butts? Because they were tired of the government butting in where it did not belong. Now look the government came and kidnapped this child and traumatized the whole family.

For those that do not know the second amendment here it is. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of the people having the right to have guns and use them for defense do you not understand?

[Michael]

if we had government healthcare for all this would not be an issue.

Isn't the story a demonstration of government healthcare for all?

[DirtyBlackSocks]

When I was working a hospital in Texas in the Army we had a teacher bring an adolescent 8 year old student in who had untreated second and first degree burns to her legs. Upon closer inspection we found evidence of child abuse, from pattern marks that best represented a stick or belt to verbal confirmation of being hit on a regular basis with sticks by her parents.

When we called social services they said there wasn't enough evidence to support child abuse and would not even send a social worker out, the childs mother picked her up in the afternoon and smacked her on the butt twice for making her take time off work to come get her.

Made no sense to me, was pretty depressing. That town's got to have very little going on if they're sending a SWAT team on a raid to investigate a suspected child abuse case.

[zippyRN]

Wrong answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The injury happened the day before being seen by the first responder according to some of the reports. What happens to the appearance of an injury to the head hours later? It looks worse. This provider was not smart enough to understand this. This provider broke the law by forces his way into the house to check on a child w/o parental consent and should go to jail.

is a child a chattal of it's parent ?

have a look at some of the chases of child neglect across the developed world and then you might understand why law enforcement , health and scoail services are going in hard and fast to safeguard the welfare of children and young people, rather than respecting the old fashioned view that a child (or wife ) is a chattal of the the father / husband ...

This provider was wrong. Then a non medically trained person went to see the child and did the same thing panicked because of how ugly it looks.

so you don't think an RTC knock down deserves a full and appropraite assessment by a health professional ?

The doctor found nothing wrong and sent the kid right back home. Why do we immediately assume the parent is bad because he says no to an undereducated first responder? This gentleman was a military medic and was probably better educated than the first responder and obviously knew enough to know it was nothing.

i trust military medics as far as i can throw EXCEPT when under fire ... most military medics are sorely under educated, yes they are trained to perform certain tricks under fire where their (relative) expendability is a major asset

The second amendment does clearly give the right to own guns. In fact the USA was founded on the idea of not having government interference. Why did the colonys kick the brits butts? Because they were tired of the government butting in where it did not belong. Now look the government came and kidnapped this child and traumatized the whole family.

For those that do not know the second amendment here it is. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of the people having the right to have guns and use them for defense do you not understand?

As Iunderstand it the second amendment is met in full by each of the states who have a National Guard, a well regulated militia under control of local government n'est pas?

[Eydawn]

This is not a second amendment issue. This is a personal privacy and parent's rights issue. I would be in full support of the action taken by the SWAT team if the system had worked correctly and the threat to the child properly assessed, AND the responder had not stepped outside their bounds.

Yes, if the child was unresponsive and needed urgent medical care, then a police intervention would have been appropriate. This turned out to be an over zealous provider, an uneducated caseworker, and a bored arse small town SWAT team.

Children are not chattel of their parents, but parents DO have legal control over them and for good reason. If it is not a life threatening issue, or an incident of direct negligence or abuse, then you have no business interfering with a parent. It isn't your affair, as much as you may disagree with the parenting style.

Hillary Clinton says it takes a village to raise a child... if our national village decides to raise mine, they're going to meet strong resistance- possibly armed. I agree with Spenac there!

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[spenac]

... if our national village decides to raise mine, they're going to meet strong resistance- possibly armed. I agree with Spenac there!

Wendy

CO EMT-B

Wow Wendy agrees with me. Record this historic event.

As to Zippy, I am not responding as I feel we are going way away from origional topic.