scope of practice question

[Newbie2005]

Would you Work outside your scope of practice to save a life? :roll:

[akflightmedic]

Maybe.

[akroeze]

To save my life definitely

[Mateo_1387]

Until faced with the situation, I will not be able to give you an accurate answer. That being said, I have performed outside of my scope on calls before, but under the supervision of a paramedic, as well as I felt very confident and comfortable performing the action. That being said, I would apply those same rules to performing out of my scope to "save" a life. The difference would be nobody to supervise me. I like to think I would perform the intervention only if I felt confident in diagnosing the patient, and then felt confident in performing the intervention outside of my scope. I think if any of those two were not met, then I would probably not perform the action.

[wbgraidermom]

it depends on what i am faced with at the time.

[akflightmedic]

Mateo, you gave way too long of a response to an insufficient question.

[Timmy]

If it was a family member/good friend I may.

Defiantly not in a work situation. If something goes wrong you don’t have a leg to stand on, especially if the coroner gets involved, being dragged though the courts is not my cup of tea. Besides, you may save more lives because you still have your registration to practise lol…

[akflightmedic]

Nice one Timmy...yet again, words wise beyond your years mate...good onya.

Choosing to NOT be a hero is sometimes just as important as when choosing to be.

Be a hero now, save one life and lose your license OR stay within your scope and continue to practice for many years to come, possibly even decades and save untold numbers of lives.

=D>

[DwayneEMTP]

Understanding that in my very short career I've rarely had the necessity to do so...

I've sometimes operated outside of my scope here, and the scope is broad, and had to take my beatings afterwards. I was able to justify my decisions each time and came out ok...and that works in this life. I'm thinking it'll get my ass kicked stateside.

But I've made my decision, and I think it's right for me. When time is an issue..I'm going to do the very best medicine I can.. I'll try to do what is smart, efficient, moral and ethical to the best of my ability and then let the chips fall where they may. If my job demands that I allow lives to be lost simply to prove that I'm a team player then I'm not interested in playing any more...

It seems to me that I'm obligated to advocate for my pts, all of them, even those that are so rude as to fall outside of my protocols, or fall across multiple protocols. Nowhere did I learn, or come to believe on my own, that I should protect my patients unless it gives me a pain in the ass from my medical director. My obligation is to THIS patient, not hypothetical future patients.

Besides, like I said, I don't have the mental muscle to figure out the medical, social and political consequences all in that moment. I'll stick to the medical and worry about all else later.

Dwayne

[Michael]

Choosing to NOT be a hero is sometimes just as important as when choosing to be.

That's certainly true.

Be a hero now, save one life and lose your license OR stay within your scope and continue to practice for many years to come, possibly even decades and save untold numbers of lives.

But is that really comparing apples with apples? Isn't the choice presented between aiming to save one life that, because of the immediate situation, no one else can save vs. aiming to ensure that you'll continue to be one among many future replaceable/interchangeable lifesavers? In other words, is it better to withhold aid from a patient whose life depends exclusively on your help, vs. forgoing that opportunity in order to save the lives of future patients who won't depend exclusively on your help?