emt_hound Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Honestly, I think it is irrelevant with pay... So basically you are saying that it doesn't matter that I don't know that because I get paid shitey so sorry if I can't offer a differential diagnoses. Pay me more and I might have decided I want to learn more?. No, I said something more along the lines of...money motivates performance. Damn few people will invest their time and money into a 4 year program in order to get a crappy-paying job. The more money a job requires, the more people will be interested in pursuing the career...and the more the field can demand a more-educated minimum. Canada and US have completely different EMS systems. I don't pretend to understand it.
vs-eh? Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 No, I said something more along the lines of...money motivates performance. Damn few people will invest their time and money into a 4 year program in order to get a crappy-paying job. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........................ So I guess after a 4-year university education, alot of people don't get a crappy job? UMMMMMM...... I did my stint in university, I didn't finish my university degree....I make more than the majority B.A./B.Sc. friends. They invested their time. A "university or you are nothing" post secondary education is pushed way to much. I make more than basically all my friends. Do I tell them or know for sure? No. EDIT - The point is you chose this field, as did I. You shouldn't limit yourself in the potential full scope of practice because you get paid low. I am not by nature a bleeding heart "OH LET ME HELP YOU" person. I do however like problem solving and appreciating diff. dx. I like knowing that the diagnosis I made was the correct one. I hate, with a passion, making mistakes in the field.
Tibby Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Personally I'd like to see a four year degree be the baseline for EMT-Paramedic, with expanded scope practice... I agree. Here, we have an optional Asso. Degree, but I wish it was required, would expand so we could go on to get a Bach, maybe even a Masters. Peoples lives are in our hands, lets train like it!
ERDoc Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 I think making paramedics a 2 year degree would be a great idea. You can get a better understanding of sciences behind what we do. You can increase the foundation of knowledge that providers have. While there is a great deal of learning going on in the field, you need your basics to make any sense of what you are doing. I would much rather see the paramedic become a 4 year degree and EMT a 2 year degree, but I know that this is next to impossible. It would also be a way to increase the pay of what EMS makes. If you increase the pay, you can increase the competitiveness of the field and in return can increase the caliber of the providers. With a higher level of education, the doctors who write your protocols might be willing to allow you to do much more. The only problem that I can see is that rural areas where they are already desperate for ALS providers would find it even more difficult to find them. This could be off set by higher pay, but at what cost to the taxpayers? I think making EMT a 2 year degree would almost certainly bring an end to the volunteer system. What would you do with those who are already paramedics? Hungrymonkey, you said, "I have repeatedly been told that the real education starts when you get a job, and that school is to prepare you for that. If this is so, then why would it be required to have over two years of school on subjects that do not apply medically? IE social science, human relations, etc." How do these classes not apply medically? Human relations? We are in the business of human relations, to have an understanding of the basic principles behind the relationships would only make you better when you need to deal with difficult pts or families. Where I went to medical school, each year we had a course on medical ethics and human relations. Have you ever been trained how to tell a pt or their family bad news? No, you will probably never need to tell someone that they have cancer, but I'm sure you will have to tell family that their loved one is dead. To say that behavioral and social sciences plays no part in what we do is off base. vs-eh, down here in my neck of the woods a person only needs to take a 100 hr course to become an EMT. They are not required to have any ambulance experience before they get their card, only 10 hrs in the ER as an observer. They don't even need to be a high school graduate. I would venture to guess that almost 99% of the EMTs do not know what angiotensin is. The paramedic course is much more demanding, but again, I would venture to guess that 50-75% don't know what it is.
vs-eh? Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 vs-eh, down here in my neck of the woods a person only needs to take a 100 hr course to become an EMT. They are not required to have any ambulance experience before they get their card, only 10 hrs in the ER as an observer. They don't even need to be a high school graduate. I would venture to guess that almost 99% of the EMTs do not know what angiotensin is. The paramedic course is much more demanding, but again, I would venture to guess that 50-75% don't know what it is. Honestly, that is sad. I don't even know what to say. Good luck.
THE_DITCH_DOCTOR Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Personally I think those who voted that more education is a bad thing should have to defend their reasoning. We've stated why it's a good idea, now let us hear why it is a bad idea.
Tibby Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 I was thinking the same thing. How could anyone view it as a BAD thing?
hungrymonkey Posted July 24, 2005 Author Posted July 24, 2005 Hungrymonkey, you said, "I have repeatedly been told that the real education starts when you get a job, and that school is to prepare you for that. If this is so, then why would it be required to have over two years of school on subjects that do not apply medically? IE social science, human relations, etc." How do these classes not apply medically? Human relations? We are in the business of human relations, to have an understanding of the basic principles behind the relationships would only make you better when you need to deal with difficult pts or families.
vs-eh? Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 It's called BREADTH EDUCATION people. Jeez..... Everyone should have it in a post-secondary field. Why am I learning philosophy when my degree is in engineering? Paramedicine should most definitely include a breadth requirement as it did for me. Why did I have to learn writing techniques when I recieved 90%+ on essays in osteology university? Deal with it....I'm not a grammer natzi or anything, I'm anything but... YOU NEED A 4 YEAR POST SECONDARY DIPLOMA IN PREHOSPITAL MEDICINE AS IT STANDS. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY. This bothers me so much...
emt_hound Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Canada's EMS certification system is completely different from the U.S. Comparing them is apples and oranges. If becoming an EMT or Medic in the U.S. suddenly required a 2 or 4 year degree, the recruitment pool would evaporate. Remember that 80% of the US is made up of rural communities. Finding volunteers smart enough and willing to sit through the current certification programs is difficult enough. Is it a noble idea? Sure, and if the salary-incentives were there, this field could begin to demand more education. The RN field in the US requires a degree. RN's get paid a lot more than medics (on average). Case in point. It's easy to pound your chest and talk about what "should be." Show me a feasible plan to make it happen.
Recommended Posts