COuncilman wants EMS to respond before police in violent incidents

[crotchitymedic1986]

I can not argue that point Herbie, I would agree that the poor do use a greater share of resources. That is why the ER is full of Doctor's Office patients, and 911 is used as a cab. Obama is trying to fix that, but you dont seem to want that either.

Is seems as though this "Chocolate City" may be doing something right:

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/06/30/daily65.html

[JTpaintball70]

Crotchity, would you call me a bad EMT because the call I'm going to is not dealing with violence at all, but we wait for PD because the address was flagged that EMS was assaulted the last time they were there on a similar call? I can tell you that I value my safety over teh safety of anyone who might happen to be my patient. Just like is drilled into all of us day 1 in MFR or Basic classes, and reiterated every time we go higher in education (in EMS anyway)

[crotchitymedic1986]

P.S. I should not have said "you" do not want Obama-care, I have no idea what herbie's stance is, I should have said "white america or republican".

[HERBIE1]

I can not argue that point Herbie, I would agree that the poor do use a greater share of resources. That is why the ER is full of Doctor's Office patients, and 911 is used as a cab. Obama is trying to fix that, but you dont seem to want that either.

You are absolutely correct about my opinions on Obamacare, but at the risk of derailing the thread...

In most areas, the problem isn't the availability of, or access to the resources, it's their proper utilization, AND some type of mandate that requires people to take some responsibility when they do use them. For example, in our realm, in a few select areas, even folks who are on public assistance are required to pay at least a nominal fee for an ambulance ride.

Obamacare has nothing to do with that, and in fact will remove even more responsibility and choice from the hands of people. It will do nothing to address the underlying issues.

[crotchitymedic1986]

Crotchity, would you call me a bad EMT because the call I'm going to is not dealing with violence at all, but we wait for PD because the address was flagged that EMS was assaulted the last time they were there on a similar call? I can tell you that I value my safety over teh safety of anyone who might happen to be my patient. Just like is drilled into all of us day 1 in MFR or Basic classes, and reiterated every time we go higher in education (in EMS anyway)

No, because your decision is based on "REAL" specific information about a particular residence, not an unfounded fear that is based on "public safety urban legend".

But let me twist that on you. What if I were in Mississippi, and responded to an affluent white subdivision for chest pain. As I pull up to the driveway, I either see a confederate flag type symbol or "actual flag" on your pick-up, or one of those NRA (National Rifle Association) bumper stickers that state "You can have my gun when you pull it from my cold dead fingers". Can I refuse to go in ( I am African American if you havent heard yet) ?

If I refuse to go in (or wait outside until PD gets there), based on my fear that there is a gun in the house, and that the occupants may or may not be racist, how long do you think I would have a job ?

[uglyEMT]

OK while I dont want to get into the whole fray here I want to add this.

The original article stated VIOLENT CRIME SCENE no where did it state bad area, gehto, trailer park, ect. Race was not mention it just said violent crime scene.

Hell it could be Charlie Sheen's home in Malibu and if it comes over as a violent crime scene bet your ass I am waiting for PD to clear it before entering.

Look at the newest article on EMS World about a California EMS Squad redoing their PD response due to a crew coming under attack with a gun from a women who ODed and just wanted to die.

So my point is if its a crime scene or violent call you would be a fool and also less of a provider if you entered the scene unsecured. What good are you as a provider if you become a victim?

[HERBIE1]

Crochity-

To the article about tearing down public housing in Atlanta...

That is a mixed blessing, and essentially just a shell game. Yes, high rise or sprawling housing project complexes are an eyesore, and they are dangerous, but it's not as easy as destroying the buildings. Ask any city who has done something similar, and essentially all they are doing is shifting the burden of public housing to other areas/neighborhoods/cities/suburbs. The primary problems remain(drugs, violence, unemployment, single parent homes, uneducation, etc) but no, they are not concentrated in just a couple structures. Often times, Section 8 vouchers allow public housing residents to join communities that have no idea how to deal with these problems. The problems for the original community may decrease, but they are simply shifted somewhere else.

The fallacy seems to be that that the buildings themselves caused the problems, and by eliminating the structures, somehow all those problems will vanish.

[Just Plain Ruff]

A well known quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" spoken by Spock.

We are already controversial but let's get a little further into controversy.

EMS doesn't respond in to a neighborhood without the police department. This community is now in the spotlight and a well known councilman has thrown down the gauntlet to the EMS community and community at large that he feels that EMS should enter scenes safe or not with or without the police.

It is now up to the EMS Agency to either follow through on his request or risk losing their contract if he has any say in the matter.

How does EMS address this with the community?

Do they put a public service campaign outlining which neighborhoods are dangerous and which ones are not.

Does the EMS agency say "You can make your neighborhood safer by putting pressure on those who make the neighborhood unsafe" and outline what makes their neighborhood unsafe.

Or does the EMS agency take a stand in support of it's employees and say even if they lose the contract, that they are not putting their people at risk?

Please don't make this a racial issue. Make your arguments for or against the above cohesive and without personal or moral assumptions.

If it takes the deaths of a few people in the community to bring community action and condemnation of those who make those neighborhoods unsafe to clean them up then maybe that is what needs to happen.

Many neighborhoods, some of which were considered some of the most dangerous in some cities have been taken back by their citizens by saying, "We are not going to stand for this anymore" and "Your drugs, violence and other assorted crimes are no longer welcome here".

A concerted effort and grass roots movement have made some of the most dangerous neighborhoods safe again. For many of these neighborhoods, ems did not respond without police to calls. They now do not have that delay in response.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Ruffems

[crotchitymedic1986]

Crochity-

To the article about tearing down public housing in Atlanta...

That is a mixed blessing, and essentially just a shell game. Yes, high rise or sprawling housing project complexes are an eyesore, and they are dangerous, but it's not as easy as destroying the buildings. Ask any city who has done something similar, and essentially all they are doing is shifting the burden of public housing to other areas/neighborhoods/cities/suburbs. The primary problems remain(drugs, violence, unemployment, single parent homes, uneducation, etc) but no, they are not concentrated in just a couple structures. Often times, Section 8 vouchers allow public housing residents to join communities that have no idea how to deal with these problems. The problems for the original community may decrease, but they are simply shifted somewhere else.

The fallacy seems to be that that the buildings themselves caused the problems, and by eliminating the structures, somehow all those problems will vanish.

Oh, Lord, the coloreds are moving in next door, what will we do, what will we do ? As stated numerous times Uglyemt, I have no problem with you waiting for as long as necessary at a known violent crime scene. And as evidenced again, by your own statements, you can only come up with a handful of anecdotal accounts of medics being attacked, out of the millions of 911 calls that are handled every day.

YOU GUYS LOVE STATISTICS, IT SHOULD NOT BE HARD TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT AS TO WHY WE SHOULD DELAY CARE TO A CRITICAL PATIENT WHO LIVES IN A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE PROBLEM IS AS BAD AS YOU CLAIM, YOU SHOULD BE JUST A FEW KEYSTROKES AWAY FROM CITING ALL KINDS OF STATISTICS THAT WILL JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING NEEDED CARE FOR YOUR PATIENTS. I will bet a paycheck righe now, that there is noone who can produce scientific evidence that justifies delaying care to patients based on the fact that they live in a poor neighborhood and that medics have actual risk (proven by statistics) if they go in without PD.

[uglyEMT]

Um OK where did I say neighborhoods I said crime scenes?

I am not stooping down to your level crochity as I see where you are coming from. I am not going to sling mud or get into a pissing match.

Yes per call statstics of injured EMS vs call volume is low. Probably more injuries due to accidents then attacks.

But isnt ONE death trajic? Isnt ONE death due to an unsafe scene enough?

I know no matter what is said here I cant change your mind nor do I want to. As I said previously I dont want to get into the frey. I just want to keep the thread on topic, if thats even possible anymore, and keep to the OP topic and article, should EMS enter unsecured violent crime scenes?

I will say this about "areas" you wrok your area day in and day out. You know where to go and where not to go. You know your area.

I want to end my posting on this topic with this....

STAY SAFE OUT THERE EVERYONE