Medics refuse to take service dog

[HERBIE1]

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/baltimore-medics-take-blind-man-not-dog

Beyond stupid. Department policy or not, this is a federal law. If someone cannot understand that a service dog is vital to a disabled person, they are in serious need of retraining. I love it when we have service animals- they are well trained, never a problem, and behave(and smell) better than most of our patients.

[Kiwiology]

Stupid fucking arsehole medics, should have expected this from Bulletmore, Murderland; hell maybe the sepsis from FEMS is wafting over from DC.

[paramedicmike]

Morons. What were they thinking?

edit: need more sleep

Edited November 23, 2011 by paramedicmike

[nypamedic43]

They obviously weren't thinking and BCFD will lose the civil suit. Kinda late to think about putting a policy in place now.

[DwayneEMTP]

You know, I can't imagine not taking the dog in this situation, in the front seat if necessary.

But as I've said in another thread like this, what does this dog have to offer this person in this environment? Nothing really. There is nothing for this man to see that his dog can see for him. No information that the dog can provide, no service that he can offer.

As some of you know, I was involved in the training of service animals before becoming a medic, so this isn't me making random guesses. I know these things for a fact.

I can see the outrage if the medics took the dog and then forced this man to walk to the hospital, as the dog would possibly serve many purposes there. But this man had a human attendant, one much more capable of fulfilling the pts needs in this environment than a dog would have been.

They did not take away his pacemaker, not his insulin pump, in this scenario they removed his pet.

Let's change the scenario to a significant trauma. Altered mentation, hypotension, developing tension pneumo, 15 minute transport to the ER. You and your partner are busy, you get fire to drive, how much time do you take to accommodate the dog? If his wife wants to ride as well, where do you put him then?

I'm not making the case that they made a good decision. I'm simply making a counter argument as the opinion of the thread, to my reading, seems to be, "Ridiculous! There is no possible reason that this would ever be acceptable!" I'm curious if it truly is so black and white for you.

My guess is that this guy was a major asshole and they did it to make him pay for that. My guess, as I don't see any other good reason for it.

But bottom line is that he and anyone else can scream that this dumbass crew removed a vital element to his interface with the world, though non of the services that this dog can offer are possible in this environment. In this case they did nothing more to this man than most of us have chosen to do to many elderly patients, when prudent, that wanted to bring their fat, smelly dogs and cats in the ambulance. They denied him the emotional security he derives from his pet.

Those that disagree, I'd be interested to see the list of non emotional benefits that this dog would provide. And why would having glaucoma give you a special right to the emotional support denied others?

I've seen disabled veterans in nursing homes that can hardly catch their breath when taken away from their pets, yet those pets aren't allowed in any stores, or restaurants, nor most ERs that I've been in.

(I'm leaving aside the fact that he was a disabled Marine. All bets are off in that situation. I'll bring his fucking horse if that's what he wants. But that muddies the basic issue here...)

I truly get exhausted from the outrage of political correctness. This was an evil thing to do simply because it's been labeled evil by the masses. I believe that when it's looked at more honestly, without the PC glasses, that it wasn't evil at all. It was foolish, and inconsiderate, but ultimately harmless, except for the outrage it caused for this guy not getting the special privileges that he felt that he deserved.

Dwayne

[DFIB]

I only have some questions.

1. Is transport of a service dog required by law?

2. In this case it seems that the refusal to transport the dog delayed patient transport. What would the liability be?

3. In the case care could not be procured for the dog do medics have a responsibility to not leave the animal unattended?

I would have taken the dog because I am emotional and humane although as per Dwayne it is obvious that the dogs usefulness is suspended till discharge from the hospital. The medics in the article should be kicked in the nuts for distressing a disabled marine regardless of their decision about the dog.

[HERBIE1]

I seem to recall Dwayne expressing his opinion on this before, and to be honest, it surprised me a bit.

Yes, the dog certainly will not be participating in his master's care in the ambulance or at the ER, but at some point the man will be discharged- presumably he will be treated and released in this case- and will need to get home. A person goes out to eat in a restaurant, and no, the dog won't be serving the food, but this animal is not only someone's life line, but also their companion. We take family members and friends of patients with us all the time, to help comfort and ease the anxiety of someone. Many times they know little or no useful information about the patient, so it's not like their presence is vital either. Why not take an animal companion for the very same reason? I honestly see no difference.

I've seen some extraordinary bonds between these service animals and those they assist. Even if the animal will simply lay at the foot of the cot or ER bed, if it puts the patient- and their dog- at ease, I have no problem with it.

[DwayneEMTP]

I hear you Herbie, the problem that I have is the inflated value that this dog has been given in this man's life.

As I stated, I would certainly have tried to do the compassionate thing, as I try to do with all patients.

The article, and this thread has made this out to be a life altering event for this man. It isn't. Sometimes uncomfortable, inconvenient things happen. Because he's been given an aid dog we've decided that anything that happens to him, particularly if the aid dog is involved, is catastrophic. And that just simply not the case, right?

Every fireman is not a hero, though society feels good when they pretend that they are. Every grope is not a violent rape, though many would equate a groped boob with the actual, life altering event. And people seem to feel good when every inconvenience for someone with different needs is considered a catastrophic and life altering. But that just doesn't make it so...

Dwayne

[zmedic]

I feel like in general services dogs should be brought to the hospital with the patient. What makes me a bit uncomfortable is that I can think of a lot of situations where the patient isn't in a position to actual hold or control the animal, so now you have this dog that no one is really responsible for. For example, what happens when a trauma patient is brought in backboarded and c-collared, and has to get evaluated by the trauma team and then taken for CT. Where exactly is the dog during all this? The dog can't sit on the patient's chest during the CT. The x-ray tech can't take care of the dog and do the scan.

I think it is important to make the distinction between the normal case of "I have a service animal and I want to bring it with me to this location and will be monitoring the dog" and the situation of "I am incapacitated and need someone to bring my dog to the hospital and then take care of it while I am being treated."

The situation in the article seems to be that the patient was fairly stable so fine, let the dog sit on his lap and try to ensure that someone could meet the patient at the hospital to take care of the animal while he was being treated. Or quickly see if there was someone else on scene like PD who could transport the dog. But I'm not sure that a paramedic has a legal requirement to bring a transport a service animal if the owner of the dog is not in a condition to care for the animal themselves.

All that being said, EMS has a lot of situations that fall into the grey area where you have to make a judgement call. And ideally should should be able to find some solution that is acceptable to you are a provider, and that doesn't piss off the patient to the point where they are calling the paper and a lawyer. I have a feeling that the medics took a position and were jerks about it, that if they nicely explained to the patient "I am really worried about you and can't provide the care that you need if I am also taking care of your dog, is there another way that we can help get your service animal to the hospital that is acceptable to you so we can treat you?" Something like that.

Edited November 24, 2011 by zmedic

[DFIB]

Dwayne,

So are you saying that the emotionally charged response to take the dog has nothing to do with the blind guy and everything about making us feel better about ourselves? That patient advocacy be damned so long as I can brag to my friends that I went out of my way to spare a pet separation anxiety?

Or are you simply making a byzantine argument about the different feelings, sentiments and responsibilities that might or might not be involved in the service dog transport decision. The difference between duty to the patient and a counterfeit desire to conform to society’s standard regardless of the logic. In a society where feelings are glorified it may be an impossible argument.

I think I hear you saying that transporting the dog is the right thing although the reasons for many might be wrong.

Edited November 24, 2011 by DFIB