Medics refuse to take service dog

[Vorenus]

So, another tack here... let's look at the dog not as "necessary" in the hospital setting- many of you are quite right that there is no function the dog will perform that human assistants will be unable to while the man is in the hospital. With that mindset, we're simply looking at the dog's trained function, which is to help a person perform tasks they cannot independently complete. Since we're not considering the psychological implications of independence with regard to certain tasks afforded by the man-dog team, let's look at the dog as a valuable piece of property.

You don't tell someone they don't need their Porsche keys in the ER, that someone can bring them later, if the person has their keys with them... you don't force someone to leave their expensive belongings on the roadside... if we can establish that the dog can be safely transported, on the liability for cost alone, I would think that you would make sure that person's property is safeguarded whether you liked dogs or not.

Hm.

Just a new angle that started ticking around in my brain...

(It'll do anything to avoid studying for this damn exam...)

Wendy

CO EMT-B

Actually, that`s a really great thought, that I always had like in the back of my mind, but I couldn`t phrase it out.

Even if the dog`s not needed to perform it`s duties in the hospital, the emotional part of taking him away from his owner is a huge part. It`s not only about parting him from his pet (yeah, I know service animals are no pets, I`m just saying this this way to distinguish it from the argument about leaving someone`s cat behind), it`s like parting him from the possibility to act independently.

You don`t take away someone`s glasses, only because he doesn`t need them in the hospital. You don`t tell someone - `Dude, you don`t need to walk anyway, so we`ll leave your wooden leg behind`.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Vorenus

[romneyfor2012]

Actually, I frequently tell patients to not take stuff to the hospital that they initially might consider bringing: jewelry, wheelchairs, walkers, suitcases full of clothes, as these things are not needed.

With that being said, I would take the dog.

But to play devils advocate to your statement vorenus, hospitals typically do not allow children to stay with the patient during their stay, and may not allow family visitation under certain circumstances. Wouldn't your family be "needed" more than a dog ? Say you are a first time mom, and you got MRSA in your c-section wound, and now you can not hold or breastfeed your baby, would that not be traumatic emotionally ?

[Vorenus]

But to play devils advocate to your statement vorenus, hospitals typically do not allow children to stay with the patient during their stay, and may not allow family visitation under certain circumstances. Wouldn't your family be "needed" more than a dog ? Say you are a first time mom, and you got MRSA in your c-section wound, and now you can not hold or breastfeed your baby, would that not be traumatic emotionally ?

Sure, but to be pedantic on my part ( ), if you really go to the meaning of my post, it would only be the same if one of the family was trained to be your full-time "seeing-eye-service" dude.

[DwayneEMTP]

...Even if the dog`s not needed to perform it`s duties in the hospital...

...it`s like parting him from the possibility to act independently.

You don`t take away someone`s glasses, only because he doesn`t need them in the hospital. You don`t tell someone - `Dude, you don`t need to walk anyway, so we`ll leave your wooden leg behind`.

Those two statements seem to contradict each other to my way of reading. Right, or no?

And Wendy, how much care do a set of keys or a necklace need in that environment compared to a dog?

Again, I'm not saying to leave the dog unattended, and in fact barring severe circumstances I would certainly take it. But how do you justify taking this man's dog, in this scenario, yet refuse to take all of the other non registered fat, smelly pets that would serve the same, and likely even more so, emotional purpose for gram and grandpa that have no family or other means of emotional support?

Dwayne

[Vorenus]

Those two statements seem to contradict each other to my way of reading. Right, or no?

And Wendy, how much care do a set of keys or a necklace need in that environment compared to a dog?

Again, I'm not saying to leave the dog unattended, and in fact barring severe circumstances I would certainly take it. But how do you justify taking this man's dog, in this scenario, yet refuse to take all of the other non registered fat, smelly pets that would serve the same, and likely even more so, emotional purpose for gram and grandpa that have no family or other means of emotional support?

Dwayne

Getting into some philosophical stuff here - I`m loving it!

In my way of thinking - no.

I think you gotta differentiate between two sphere`s here.

The first, would be the one where you define an item/object/being for it`s use.

The second would be to put your findings into the context for the person.

So, following that strain of thought, there`d be a difference between Fiona the cat, which is dearly loved by her owner, and Hachiko (name just got into my brain - you gotta watch the movie, which has the same name!) the service animal.

While there`s "only" an emotional bond with the first animal, the second is compensating for a physical deficit of it`s owner. The best example would be a seeing-eye-dog.

Now, I guess, in the mind of it`s owner, Hachiko would be "linked" to his ability to compensate for his loss of the sense (seeing). So, if you`d take away the dog, it would be like taking away his ability to "see" the outside world (`cause his doing that through his dog in a crude way).

So, even if the doggies service isn`t really needed, `cause the pat. is in a safe enviroment, I think he would experience the parting of the animal as a loss of his sense.

Example:

You`re living on an island - which you don`t need to leave, though it`s reassuring to know there`s a bridge to the mainland if you ever feel the need to get out of there.

Even if you don`t need to leave the island, wouldn`t it be bad to know that the bridge got burned down (assuming it`s a wooden bridge).

To clarify - I`m only going into the extent of the emotional part, of course, this is no argumentation for any legal responsibility and it`s just guesswork/my thoughts,

[DwayneEMTP]

...Example:

You`re living on an island - which you don`t need to leave, though it`s reassuring to know there`s a bridge to the mainland if you ever feel the need to get out of there.

Even if you don`t need to leave the island, wouldn`t it be bad to know that the bridge got burned down...?

Man, good point...I'll need to think on that as I can't offer an even halfway intelligent reply...

My knee jerk reaction would be instead to equate the emotional need of a pet combined with the emotional need of a LEOs firearm. If we are to argue that the dog is in no way a pet, then we can't even take into account that part of the equation. He has then simply lost nothing more than a tool, than an officer has lost when he has to give up his gun to another officer to be transported. And we don't rage for the officer, right?

Both are going to certainly have an emotional deficit without them, but neither has actually truly lost anything more in that environment than granny has when we remove her from her home and her pet, thus her sense of familiarity, security, and often her only companion.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that this dog had no value AT ALL to this person, only against what appeared to me to be politically correct, yet illogical, outrage at this mans inconvenience when he was actually not inconvenienced any more than any other person in a similar, non handicapped, scenario. See?

Dwayne

[JPINFV]

Yes.. but does a helper monkey have cleavage?

Breast or butt cleavage?

[treaux]

What an entertaining post. I think the issue with the original medics was that they left the dog on the street and didn't accommodate it or the patient. I have transported a service dog with a patient once and it did end up giving me terrible allergies. Not a big deal as it wasn't an emergent transport, but my response to someone asking for a dog to come with us in the ambulance on a code 3 or trauma call would be a swift no. I would however notify my supervisor who would make arrangements to have the dog transported (we have done this several times in the past) including coming to pick it up himself.

I agree that the dog is not needed in the ambulance and I'd be hard pressed to ever bring an animal into the back of an ambulance due to the danger to that animal. Imagine a hard stop or turn that could throw the animal into something sharp (like the brackets that secure our D-tanks) or into the step well on the side that could injure or kill it. Imagine the lawsuit you'd get if that happened vs this "complaint" about the patient not being accommodated for properly.

Remember, our job is also a customer service job, so it's a given that we try to work things out to our patient's satisfaction. Anytime you act like an a-hole to a patient a complaint is likely to follow.

[Vorenus]

Both are going to certainly have an emotional deficit without them, but neither has actually truly lost anything more in that environment than granny has when we remove her from her home and her pet, thus her sense of familiarity, security, and often her only companion.

Hm... as said, I think you gotta differentiate between a purely emotional purpose, and an emotional purpose that is linked to a physical deficit/need (like seeing, following the seeing-eye-dog example. ).

If I had to categorize, I`d take the pat. without the dog on the one side, and the two others on the other (LEO an`granny).

Though, I still see a huge difference between the granny and the LEO, since a weapon can only give you the opportunity to use it yourself, it`s nothing more than an extent/maximised version of your personal defense, it can really give you nothing back, where as a pet, that`s a whole different thing, since it operates for itself-.

@JPINFV: Does it really matters? If you dress an ape the right way, you`ll get both, but I can`t really see the sense in it...

Edited November 28, 2011 by Vorenus

[DFIB]

Yes.. but does a helper monkey have cleavage?

Yes Ma'am. I wonder if that will get me a donut from the break room?