Medics refuse to take service dog

[HERBIE1]

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

Catastrophic and life altering? I agree with you- No way. Worthy of a lawsuit and damages or a loss of employment? Certainly not.

Cause for reeducation of the crew and a review and/or establishment of pertinent laws and rules regarding service animals for the entire department? Absolutely.

[Richard B the EMT]

I posted the following in the Firehouse comments, and relayed it to the Long Island Chapter President of the National Federation of the blind.

Incredible! The local EMS violates national law by separating a service animal, in this case, a "seeing eye" dog from the person the dog is supposed to stay with, no matter what. This, in the city where the headquarters of the National Federation of the Blind is situated? I forsee a bunch of lawsuits against the department, for such neglect in following that specific of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which had input and influence from the NFB.

As a mention, "Seeing Eye" is just one school that trains blind persons and their dogs as teams.

In disclosure, I am a sighted associate of the Long Island, NY, chapter of the NFB, as well as a NY State EMT for the last 38 years.

[ambodriver]

I'm not taking a dog in my rig. Who knows how that dog can react? I don't know anything about this animal, is it properly trained etc etc. What if it goes berserk while I'm starting an IV on the pt., thinking I'm harming him? Find someone else to transport the animal. If you called 911, and have a true emergency, lets not worry about your dog.

If it wasn't a true emergency, take a cab, and your dog to your doctor.

I'm not trying to be mean. I understand these service dogs are a great help to people, however in a 911 situation wo gets in the rig is up to the medics on scene.

edit: I'd have PD transport the dog

Edited November 24, 2011 by ambodriver

[hatelilpeepees]

I agree with having the dog transported by animal control or PD, you do not know how the dog will react to strangers, many patients have allergies to dog hair and dandruff, and he is not walking anywhere soon. He does not need his dog while in the hospital.

Where is the hospital going to store his dog during treatment ?

Edited November 24, 2011 by hatelilpeepees

[DwayneEMTP]

...Beyond stupid... If someone cannot understand that a service dog is vital to a disabled person, they are in serious need of retraining...

Stupid fucking arsehole medics...

Morons. What were they thinking?...

...They obviously weren't thinking..

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

I'm not saying that it has nothing to do with the blind guy and is all about feeling good about yourself, but yeah, that is much of what I'm saying, as the rest isn't logical to me.

They didn't take a man's 'lifeline' they took a tool. That was a foolish thing to do, but not the horrendous injustice that many seem to feel that it is.

He's pissed because he wanted his pet with him. He's using the "They stole my eyes!" line to fuel his lawsuit and many here seem onboard with that plea.. But in this case they stole nothing but his companionship, something that happens to many, many patients that we treat. He wasn't raped, or beaten, or abused, he was inconvenienced.

We take patients from what they know, do to them things that they don't understand, make them scared and uncomfortable. This man had no special horrors. He suffered no more than anyone else that is scared and injured. But because he's visually challenged in some way, we're supposed to be outraged. And I'm not.

He was put out because his pet was not brought along, per his orders. His reaction to that wasn't to educate the responders and the organization that they work for but to call a lawyer and the newspaper. That is not the reaction of someone that was scared, but someone that wants to get sympathy and get paid.

Despite popular opinion his vision status doesn't make him any less of a whiney opportunist than anyone else that chooses to get paid instead of work for positive change.

It sucks that he has vision issues. But having those issues does not preclude for him having to sack up sometimes when the shit hits the fan. He has a million ways to be productive and yet he chose to be hateful and aggressive. He gets no sympathy from me for that.

My son has many more challenges every day than this man does, yet has almost none of the protections. Many times I've shed tears for the things that I wish were possible to make his life easier, but you know what? Sometimes having special challenges mean that you sometimes have additional pain.

That doesn't mean that the world is obligated to remove every possible inconvenience at every possible opportunity or you should get a fat wad of cash. He's nearly 70 years old, and visually challenged, (I continue to use that term instead of blind as the majority of 'blind' people had some level of vision, sometimes significant, but it was limited in some way, though most that hear the term assume a complete lack of vision) and pissed off that he was treated like everyone else.

Would I have taken the dog? Of course. Do I think that they should have taken the dog? Very little question, though I can think of a ton of scenarios where they shouldn't have.

The news article is severely skewed toward the injured with no comment from the crew involved and yet nearly everyone here was outraged at their actions. That shows a complete lack of balanced thought and true curiosity as to what may have happened. That is really illogical to me, which is what led my argument down the 'PC' path, a common view that I find nearly always emotionally charged yet intellectually vapid.

Dwayne

[hatelilpeepees]

WOW dwayne, we agree on something, guess hell is freezing over. LOL

[HERBIE1]

I'm not taking a dog in my rig. Who knows how that dog can react? I don't know anything about this animal, is it properly trained etc etc. What if it goes berserk while I'm starting an IV on the pt., thinking I'm harming him? Find someone else to transport the animal. If you called 911, and have a true emergency, lets not worry about your dog.

If it wasn't a true emergency, take a cab, and your dog to your doctor.

I'm not trying to be mean. I understand these service dogs are a great help to people, however in a 911 situation wo gets in the rig is up to the medics on scene.

edit: I'd have PD transport the dog

Well, if you refuse to allow that service dog in your rig, you would be in violation of our department policy. Obviously that would depend on your particular service.

[Eydawn]

I see it both ways.

Someone who is handicapped develops entire coping mechanisms to deal with the world that, when removed, profoundly affect their ability to make good decisions or interact to the best of their ability. As patient advocate, aren't we supposed to create the best possible care environment in which our patients can be active participants in their own care? If this blind person has become so dependent on this dog, especially as someone who has lost his sight LATE IN LIFE (much different than being born blind or losing it as a younger child, when you are more adaptable), don't we need to take that into account?

Dwayne- tell me, that as the parent of an autistic pre-teen, that you wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep your kid's service animal with him (especially in a high stress situation) if it allowed him to function to his maximum capacity and be an active participant in his own care... Just saying. I know you would, if it made a difference. Do we owe our patients any less?

Now, we could argue that service animals are highly trained, less likely to be a threat to medical providers, and all around better pooches (generalizing to dogs here) to have in your ambulance than the run of the mill untrained mutt. However, if there is some valid reason for not transporting the animal, you better be able to provide reassurance to the individual that you will make provisions for their animal to be safely transported either by PD or animal control to a controlled environment, and that if there are care issues prohibiting the animal's immediate presence in the care environment that the hospital will ensure that the animal will be reunited with the person as soon as is safely possible. You're not going to leave someone's expensive seeing eye, "hearing ear" or seizure dog on the street with nobody to look after them, just like you wouldn't leave a kid sitting there.

That's emotionally detrimental to the patient if you refuse to make sure that this valuable companion animal is taken care of, and there's no good reason to do so unless this patient is DYING (but even then, you can enlist the help of bystanders, etc.)

Should they have transported the animal? I say it's their discretion. Should they have made sure there was safe, adequate transport and handling of the animal? Absolutely, especially since the patient was totally freaking out about it. Who knows what clinical stuff we're going to miss because we're distracted trying to calm down a freaked out patient.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[DwayneEMTP]

WOW dwayne, we agree on something, guess hell is freezing over. LOL

What part did we agree on?

Dwayne

[DFIB]

The end all argument in this discussion is wither the blind guy has the right to take his dog versus the convenience to take his dog.

Should EMS providers have to risk riding with an unfamiliar animal that has teeth and does not speak English to accommodate a patient?

This is confusing for me. You have to accommodate all public places but in healthcare a person can be released from employment if their disability poses a "Direct Threat" “Direct threat” is defined as a significant risk of substantial harm to the individual or others in the workplace that cannot be reduced or eliminated through reasonable accommodation (taken from eeoc web page)... So what if the dog is perceived as a direct threat.

What happens if I transport the dog and it bites me. I consequently stab it in the throat. Am I going to be liable for defending myself?

Would the animal have the same rights as a person since I gave it "person status" by allowing it ti ride in my highly sophisticated, mobile emergency medicine unit?

I mean once you factor in the "he stabbed my eyes in the throat" emotion does EMS worker stand a chance at a proper defense?

The EEOC web page states that the animal is the owner’s responsibility and can be excluded at any time it becomes disruptive or violent. Do I just dump a dog with lots of valuable training of on the side of the road because it wanted to defend it's master from a perceived danger in the ambulance?

Does the Americans With Disabilities Act specifically cover this scenario?

Richard B you seem to be pretty involved in the disabilities world, What do you know that will enlighten us or help direct us to specific articles regarding service animals and ambulances?

Edited November 24, 2011 by DFIB