craig Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Top reasons why working for ASNSW is clearly a sign of mental illness .... - Too much blue (uniforms and gloves are both totally 100% blue) - Old school stretchers from at least 10 years ago (Stryker FTW!) - Not requiring a University Degree (I hear its being worked on) - Still having "Protocols" instead of guidelines which in my reading are quite restrictive - From what I understand non-transport is not an option, if the patient wants to go they must be taken - Um, its NSW? My reply Kiwi - yep blue uniforms but we also have purple gloves....depends on which supplier sends them..... - old school stretchers....never used a sttyker in my time with them.....actually have been used to trial different types of ambulance designed stretchers - uni degree thing is/ was true but you will find most now have it - they are called protocols but they are in fact guidelines and we can vary their implementation if its justified....protocols is a carry over fromt he old days...makes it easy to understand (the old 3 P's protocol, procedures and pharmacology) - non transports is an option, infact the service has been recognised for the implemetation of the ECP and the CARE/ LAPP system of non transport guidelines and patient treatment (one of the first in the world) - yes it is NSW...the place more expat NZeders go to live. go figure (cant be all that bad to you guys, if you could afford to do it with your funny money)...... And Bushy...you studied in NSW, did ride along with the ASNSW, applied to join the ASNSW..but became a Mexican.....maybe it is you that needs a Phsyc consult.....LOL
BushyFromOz Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) And Bushy...you studied in NSW, did ride along with the ASNSW, applied to join the ASNSW..but became a Mexican.....maybe it is you that needs a Phsyc consult.....LOL i had one, it was at rozelle....... they then lost the results and denied they had ever assessed me. I then re-applied, but managed to get committed somewhere else, and im glad i was. The psych ward im in here is much better than some of the shit holes i could have been sent to in NSW :/ Edited January 30, 2013 by BushyFromOz
Kiwiology Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I hear ASNSW has "revolving door" stations where the maximum possible amount of time on those stations are spent applying to get a transfer out of them ... that can't be good!
chbare Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 http://allpsych.com/disorders/index.html This is where you will discover what constitutes a mental illness. This is an abstract from the publication by the American Psychiatric Association & is used to diagnose recognoised mental illnesses. My question is should someone who is diagnosed with a mental illness of Narcilepsy be categorised in the same way that someone with schizophrenia, paranoid type is? or should we look at each case individually, without tarring each person with mental illness with the same brush? If you want to be considered professional, take the emotion out of the gun debate. stop laying the blame on people with mental illness. Look at reality. I do not want to impinge on your constitutional right to bear arms, god forbid, but please answer me one question. Considering the types of weapons used in most gun crime, many are fully automatic weapons, like the bushmaster .223 capable of holding a 30 cartridge magazine, what need is there for them, outside a military use? Hunting does not need this capability, a true hunter is about the skill & aim for 1 shot, not 30. Why should these weapons not be restricted & manufacturers be accountrable for every one produced? Fully automatic? These kinds of guns are used in most gun crimes? How about semiautomatic and how often are sidearms/pistols used in violent crimes? Taking emotion out of the debate and looking at reality requires us to also utilise proper terminology or at least use boundary conditions that allow us to use the terminology within a certain context. For example, "what I really mean by fully automatic is every time I pull the trigger, one round is fired." That is not the common understanding of fully automatic, but at least the term has proper context. It also requires us to look up facts about what types of weapons are most often used in the context of gun crime.
aussiephil Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Chbare bravo for standing up to the argument. Albeit lame. Ok you got me on definition of weapon type. Symantics. You failed to address the 2 main points of my post. 1. Defining mental health & how it is do varied that no one would be allowed to own a gun with blanket statements like 'mental health patients shouldn't be allowed to have them'. I gave an example earlier. 2. What need is there for a weapon, either automatic or semi automatic, in a residential setting? I also enhanced this point earlier. Again I thank you for pointing out the difference between an automatic & semi-automatic weapon.
chbare Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 It is not semantics as it can grossly mislead people into believing that these weapons function in ways that are not commonly available to the average citizen of the United States. Not lame at all IMHO. Just trying to reduce the amount of hyperbole that revolves around the topic of gun control in the United States. Again, I ask what type of gun is most often involved in gun crime in the United States? In fact, I have not taken an official stance on this website other than to say that many people in the United States do want something done and that I try to combat hyperbole whenever possible.
Kiwiology Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I don't think there is a problem with people having a firearm for protection of their own home and family from harm, New Zed has some of the strongest gun control laws in the world and I think we have just taken it too far, but then again there are some states in US where you need no ID, no background check and simply the money to purchase a firearm and nobody stops you, which I think is perhaps too far on the other end of the extreme. I am not one of these second amendment bashing gun freaks but having spent enough time in US and around people who have ready access to, and use, their firearms my viewpoint has significantly changed and as I have said, sensible people should be allowed sensible access to firearms but I do not think this extends to fully automatic weapons. People with mental illnesses who are a danger to others, psychotic etc shouldn't be allowed guns that is kinda you know, a no brainer, just like a blind guy shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of an 18 wheel Mack truck, however to say that people with "mental health problems" should not own a firearm is too broad.
aussiephil Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 chbare, let's move on. You have again failed to answer the 2 questions I asked that are far more important. My challenge to you is to answer them.
Happiness Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Okay Im going to comment on the mental illness. We tend to deal with this tragic issues in hind sight. There is always someone who says "Ya you know the guy was alittle weird" I have to say if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck so therefore if it looks crazy it probably is. We cant pigon hole every crusty the clown looking people but you know if there is a gut feeling about someone then maybe someone should take it one step further in the application system. Just saying.............
Recommended Posts