RE: Need for less federal government?

RE: Need for less federal government? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

UncleNasty -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/10/2010 2:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 My thoughts on CPR are this. If a person needs it and you don't give it, they will surely die. If you give it, and don't give it incorrectly, you could save their life. I doubt, if they survive a situation with a few cracked ribs (which often does happen to a person when they get CPR), they would happily settle for the discomfort than the option they were left with, had someone not given them CPR. Also, I'm not entirely sure on that, or if the law even exists anymore, but there used to be a "good samaritan" law that prevented people from getting sued in situations just like this, as long as they didn't charge for their services. If I were in a restaurant choking, I would hope some waiter, stranger, or anyone would help me. I'm a retired respiratory therapist. If I was choking and still conscious, I've been taught how to do the heimlich on myself with a chair. If I pass out and everyone was afraid of a law suit for saving me.....well.....my family will be collecting my life insurance. Just some numbers/statistics I was given by trusted instructors during my Wilderness EMT training. Rate of success when CRP is administered as a means of reviving someone: 1 in 50,000. Uncle Nasty

tazzygirl -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/10/2010 9:09:40 PM)
The success rate for CPR ranges from 5 percent to 10 percent, depending on how quickly it is administered after a person's heart stops. "This is important because every minute lost in applying CPR results in a 10 percent decrease in successful resuscitation," Geddes said. "Time is the enemy. After 10 minutes, very few are resuscitated. The American Heart Association recommends pushing with enough force to compress the chest 1.5 to 2 inches, which requires 100 to 125 pounds of force.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531113247.htm This was 2007. Your friend may have meant if given in the wilderness, that may be the survival rate.

Louve00 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 7:42:13 AM)
The purpose of a lay person giving CPR (I would think) would be to sustain the persons life til medical help (the ambulance) arrives. I agree if your out in the wilderness, the liklihood of an ambulance arriving anytime soon is zero to nil. That means you have no means to stabilize a cardiac condition (via cardiac drugs or just plain ole monitoring to see what his heart is doing), or a way to administer oxygen to replenish a depleted body (also essential for successful revival). I agree its pretty useless out in the wilderness, and you're really most likely to exhaust yourself to the point of having to stop and let the person die anyway, if its just you and him...unless divine intervention takes place. [:)] To me, the whole idea is to give it til help arrives. If you have no way to get help to the situation, then yes...how on earth can you save the individual?

subrob1967 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 8:12:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I watch the Today Show every morning and I saw the exact story you're talking about! In fact, that woman asked the 911 operator (i think they said) 11 times!!! what to do and the 911 operator offered her silence and 15 requests through the phone call to be calm. I was horrified. As I listened to the story, they went on to say something that is entirely true. In most cases, you have to have a license to do someones hair and even their fingernails. But to employ someone to sit down and take life emergency calls, without the slightest idea on how to instruct someone to save a life is beyond me (never mind perform the procedure themself, just have a little laminated card they could read to the caller, for crying out loud). As far as my thoughts on it, I can only hope procedure will change. As I said, they don't even have to be certified in CPR, since you can't do CPR over the phone, but have a little card, or a little book, or some kind of cheat sheet for the imbeciles to be able to read instructions to the caller. In fact, knowing what caliber of people they hire, it would be more comforting to know they had an entire procedure sheet next to them with written instructions on how to handle ANY disaster. I would imagine a huge lawsuit can make that happen. Maybe the operator knew how to perform CPR, but due to legal guidelines set forth by the department, was unable to offer advice, due to the legal ramifications. Because you know damn well that if the mother tried CPR, and ended up doing more harm than good, good old Momma would have sued the city, as well as the dispatcher. This tragedy is no one's fault but the mother's.

Moonhead -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 9:27:20 AM)
Well people have mentioned this good samaritan act you have in the 'States, but I do wonder now this has been mentioned again whether that would apply to somebody whose reading instructions over the phone rather than physically doing anything.

Louve00 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 9:34:38 AM)
For not knowing CPR, right. But she called the right place to get help for her child. She may have gotten the ambulance, but she didn't get the instruction she was asking for. Its a misfortunate incident that could have been avoided. But to assume there would be a procedure in place NOT to save a human life is rediculous. And, my thoughts go the next step on that. If you're applying for a job...or given a job taking calls to help people in life and death situations, the basics shouldn't be denied. I have yet to see any hospital get sued, any ambulance crew, Dr, laymen, laywer or thief get sued for incorrectly giving CPR to a dying person. (keep in mind malpractice is one thing and gets into tazzy's statement earlier about more qualified people giving CPR.) Honestly....if you don't give it, what are the chances of the person coming out any better off? Your cynical views on the mothers reasons for not trying to give CPR to her child, on her own, without calling 911 and asking, are just assumptions.

Moonhead -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 9:45:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 For not knowing CPR, right. But she called the right place to get help for her child. She may have gotten the ambulance, but she didn't get the instruction she was asking for. Its a misfortunate incident that could have been avoided. But to assume there would be a procedure in place NOT to save a human life is rediculous. And, my thoughts go the next step on that. If you're applying for a job...or given a job taking calls to help people in life and death situations, the basics shouldn't be denied. This is somebody who'd applied for a job despatching ambulances, not working as a paramedic, though. Would they even be able to afford despatchers if they were all on the same pay rate as the EMTs? They'd need to be if they were going to be expected to have the training.

CarrieO -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 9:50:40 AM)
Not sure if anyone took the time to read further into the link Tazzy provided but, in this link that continues to explain the story featured on the Today Show... http://www.911dispatch.com/db/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2766&Itemid=1 it clearly states... "The city has said dispatcher Stephen Williamson and on-scene personnel did everything possible to save the child. Those actions included conferencing in the East Texas Medical Center to the 911 call so that agency could provide pre-arrival medical instructions to the caller. " Not all dispatch centers are set up the same. Many times you have call-takers who's job it is to route the call to a medical center or FD for further instructions. The dispatcher did his job of sending police and EMS along with routing the call to the medical center.

Louve00 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 9:57:59 AM)
I would think the only amount of training they would need is to be able to read. If a 911 operator was given little flash cards, or a procedure sheet, or a manual, or anything outlining a detailed job description that they could read it could have helped in this situation. That's not really training. Well, maybe it is. Maybe they would have to train their operators to know that a person not breathing and without a heartbeat meant he needed CPR. So maybe they would have to be trained to ask a few simple questions as to whether the victim was breathing or had or not had a heartbeat and how to repond for each situation (breathing with heartbeat and breathing without heartbeat would be different situations). That should hardly "require" the same pay rate for an EMT who is actually doing something to help the person.

submittous -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 10:01:44 AM)
Many years ago I was a Fireman in LA, and for a year worked as a dispatcher. I believe it is still the same, the 911 calls come immediately to the LAFD for fire and ambulance and the people on the phone are fireman and able to work with the public on the emergency while the crews are responding. That service is costly, Fireman make a lot more than telephone operators and the facility for 24/7 service is costly. I know the LAPD had operators doing the dispatching in the past but don't know today. Another problem with 911 is it is a central clearing house in many metro areas, there are dozens of municipalities in greater LA and not having a direct number to your local operation means another step in the process and a possibility of being connected to the wrong dispatcher. If that part of the system is automated there is still a chance of error. Like everything in government and services, it is always a balance between cost and service provided... If the citizens are willing to pay for knowledable and skilled people on dispatching it sure can be done.

Moonhead -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 10:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I would think the only amount of training they would need is to be able to read. If a 911 operator was given little flash cards, or a procedure sheet, or a manual, or anything outlining a detailed job description that they could read it could have helped in this situation. That's not really training. Well, maybe it is. Maybe they would have to train their operators to know that a person not breathing and without a heartbeat meant he needed CPR. So maybe they would have to be trained to ask a few simple questions as to whether the victim was breathing or had or not had a heartbeat and how to repond for each situation (breathing with heartbeat and breathing without heartbeat would be different situations). That should hardly "require" the same pay rate for an EMT who is actually doing something to help the person. You'd be happy (say) telling somebody how to perform a tracheotomy from a crib sheet you don't fully understand, then? You'd trust somebody who was flipping burgers in a fast food place until they started a new job last Monday to do that? My own feeling is that nobody without medical training has any business giving medical advice, particularly as their employers are not going to be able to be provide everything they need to know in writing, and they only have somebody else's description of the situation to go on. That's begging for a fuck up. Come to that, can you even be sure that a distraught relative would be able to tell whether or not the patient is still breathing, never mind whether or not their heart's beating? I appreciate your point, but I think you're oversimplifying the situation and not thinking through all of the implications.

Louve00 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/11/2010 12:20:31 PM)
How did we go from CPR to an emergency tracheotomy? While there would be reasons for an emergency tracheotomy, I don't understand why maintaining an open airway as best you can until professional helps arrives (which can be done by positioning alone, not invasively). If they've just been thru trauma and you can't maintain an open airway by positioning only, then you're right. But they have serious problems, if the emergency has caused them to lose their airway and you can't clear it, except by poking a hole in the persons throat!

blacksword404 -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/12/2010 1:32:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl good samaritan laws offer some protection to many of those who have little knowledge but are willing to help. Myself, because i am trained, i would be held to a higher standard than anyone else there if i lend aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law Because of your training you might be sued if you don't help. And a D.A. might try and charge you with a crime.

tazzygirl -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/12/2010 2:32:34 PM)
very true Master BlackSword it often amazes me to see stethscopes hanging from rear view mirrors or to see RN or Dr as part of a license plate. Such people are simply opening themselves up to lawsuits, even frivolous ones. Its hard to say what you did or did not see when driving around. Placed in just the right spot by a shiesty lawyer, and they could lose everything... even having dont nothing wrong or not seeing an accident or a place their help may have been needed.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/12/2010 2:33:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl very true Master BlackSword it often amazes me to see stethscopes hanging from rear view mirrors or to see RN or Dr as part of a license plate. Such people are simply opening themselves up to lawsuits, even frivolous ones. Its hard to say what you did or did not see when driving around. Placed in just the right spot by a shiesty lawyer, and they could lose everything... even having dont nothing wrong or not seeing an accident or a place their help may have been needed. shiesty?

tazzygirl -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/12/2010 4:39:05 PM)
ah hell, willbe, dont pick on my spelling today, k? sheisty... gesh.

Moonhead -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/13/2010 5:14:33 AM)
Shyster?

tazzygirl -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/13/2010 5:36:38 AM)
Dates back to a 1850s lawyer in NYC using very ambiguous methods to obtain right in law suits. As his surname was something like Sheister a judge used "sheisty" as an adjective referring to methods that are immoral, impure, two-faced, opportunist, unreal, fake s..........h..........e.............i......s..........t.............y

Moonhead -> RE: Need for less federal government? (1/13/2010 5:39:46 AM)
Thank you. I hadn't heard that before. I'd always thought the term was yiddish.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125