ckroll

Censorship seems harsh. That said, free speech isn't free any more than 'freedom' is. Freedoms come with a responsibility to others to show respect,restraint. To paraphrase a well known opening line in a letter addressing a complaint.... Dear Sir, Thank you for sharing your views. I agreed with you until I read your letter....
I wasn't aware people were unhappy, thought it sounded less than serious..... but if there is one more comment about "grow a pair", "man up", or "quit being a girl" you're really going to piss me off. There is nothing wrong with having a 'full set' [a.k.a. two XX's] of chromosome 23. And there is no honor in being thick skinned if it leaves the person insensitive, indifferent, unable or unwilling to show compassion. Grow a thicker skin or take a walk is more or less the same as saying, my sandbox, my rules. The only person who has a right to say that on this forum has asked us our opinion about how to keep all participants engaged. We owe him better answers.
I've never met anyone from whom I could not learn something and to whom I could not teach something, if one actively keeps an open mind and an open heart. Pushing to the sidelines members who don't meet some 'manly' standard is giving up the opportunity to teach and to learn. I hope we are all here to do a little of both.
Is there value in anonymous posts? Require everyone put their real name on what they write... and maybe try 'girling up' once in a while.

Censorship seems harsh. That said, free speech isn't free any more than 'freedom' is. Freedoms come with a responsibility to others to show respect,restraint. To paraphrase a well known opening line in a letter addressing a complaint.... Dear Sir, Thank you for sharing your views. I agreed with you until I read your letter....
I wasn't aware people were unhappy, thought it sounded less than serious..... but if there is one more comment about "grow a pair", "man up", or "quit being a girl" you're really going to piss me off. There is nothing wrong with having a 'full set' [a.k.a. two XX's] of chromosome 23. And there is no honor in being thick skinned if it leaves the person insensitive, indifferent, unable or unwilling to show compassion. Grow a thicker skin or take a walk is more or less the same as saying, my sandbox, my rules. The only person who has a right to say that on this forum has asked us our opinion about how to keep all participants engaged. We owe him better answers.
I've never met anyone from whom I could not learn something and to whom I could not teach something, if one actively keeps an open mind and an open heart. Pushing to the sidelines members who don't meet some 'manly' standard is giving up the opportunity to teach and to learn. I hope we are all here to do a little of both.
Is there value in anonymous posts? Require everyone put their real name on what they write... and maybe try 'girling up' once in a while.

Red though they may be , I think it's rogue.

Given what Gandhi did with a diaper and determination you might want to rethink that point.
Too tired to discuss history??? WEAKNESS I smell blood in the water!

Please do, I'm dying to read it.

First,substitute Iranian for American and that's about the way 'our adversaries' look at us. Actions have consequences. We are where we are because it is human nature to defend territory against threats. Let's talk history. The US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran in order to install the Shah as a puppet who was willing to trade Iranian oil for hot cars and hotter women.
In response to foreign intervention designed to destabilize an elected government and pillage another country's natural resources there was a revolution that brought into power a hardline response against a soulless aggressor.
When we did it to the British in the 18th century it was an act of heroism on our part. In the 1950's when the US went adventuring in Iran on behalf of Standard Oil and friends we chose the role of aggressor and we got beat at it. We earned the wrath of the Iranians. Their desire to defend themselves against a superpower by putting nuclear capability up against nuclear capability is as justified as it is horrifying.
Earth--and history-- is littered with the remains of super powers that fell prey to hubris, selling off their vast resources to feed a war machine at the expense of domestic investment. As finite resources are sucked out of domestic programs into insatiable militaristic adventures once dominant nations become walled fortresses defending an empty, impoverished, society that fails, not by being overrun, but by succumbing to ignorance, disease and eventual anarchy as desperate people with nothing left but guns have to kill each other for bread.

First,substitute Iranian for American and that's about the way 'our adversaries' look at us. Actions have consequences. We are where we are because it is human nature to defend territory against threats. Let's talk history. The US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran in order to install the Shah as a puppet who was willing to trade Iranian oil for hot cars and hotter women.
In response to foreign intervention designed to destabilize an elected government and pillage another country's natural resources there was a revolution that brought into power a hardline response against a soulless aggressor.
When we did it to the British in the 18th century it was an act of heroism on our part. In the 1950's when the US went adventuring in Iran on behalf of Standard Oil and friends we chose the role of aggressor and we got beat at it. We earned the wrath of the Iranians. Their desire to defend themselves against a superpower by putting nuclear capability up against nuclear capability is as justified as it is horrifying.
Earth--and history-- is littered with the remains of super powers that fell prey to hubris, selling off their vast resources to feed a war machine at the expense of domestic investment. As finite resources are sucked out of domestic programs into insatiable militaristic adventures once dominant nations become walled fortresses defending an empty, impoverished, society that fails, not by being overrun, but by succumbing to ignorance, disease and eventual anarchy as desperate people with nothing left but guns have to kill each other for bread.

We're discussing various foreign affairs policies, not "fault". Try and keep up if you can.

Has anyone read this letter yet? Well I for one couldn't agree more with what this REAL American has to say to our President.
Make sure to follow the link in the article linked below and read the whole letter
http://www.kitv.com/politics/2233810...il.html?hpt=T2

Typical liberal response. I'm a bit surprised that you didn't include the fact that it was Bush's fault.

I think the issue is that the young man did what he felt was ok and non-threatening and the flight crew reacted in a manner that they felt they needed to for the safety of the passengers in their charge. I don't think the issue here is religious indifference or callousness or the failure to ask a question. What we need to remember is hind sight is always 20/20. One could consider that the flight attendant may have felt that asking the young man a question about the perceived "threatening device" might be considered confrontational and a situation that they wanted to avoid at 30,000 +/- feet. I think the thread brought up some good points that better education might have helped but equally added that to expect every flight attendant to be a Jeopardy champion is a little unrealistic. Issues will always arise and people will always be inconvenienced but if it is for the safety of the public at large that must take priority. It is through these inconveniences that education develops and protocols to avoid reoccurrences evolve. "Out of every interaction in life we should learn something new for when we cease to learn we cease to evolve."

Only the rescuers on the call are in a position to judge the risk/benefits/value of the operation. They know their abilities, which from viewing the clip are remarkable. It looks like the ultimate training exercise. Pulling a mannequin is nothing like dealing with a terrified living creature. As we all know, when conditions are right for one emergency, they are right for many. Had there been a need for the resources that were at scene, say for a person in the water, one may assume those resources would have been redeployed to the higher value target---and response time would have been excellent.
Having been bitten or kicked a time or six on rescues, when handling wild/terrified animals it is almost a given that teeth or hooves will be an issue. Getting bitten is not that bad. It's why some of us have had rabies vaccinations and why there is prophylaxis for animal bites with unknown vaccination history.
Motorcycle tie down straps from wreckers work well for securing legs of large things that kick. Cargo netting, commercial or home made, especially out of rope that floats is light weight and works well for 'If you can't tie it, tangle it.' situations in conjunction with a handful of carabiners. A jacket/shirt flipped over a head with sleeves used to secure it buys time.
As for, 'it's only a dog'. A life is a life; where one draws the line on value is a personal decision. -- A society can be judged by how it treats its animals and its elderly--- [someone else said that]. If we start placing a value on a life before deciding what resources it gets.... well that might be a slippery slope.
Operations one is well trained for will be easy/safe and operations one has not trained for will be difficult/dangerous. My opinion is the rescue of the dog was a well orchestrated act of compassion that speaks volumes about those who did it and their dedication to training and preparedness. It should make us all proud.

Only the rescuers on the call are in a position to judge the risk/benefits/value of the operation. They know their abilities, which from viewing the clip are remarkable. It looks like the ultimate training exercise. Pulling a mannequin is nothing like dealing with a terrified living creature. As we all know, when conditions are right for one emergency, they are right for many. Had there been a need for the resources that were at scene, say for a person in the water, one may assume those resources would have been redeployed to the higher value target---and response time would have been excellent.
Having been bitten or kicked a time or six on rescues, when handling wild/terrified animals it is almost a given that teeth or hooves will be an issue. Getting bitten is not that bad. It's why some of us have had rabies vaccinations and why there is prophylaxis for animal bites with unknown vaccination history.
Motorcycle tie down straps from wreckers work well for securing legs of large things that kick. Cargo netting, commercial or home made, especially out of rope that floats is light weight and works well for 'If you can't tie it, tangle it.' situations in conjunction with a handful of carabiners. A jacket/shirt flipped over a head with sleeves used to secure it buys time.
As for, 'it's only a dog'. A life is a life; where one draws the line on value is a personal decision. -- A society can be judged by how it treats its animals and its elderly--- [someone else said that]. If we start placing a value on a life before deciding what resources it gets.... well that might be a slippery slope.
Operations one is well trained for will be easy/safe and operations one has not trained for will be difficult/dangerous. My opinion is the rescue of the dog was a well orchestrated act of compassion that speaks volumes about those who did it and their dedication to training and preparedness. It should make us all proud.

Only the rescuers on the call are in a position to judge the risk/benefits/value of the operation. They know their abilities, which from viewing the clip are remarkable. It looks like the ultimate training exercise. Pulling a mannequin is nothing like dealing with a terrified living creature. As we all know, when conditions are right for one emergency, they are right for many. Had there been a need for the resources that were at scene, say for a person in the water, one may assume those resources would have been redeployed to the higher value target---and response time would have been excellent.
Having been bitten or kicked a time or six on rescues, when handling wild/terrified animals it is almost a given that teeth or hooves will be an issue. Getting bitten is not that bad. It's why some of us have had rabies vaccinations and why there is prophylaxis for animal bites with unknown vaccination history.
Motorcycle tie down straps from wreckers work well for securing legs of large things that kick. Cargo netting, commercial or home made, especially out of rope that floats is light weight and works well for 'If you can't tie it, tangle it.' situations in conjunction with a handful of carabiners. A jacket/shirt flipped over a head with sleeves used to secure it buys time.
As for, 'it's only a dog'. A life is a life; where one draws the line on value is a personal decision. -- A society can be judged by how it treats its animals and its elderly--- [someone else said that]. If we start placing a value on a life before deciding what resources it gets.... well that might be a slippery slope.
Operations one is well trained for will be easy/safe and operations one has not trained for will be difficult/dangerous. My opinion is the rescue of the dog was a well orchestrated act of compassion that speaks volumes about those who did it and their dedication to training and preparedness. It should make us all proud.

There is arguably not a more important topic on the planet to be discussed. What we are suffering, globally, locally can be traced to ignorance of other cultures and belief systems. A century ago, travel and communication were arduous enough that it sufficed for most people to know what was happening on the next block. Today a person 10,000 miles away can change our lives tomorrow.
The US does not understand that other cultures see our export of our way of life as a dire threat to theirs. We don't understand how they will respond. A 17 year old boy did not understand how his actions would be perceived; a flight attendant did not understand what he was doing. In this case a plane got delayed, inconsequential nuisance [as long as it wasn't your plane]. Wars have been started over less.
We all have an obligation--as citizens of a free country-- to educate ourselves so that we can be mindful, compassionate and tolerant of other cultures and so that we can properly know when there is a threat and when there isn't. How many people understand the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam..... or what they have in common? Clearly not enough.
I think education is the answer, but how do we live our lives and make good choices in the interim?

The work of the devil, they are. Being married to a computer scientist, I love almost all things techie and was prepared to love ECR's. Not so, and this said, I don't use them in any of my EMS capacities, but I work with those who do. Part of it is transition but my sense is that both patient care [or perception of patient care] and transfer of information are suffering in the interim.
As an ALS provider I have walked in on patients in distress and found three BLS providers huddled anxiously over.... the computer. Yes, it is those drop down windows.... and on occasion I have asked for new vitals and been told..'wait a minute', something that did not happen so much when we were paper based. At the hospital, if I ask for a copy of what information BLS has collected, they can't do it. I don't think the hospital is consistently getting timely info either.
Early last year I went to an all day call audit. Even the poorer paper based reports had vital signs and enough of a narrative to get a sense of what was going on. The electronic based reports were maybe 7 pages long, what was important was buried in rafts of 'normal' results that had no value. And I am guessing in the event of legal action that a computer generated list of dozens of 'normal' findings that in fact were never checked is going to reflect badly on providers and call into question the veracity of the work that was actually done.
None of this is meant as criticism of BLS providers I work with who are working hard to provide both patient care and learn a new information system sometimes under difficult circumstances. In time it will no doubt improve, but for the moment, information seems to be getting sucked into the box and is doing so at the expense of patient contact.
While the elderly woman who feels sick may not be in need of emergent care, both she and the family think of it as an emergency. A care giver baracaded behind a black or silver wall, typing away just doesn't look or feel like patient care, and it isn't, it's data entry. In circumstances where there are sufficient crew members that one can scribe and another can provide care this is not an issue, but running with small crews and in situations where companies are demanding quick turn around, something has to give and it's not the computer program.
Obviously ECR's are the future and the future is now. What needs to be addressed is how, while paying homage to the computer god, to keep primary focus on what matters, which is the patient.

The work of the devil, they are. Being married to a computer scientist, I love almost all things techie and was prepared to love ECR's. Not so, and this said, I don't use them in any of my EMS capacities, but I work with those who do. Part of it is transition but my sense is that both patient care [or perception of patient care] and transfer of information are suffering in the interim.
As an ALS provider I have walked in on patients in distress and found three BLS providers huddled anxiously over.... the computer. Yes, it is those drop down windows.... and on occasion I have asked for new vitals and been told..'wait a minute', something that did not happen so much when we were paper based. At the hospital, if I ask for a copy of what information BLS has collected, they can't do it. I don't think the hospital is consistently getting timely info either.
Early last year I went to an all day call audit. Even the poorer paper based reports had vital signs and enough of a narrative to get a sense of what was going on. The electronic based reports were maybe 7 pages long, what was important was buried in rafts of 'normal' results that had no value. And I am guessing in the event of legal action that a computer generated list of dozens of 'normal' findings that in fact were never checked is going to reflect badly on providers and call into question the veracity of the work that was actually done.
None of this is meant as criticism of BLS providers I work with who are working hard to provide both patient care and learn a new information system sometimes under difficult circumstances. In time it will no doubt improve, but for the moment, information seems to be getting sucked into the box and is doing so at the expense of patient contact.
While the elderly woman who feels sick may not be in need of emergent care, both she and the family think of it as an emergency. A care giver baracaded behind a black or silver wall, typing away just doesn't look or feel like patient care, and it isn't, it's data entry. In circumstances where there are sufficient crew members that one can scribe and another can provide care this is not an issue, but running with small crews and in situations where companies are demanding quick turn around, something has to give and it's not the computer program.
Obviously ECR's are the future and the future is now. What needs to be addressed is how, while paying homage to the computer god, to keep primary focus on what matters, which is the patient.

Excellent point. We need to recognize a distinction between EPCRs and electronic submission. Submitting call information to the state should be electronic in all circumstances. When and how data entry gets done is worth discussion. In an ideal environment the patient would have their patient information in electronic format that could be uploaded to a laptop that could deliver patient and care information to a hospital computer on arrival...... while instantaneously debiting their mastercard for services.
In an ideal environment one teaspoon of yeast could cover the earth 15 feet deep in yeast in something like 5 days. Frankly, I'm betting we get covered in yeast before we get coordinated patient information.
A question that needs to be addressed is what 'we' [as patients, as providers, as DOH] want data entry to do for us..... QA/QI, billing, improved information transfer, improving patient care? In theory, it can do all those things. In practice, it can't do all of them at the same time. Given 10 minutes on scene and 15 minutes in a moving ambulance, I do not see a primary EMS provider being able to do an adequate initial assessment, package, move to the rig, perform ALS interventions, reassess, contact the hospital, give a report, and complete an ECR while doing all of those things well.
Nurses in the ED do not meet the patient with a laptop; physicians do not meet the patient with a laptop. EMS does its patients and itself a disservice if we let data entry become our primary purpose. Unless EMS is willing to dedicate a member every call to field entry, then I don't think a laptop should be taken out of the ambulance or opened prior to delivering the patient to definitive care.