maverick56

Wow, just came back to this thread. Didn't think anyone had posted in it. I appreciate the bits of input from some of you, thanks. And wow, crotchity, I am really glad I don't know you in person because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to keep myself from kicking your ass. I can't help but wonder, do you just get a kick out of stirring shit up and pissing people off online? Or are you actually that ignorant? If so, man, I feel sorry for you. "PSTD is weaklings who are looking for a way out." Wow, just wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. Actually, I don't think it's really worth responding to.

PM

LOL yeah we do. And I never said MI has mountains! Faaaar from it lol. I've spent a couple seasons in the Rockies, I do know the difference. There is some decent backcountry in the UP though, just short.

National Ski Patrol is a national volunteer organization with local patrols serving as volunteer first responders on the hill. Pro patrollers at larger mountains are all at least EMT-B, with most at big resorts being paramedics with a great deal of extra wilderness, mountaineering and avalanche training. Most professional patrollers don't have much respect for NSP members skill-wise, but they serve a great purpose, are good at what they do, and have enough skill to handle day to day issues on local hills. And "queen of the acronym"? LOL, gee thanks. I actually can be really bad about it sometimes myself, find myself often using Army/military vernacular talking to people at work, forgetting that I'm dealing with civilians until they give me that blank look, haha. Then I remember to translate.

OEC is Outdoor Emergency Care, offered through the National Ski Patrol. And to the OP,I have been taken that course, years ago before getting into EMS. It doesn't give really give you all that much "wilderness" training, it's basically a medical first responder course with a few extra skills like chair lift evacuation, boot and helmet removal, and some more info on environmental emergencies (mostly winter, aka hypothermia, frostbite). Not much in the way of alternative techniques/backcountry stuff - it assumes you are with an established patrol with basic equipment. Anything like mountaineering/orienteering, avalanche SAR and survival, and other backcountry stuff are extra certification courses through NSP. So, NO, I would not say that OEC + EMT-B = WEMT and the OEC course would be waste of time if you are not planning on being on a patrol somewhere, not going to teach you a thing and they tend to be waaay too intense about it for the level of care actually taught.

Ok, let's clear some things up. Army medics are ALL trained at EMT-B in AIT (advanced individual training, the school for your job after basic). Passing national registry is a requirement of graduation, this has been the case for many years now. CEUs have always been available, but depending on the unit and deployment schedule, not a priority. In my case, my certification lapsed because I had to spend my available time in schools like airborne and air assault and prepping for deployment. However, as of 2007, maintaining CEUs is required for promotion, so people getting out should all have at least NREMT-B. Depending on unit, mission etc, obtaining NREMT-P is possible and works great towards promotion points. In fact, for flight medics and warrant officers, it is required. Now, understand that, like the Navy, "medics" are all technically under an umbrella title of Healthcare Specialist, all starting at the same school with EMT-B and then specializing as straight field/combat medics, pharmacy techs, hospital medics (like CNA), xray, nutrition, etc. Some go on to LPN school. So training starts to vary drastically very quickly. Field medics like myself are trained to start IVs, push meds, intubate, suture, etc, many paramedic hand-skills. The initial training of a field medic is 16 weeks, but could be up to 68 weeks for other sub-specialties. In that initial training, obviously there is not a lot of time to get deep into the medicine and why's of the skills being taught. The emphasis is on confidence, speed, accuracy and doing it all in a tactical environment. On the job training after this initial schooling and opportunities for more advanced training are where those aspects come in. As some have said, not all medics are created equal. So much varies on assignment/attachment, that unit's mission and leadership. A medic in a medical support battalion, say working in a clinic stateside and field hospital in theater, has a very different job from someone like me, attached to an infantry unit. Soldiers facing combat wounds become masters of trauma while others assist PAs and run daily sick call, becoming masters of general medicine and VD. As a former field medic of the purest form who has now been thru paramedic school, I can say that skill wise, I was beyond equivalent to civilian medics. Knowledge wise, there were definite holes in my base - don't see too many middle-aged cardiac patients or diabetics in combat. However, what I did know, I knew very very well and I did have a strong overall base. Also, my critical thinking skills, scene management, leadership ability, problem solving and overall confidence well surpassed my civilian classmates (as noted by my instructors, hospital staff and senior medics on internship). So, I wouldn't call any of my experience a disadvantage. And I have known a lot of Army flight medics and spec ops medics who are extremely well-educated, at least at the paramedic level. You definitely can't lump all of us who fall under the name "medic" together. As far as medics having trouble getting jobs when they get out, depends on when that was. The newest medics will be the most prepared as far as civilian certification, with maintenance being required for promotion and CEUs part of routine training. (I had to re-take EMT-B before I could go to paramedic school, which was very frustrating and BORING.) Are they ready to jump right on an ambulance? I'd say, depends on their background specialty/assignment. In my opinion, probably the most easily transitioned would be the aid station medics. Though used to working with docs and PAs, they are pretty independent, used to having more equipment and working in an intense, face paced emergency atmosphere. Straight field medics (me) are used to working solo, sometimes in groups of 2-3, and carrying everything they need on their person. Very good at handling pressure and critical thought, but lots to get used to when it comes to broader diagnostic and treatment options. And while used to fast pace/high intensity, combat is a much much different atmosphere than any non-tactical civilian application. Once at the aid station, the major enemy threat is over. Overall though, probably the biggest advantage military medics, particularly those who work in combat environments, have - the ability to quickly adapt and absorb new information. It's a necessary skill for survival and we have it down. CLS is Combat Life Saver, basically the MFRs of the Army. Medics train and certify combat soldiers to do splinting, wound management, basic airways and to start IVs so they can be extra hands on the ground. Pure hand-skills vs medical knowledge, but they're great to have around, the more the merrier. To say that Army medics are just CLS trained is not right (see my other post). As for the AF, couldn't tell ya what gets yelled, lol, they don't have much in the way of field situations where it would matter. The closest relative to a combat medic would be Pararescue, they are all medically trained and badass. On base, there are Emergency Management techs who create and maintain disaster plans and various clinical techs in hospitals. The actual day-to-day emergency medical on an Air Force base is actually covered by civilian EMS. http://www.airforce.com/careers/#health-and-medicine

Heroes to Hometowns: When veterans come home

PTSD AWARENESS DAY IS A REMINDER TO LEARN, GET HELP AND HELP OTHERS Today (June 27) is officially National PTSD Awareness Day. The day was enacted by Congress last year with prodding by the VA and various veterans groups. Although it's roots come from combat veterans, I think it's a good opportunity for everyone to take a look at what it is, how it effects people, and what can be done about it. It's an important topic, particularly for those of us working in public safety, to address and understand. As a combat veteran now working in EMS, I am curious how people in the EMS community, you, approach the topic? What do you know about it? What does your system/company do to address issues? Is there a stigma associated with it? Coming from a military background, though there is much better information out there now, many service members are still in the dark about signs/symptoms and where to go for help before their first deployment (encountering trauma). I know that even as a medic, I knew very little, other than that there were combat stress counselors available. And there could be a fear of being labeled or thought weak, especially while still in theater. What I'm wondering is, is this an issue where you are? Do you know what to watch for? If you were having trouble after a call/incident, would you seek help? Would you do so through your chain of command? The other thing I am curious about, more concerning myself I guess, is, if you have dealt with any incident stress or even PTSD, how do you find it affecting your job? Just getting going here as a civilian medic, I haven't seen anything that's even made me flinch yet, but I can't help be a little nervous that someday I will have a call that will trigger a flashback or something. It's hard to explain, I know that I am in just the right job for me, but I can't help but worry that maybe my military experiences could hurt my ability to do that job, that I'll freeze up at the wrong time. Does anyone else ever get that doubt? What do you do about it? I mean, I know what I am capable of. I know the situations in which I was able to maintain and do my job downrange when it matter the most. But... I don't know, maybe it's different now? I thrive under pressure and live for the rush, even danger... but I've also been know to hit the deck and roll under the nearest truck with a sudden crack of good thunder. So yeah, thoughts, ideas, strategies, jokes? Whatever you've got. I've put a lot of work into the last year to be proactive in helping myself, I'd like to see what people have coming from the civilian side. Thanks.

Regularly? No. However, I do keep a few 5-hr Energy shots in my locker in case I'm up for a late night long-distance transfer. 911's I don't have a problem getting up and alert, it's the 6-hr plus road trips at 0300 that are brutal, especially when the pt is sleeping. And I have been known to drink a Monster now and then, but try to avoid it. I'm ADHD and my doc advised me to avoid them. For the most part, I drink water and the occasional Pepsi when I'm craving the taste.

Among some pundits, thinkers, and posters here, there’s been a certain level of criticism for the way many Americans, myself included, have reacted to the news of Osama’s death. I should say, I can in a sense understand where they’re coming from. It should always make us a little uncomfortable to find that we’re celebrating death and killing, no matter how vile the person being killed. I have seen more death and suffering than anyone should and I know well its stench. And I have been on the other end of the sight, looking death in the face and squeezing the trigger in response – there is nothing joyful about it. There’s no doubt that a world in which no killing was ever needed would be a better one, and the idea of celebrating someone’s death as though it represented some kind of satisfaction seems to miss the point of justice. And then there are the reports that folks are singing “We Are the Champions” at Ground Zero, which seems more appropriate for the aftermath of a Superbowl victory than to mark someone’s assassination – besides, we’re not the champions, the fight is far from over. Ideally, I would have spent the day with my fallen friends in Arlington. I offered some toasts in rememberance and spent some time at the local war memorial instead. And yet, I don’t believe that people are wrong to react with a sense of elation and happiness at this news. Here are my preliminary thoughts on why. First, Bin Laden’s killing today was not the same as an execution, not by any stretch of the imagination. This is a different scenario than the one which played out today. Osama Bin Laden was continuing to wage an active war on several fronts: against the United States, against many of his own countrymen, and against peaceful, mainstream Islam everywhere. Every day he was on the loose, he was likely planning to cause future bloodshed in America, working to disrupt peace processes in the middle east, and psychologically torturing young men and women into sending themselves to their own deaths. Unlike the hollow, symbolic act of an execution, the killing of a man actively plotting against you is no different striking down a foe in the midst of a battle. True, you can and should decry the fact that the battle took place at all. But I don’t believe for a minute that you can fault someone for feeling relief and even joy upon discovering that someone who posed a threat to their lives has been killed. I admit, after both serving in the military and now civilian public safety, I can feel the discomfort of knowing there are active terrorists out there plotting to kill random civilians much more personally, and I don’t like it. I deserve to be able to visit national landmarks and hang out in crowded spaces without having a little paranoid voice in the back of my head telling me that this is just the kind of time and place where a terrorist might strike. And even though it’s a small voice, and mostly an irrational one, it’s still true that I am safer today with Bin Laden dead than I was 24 hours ago. I do not apologize for wanting to celebrate that fact. Next: the other statement that will be made by those who feel uncomfortable celebrating what happened today will be that justice cannot be served by what amounts to a battlefield killing, and that Bin Laden should have been captured, tried, and then dealt with by a court of law. To a certain extent, I agree with this, as I think many people would. As standard rules of engagement, I certainly presume that the orders of the men on the ground were to capture him if possible. But I have to say, while I’m almost always on the side of strictly upholding the rule of law, the killing of Bin Laden today was not the same as uncomfortable way in which terror suspects, many professing their innocence, have been denied due process in places like Guantanamo. Perhaps, in some technical sense, there is a similarity. But broadly and pragmatically, this is not the place to pick that fight. Osama Bin Laden had confessed in front of the whole world to both his past crimes and to his intent to commit more of them in the future. If there ever was a time when someone’s guilt was clear without need for a trial, this was one. Indeed, an attempt at a trial would likely have resorted in an enormous fiasco: Where would it be held? Whose jurisdiction and laws would apply? How could we really ensure the safety of those charged with guarding Bin Laden, or those in the jury, or really anyone in any way connected to the trial? Could we really justify putting their lives at risk in the name of giving due process in this most open-and shut of all cases? The “war on terror” often looks very much unlike a war, and even when it does, it is often fought on the wrong battle fields, or in places where it is hard to tell whether the enemy is truly present, or who/what the “enemy” even is. But if there is one place where the “war” concept seems to me to apply, it is to Osama Bin Laden himself. As both a figurehead and an organizing officer, he was a general marshaling forces against you and me. He was not simply some former murderer on the run, being pursued so that he could be “brought to justice.” He was a man actively working to do harm to innocent people. Do I wish for a more ideal world where he could have been captured, tried without incident, and hung like Saddam? Sure. Do I dream of an even more ideal one where none of this even had to be debated? Of course. But do I regret in any way the feeling of security, relief, and redemption for my fallen brothers and sisters that I get from knowing that he is dead? Hell no. Not at all. Finally, I don’t think it’s true that these celebrations are really a celebration of one man’s death. They are, to me, primarily the celebration of a stepping stone in a larger, more extensive mission: the eradication of terrorism in the world. And as long as you agree that this is a goal worth pursuing through military means, then I don’t think you can fault us for treating this as a symbolic victory along the way. We should ask ourselves how many times have we seen footage of a revolution someplace, in which a regime is toppled, a leader is killed, and the population responds with wild celebrations. Do we react to these scenes with the same kind of skepticism? Of course not. We recognize that these people are not celebrating deaths, but the completion of a goal, and the taking of a step towards a better world. That deaths were a part of that process is lamentable, but not cause to condemn the celebration. In those cases, we all understand their elation: you are free from your oppressors, your overlords, from the ones who seek to keep you in poverty and in servitude and perhaps even seek to eliminate your gender, your race, or your nationality. But how substantially different is what many Americans are feeling today? A sense that we toppled an evil figure whose shadow hung frighteningly and ominously over us, and that we helped send a message to future generations, that the evil tactics of terror and intimidation of innocents cannot stand? I guess what I’m saying is this: if you want to split hairs about Americans’ motivations in reveling in this news, you can. It’s always uncomfortable to see people cheering at the news that someone was killed, even if it was under the guise of being “brought to justice.” I do not encourage killing as a way to make ourselves feel better about a past tragedy, not ever. It cannot and does not work. But when an active threat is neutralized, and a man working every day to ruin the lives of not just Americans, but Afghans, Pakistanis, and countless other people is killed, are we not allowed a moment of satisfaction? Not because it changes anything about the past, or in any way lessens the sting of the old wounds. But because it means we can be safer, happier, and better able to pursue an agenda of peace in the future. This kind of celebration and happiness does not, to me, carry with it the darkness of a revenge killing. It is the opposite: not a hollow obsession with the life that was lost, but a meaningful recognition of the lives that have in all probability been saved. It is not perfect. I can say from the depths of my soul that I wish lives never had to be lost in the pursuit of safety and harmony - no one detests war and death more than the soldier. But we live in an imperfect world where inevitably, they do. I make no apologies for the fact that tonight, I am thrilled that the life which was lost along that way belonged to a self-confessed murdered bent on killing again. There are so many lamentable deaths every day - it is welcome news that for once, one of them may help to save more lives than it cost.

I've heard the same mistake numerous times today by various newscasters, it's amusing.