Arctickat

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Now that is a comment I can respect. So long as it is justified. Accusing me of posting garbage just so I can get my post count up? That is absurd and offensive, even if it is his opinion. I post garbage because it's fun.

It is nice to have members who are as active as you are so it would be a shame to lose you, if only you didn't need to show your junk all the time.

Now I'm so conflicted, Dwayne says I post too much in an effort to get my count higher, yet you appreciate an active poster...what to do, what to do. :roll:

The only two on here who seem to have issue with me are you and Dwayne, and I was warned about you long before the two of you decided to jump me. Shrug, you get 10 guys on here within the next 48 hours to say that this board will be better off without my presence and I will leave, never to post again, unlike some others in here.

Happy now?

Yeah, with about half of it made up of the idiotic responses you use to pad your post count. Try building numbers with intelligence instead of this, "I'm so smart that I can't be bothered" stupidity. It seems like I remember you having a couple of smart posts, it's unfortunate that in the other 80% or so that you go out or your way to be childish and ignorant.

Post counts only matter to losers who think it actually means something. I, personally, couldn't give a flying crap, fortunately, I'm not here to impress you. Funny though, Crotch has more redundant posts on one page than I have posts in the entire thread, his post average is over double mine, only because he keeps flogging dead horses, yet you're worried about me? I'm honoured, better be careful though, he might sneak up with a higher post count than you and you will be forced to bow down to his higher ranking. :roll: Maybe you think paying to be a city sponsor has bought you some respect? Personally, I chose the anonymous box because I don't have to compensate for something and announce to the world with every post I make that I paid money to get all those stars.

Honestly, I prefer forums that don't have a message count, just because of people like you who think of it as some sort of rank or competition.

Man, what I hate about this thread, every time it comes up, is the self-righteous attitudes.

See the quoted text above and return to rebuilding that glass house you just shattered. It took you longer than I expected to put in your 2 cents, I guess you've been busy counting all my posts to ensure the number is correct. <--Laughing at you, not with you. Self righteous indeed!! Since the last time you bashed me in the other thread I have expected you to come hunt me down do your holier than thou spew again, every board has one like you and I will not be intimidated. My avatar is rather unique, if you don't like what I say, don't read my posts. I'd hate to waste your precious time or have you drop an IQ point or two from my meaningless drivel....Lord knows you can't spare to lose them.

Really? 172 Pages? Can I just assume it says that practical jokes are a form of bullying and hazing that is not acceptable or are you gonna make me read all that?

I can not believe we have this many unprofessional people in our profession.

Dude, he's from California,

http://www.emtcity.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph...&highlight=

http://www.emtcity.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph...&highlight=

need we say more?

The GSA protects medical professional like an EMT and in most states medically trained civilians providing first aid who are working within the scope of their training,

I thought that was the purpose of the Emergency Medical Services Act.

ie Hazing

Oh goody, here we go again with another 12 pages of Crotch's "What ifs..."

Then he started his shift hungover and reeking of booze. Nice touch. My staff is prohibited from drinking liquor 12 hours prior to their shift start time.

Our primary ALS unit is a type III but the backup is a type II. It's a little tougher to work in as mentioned, but it still has all the gear. One advantage it does have over the type II not yet mentioned, is travel through snow. The type II is much better because the front wheels plow a path for the rear to follow. A dual wheel type I or III has to push the front and back wheels thru the snow, typically resulting in it getting stuck where the type II wouldn't.

That falls along the same argument that seatbelt law opponents tried to use. If they crash more people will be killed because the seatbelt will jam and trap them in the burning car. :roll:

She is not a professional rescuer and probably didn't give much thought to leaving the "victim" so close to the car.

From the court documents one can read that this "rescuer" was the type of person who is easily excited and prone to hysterics and over reactions. Add to this that she was drinking and doing drugs and I would surmise that she didn't put a whole lot of thought into anything including her attempt to rescue her friend in a somewhat prudent manner. If we, as medical professionals had done something like this, we would also have been held accountable. Why shouldn't she? Simply because she lacks the training that we have? Because she was too drunk and stoned to realize that her friend was in no imminent danger and could have stayed where she was? People told her to leave her friend where she was and that she was in no danger, but in her hysterics she didn't listen.

This girl should be given credit for at least acting on the thought that someone's life might be in danger and putting her safety aside.

If indeed that had been the case, but Torti by her own admission knew better.

From the Court documents

Before she extricated VAN HORN from the vehicle TORT1 knew that

the only smoke at the scene had come from the air bags. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 236,

4

Exhibit "H", A.A. Vol I1 p. 246, Exhibit "I"). She knew there was no danger

of fire. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 248, Exhibit "I"). TORT1 also admitted that she never

smelled gasoline. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.249, Exhibit "I"). Moreover, OFOEGBU told

TORT1 not to touch VAN HORN until the paramedics arrived but she did not

respond. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.405, Exhibit "M"). Her actions were described as

"freaking out" and "hysterical."

One question I find interesting is that there was another person unable to move in the back of the car. Why is it that Torti was only concerned with Van Horn and not with Freed who was the more gravely injured of the two?

I contend that Torti acted stupidly and without thought to the consequences to Van Horn and that she should be held accountable if it can be proven that her actions did exacerbate the injury. Just as in Richard's post, people are always willing to help, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If people act stupidly because they don't know what they are doing, they have to be held accountable. There may not be a law against being stupid, but it's not e defense either.

If this case makes people think twice about rendering assistance, I say good. Too many times I've seen people do stupid things like this because they thought it was the right thing to do, most of the time they were just lucky they didn't cause further harm.

Pump the brakes, Arctickat. ERDoc was making a point.

'zilla

I know he was Doc, he just did it poorly and I had to call him on it.

Again, you have missed the point.

Of course I missed the point, because you did not make it clear in your first post for all the embellishments you included. Leave out the fluff and crap like this won't happen. I return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Even thought this layperson was misguided in believing that the car would explode, removing the patient from the car when she believed imminent danger existed is prudent.

Why then was she not prudent enough to move her friend away from the car after she pulled her out rather than leave her on the pole mere inches from the vehicle she thought was about to explode?

If I have to worry that I am going to get sued and have my life totally disrupted because I, in good faith, tried to help and pull them out of a car that I thought was going to catch fire, well, then they can get themselves out next time.

Then why not just say that rather than embellish your story with assumptions and rumour mongering? No doubt you've been around long enough to know what that does for people too.

No, it was her friend who single handedly tried to get her fat (300+ pound probably, though I have no proof) ass...

Apologies for my misunderstanding, I understood the "I have no proof" disclaimer to apply only to the weight issue because of the way it was written. That's why I didn't call you on that too.

Anyone with minimal experience can fill in some of the basic details. :roll:

Yeah, even if they are totally wrong.

It wasn't the unseatbelted impact into a stationary object at 45 mph with the resultant throw into the windshield that paralysed her.

I see nothing in the article that indicates this is how she was injured. Do you know facts of this case that are not common knowledge? Was this your patient? Were you there?

This is quoted from the transcript located here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme...ts/vanhorn7.pdf

The air bags in the front of

WATSON's vehicle deployed (A.A.Vo1. I1 p. 245, Exhibit "I"). WATSON sat

in the vehicle for a few minutes and then exited on his own. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.

237, Exhibit "H"). FREED remained in the rear seat, unable to move or speak

and was in pain. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.237, Exhibit "H"). VAN HORN was stunned

but conscious and able to unhook her seatbelt. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 238, Exhibit

"H"). She was in intense pain but could feel her legs. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 250,

Exhibit "I").

Granted, she's most likely full of crap and never had the belt on, but you don't know that and in the courts her testimony will be taken at face value. It just irks me when people pass off wild assumptions based on "educated" guesses as the probable facts when in truth there is no actual foundation in fact. [/rant]

Personal experience?

Are you asking me Crotch?

Funny thing is, our radio system is not recorded at the hospital, but our cell phones are...go figure. We use the cell to give report so that the nurses can't bitch us out because they're too distracted to bother to listen to our report and claim we didn't tell them we were coming in with a STEMI alert.

Benign Positional Vertigo.

Google is your friend.

I haven't banned cell phones because they haven't been identified as a problem..so far. My staff each has 2 phones, one for work, the other is personal. There is a company policy preventing the driver from using a cell phone at all times that the vehicle is in motion. The attendant can use the cell phone at any time provided it does not interfere with patient care. If the driver's phone rings s/he can pass it to the attendant to answer it.

As I said though, it's not an issue here likely because if they are on a transfer, it becomes long distance charges. That, and my youngest employee is 32 years old, most seem to outgrow the need to have a phone 24/7 by that age. I am trying to decide if I should include a handsfree bluetooth system in the ambulances because most of our patching is done by cell. There are so many cons to it that I can't decide if they outweigh the pros though.

Indeed, BCAS is one of the most efficiently run EMS services I've ever inspected. One drawback is that they were quite stingey with the ALS staff, only having them located in 3 or 4 centres if I remember correctly. This was a few years ago, perhaps things have improved.

I just hope that when I hand over my patient to a BCAS crew for transport at the games they respect the fact that even though I have the title of First Aid Provider, I am significantly more trained than that.

Not from there? Sorry, it appeared that the English language was not something you are accustomed to.

So, how are things in Quebec?