funkytomtom

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry, I'm rather quick to get defensive over the internet sometimes. My mistake.

Yeah sorry. I'm quick to get defensive over the internet. My mistake.

A little surprised at this flak...I've done my homework guys... Why even bother with EMS? I guess a fair question, but truth be told, EMS is where I discovered my love for medicine and I do love what I do. Plus it does pay some small pittance and I could use the cash and the job. As far as the bachelors degree and pre-med requirements go, there is no pre-med major, you simply add those classes in to whatever you're already doing. You are encouraged to study "what you love." Many people go the biology route because much of the pre-med coursework applies directly to that degree. The other school of thought is to do something unique as biology majors are dime a dozen for admission committees and you truly need every leg up you can get. My thinking is it would be something incredibly unique that could make my application stand out. That being said I haven't picked a major and the emergency medicine degree is more of a pipe dream if we're getting right down to it. In my fantasy world (where my intervertebral discs are intact) I would love to take my medic and wait a few years to do the med-school thing. And to truly explain EMS's continued relevance...there are essentially six extracurricular areas required for medical school in addition to the mcat. These include leadership, healthcare experience (this takes many forms for many different pre-meds) involving actual patient care, and volunteering. You have to show convincingly and be able to explain succinctly such as things as "why you're a leader," or relate pertinent stories about caring for people. I feel EMS makes me extremely competitive in all these fields as well as allowing me a great deal of personal growth. And if I decide to go PA, those schools specifically select for people with a prior medical background. Hell, I even got in to shadow an MD not normally fond of undergrad shadows because of my EMS experience. It has turned out to be a great shadowing experience and will hopefully turn into a great letter of rec. I have more to say, but I feel I've made my point. Thanks for the continued input.

I'm aiming at medical school, or at least PA school, so I don't see extra medical education as wasted. The medic would allow me a bachelor of emergency medicine which would set me apart from the crowd. Also, I'm working quite a bit already so I feel like I owe it to my patients not to be that EMT who decided they knew enough. Thanks for the advice! I was already planning on taking A&P and now I'm even more excited. Still though, any recommendations on a medic book?

So...I disappeared from the site a little while ago after a certain thread aggravated me to no end. I come to you all now purely as an EMS provider who recognizes all this site has to offer. I'm strongly considering taking my medic next year (when it is offered again and after I've had time to complete the rest of the pre-reqs). It would put me in college probably an extra year, however, and sadly long term EMS is not an option for me (back injury). Thusly I am conflicted about it. What I am not conflicted about is my search for more knowledge. I am currently an NREMTI, but I feel woefully unknowledgable relative to the vast amounts of different pts we are expected to care for. Add in minimum 45 minute transport times (that's for an air-ambulance) and I really want to know more; we get stuck with some very sick people for a very long time. I'm trying to fit acronym classes into my schedule and budget (pals, phtls, itls, etc) but I know there has to be other ways. I'm fairly sure there might even be better ways. So my question is this...how do I gain more knowledge short of taking my medic? I've been re-reading my EMTI book, but I feel like it's fairly low yield at this point. I really want something high-yield and challenging. Thinking of upgrading to a medic book and just teaching myself. Any other ideas besides trolling the city? What medic book?

Yes. Yes. Yes. I am a college student myself. I work a 48 hour shift nearly every weekend to pick up some extra cash. That being said, I wouldn't look into EMS for riches. It sounds like a surefire thing on at least two of your points, and probably/hopefully all three. I say go for it.

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after. I read the links you posted. The link from the Heartland Institute is little more than a statement of a viewpoint. It contains no more evidence than my initial post on this matter. The link from the telegraph was slightly more scientific, but was still an opinion piece. Some of the points are valid and worth discussing nonetheless. I like how you took away my science card as if I'm a complete idiot. I'm not one to latch onto the issue of the minute and never saw "an inconvenient truth." What I have seen has been presented to me in college science classes by well respected professors and phd's, read in various scientific journals, and in the newspaper as well. Is there a discussion to be had? Yes, but am I a doe eyed follower on mythical journey to candy mountain? I sure hope not... http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html#table-9-4 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 The first link contains some areas where Christopher Booker would certainly have some criticism. At the same time, I'm not going to immediately reject an international panel of scientists for the words of one skeptical journalist. Again...discussion? yes. refuted? far from it. The second link spells out my view on the matter. Science, being generally quite cautious and slow to make sweeping statements, has gotten about as close to a consensus as it gets. And I'm sorry Dwayne, but I'm again having trouble rejecting these huge organizations of professional scientists because of your post. I would truly love to see a peer reviewed paper that confirms what you're talking about. One last point. Evidence of slight cooling trends can be a red herring due to terminology. Global warming, while the most common term, should be more accurately described as climate change (guilty as charged). Just like the body, the earth has complicated cause and effect relationships, and while the general trend IS warming, you are going to see variations in both directions. Just like we trend vital signs. Sorry for all these posts in a row, but there's a lot to address. As for following our biological instincts and controlling population, I would say we stepped away from what is biologically sound when we started mass agriculture. At this point, we also made the step to decide bigger is better and that further increases in population were always desirable. We COULD hump everything before because it didn't matter, we couldn't feed what we humped into existence. The difference with lions and hamsters isn't that they have family planning clinics (hahaha), but that they haven't been able to isolate themselves from their ecosystems by stockpiling food and practicing agriculture. And in that way, we've taken a step away from the mechanisms that regulate all other populations. And finally, something we agree on. Saying whether something is desirable or undesirable, good or bad, never did anyone any favors. Edited to add in a plug for a book which really changed my outlook that you might enjoy (or hate)...it's called Ishmael and it's by Daniel Quinn. It's kind of about a talking ape, but not really.

Perhaps I was a bit vitriolic, and for that, I apologize. I can see where you would think it arrogant to assume we have such control over the biosphere, but, in reality, we do. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/05/15/2003472977 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34779&Cr=Biodiversity&Cr1= I'm sure the link from the UN will be popular. http://www.planbureauvoordeleefomgeving.nl/images/development%20of%20world%20biodiversity_tcm61-38885.jpg http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/terrestrial_habitat.jpg and to sort of sum it up: http://www.biodiv.be/GraphicsArchive/Figure4.2.jpg/view Anyways, this is just what I was motivated enough to find at 0130 hours. One thing that hits home with me is energy flow. Yes it sounds awful and cheeeeezzzzy, but it's true. The autotrophs which form the basis of all food chains take energy from the sun (less than ten percent of the available energy in sunlight). Each further level only has ten percent of the energy at the previous level to work with (due to loss of energy as heat). What this means is that in a healthy ecosystem, the creatures at the top will be sparse, while there will be exponentially more as you travel lower on the food chain. So...I find it rather unhealthy that we are approaching 9 billion people (!) while doing our best to hack away the occupants of the lower levels of our biosphere. Yes species go extinct, but the rate at which we are seeing today is phenomenally rapid. Combine this with irrefutable loss of habit for many animals caused by us, and the link is clear.