UMSTUDENT

This problem seems to be prevalent in the fire/ems world. I've seen it among three of my buddies. I think it may definitely be stress induced, perhaps a way for the body to maintain a constant state of readiness. It would be interesting to see if this phenomenon is found among veterans or people who live in war zones.

Yeah, this is pretty common where I'm from, especially with the advent of internet-based documentation. We can access the web site anywhere in the world so it's easy to take your work home with you. Unfortunately I know some medics who work two jobs back-to-back and will often leave a call from one job, jump in their personal vehicle, and then drive 7-10 miles to their next place of employment. After 48 hours they may have 5-6 reports to do on their off time. Unfortunately, because the area focuses so much on response times and fail rates, just as Strippel said, we often are available after the patient is transferred to definitive care. Most of it comes down to simple pride. No station or county wants to be seen bringing in a second-due unit from another jurisdiction to handle a "simple EMS call." Double standard.

The payoff is worth it. Check out where some of these institutions have alumni and you'll see what I mean. While EMS is a relatively new profession, it has developed it's institutions of excellence.

Manly deeds-womanly words. Maryland, My Maryland!

Like a PUM without the stuffing? Yeah, I think it would work pretty well if the county didn't object. The problem with this may result in medics who loose the ability to work multiple jobs, which as we all know, is a mainstay of surviving in the industry. I know one guy who works three different medic jobs at almost 80 hours a week to feed his family.

I agree. Find a paramedic program by reputation. While the field is young, it is not immune to reputation.

Pass/Fail rates don't mean a whole lot really, especially if the program is teaching more than just how to pass the NR exam. A lot of programs expect you to be able to pass the exam on your own utilizing the education you've received and the knowledge you've obtained in your clinical. They may not spend months or the entire curriculum on just trying to get you to pass the exam. I would check out accreditation first, especially since this requires some effort. An accredited college or university is also a decent bet if you're looking for a degree. The two together, one from the COAEMSP and another from a accrediting organization of colleges is even better. Look at the facilities, the equipment and the quality of the instructors. Are the instructors reasonably educated? Are they professors, instructors, etc? How long have they been doing it. If they're at a university, are they tenured? Are they prevalent on the lecture circuit and have they published in peer reviewed journals? Was the research useful? Do they hold national registry certification? If they practice, do they still hold licensure (this doesn't necessarily take away from their knowledge)? Where are their clinicals? Finally, ask around the area or country and see what people think of the graduates. If they are generally held in high regards, then you should be set.

There are ways to become a nurse after being a paramedic, but like Dust has said, most require that you've at least attended college or university through the Bachelor's level. One community college in our state (as of last count) has a "bridge" program that allows a paramedic to become a nurse at the associates level, but that too requires more school. There are a good many accelerated MSN programs, mainly at top-tier schools, that will take non-RN students with a previous BS or BA and make them nurses. Most are at least 2 years in length and award an MSN as a Clinical Nurse Leader or will take you through the Nurse Practitioner curriculum if you're willing to spend more time at it. They have competitive admissions requirements. They usually require an extensive science curriculum at the undergraduate level before admission is granted and I know of very few paramedic programs that even come close to satisfying these. I think it's important to mention that there SHOULD never be an easy shortcut to ANY career. Nurses do nursing things, and paramedics do paramedic things, and because of such they are not equivalent. I'd like to mention finally, that anyone in their 20's who isn't seriously contemplating obtaining their full undergraduate education (through the Bachelors level) is kind of behind the ball. I don't care if you major in dance, it's still a degree. There is a difference between having a legitimate reason not to (severe financial restraints, health, etc), and well...not having a legitimate reason. If you just don't like "school," I highly suggest you start. Especially if you're in the EMS profession. Educational standards will rise for all of the healthcare fields and I doubt you'll want to be left behind.

The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Yes, it is a REAL degree in EMS. They have both a paramedic (clinical) and management track. They also offer three Master's programs. Dust is right, there are a select group of universities out there training the future leaders of EMS. UMBC isn't the only one either. Pittsburgh, George Washington, Springfield College, etc all have 4 year programs depending on what you want to specialize in. http://ehs.umbc.edu

Everyone should read some Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Social Contract Theory. These philosophical writings can be found in "Leviathan", "Two Treatises of Government" and "Social Contract", Or Principles of Political Rights" respectively. They are sort of relevant to the conversation each in their own way. From a current legal perspective there is some gray ground, but there is some literature to suggest that it should be otherwise. Personally, I do believe governments have an obligation to provide fire, police, EMS and basic healthcare.

If they were aesthetic in their looks, yes I would wear them. Something that looked "cool" and protected my head would be fine. Preferably something that was slim and was the least restricting while working in the back. I think image is a big thing in EMS. I don't want to look like I have problems running into walls. And to answer Dust question, I hope that I will be employable enough to make the decision to leave if I feel I look like an idiot.

Interestingly enough, I don't really see "why" a community is required to provide fire/ems. Look at all the places in the country that still have volunteer fire and rescue organizations. The county or state does not mandate that they exist, but rather they exist because a group of people, aka "volunteers," decided they would like to provide a valuable service to their community. A fire department has no obligation to put out your house if they receive no tax subsidy. They have an ethical obligation to save your life, but even then no government says that they have to enter your house selflessly and risk their lives. I'm not agreeing with what they did, just playing devil's advocate.

Because highway safety is only one facet of our entire profession? While I understand that the people in the former Division of EMS were hard working people, they operated in an institution concerned with much more than simply EMS. We'll see how it works out.

They probably just don't care. Despite what our industry would like to think, I imagine less than 50% of tax payers utilize an ambulance sometime in their lifetime. If you're a wealthy politician you probably will never utilize an ambulance. The majority of the middle and upper class of our nation are educated enough to determine if their "emergency" truly needs an ambulance and call 911 accordingly. Their sense of self is developed enough to determine if something is seriously wrong. Since critical patients probably constitute less than 25% of the EMS call volume in this nation, most people will feel that they will never use the system. So why "pay" for it? I know plenty of people who look at ambulances as a type of "welfare van" for the poor. To these people paramedics take out the proverbial "trash" of America. Is this wrong? Absolutely, but the perception is easy to mix with reality, especially in urban systems with large amounts of poverty. Granted I'm making very large estimates in my above statements, but if I as someone involved in the field am making these assumptions, imagine how bad it is among the general public? Put this image together with poor educational standards and ignorant rednecks populating the ranks of the profession and you'll see what I mean.

Good post Rid and thanks for the reply. The best way to promote a bright future for the profession is to teach valuable life lessons early on. I think you're absolutely right in that while we all argue, I'd also like to think that we all leave it in that individual post. I may fervently disagree with someone, but I take what they say to heart. Arguments make for some of life's best lessons. Look at marriage :wink:

"The previous Alabama church arsons have been at Baptist churches, five with predominantly black congregations and five with mainly white members" -CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/19/church.fires/index.html .5+.5= 1. Statistically speaking my friend, that is as "equal" as it gets. I'd also like to point out that racism can occur towards other cultures besides African Americans. If they were killing just Caucasian Americans, that too seems a bit racist. It doesn't show a "racist problem," just a general lack of concern for other human beings. They're just equal opportunity arsonist and bigots.

I stand corrected, and absolutely feel that it is "elementary or obvious." Someone running into a burning building without proper PPE or SCBA is just stupid. Those principals are taught to every public service provider from day one. On a much better note, I'm glad you like it here

Interesting perspective. Unfortunately, I wasn't alive yet to experience it. All I have to go by is what I read in history books and remember my parents saying. What school did you attend when you met him?

Dust,your ignorance speaks for itself. The burning churches in Alabama, while they have affected both races almost equally, show that the problem still exist. If you don't believe that America still has a problem with race then you're not living in reality, let alone the proper century. You've failed to back-up your claims. You've just slung around a bunch of wild claims. The only person supporting you is yourself. You call me a bigot, but you've failed to show me why racism doesn't exist. The burden of proof doesn't lie with me, but on the person whom diverts an entire conversation to answer a rhetorical statement with an obviously gaudy, controversial remark. All so you can find out if some "chick is hott?" We all know you're a smartass, but I'm wondering why every conversation has to be subjected to it. I agree with a lot of what you say, but not necessarily everything. Your sarcasm and witty remarks have a place, but not in regards to a subject so sensitive as race. Regardless of whatever indiscretions Martin Luther King made in his life, he is revered by a generation of Americans as a hero of civil rights. His life and death profoundly affected our nation and the future of millions upon millions of black Americans. While you were at it, you took a stab at Jimmy Carter, another great American. The point of the "original" conversation revolved around the exploits of a young, inexperienced girl trying to make it in EMS. My initial comments were to deter the community here from finding it necessary to debate over something so trivial as the actions of an 18 year old girl, that for many of them, is hundreds of miles away. Why concern ourselves here, a place where progress is trying to be made, with something so stupid?

It's a fact, something many people would like to forget, especially the south. I doubt most people would object to my notion. Prejudice also requires a belief to be "irrational," of which my claims are not. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that racism still exist, ESPECIALLY in the deep south. You've still failed to justify your response about MLK. Your "opinion about one man based upon his own personal history" could be considered prejudice. I know of no personal history that would make the man a "charlatan." Please educate me. I'll remind you that a charlatan is " a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud." Let me remind everyone that Dr. King received his Ph.D in Systematic Theology from Boston University. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize before his assassination and then posthumously the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer from Georgia (not everyone from our neck of the woods is an ignorant redneck). Those are some hefty accomplishments for a charlatan. His claims about racism sure were true.

There is no bias and prejudice. It's a fact. Trust me...I live in rural America and see it on a daily basis. I also technically "live" in the south. I wouldn't be prejudice or bias in a negative manner against myself. You can deny it all you want, but much of America is still heavily racist. I'm just saying that it seems to be worst in several different regions of the country. I can't tell you how many times I hear the "N" word in a day. Anyway, back to my question. "How was Martin Luther King Jr. a charlatan?"

Not me. It's no secret that the south is still heavily racist, especially in the largest of cities. Hell the majority of rural America, north or south, is still heavily racist. I'm not implying that Dust is neccesarily racist, but that his statements as a result of his location must be made with that in mind. If you don't believe the above statement then you're simply blind. You too, need to take an ethics class since you obviously can't determine what is neccesarily "unethical."

Do explain. Outside of the supposed affairs and conspiracy theories. Remember that you're from the south so it may be important that you qualify your statements. I'd like to see the other, devious side of Martin Luther King Jr. that you talk about. I'm seriously not being a smart ass either.

It's a non-issue from an ethical stand-point. Age is just a number human beings assign to someone in order to institute some crude system of seniority. Time can be measured in any unit you want. Maturity doesn't necessarily come from age, just often enough that our legislatures have determined it a good idea to restrict it to the ambiguous age of 21. 18 year-olds are obviously mature enough to fire a gun and take someones life in a time of war...