chbare

Kaisu, we did not formally recognise that things like antimatter were anything but hypothetical until we had verifiable evidence of their existence. Paul Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter as a consequence of his work on relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. However, he was not awarded a Nobel prize until 1933, about a year after the positron (an anti electron) was discovered. In general, we do not accept something until we have both theoretical and experimental evidence.

I appreciate the ongoing discussion. One big issue that remains is one of predictable, verifiable and testable evidence. I imagine it is difficult to tell somebody to believe in something that cannot be known. For if you cannot know something, how can you believe in it aside from taking it on faith without any proof other than a feeling that cannot in any way be quantified, especially when you are able to make profound and far reaching predictions using other ways of looking at the universe? I am not sure exactly what he was thinking, so I am having to extrapolate questions based on logic here.

+1 for the 5.11 pants. My wife also suffers from Southpawism.

Going back to the original post: We have a young person experiencing a potential transition or perhaps a crisis. He/she is hearing all sorts of confusing things from all the biblical experts, apologists and so on, yet he/she cannot get past something profound. Religion simply cannot make any predictions about the world. He/she can turn on a Hydrogen lamp and use the prediction of modern quantum theory to perfectly predict the types of light emitted by the excited electrons in said discharge lamp. This test can be done anywhere and the results are always the same, never changing and can only be described by science. The fundamental questions of how things work are only being explained by certain ways of thinking and certain methods. Now, in reality, an instructor has to be real careful about engaging people in such discussion. It is not really my right to tell people how they should think about religion, but rather to teach the subject and present the evidence supporting current ideas and predictions and let people make up their own minds. However, when they begin to question their beliefs, I really cannot tell somebody how they should end up believing. Ultimately, I have to tell the truth as it is currently seen and let people make up their own minds. With that said, let's apply a bit of unreality with the knowledge that this is NOT what would really happen. What would you say to this person? How would you confront their questions?

What about other religions however? Remember, other religions have their scholars and apologists and they too believe everybody else does not know what they are talking about.

There are also others (biblical scholars) who say that the old testament is just as valid as the new testament and the bible as a whole is to be taken literally. Who is correct, what evidence exists to validate one belief over another? Additionally, how do other belief systems come into play? For example, what evidence is there for the "Christian" view being superior or having more validity than any of the many other religions practised on the planet or even other types of Christianity for that matter? I appreciate the dialogue and want to continue to stress that I am about discussing ideas, evidence and logic, but not attacking people personally. Edit: Again, these are all questions that people likely face as they begin to question long held beliefs, so I do not think we have gone off topic too much.

This may seem like baiting, but for those who feel more secure in their faith after receiving formal education, did you find yourself applying the scientific process and the demand for evidence to back up religious claims? For example, how did or do you reconcile certain fundamental dogmatic statements? Great question ERDoc. From a historic context, polytheism is certainly important and I can actually see the appeal of polytheism, particularly in terms of early humanity where science was in it's infancy. I certainly am not limiting this discussion to any specific religion or belief system.

Fair enough; however, I am sorry if I gave any indication that I had a belief in the traditional concept of "God."

It is true that there are scientists who have faith and scientists that do not have faith. However, the basic trend does support increased levels of atheism as educational experience increases. Some of the highest numbers of atheists exist among elite scientists, but many factors may also probably play a role in determining what people believe. With that said, I do think it is still important to think about what happens as students begin to confront their beliefs as they begin to use the scientific process to make reliable, verifiable and reproducible predictions about the world.

Stubs, welcome to the site. Unfortunately, DustDevil will not be able to respond to your post. He died a while back after a battle with ALS. It may be easy to miss but be careful about the dates of some of these threads. They can go back several years.

An interesting scenario occurred a while back. One of the classes I teach is a physics course for allied health students with an emphasis on using evidence and experimentation to illustrate the various lecture topics. During one semester, a student who was also involved in taking chemistry and a genetics class asked me an interesting question. He asked me if I believed in God. Apparently, he had been a rather devout Catholic until he started college and was beginning to question his beliefs and asking religious/belief type questions of his instructors and professors. Clearly, he was experiencing a powerful paradigm shift as a result of his educational experience. I do not necessarily want to go on a religion versus agnostic and atheism rant, but rather want to ask a broad spanning question. Have you had a similar experience or have you challenged something you believed in because of your educational experiences or perhaps life experiences? This need not be isolated to faith. I hope for productive and thoughtful dialogue. I wonder if this isn't something more students experience but perhaps do not fully explore. Perhaps there exist psychosocial considerations as well.

With five months before school starts and college courses that are likely to be transitioning into or out of midterm, I do not see the OP being able to realistically get into a traditional A&P course. Perhaps consider a summer course if possible or look at doing it concomitantly with the paramedic classes if your schedule permits.

Do we have anything other than n=1 to suggest working as an EMT makes a better paramedic?

I am not sure these count but I am a member of the Emergency Nurses Association (ENA), National Board of Respiratory Care (NBRC) and American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC).

The context of my statement should have been obvious however. I stated in the setting of clinically significant hyperkalaemia, transport time will not matter much when it comes to initiating treatment. Clearly, times may effect other decisions, but if you have identified significant (potentially life threatening) hyperkalaemia, I would expect you to at least initiate treatment if you have the ability to do so.

If you suspect clinically significant hyperkalemia, you should treat it within your capabilities regardless of your transport time. This is where obtaining a good history will come in handy. Remember, not everybody has the classic T wave changes associated with hyperkalemia. History and overall clinical presentation should guide your therapy. Clearly, you can use point of care testing in the rare situation that it may be available. Regarding calcium chloride and gluconate. Administering Calcium inappropriately can be dangerous regardless of the preparation. The big thing to remember is that Calcium chloride contains over three times the number of Ca++ ions when compared to Calcium gluconate on a gram to gram basis. (Gluconate ~4.7 mEq/g & Chloride ~14 mEq/g). You will need to adjust the amount you administer accordingly. Also remember, while Calcium is the front line, life saving intervention (stabilises the membrane potential), it is only stop gap and you can expect to buy your self less than an hour or so. The general rule of thumb to follow when treating significant hyperkalemia is the following: 1) Stabilise the membrane potential (Calcium) 2) Shift Potassium into the cells (Insulin/Dextrose, Sodium-bicarbonate, albuterol) 3) Eliminate Potassium from the body (Sodium/Potassium exchange resins [Highly debatable], dialysis, potassium wasting diuretics) 4) Identify underlying causes and treat accordingly

The family appears to be the most rational and level headed part of this whole situation.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/05/17199790-family-of-california-woman-who-died-after-being-denied-cpr-says-she-wanted-no-intervention?lite One of many articles about this evolving case. At this point, I cannot make much out of it and while it's noncommittal in terms of dialogue, discretion is probably the best pathway to take. I honestly cannot say with any degree of certainty who is absolutely wrong or right. While I may have feelings about what is going on, I find this difficult to compartmentalise and as such, I fear any decision will be more emotional and less objective.

I'm not sure what is to be gained with the liberal use of pejorative statements about other people?

I'm sorry bro, not much else I can add to the conversation. Clearly a patient with spontaneous respirations will be a better candidate for NT intubation. However, in light of all the evidence, I am not sure anything beyond a nasal airway and conventional ventilation would have been really indicated in this situation assuming the apparent trimsmus was not rigor mortis.

It will be hard to do RRT online. The minimum RRT entry into practice is an AAS from an accredited programme. Even as a nurse with many years of experience, I had to do the entire two years of school plus I had to do additional chemistry and take a physics and computer operation class.

In spite of underlying guidelines, exercises in mental masturbation like this evoke curiosity and the spirit of exploration. Only through asking questions and seeking answers do we arrive at solutions, guidelines and so on. I am not sure making the differentiation will be all that useful when considering the guidelines, but the exercise of considering it may be helpful and the possibility in its self is worth the consideration.

With all of the SCOTUS rulings that have occurred, there is no doubt that the second amendment applies to firearms. However, the big question is what types firearms does this cover? We basically have two groups with very different interpretations with the folks pretty much spread out between the two stances.

Funny we bring up "illicit" drugs. How's that war going? How has that "ban" worked out for the United States and other countries involved in said war like Mexico?

The NREMT does not offer a wilderness credential and I have not found them particularly difficult to get through to, especially if you are able to use email. Good luck.