LA: Ambulance crews to not transport patients with little chance of survival

Post by ithkuil » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

bradhe wrote: post #57

songgao wrote: post #41

This might be an unpopular opinion but this is a pretty awful headline and it makes it look way worse than what the EMS documents actually say. There’s a bold text [1] “shall not be transported if return of spontaneous circulation is not achieved in the field”. There’s a pretty big difference between abandoning patients with little chance of survival in general, and giving up after failure to achieve ROSC. Perhaps at…

> But a headline designed to make incorrect impression just doesn’t help. Yet this is basically all we get. Because it makes people click. It’s so hard to tell what’s real and what’s exaggerated these days. And if you try to make the case that something is exaggerated, you come off as a right wing nut job.

Post by londons_explore » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

onei wrote: post #98

andi999 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe insurance covers the call then. Here if it is DOA medical insurance won't pay.

Is there any nuance to that policy? What if someone dies between the call and the ambulance arriving? What if the person making the call doesn't have the experience to know when someone is beyond saving? On the face of it, it appears to penalise those who can't afford to get it wrong which feels morally bankrupt.

Post by VBprogrammer » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 8:58 AM UTC

Faaak wrote: post #76

GavinMcG wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In emergency medicine, you've got patients who are dead, and patients who are dead dead. Patients who are just dead might still be brought back. This isn't about them. Patients who are dead dead because they haven't responded to resuscitation efforts aren't going to be taken to the hospital, is all. And in a lot of places that's already the norm.

Don't they need to be brought to the hospital for organ donation though ?

Post by tsjq » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:03 AM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #82

crx07 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they supposed to do? Sometimes dealing with reality involves some pretty uncomfortable choices to make, even when that essentially makes you the bad guy. The real issue here is that the economy was prematurely reopened before it was safe -- we have far more than enough money as a nation to have prevented this scenario from happening and chose a path of destruction out of sheer avarice instead.

The real issue IMO was that the lockdown wasn't strict enough, or enforced. Many, many stores were open, many workplaces were deemed essential, masks were not generally worn in the first phase of the lockdowns, and while indoor dining at restaurants was closed, indoor dining at your friend's house was wide open. The three places that I know of that have gotten cases to zero are China, New Zealand, and Australia, and…

Post by WrtCdEvrydy » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:07 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #92

labster wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hospitals are running out of oxygen in a way: so much is going through the pipes that the upper floors have low pressure, and the oxygen pipes occasionally freeze from adiabatic expansion. In LA.

You'd think they would test systems like that at maximum consumption. Mind you, electricity and water systems are also not designed for every outlet to be maxed out. Whomst among us hasn't caused a breaker to trip from having too much stuff on at the same time.