If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local10 WPLG)   Rushing to emergency room is no excuse for red light running, according to city that put red light camera at hospital entrance   (local10.com) divider line 70
    More: Florida, Tamarac, red light cameras, emergency rooms, Jacob Alcahe, 72nd Street, medical emergency, two-lane road, intersections  
•       •       •

4634 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:09 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-04 04:50:07 PM  

Weatherkiss: Ivo Shandor: In this case I agree with the city. If you want to run a red light, do it inside an ambulance. If you're that sick you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Don't risk turning one medical emergency into two by hitting someone else.

This is partially incorrect. It should be made on a case-by-case basis by an actual officer, not a camera. There are too many variables to say without a doubt that calling an ambulance would be the better decision to driving there yourself.

It depends on the following:

The distance to drive from where you live, and the distance the nearest ambulance would be.

The medical condition itself. If it's a stroke or heart attack, you could be dead waiting for an ambulance when the hospital is less than 3 minutes away in your car. It has to be life-threatening.

And, of course, whether or not the paramedics in the area are incompetent assholes.


Is there a law on the books that says it's ok for private citizens to run red lights in emergencies?

If yes, I agree with you. If no, then nope. The law is the law. It *should* be enforced in black and white terms whenever possible. If exceptions are needed, they *should* be stated in the law, not left up to the discretion of some random officer.
 
2014-03-04 05:03:37 PM  

wyltoknow: Hah! I grew up a stone's throw away from that hospital. There is no way that area justifies a red-light camera, except for the fact that the entire area is probably 80% retired fogies and therefore an easy cashgrab because most of them don't even realize that they are driving.


Is that supposed to be an endorsement FOR the camera or against it? Because it sounds like a really good reason to ticket senile old fools as much as possible, and hopefully catch them before they drive again.

[shudder]
 
2014-03-04 05:06:35 PM  
I saw a cop set up a very lucrative business at a stop sign right outside a Catholic  church.

Nailing all the old tots as they were coming out of the church parking lot for "rolling stops"

The cop was probably a Lutheran.
 
2014-03-04 05:48:25 PM  

Jument: If exceptions are needed, they *should* be stated in the law, not left up to the discretion of some random officer.


Damn right. Zero tolerance policies and mandatory minimums have never come with negative unintended consequences before. We should make them universal.
 
2014-03-04 05:56:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: Weatherkiss: All variables which tell me that dismissing/condoning the idea of running red lights during an emergency in your personal car/truck/whatever should be made on a case-by-case basis. I think it should be a guideline, sure. But there are always going to be situations that will require the rules to be bent or outright broken.

If your emergency is so dire that you feel it's appropriate to endanger countless other people on the road by doing this in order to make a difference in the life or death of your loved one, you shouldn't be driving them to begin with.

To put this another way, if you are so emotionally freaked out that you feel what is going on constitutes recklessly driving down the road, putting your own life and the lives of everyone you pass in danger with - at least- a two ton missile going 35 to 65 miles an hour at minimum, then maybe - JUST MAYBE - you should call 911.

You should not be in that position to begin with in a modern, first world society which is not operating under a disaster situation. Emergency Medical Services exist for a reason. They're paid very well to set there on their butt and wait for you to call. And IF, just IF the situation is so dire that you can remotely justify endangering the lives and livelyhood of those around you by Dukes of Hazzarding it to the nearest hospital, they represent the best chance for your loved one to go home from the hospital without any kind of disability or deficit.


In most circumstances, sure. But as people who live in a modern, first world society, there are going to be situations where calling EMS services are not going to be feasible or practical. Just like any life-or-death situation, risks are weighed and minimized. It has nothing to do with emotionally freaking out, it has everything to do with putting the odds in your favor or the favor of your loved ones.

I could go through an exhaustive list of scenarios that I would consider morally justified, if not legally justified. Yes, as a first world country with some of the greatest medical facilities available, we should strive to never require any circumstance or situation that would necessitate someone breaking the law in order to save lives. It should not be something taken at a whim or by someone emotionally distressed.

Regardless of statistics and textbook knowledge, we must always be willing to adapt and improvise and then reflect -- and make adjustments based on what was improvised.

My original point isn't that calling 911 should be ignored in favor of reckless initiatives made by an individual, but that if the law is to be broken in regards to life-or-death situations, then it is something that should be adminstered by a living, breathing police officer and not a red light camera. A red light camera is not able to assist in first aid. A red light camera is not able to call for an EMS squad over the public safety channel. A red light camera is not going to be able to use personal discretion to decide whether an individual is justified in breaking the law or not.

As much as I love to hate on cops, there are situations where they act in our favor regardless of the letter of the law. As pointed out numerous times in history, if a mother is going into labor and a person is rushing them to the hospital, the police will choose to escort the vehicle rather than pull them over, arrest the driver, and wait with the woman while a squad shows up to take her the rest of the way to the hospital. Does that happen? I'm sure it does, but there are times where it doesn't and we should be thankful it doesn't if no lives are harmed.

Textbook procedures and policies are there for a reason, but they can not, will not, and will never fully replace a flexible and adaptive public safety asset with human labor.
 
2014-03-04 06:18:27 PM  

payattention: ///STILL don't have the $500 for a three mile ride, regardless of the situation...


That's cheap. Here in the expensive SF Bay Area you get ripped off closer to $2000.
 
2014-03-04 06:34:55 PM  

Weatherkiss: In most circumstances, sure. But as people who live in a modern, first world society, there are going to be situations where calling EMS services are not going to be feasible or practical. Just like any life-or-death situation, risks are weighed and minimized. It has nothing to do with emotionally freaking out, it has everything to do with putting the odds in your favor or the favor of your loved ones.


Outside of an outright natural disaster or being miles in the back country, which situations are those, Weather? I get what you are trying to say, but in the cases where you feel throwing someone in the back seat of their car and driving like a bat out of hell to the nearest hospital - whether it's appropriate or not as a destination - unless your town just got flattened by a tornado or the Big one hit the New Madrid Fault, your loved one's best odds are going to be with waiting that five or ten minutes for an ambulance to get on scene, and bring the ER to them and be able to not only treat your loved one there and stabilize them, but continue that treatment en route to an appropriate hospital, and get them to the proper care faster.

Even in a Rural area, that EMS agency has the ability to airlift your loved one to a proper hospital. You don't.

If minutes do truely count in the example you give, the advanced notification which allows the hospital to prepare to recieve your loved one, and the treatment given on scene and en route will save their life and give them the best hope they could have for survival.
 
2014-03-04 06:47:23 PM  
Generally, most people in panic situations don't think. So the idea that they are "putting the odds in their favor" is completely ridiculous--they are freaking out and NOT thinking. They are in survival mode. They are thinking "GOTTA GET HELP NOW!!" and are unable to realize that waiting for the medics will actually take less time and improve the life expectancy as opposed to throwing their loved one in the back seat and driving like a bat out of hell for the nearest ER.

In a true life-or-death situation, risks are not weighed or minimized. They are flung out the nearest window in favor of GETTING HELP RIGHT NOW!!! by at least 99% of people. The 1% are those who survive. The rest are those who bleed out in the back of their friend's Monte Carlo, because the ER was only five minutes away and he'd been stabbed, man! We couldn't wait!

And if you think that, well, you've not been in a true life-or-death situation; or else you are a cop/medic/soldier and can actually weigh risks. But that is not most people.
 
2014-03-04 06:50:17 PM  

Ivo Shandor: In this case I agree with the city. If you want to run a red light, do it inside an ambulance. If you're that sick you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Don't risk turning one medical emergency into two by hitting someone else.


1)  Just because he ran a light doesn't mean he acted in an unsafe fashion.  If you can see the situation is clear and it's a medical emergency the sensible thing to do is go.

2)  There are times you can self-transport faster than the ambulance.  The issue would be if the medical emergency meant you might pass out at the wheel.  (Obviously a non-issue if someone else is driving.)

hardinparamedic: The closest hospital to you might not have the services you or your family member need. Can you tell the capabilities of every hosptial in your city? Where is the most appropriate place to go for a Stroke? For Chest Pain? Which hospital has pediatric surgical or in patient capabilities?


But they at least have docs.  If you can transport to the closest hospital faster than an ambulance can reach you (in other words, you're quite near a hospital when the problem happens) you'll get care faster that way unless the issue is stuff the average Joe in the field can do.  (ie, CPR, pressure on a bleeder.)  Podunk ER is still better than waiting for EMS.
 
2014-03-04 07:08:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: Weatherkiss: In most circumstances, sure. But as people who live in a modern, first world society, there are going to be situations where calling EMS services are not going to be feasible or practical. Just like any life-or-death situation, risks are weighed and minimized. It has nothing to do with emotionally freaking out, it has everything to do with putting the odds in your favor or the favor of your loved ones.

Outside of an outright natural disaster or being miles in the back country, which situations are those, Weather? I get what you are trying to say, but in the cases where you feel throwing someone in the back seat of their car and driving like a bat out of hell to the nearest hospital - whether it's appropriate or not as a destination - unless your town just got flattened by a tornado or the Big one hit the New Madrid Fault, your loved one's best odds are going to be with waiting that five or ten minutes for an ambulance to get on scene, and bring the ER to them and be able to not only treat your loved one there and stabilize them, but continue that treatment en route to an appropriate hospital, and get them to the proper care faster.

Even in a Rural area, that EMS agency has the ability to airlift your loved one to a proper hospital. You don't.

If minutes do truely count in the example you give, the advanced notification which allows the hospital to prepare to recieve your loved one, and the treatment given on scene and en route will save their life and give them the best hope they could have for survival.


Alright. How about your loved one suddenly collapses in the seat of your car when you're literally 1 block away from the hospital and you don't have a cell phone? Do you pull over, go inside whatever business is nearby (if they're open at the time) and ask politely to use their phone and wait? Or do you just chance it and and run the red light separating the block you're on from the hospital?

How about those emergencies you mention? Natural disaster, tornado, ice storm -- all the EMS crews are out on runs, noone is available? The red light camera is still going to cite you.

I'm not going to argue that most of the time you should just call 911, since you're absolutely right, most of the time that's what is acceptable. I'm talking about those really improbable scenarios that happen -- but the red light camera doesn't differentiate between improbable scenarios. Just because they're improbable doesn't mean they don't happen.

If there's a hospital in a rural area in the middle of the night, there's no traffic to be seen for miles, but there's a red light and camera separating you from the hospital in what appears to be a sudden stroke -- do you literally park out in the middle of nowhere and take out your cellphone and call for the EMS to take them less than a mile away even though it's in plain viewing distance? Do you stay at the red light even though there's obviously no traffic, because you're worried about getting cited by the red light camera?

As previously said, zero tolerance polices are bullshiat. There are always going to be unusual and improbable circumstances and scenarios in between your textbook cases, but the red light camera doesn't differentiate between it, and the city just wants their money from you.

I'm okay with a police officer citing someone for running several red lights in rush hour traffic to get to the hospital because his little girl scraped her knee. I'm okay with police officers saying what counts as acceptable right-of-way for emergencies and what does not.

I'm not okay with an automated camera saying that.
 
2014-03-04 07:10:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Generally, most people in panic situations don't think. So the idea that they are "putting the odds in their favor" is completely ridiculous--they are freaking out and NOT thinking. They are in survival mode. They are thinking "GOTTA GET HELP NOW!!" and are unable to realize that waiting for the medics will actually take less time and improve the life expectancy as opposed to throwing their loved one in the back seat and driving like a bat out of hell for the nearest ER.

In a true life-or-death situation, risks are not weighed or minimized. They are flung out the nearest window in favor of GETTING HELP RIGHT NOW!!! by at least 99% of people. The 1% are those who survive. The rest are those who bleed out in the back of their friend's Monte Carlo, because the ER was only five minutes away and he'd been stabbed, man! We couldn't wait!

And if you think that, well, you've not been in a true life-or-death situation; or else you are a cop/medic/soldier and can actually weigh risks. But that is not most people.


For most people, yeah. But there are some people who are able to keep their cool even if it's their loved one and can train themselves and desensitize themselves from going into panic mode. Red light cameras don't differentiate between those people.
 
2014-03-04 07:23:36 PM  

Loren: But they at least have docs. If you can transport to the closest hospital faster than an ambulance can reach you (in other words, you're quite near a hospital when the problem happens) you'll get care faster that way unless the issue is stuff the average Joe in the field can do. (ie, CPR, pressure on a bleeder.) Podunk ER is still better than waiting for EMS.


Actually, no. No it's not. Quite a few people are flown from scenes of accident or illness versus taking them to that "Podunk ER" because the time saved in doing so can quite literally make the difference between them dying/ending up a drooling nursing home resident.

I can tell you for a fact that there have been people brought by car into the facility I work at every day who would have survived had their family had the fore-thought to call EMS. Including several who have been wheeled into the resus room from someone's back seat with a travel time so long they had gone into rigor.

Also, the "average Joe in the field"? Really? First off, I don't know what kind of image you have in your head about emergency responders in the United States, but an ALS ambulance in the United States provides the same care that will be provided by the ER physician in a Level IV/Level III hospital (The majority of rural and small suburban hosptials) in the United States. The only thing they CANNOT do is give blood in the field, and that's starting in many areas too - and those helicopters CAN give blood. They provide the same ACLS and PALS care, the same trauma life support care, and the same inital triage steps that an ER does. They can place chest tubes, paralyze and intubate someone, and place central IV lines or an IO access.

An EMS unit in the United States is NOT a taxi ride. Again. These are highly trained people who, generally, actually do their job.

Secondly, if you throw someone into a car and race away while they are having massive, uncontrolled bleeding, or is in cardiac arrest, they are dead. There is no if, ands, or buts about that. You cannot do effective CPR in a vehicle - the effectiveness drops to 0%. Even EMS cannot - which is why they will work a cardiac arrest on scene until they get a pulse back or pronounce in the field in the absence of very, very limited criteria.

Doing CPR or rescue breathing on scene, and providing bleeding control to massive blood loss is the way to ensure someone survives. Not panicing. The whole reason EMS exists in the first place is because people realized that panicing and throwing someone in a car and "driving really, really fast" was a stupid idea, and killed a LOT more than it helped.

Weatherkiss: Alright. How about your loved one suddenly collapses in the seat of your car when you're literally 1 block away from the hospital and you don't have a cell phone? Do you pull over, go inside whatever business is nearby (if they're open at the time) and ask politely to use their phone and wait? Or do you just chance it and and run the red light separating the block you're on from the hospital?


If your loved one suddenly slumps over and collapses, in your own scenario they will be without CPR or rescue breathing for three to five minutes. That right there makes it more beneficial to your loved one to pull over, pull them out of the car, and start CPR or breathing for them.

Weatherkiss: How about those emergencies you mention? Natural disaster, tornado, ice storm -- all the EMS crews are out on runs, noone is available? The red light camera is still going to cite you.


Disaster situation. Best you can with what you got. And chances are that red light camera won't be standing, either. Chances are, however, you're not in a disaster situation.

The two seconds you save blowing through a red light and endangering everyone around you will not save your loved one's life. This is a cold, hard fact.
 
2014-03-04 07:30:16 PM  

Weatherkiss: But there are some people who are able to keep their cool even if it's their loved one and can train themselves and desensitize themselves from going into panic mode


If I sound a little passionate about this topic, it's because almost every day I work I see people who would have had better outcomes, or would not have died had someone not panic'd and thrown them in a car and tried to drive them on their own.
 
2014-03-04 07:37:21 PM  

Weatherkiss: Gyrfalcon: Generally, most people in panic situations don't think. So the idea that they are "putting the odds in their favor" is completely ridiculous--they are freaking out and NOT thinking. They are in survival mode. They are thinking "GOTTA GET HELP NOW!!" and are unable to realize that waiting for the medics will actually take less time and improve the life expectancy as opposed to throwing their loved one in the back seat and driving like a bat out of hell for the nearest ER.

In a true life-or-death situation, risks are not weighed or minimized. They are flung out the nearest window in favor of GETTING HELP RIGHT NOW!!! by at least 99% of people. The 1% are those who survive. The rest are those who bleed out in the back of their friend's Monte Carlo, because the ER was only five minutes away and he'd been stabbed, man! We couldn't wait!

And if you think that, well, you've not been in a true life-or-death situation; or else you are a cop/medic/soldier and can actually weigh risks. But that is not most people.

For most people, yeah. But there are some people who are able to keep their cool even if it's their loved one and can train themselves and desensitize themselves from going into panic mode. Red light cameras don't differentiate between those people.


OK. But, you know, when I'm driving through town and going through an intersection with the green light in my direction and not expecting someone to be speeding through the red light because their loved one is dying in the back seat...I CAN'T EITHER.

I appreciate the distinction you think you are making. But remember that there are other people going through those lights in the other direction, they have just as much right to the road as your putative emergency driver, and unlike an emergency vehicle, your putative emergency driver hasn't got lights&sirens to tell other drivers they are coming. That is why red-light cameras are there--hopefully, to slow people down, and to cite the ones who don't--not because people may or may not have the "right" to zoom to hospitals in panic situations, but because they certainly do NOT have the right to hazard everyone else en route.

If you feel you are in the right, take your f*cking ticket to traffic court and convince the judge. Bring a copy of the hospital report as proof. If you have good cause, you ought to be able to convince the judge--hell, I'll even help you. But just because one or two people might be getting wrongfully ticketed running that light in an emergency, is not good cause to say everyone should be allowed to run a red light because emergency! and no consequences.
 
2014-03-04 07:40:38 PM  

hardinparamedic: Loren: But they at least have docs. If you can transport to the closest hospital faster than an ambulance can reach you (in other words, you're quite near a hospital when the problem happens) you'll get care faster that way unless the issue is stuff the average Joe in the field can do. (ie, CPR, pressure on a bleeder.) Podunk ER is still better than waiting for EMS.

Actually, no. No it's not. Quite a few people are flown from scenes of accident or illness versus taking them to that "Podunk ER" because the time saved in doing so can quite literally make the difference between them dying/ending up a drooling nursing home resident.

I can tell you for a fact that there have been people brought by car into the facility I work at every day who would have survived had their family had the fore-thought to call EMS. Including several who have been wheeled into the resus room from someone's back seat with a travel time so long they had gone into rigor.

Also, the "average Joe in the field"? Really? First off, I don't know what kind of image you have in your head about emergency responders in the United States, but an ALS ambulance in the United States provides the same care that will be provided by the ER physician in a Level IV/Level III hospital (The majority of rural and small suburban hosptials) in the United States. The only thing they CANNOT do is give blood in the field, and that's starting in many areas too - and those helicopters CAN give blood. They provide the same ACLS and PALS care, the same trauma life support care, and the same inital triage steps that an ER does. They can place chest tubes, paralyze and intubate someone, and place central IV lines or an IO access.

An EMS unit in the United States is NOT a taxi ride. Again. These are highly trained people who, generally, actually do their job.

Secondly, if you throw someone into a car and race away while they are having massive, uncontrolled bleeding, or is in cardiac arrest, they are dead. There is no if, ...


Even if there's no traffic. Even if the red light camera is still standing and operation. Even if it isn't 3-5 minutes, but more like 1-2 minutes, even if they're unconscious but breathing.

There are so many things that can go wrong with a person, and so many scenarios and situations where there is no threat to the public safety, but a red light camera is still there wasting valuable time.

We can play EMS simulator all night and go back and forth over what is appropriate and acceptable for various situations and what isn't, but there will be situations noone will conceive of happening up until they do, and I'd rather not see a $1,500 traffic violation adding insult to injury dictated by a camera that can't assist in an emergency situatin.

Improbable, unusual, highly unlikely situations. But they can happen. And if they do, like you said, you have to work with what you have available. I would even just pay the traffic fine if I were in one of those situations and not biatch about it because it'd be worth saving the life of someone I loved. But I don't think it's something that should be decided by a camera in the first place.

If there's a police officer, he can assess the situation and decide whether or not there was reckless driving and a threat to public safety. A red light camera can't do that.
 
2014-03-04 07:47:32 PM  

Gyrfalcon: OK. But, you know, when I'm driving through town and going through an intersection with the green light in my direction and not expecting someone to be speeding through the red light because their loved one is dying in the back seat...I CAN'T EITHER.

I appreciate the distinction you think you are making. But remember that there are other people going through those lights in the other direction, they have just as much right to the road as your putative emergency driver, and unlike an emergency vehicle, your putative emergency driver hasn't got lights&sirens to tell other drivers they are coming. That is why red-light cameras are there--hopefully, to slow people down, and to cite the ones who don't--not because people may or may not have the "right" to zoom to hospitals in panic situations, but because they certainly do NOT have the right to hazard everyone else en route.

If you feel you are in the right, take your f*cking ticket to traffic court and convince the judge. Bring a copy of the hospital report as proof. If you have good cause, you ought to be able to convince the judge--hell, I'll even help you. But just because one or two people might be getting wrongfully ticketed running that light in an emergency, is not good cause to say everyone should be allowed to run a red light because emergency! and no consequences.


This isn't something I'd offer as everyday advice. Like you said, 99% of the time it's easier and safer to just call the EMS and let them take care of it. I'm talking about those 1% times when the most unlikely things come together and you're faced with breaking the law to save a life or willing to watch someone die or become irreversably harmed because you don't want to be breaking the law.

When it comes to judges and red light cameras, if they let them set them up in an area in the first place, chances are there will be nothing to convince them to begin with. Police officers can. Humans who know exactly what happened at the time and were there can convince judges or can simply choose not to cite you to begin with. That's my point. I would just pay the fine if it were me, personally, but I don't think everyone should have to pay the fine unless there's signed and documented statement from a police officer who has it on the record of what exactly happened.

I'm not even saying everyone should be allowed to run a red light because of an emergency. Like you said, that's a public safety hazard to everyone else around you. But a police officer who is around can be the one to exercise his judgment over whether or not you're freaking out behind the wheel or exercising caution while having situational awareness while remaining calm.
 
2014-03-04 08:52:05 PM  

hardinparamedic: Actually, no. No it's not. Quite a few people are flown from scenes of accident or illness versus taking them to that "Podunk ER" because the time saved in doing so can quite literally make the difference between them dying/ending up a drooling nursing home resident.

I can tell you for a fact that there have been people brought by car into the facility I work at every day who would have survived had their family had the fore-thought to call EMS. Including several who have been wheeled into the resus room from someone's back seat with a travel time so long they had gone into rigor.


You can still transport from the Podunk ER.  I'm saying that if you can get to that ER before EMS could reach you you're better off doing so.  I'm not saying every self-transport makes sense, it usually doesn't.

hardinparamedic: Also, the "average Joe in the field"? Really? First off, I don't know what kind of image you have in your head about emergency responders in the United States, but an ALS ambulance in the United States provides the same care that will be provided by the ER physician in a Level IV/Level III hospital (The majority of rural and small suburban hosptials) in the United States. The only thing they CANNOT do is give blood in the field, and that's starting in many areas too - and those helicopters CAN give blood. They provide the same ACLS and PALS care, the same trauma life support care, and the same inital triage steps that an ER does. They can place chest tubes, paralyze and intubate someone, and place central IV lines or an IO access.


No--the average Joe I was referring to was someone with no medical training who just happened to be there.  There's not a lot they can do.
 
2014-03-04 10:21:34 PM  

Loren: hardinparamedic: Actually, no. No it's not. Quite a few people are flown from scenes of accident or illness versus taking them to that "Podunk ER" because the time saved in doing so can quite literally make the difference between them dying/ending up a drooling nursing home resident.

I can tell you for a fact that there have been people brought by car into the facility I work at every day who would have survived had their family had the fore-thought to call EMS. Including several who have been wheeled into the resus room from someone's back seat with a travel time so long they had gone into rigor.

You can still transport from the Podunk ER.  I'm saying that if you can get to that ER before EMS could reach you you're better off doing so.  I'm not saying every self-transport makes sense, it usually doesn't.

hardinparamedic: Also, the "average Joe in the field"? Really? First off, I don't know what kind of image you have in your head about emergency responders in the United States, but an ALS ambulance in the United States provides the same care that will be provided by the ER physician in a Level IV/Level III hospital (The majority of rural and small suburban hosptials) in the United States. The only thing they CANNOT do is give blood in the field, and that's starting in many areas too - and those helicopters CAN give blood. They provide the same ACLS and PALS care, the same trauma life support care, and the same inital triage steps that an ER does. They can place chest tubes, paralyze and intubate someone, and place central IV lines or an IO access.

No--the average Joe I was referring to was someone with no medical training who just happened to be there.  There's not a lot they can do.


Besides many rural areas don't have helicopters. There are areas served by a single ambulance. If they are on a call you are pretty much on your own.

As far as I know there are even a few areas that aren't served by emergency medical services.
 
2014-03-04 10:38:31 PM  
For what it's worth (yeah, not much) I was up in the upper peninsula of Michigan last summer with the family.  72 year old father-in-law had separated his calf muscle from the bone trying to water ski.  Went into shock.  We were 45 minutes from the nearest ER / hospital / bar.  I could go speed-racer along the highway into town or call for an ambulance to try to find us at a North woods camp site with the sun going down.
I'm not saying let's blow all the lights to get 'lil Jimmy to the walk-in care after he scraped a knee, but sometimes crap happens and you do what you can.
/You can be more than 15 minutes from a bar in Wisconsin / Minnesota / Michigan.  Small sections blacked out on Google Maps.
//Did the bastid father-in-law ever thank me?  Do they ever?
 
2014-03-05 10:16:59 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: Ed says ... you know what to do ..


I'm really surprised this doesn't happen more often.
 
Displayed 20 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report