# Zap medics resond to man down.



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

While driving I ran across this great scene. An older gentleman had for some reason fallen out of his wheelchair, possibly a motor vehicle vs ped. A ZAP ambulance crew that normally does only IFT stopped to render aide. The ZAP crew stayed with the patient all the way thru working side by side with HFD EMS. EMTLIFE would like to say job well done.



Two ZAP medics working patient.












HFD EMS arrives






ZAP medics stay with patient and work seamlessly side by side with HFD EMS.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm sorry but I do not think you should have taken pictures of them working on a patient. It's poor taste.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

There is a patient in those pictures?

Didn't see it.


----------



## Sandog (Apr 16, 2012)

The image size makes the text go off the screen on my puter. Well, I do have my resolution set for my aging eyes.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 16, 2012)

No of course there is no visible patient. But normally i find it poor taste to sit and watch EMS crews working on a patient, snapping pictures.

I know I've read many posts of people frustrated with busy body onlookers and gawkers on here. 

Only difference is its a well liked poster here.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

Sasha said:


> I know I've read many posts of people frustrated with busy body onlookers and gawkers on here.



Yea, and even posts by people who claim family members shouldn't be in an ambulance during a code.

They need to get over it. 

Emergency care is not something that happens in a back room with nobody watching all the time.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 16, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Yea, and even posts by people who claim family members shouldn't be in an ambulance during a code.
> 
> They need to get over it.
> 
> Emergency care is not something that happens in a back room with nobody watching all the time.



It's poor taste to sit and stare at a patient getting worked on. 

Emergency medicine isn't happening in a back room obviously but it isn't entertainment hour either. 

Go watch an episode of trauma if you're bored but give the patient some respect and privacy.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

Sasha said:


> It's poor taste to sit and stare at a patient getting worked on.
> 
> Emergency medicine isn't happening in a back room obviously but it isn't entertainment hour either.
> 
> Go watch an episode of trauma if you're bored but give the patient some respect and privacy.



You don't think that EMS should get some media face time now and again?

Edit: I think these shots were well taken to protect any distateful images of the patient, and the worst thing about it is the really stupid name of the ambulance compnay.


----------



## abckidsmom (Apr 16, 2012)

I appreciate the intent, BBG. I wouldn't love having my backside posted, but if I put it out there in the public domain, it's fair game. 

The patient wasn't shown, and of he was, he was still in the public view. Public interest includes puppies, kittens and helping people across the street or out of the gutter. 

I know plenty of people who would agree with you though, Sasha. It's a matter of our culture's increasing desensitivity to constant electronic monitoring that moves us further down this path towards acceptance.


----------



## abckidsmom (Apr 16, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> You don't think that EMS should get some media face time now and again?
> 
> Edit: I think these shots were well taken to protect any distateful images of the patient, and the worst thing about it is the really stupid name of the ambulance compnay.



Absolutely on the edit!  I accidentally made it in the newspaper on a fire this weekend. Was it in poor taste for the newspaper to photograph a home in danger of destruction?


----------



## Sandog (Apr 16, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> 0 the worst thing about it is the really stupid name of the ambulance compnay.



I was wondering if I was the only one that thought that? ZAP!


----------



## Aidey (Apr 16, 2012)

I also thought it was kind of a silly name, but I suppose there are only so many combinations of "life", "med", "star" and "care". 

As for the pictures I'm with Vene on this one. The pt is barely visible, the ems personnel aren't even that identifiable, and nothing questionable or in poor taste was shown. It is well established in the US that we do not have an expectation of privacy in public, it has been that way for years.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

Aidey said:


> I also thought it was kind of a silly name, but I suppose there are only so many combinations of "life", "med", "star" and "care"..



How about "Granny tranny dialysis derby lizard transport?"
(still sounds better than "zap")


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 16, 2012)

*Irrelevancies*

ZAP is near the end of the alphabet in the phone book. (What' a phone book?).

I saw Waldo.

I think it's a jump ball about being photographed at a distance. I don't like it  because context is lacking, there can be sacrifice of pt privacy without redeeming public good, and I don't make my uniforms look good (anymore). These  photos seem to be in the "OK I guess" category.

Move in close with a helmet cam or tape recorder (recording AED?) and I am not happy.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Apr 16, 2012)

So the helmet cam video of the firefighter rescue and resultant CPR that has been making the rounds, including JEMS.com, is in poor taste?


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

n7lxi said:


> So the helmet cam video of the firefighter rescue and resultant CPR that has been making the rounds, including JEMS.com, is in poor taste?



I won't say it is in poor taste, but I can see where friends and family seeing their loved one as part of a video spectacle in a time of duress would upset people. 

Especially when the average nonexpert in public safety or medicine finds the view disturbing.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

More pics were taken that I chose not to use because you could see the patient more clearly. This happened in a public area with traffic stopped and a crowd standing nearby for a dog adoption event. I in no way feel the pictures I posted are in any way inappropriate as they simply show a great crew doing an excellent job of helping someone in need. Very few events like this are not captured by the public with cameras these days. Sooner or later we will all work a call in front of the camera and for my part I hope the film shows me doing exactly what I'm supposed to do just like these guys.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

Oh and just FYI they aren't "working the patient" as in CPR the patient was conscious the whole time. Sorry that may have been a bad choice of words on my part.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 16, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> More pics were taken that I chose not to use because you could see the patient more clearly. This happened in a public area with traffic stopped and a crowd standing nearby for a dog adoption event. I in no way feel the pictures I posted are in any way inappropriate as they simply show a great crew doing an excellent job of helping someone in need. Very few events like this are not captured by the public with cameras these days. Sooner or later we will all work a call in front of the camera and for my part I hope the film shows me doing exactly what I'm supposed to do just like these guys.



The reason ORs were originally called surgical "theatres" is because they had a public gallery.

...No pressure...


----------



## NomadicMedic (Apr 16, 2012)

I believe that pictures showing patient care, shared between professionals, are entirely appropriate. Let's be honest, do pictures of a bunch of EMTs bending over patient on the ground teach us anything? Answer: no. However, a video shot of a paramedic intubating a patient inside a vehicle using a technique which many of us may have not used in the past could be educational. Should it be shared on YouTube? Probably not. But in a forum like this, populated by EMS professionals, I feel pictures showing patient care and techniques are entirely appropriate. 

 Unfortunately, many of the pictures that are taken are shown for shock value. "Look at this guy!"


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

Howdy all. I like how something I posted for one reason has morphed into a discussion about an entirely different topic. I would really like to know how more of you feel about these photos and if they "cross the line". To that end I've added a poll in the thread. The poll is anonymous so please be honest. If you all decide that pics are in poor taste I'll happily take them down.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 16, 2012)

I stand by my opinion that standing around taking pictures of someone during their emergency is poor form. 

If I were the patient, I would be ticked off. 

It's a sick/injured person, not a circus side show, no reason for you to stand and stare. It is no better than rubbernecking at an accident hoping to see some blood and guts. We roll our eyes at those people but encourage this?


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Apr 16, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Howdy all. I like how something I posted for one reason has morphed into a discussion about an entirely different topic. I would really like to know how more of you feel about these photos and if they "cross the line". To that end I've added a poll in the thread. The poll is anonymous so please be honest. If you all decide that pics are in poor taste I'll happily take them down.



No faces no issues, Period.


----------



## firecoins (Apr 16, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> More pics were taken that I chose not to use because you could see the patient more clearly. This happened in a public area with traffic stopped and a crowd standing nearby for a dog adoption event. I in no way feel the pictures I posted are in any way inappropriate as they simply show a great crew doing an excellent job of helping someone in need. Very few events like this are not captured by the public with cameras these days. Sooner or later we will all work a call in front of the camera and for my part I hope the film shows me doing exactly what I'm supposed to do just like these guys.





bigbaldguy said:


> Oh and just FYI they aren't "working the patient" as in CPR the patient was conscious the whole time. Sorry that may have been a bad choice of words on my part.



why did the ZAP crew nt transport the patient?  

I have no problem with the pics. Crew should have loaded the patient into the ambulance and worked them up privately.


----------



## medicdan (Apr 16, 2012)

firecoins said:


> why did the ZAP crew nt transport the patient?
> 
> I have no problem with the pics. Crew should have loaded the patient into the ambulance and worked them up privately.



In some areas, private services need to activate (or notify) the regional 911 provider. The arriving ambulance can stop and render aid at the First Responder level, but it's up to the contracted provider who transports. 

Frankly, my guess is that the private service's dispatch would prefer the crew not commit to the call if they were en-route to a (non-emergency) call themselves. 

Each region should have protocols for ambulances being flagged down and what changes if the truck is loaded, etc.


----------



## Medic Tim (Apr 16, 2012)

I see no issue. You can not see the pt. He was not in the way of crews or creating a danger to himself or others. The second you step out in public you are fair game. Love it or hate it, that is the way it is and will probably always be.

Where I work there are a few freelance reporters that have scanners and race us to calls. It is common to see their work in the newspaper, on the evening news or on youtube. It is very annoying but legal.

I do have issue with responders taking pics and video to post online. There is a time and place for this if it for learning opportunities. I will take a few pics of a car wreck if I have time to show the doc when we get to the er. Can be much easier to explain it if he/she can see what I am talking about.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

Traffic was actually stopped by a police officer (he's in one of the pics) for most of these photos. People in the left lane were pushing past despite the officers best efforts. I did snap one as I was rolling by once FD rolled in and officer waves us through. I think ZAP had just rolled up on scene or possibly been flagged down by bystander. I doubt they had been there more than a few minutes. In all i was stopped waiting for officer to wave me through for maybe 5 minutes. This all occurred less than a mile from Houston med center so there are always lots of IFT guys around. I went and grabbed a smoothie just down the road then came back up the same street expecting everyone to have moved on and ZAP was assisting HFD in loading patient so total scene time for HFD was at least 15 minutes. No one seemed to be in a huge hurry so I don't think patient was critical. I have no idea what rules are for IFT's are in texas but i imagine if the patient had been in a bad way they might have loaded him and taken him to Herman which is just 3 or 4 minutes away. For all I know he may have just rolled off curb in his chair and tipped over but I suspect there was a little more to it then that. 

I would be interested to know more about ZAP ambulance as there's nothing available online about them. There are some IFT folks out there that would have called 911 and continued to post. In fact a quick google search turns up situations where even off duty or out of area 911 folks have not stopped to render aid in situations like this. I feel these guys did the right thing in this situation and should be commended.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 16, 2012)

Sasha said:


> I stand by my opinion that standing around taking pictures of someone during their emergency is poor form.
> 
> If I were the patient, I would be ticked off.
> 
> It's a sick/injured person, not a circus side show, no reason for you to stand and stare. It is no better than rubbernecking at an accident hoping to see some blood and guts. We roll our eyes at those people but encourage this?



Sasha i assure I respect your opinions. Of all the people on EMTLIFE I trust you to tell me what you think rather than what I want to hear.  I was taking photos of a crew doing a good job and my only thoughts at the time were A. These guys need to be recognized for doing good and B. Seeing an IFT crew and a FD crew working together like that here in Houston is very rare and should also be recognized. 

I think that many times IFT guys and 911 folks tend to consider themselves different from one another. While it's true that the mechanics of our jobs are different the core principals of our jobs are not. Our egos, labels, the color of our trucks the type of shirts we wear are all irrelevant. We are all here to care for and protect our patients to the best of our abilities.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 16, 2012)

I think in this case the pictures are very obviously of the crews, not the pt. They were also posted in an educational/informative manner, not an exploitive one.


----------



## tssemt2010 (Apr 16, 2012)

seeing as  how the HFD ambulance had 2 basics on it and assuming the zap truck had a paramedic on it (most of them do) they did the right thing by giving a higher level of care, but given that circumstance id be interested to know how they turned over care to a lower level of care had they done any ALS interventions


----------



## unite69er (Apr 16, 2012)

Sasha said:


> I stand by my opinion that standing around taking pictures of someone during their emergency is poor form.
> 
> If I were the patient, I would be ticked off.
> 
> It's a sick/injured person, not a circus side show, no reason for you to stand and stare. It is no better than rubbernecking at an accident hoping to see some blood and guts. We roll our eyes at those people but encourage this?



Yes, It was informative and not tasteless whatsoever. Praising EMS workers for doing a great job with picture angles that are meant only to give you a positive image of what a great job they are doing. There are no patient angles, ems responder angles, nothing with blood or guts at all. Simply well taken photos with positive praising captions. Good Job BBG!!! 

Your opinion is definitely respected but not agreed with, by me whatsoever.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 16, 2012)

Bloody hell, I voted in the poll and mucked it up. For some reason I read the options backwards. So I read "Yes, they are fine" and "No, they are inappropriate". Everyone deduct one vote from the "Yes, they are inappropriate" side.


----------



## Remeber343 (Apr 16, 2012)

Thank you for sharing!  ZAP crew did it right. Nicely done.


----------



## firetender (Apr 17, 2012)

*Capturing a moment*

When you're out in the public domain, the reality is now, more than ever before, there are scads of people trying to capture your tragic moments. It used to be just the pros, the reporters and camerapeople assign to get the scoops, but now, EVERYBODY has a camera like never before.

When Sasha sees me come across an accident, park my car, grab my camera, (after assessing if it's more important I help) and start shooting away, will she block me? Does it matter that I'm not even aware of what I'm shooting or why because I'm too busy with Frame, SHOOT! Frame SHOOT! with the intent to capture a great human moment that will be meaningful for many?

Let's face it, stuff like this is popular, it sells newspapers and invites viewing on the internet. And I think a reason is because the average folk don't participate in life and death anymore. That's what we specialize in. So we're the novelty, human suffering to a certain extent is the novelty.

I have no quarrel with anyone else's opinion. I suppose what I'm talking about is more in the realm of art


----------



## Martyn (Apr 17, 2012)

The pics are fine by me, but what the heck are those two guys wearing? Surely thats NOT their uniform? If I had to wear that it would be time to move on!!!


----------



## Martyn (Apr 17, 2012)

This is what I thought they were wearing by the way


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 17, 2012)

Martyn said:


> This is what I thought they were wearing by the way



I'm assuming you are referring only to the color?


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 17, 2012)

The use of security camera "footage"  without blurring faces in TV news is becoming more prevalent. They showed one last night of a guy being discovered down by a family member and the whole check-call-care and chain of survival thing taking place. Worked, too. 

Someone once told me the legal waterrshed on reporting/photos was twowfold: was it slanderous/libelous, and was the activity done in a manner or place where the principals would have reasonably expected privacy?

Now the criteria seem to be "Are they rich enough to sue?" and " How much will Rupert Murdoch/Fox News pay for this?".


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 17, 2012)

Martyn said:


> The pics are fine by me, but what the heck are those two guys wearing? Surely thats NOT their uniform? If I had to wear that it would be time to move on!!!



I think the name of the company was enough to want to move on. 

This must be the highest paying outfit in the region or most likely to be voted "starter job."

this outfit and company name is probably about the only way they could get worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazam!_(TV_series)


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Apr 17, 2012)

*re*

I so remember watching Shazam as a Kid.  The cool RV with the funky disco globe near the dash!


----------



## Medic Tim (Apr 17, 2012)

I just typed ambulance and this is the first thing that popped up. This is a popular newspaper in the area I went to school. 

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/17/news/lewiston-auburn/woman-hit-by-car-in-lewiston/

A close up of a woman on the ground after being hit by a car. They name her and tell what happened. This is the way it is in our society


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 17, 2012)

Medic Tim said:


> I just typed ambulance and this is the first thing that popped up. This is a popular newspaper in the area I went to school.
> 
> http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/17/news/lewiston-auburn/woman-hit-by-car-in-lewiston/
> 
> A close up of a woman on the ground after being hit by a car. They name her and tell what happened. This is the way it is in our society



A circle of death!!!

Everyone standing around the patient in a circle, nobody doing anything


----------



## Medic Tim (Apr 17, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> A circle of death!!!
> 
> Everyone standing around the patient in a circle, nobody doing anything



The first thing that passed through my mind was the, look at that mechanism of injury cartoon.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 17, 2012)

Oddly enough, you can google many news stories where police officers have been disciplined and police departments sued for threatening for forcibly preventing people from taking pictures of scenes.  EMS and fire agencies have been in similar hot water when they did the same thing.

the reality is, if you are in the public, you are free game to become a youtube sensation.  Sometimes it's for good things, sometimes it's for bad things, sometime it's for things that have nothing to do with you.  And quite honestly, if you are doing your job right, like you are supposed to, you shouldn't have any problems if you have a camera crew following you around all day recording your every move.

And also, just because you are in the profession doesn't change anything about your rights to take photos,

When I saw this headline, I thought the paramedics were defibrillator the guy who went down.  Def sounds like a poor name choice.

I was also curious why they didn't just transport the person to the hospital.  Sounds like a poor patient care decision when you are delaying transport and waiting for a local ambulance to show up. "I'm sorry your honor, the reason we didn't transport, despite both being trained properly and having the proper amount of equipment to treat and transport this person was because we didn't want to piss off the local authorities.  yes, I know the patient died because we waited, but if we took him to the hospital and saved his life, we would have faced disciplinary action when the AHJ complained about us for taking their call."  Can't see that going over so well.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Apr 17, 2012)

It could be in their company's policy to not transport someone and are required to call the local EMS agency. 

I've been flagged down when I am out of my county. When that happens I get the local agency to transport mainly because I have no idea where any of their hospitals are let alone how to contact the hospital.


----------



## looker (Apr 17, 2012)

The reality is there is no such thing as right to privacy in public. EMS crew were working on the patient on the sidewalk, in direct view of everyone around them. OP could have posted picture of the patient and neither privacy law or HIPAA would been violated. Cops have arrested people before for videotaping them and only because there was sound involved. Even in those case majority of the courts have found that this people have freedom of speech and cops were wrong. Same thing with the news media. Everyone needs to realize that we live in different world in which everyone have a photo camera and video camera. Expect to be videotaped at any and all times. If you can't the heat find a new job.


----------



## looker (Apr 17, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I was also curious why they didn't just transport the person to the hospital.  Sounds like a poor patient care decision when you are delaying transport and waiting for a local ambulance to show up. "I'm sorry your honor, the reason we didn't transport, despite both being trained properly and having the proper amount of equipment to treat and transport this person was because we didn't want to piss off the local authorities.  yes, I know the patient died because we waited, but if we took him to the hospital and saved his life, we would have faced disciplinary action when the AHJ complained about us for taking their call."  Can't see that going over so well.


 Could be local law says they can't. For example in both LA County and LA City you must call 911 and advice them of situation. They can give you okay if it's critical or they will just send city or contracted ambulance. Now if you got a patient that is coding and you're 2-5 min from nearest hospital ye take off and advice when you're free. Obviously that wasn't the case here.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2012)

The Unexpected Consequences of On-Scene Photography:

http://www.jems.com/article/administration-and-leadership/unexpected-consequences-scene


----------



## Sandog (Apr 18, 2012)

That story seemed to be focused on duty EMS personnel, but I think BBG was off duty so I believe he is exempt from the example mentioned in the story.

Second, motivation and intent was mentioned in the story, I do feel BBG's intent was nothing more than to offer praise and to say job well done.


----------



## medic417 (Apr 18, 2012)

ZAPS is hiring.

http://jobview.basinjobs.monster.com/Paramedic-EMT-Job-Houston-TX-US-108722653.aspx


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 18, 2012)

medic417 said:


> ZAPS is hiring.
> 
> http://jobview.basinjobs.monster.com/Paramedic-EMT-Job-Houston-TX-US-108722653.aspx



Doh! Hope I didn't get them fired lol


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 18, 2012)

medic417 said:


> ZAPS is hiring.
> 
> http://jobview.basinjobs.monster.com/Paramedic-EMT-Job-Houston-TX-US-108722653.aspx



Yea, and doesn't even have a company website...

The first indicator it is a company you may not want to work for.


----------



## medic417 (Apr 18, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Doh! Hope I didn't get them fired lol



h34r:h34r: You might not want to visit Houston again. 



Veneficus said:


> Yea, and doesn't even have a company website...
> 
> The first indicator it is a company you may not want to work for.



I disagree.  Many quality companies, especially 911, prefer word of mouth and old fashioned methods to the internet.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 18, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Many quality companies, especially 911, prefer word of mouth and old fashioned methods to the internet.



I have to agree that most EMS agencies tend to be pretty behind the curve on Internet promotion but Vene is right these guys are practically a ghost when it comes to an online presence. I wanted to include a little about them in my post and there's just nothing. You get a phone number and an address and that's it.


----------



## Martyn (Apr 19, 2012)

> Skills/Qualifications:
> Clinical Skills, Medical Teamwork, Creating a Safe, Effective Environment, Use of Medical Technologies, Proactive, Handles Pressure, Judgment, Acute/Critical Care, Emotional Control, Professionalism, Self-Confidence


 
Does that mean you don't need to be licensed or anything?

(Love the 'Emotional Control' bit, no crying when you shut your finger in the ambulance door)


----------



## firecoins (Apr 19, 2012)

emt.dan said:


> In some areas, private services need to activate (or notify) the regional 911 provider. The arriving ambulance can stop and render aid at the First Responder level, but it's up to the contracted provider who transports.
> 
> Frankly, my guess is that the private service's dispatch would prefer the crew not commit to the call if they were en-route to a (non-emergency) call themselves.
> 
> Each region should have protocols for ambulances being flagged down and what changes if the truck is loaded, etc.



here if you get flagged down, you provide care at your trained level.  You transport them and let the 911 dispatcher know so they don't den additional units assuming you don't need them.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 20, 2012)

"The reality is there is no such thing as right to privacy in public". (above)

 To reiterate my comment above:

"Someone once told me the legal waterrshed on reporting/photos was twowfold: was it slanderous/libelous, and was the activity done in a manner or place where the principals would have reasonably expected privacy?" (sic).

If you are a public figure (Angelina Jolie, the president of Spain) then you are fair game as long as it isn't slanderous. It must be true. If you are you or me, the local media may run it and you could fight it, but to what point unless it was disgracing in some way?

Correct, there is no legal "right", but there ARE legal limits and remedies if they are exceeded and you want to pursue. How would you feel if your daughter were stripped down by paramedics at the scene of her being hit by a car and the local press showed her on Page 1? Would it serve a higher purpose of public education?


----------



## looker (Apr 20, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> "The reality is there is no such thing as right to privacy in public". (above)
> 
> To reiterate my comment above:
> 
> ...



Media would be protected under freedom of the press. Unless you can call it pornography they are free to post the picture. Like it or not but media or anyone else is welcome to take picture in public , period.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes, but not publish it. Why else would TV shows spend thousands of dollars to buy permission to use likenesses, or to digitally blur them out? And what would keep someone from shooting pictures  with a long lens for the local paper from their second story window through your bedroom window if you left the blinds open an inch or two?
Freedom of expression does not extend to needless hurt, nor public danger (the classic shouting FIRE in a crowded theater). Even celebrities, _when they wanted to_, have slapped tabloids for invasions of privacy. It can be assumed a medical patient does not want their picture on the local newspaper.


----------



## Jon (Apr 20, 2012)

Corky said:


> No faces no issues, Period.



I disagree a little.

No IDENTIFYING FEATURES, no issues.

If the photo shows unique tattoos, or big red clown shoes, that might make the patient identifiable to those who know him.

Same with photos of cars on MVC scenes - there are many things that can be identifiable to those who know the person.


These photos are in good taste, and I have no issue with photos like this presented in an appropriate context.


----------



## hippocratical (Apr 20, 2012)

Put me down as another person who thinks the photos are fine. No really - how on earth do I click the Poll?! :wacko:

On another similar inflammatory photographic note: I'm all for Police wearing always-on head video cameras. That would instantly solve 99% of harassment charges right there - they either did the right thing or not, and could demonstrate to a jury what actually happened.

Would I like to wear one as EMS? Hell no, but if they're used to catch gross misconduct rather than something innane like a potty mouth, then size me up.


----------



## looker (Apr 20, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> Yes, but not publish it. Why else would TV shows spend thousands of dollars to buy permission to use likenesses, or to digitally blur them out? And what would keep someone from shooting pictures  with a long lens for the local paper from their second story window through your bedroom window if you left the blinds open an inch or two?
> Freedom of expression does not extend to needless hurt, nor public danger (the classic shouting FIRE in a crowded theater). Even celebrities, _when they wanted to_, have slapped tabloids for invasions of privacy. It can be assumed a medical patient does not want their picture on the local newspaper.



Let me explain to you how law works so you understand it. TV Shows are for profit as such they either need to get written permission or buy likeness permission. Media is in business to report news and as such have legal right to use the picture/video for free for use with the story they are reporting. There is big difference between taking picture on the street and taking picture through/ in to someone house windows using extended lens. So gain this story is non story as OP and everyone else were outside with no expectation of privacy.


----------



## looker (Apr 20, 2012)

Jon said:


> I disagree a little.
> 
> No IDENTIFYING FEATURES, no issues.
> 
> ...



Is it the policy of this website that patient identified photos can't be posted?


----------



## Jon (Apr 20, 2012)

looker said:


> Is it the policy of this website that patient identified photos can't be posted?



Short answer: We've never needed one.

Longer answer: Our members have usually been good about not posting things that might come back and bite them down the road. While we may remove photos, it is often because the content is seen as objectionable, not simply because a patient can be seen.


What I posted was my views - I've been involved in incidents locally where scene photos have ended up online, and then became issues when someone identified the patient from other identifying features.


----------



## AlphaButch (Apr 20, 2012)

looker said:


> Could be local law says they can't. For example in both LA County and LA City you must call 911 and advice them of situation. They can give you okay if it's critical or they will just send city or contracted ambulance. Now if you got a patient that is coding and you're 2-5 min from nearest hospital ye take off and advice when you're free. Obviously that wasn't the case here.



This is how it works here inside the Houston city limits.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 22, 2012)

These pictures look similar to anything that would be taken by a newspaper photographer. It's people doing there job, not much more to it. Add to the fact that BBG was taking them from his vehicle (I think?) I cannot for the life of me construe how these may be considered offensive.


----------



## hippocratical (Apr 22, 2012)

Tigger said:


> I cannot for the life of me construe how these may be considered offensive.



Some people are easily offended. Those people offend me ^_^


----------



## Medic2409 (Apr 22, 2012)

Pictures of a crew doing their duty (or, going above and beyond, depending on your viewpoint) that show EMS in a good light and protect patient privacy are thoroughly appropriate IMHO.


----------



## looker (Apr 22, 2012)

Medic2409 said:


> Pictures of a crew doing their duty (or, going above and beyond, depending on your viewpoint) that show EMS in a good light and protect patient privacy are thoroughly appropriate IMHO.



Even if patient face was shown was is wrong with that? It's one thing if the crew that working on the patient that took the photos but when it's bystander to me it seems perfectly fine.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 22, 2012)

hippocratical said:


> Some people are easily offended. Those people offend me ^_^



Well said sir.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 25, 2012)

So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?

I am not offended by the photos published by BigBaldGuy (and putting them publicly on a website is publication, it can be protected by copyright), I question the overall legality and advisability of posting/publishing pictures of patient care without the measures established by other publications (medical text publishers, major magazine not sold exclusively by the gum and candy) to protect the patients...and to protect the caregivers because much of what we do is readily taken out of context. 

Pictures of war victims, disaster survivors in shock, etc are defended as being news and of educational use for the public at large. What do the public at large, or even most care givers, derive from the majority of the sort of photos an EMT will click during an emergency? Or an uninformed bystander?

I understand.


----------



## hippocratical (Apr 25, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?



I believe it's not so much where you are standing, but them. If the person is standing on public ground they're fair game, if they're standing in their house not so much. Staring into someone's house is covered under "Peeping Tom" style laws.



mycrofft said:


> Pictures of war victims...


I'm not picking on Mycroft here, but on a similar yet totally different point, isn't it the case that in the States one can show images of local villagers dead in the street, yet not of U.S. soldiers? Unconnected to this conversation, but something I find very interesting. You should see Russian news reports - they show incredibly graphic images that shocked even me!


----------



## looker (Apr 25, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?



hippocratical is correct. You can be standing a mile away, all that makes a difference is where they are. If they are outside the house they have no expectation of privacy and you are free to take picture of them. 



> I am not offended by the photos published by BigBaldGuy (and putting them publicly on a website is publication, it can be protected by copyright), I question the overall legality and advisability of posting/publishing pictures of patient care without the measures established by other publications (medical text publishers, major magazine not sold exclusively by the gum and candy) to protect the patients...and to protect the caregivers because much of what we do is readily taken out of context.



Medical text publishers, major magazine etc are free to decide on their own internal policy on what can and can't be published. However if the person is outside you are free to take picture of them and publish it. There is no privacy issue here. Now if you are first responder then it gets complicated. Remember when you are outside you do not have expectation of privacy, just because you are being rendered aid do not change that. 



> Pictures of war victims, disaster survivors in shock, etc are defended as being news and of educational use for the public at large. What do the public at large, or even most care givers, derive from the majority of the sort of photos an EMT will click during an emergency? Or an uninformed bystander?
> 
> I understand.



It makes no difference if you think there is news from posting photo of emt, the fact is it's legal to do so. Again the main issue is expectation of privacy. Lets take this thread picture as example. The person was outside in the view of everyone that was standing there and watching and anyone that was driving by. There was no expectation of privacy being the person was outside in the view of the public.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 25, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?



Generally yes actually. Individual cities/counties/states may have more restrictive laws, but more often than not that would be legal. For two common examples see Google Streetview and private investigators. The short explanation is that courts have found anything visible from public property is fair game, and if you don't want people seeing what is in your house, close your blinds.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 26, 2012)

So it is all fair game and legal/adviseable to capture and publish any photos? Or do we blur out victim faces? Or do EMT's start wearing flash masks like SWAT and DEA members do to conceal their identity to forestall recriminations?
I'm not changing my mind, but I'll agree to disagree. If my daughter or wife or son appear in the newspaper they're going to court.


----------



## looker (Apr 26, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> I'm not changing my mind, but I'll agree to disagree. If my daughter or wife or son appear in the newspaper they're going to court.



I go some bad news for you, you're not going to win.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 26, 2012)

Thanks counselor.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 26, 2012)

*oops lost the emoticon*

............


----------



## Aidey (Apr 26, 2012)

He is right, you would lose. Depending on the circumstances, I bet you would have a hard time even finding a lawyer who would take the case.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 26, 2012)

Aidey said:


> He is right, you would lose. Depending on the circumstances, I bet you would have a hard time even finding a lawyer who would take the case.



I'm sure you could find some lawyer that be willing to lighten your wallet in exchange for some half-hearted representation.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 26, 2012)

Ok, let me rephrase that. I bet you would have a hard time evening finding an ethical lawyer who would take the case.


----------

