# Medics risk explosives to tend patient



## Rin (Oct 13, 2014)

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/10/if_he_moved_the_right_way_it_c.html

I can't imagine getting that call. 

"By the way, that patient you're currently transporting has a live grenade lodged in his thigh, not shrapnel as we previously thought.  Try to keep him still so it doesn't go off."


----------



## planetmike (Oct 13, 2014)

Scene Safety. First two step of any call.


----------



## OnceAnEMT (Oct 13, 2014)

Other than having trouble staying still, I am not reading a need for paramedics to be present. It sounds like the bleeding was controlled.


----------



## vcuemt (Oct 13, 2014)

The bomb squad is trained and ready to risk their lives where explosives are concerned.


----------



## chaz90 (Oct 13, 2014)

Someone had to be in there with the patient. I don't necessarily think two was a great idea, but one was certainly required. If the patient's agitation was getting worse and he was moving more I think I'd be considering sedation or even RSI to keep him still...


----------



## Rin (Oct 13, 2014)

I believe the article also stated the patient was hypotensive.  In any case, the dangerous nature of the scene trumps any requirement for medical personnel to stay.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 13, 2014)

Reminds me of an episode of inside combat rescue where a guy had a RPG get stuck in his pelvis (I think).


----------



## exodus (Oct 13, 2014)

vcuemt said:


> The bomb squad is trained and ready to risk their lives where explosives are concerned.


THIS. I'm sure they can transport him in something where everyone can be wearing the bomb suits that would keep them safe from grenade shratnel


----------



## Rin (Oct 13, 2014)

I'm a bit surprised that the poll yielded a unanimous "No."  I expected a few youngins with a hero-complex.

Now would anyone's answer change if the grenade had lodged itself in the leg of the man's hypothetical child?  If yes, at what max age do you think you'd be swayed to put yourself in danger?


----------



## 46Young (Oct 13, 2014)

There is no age. My reasoning is the same as the reason why we don't jump down into trenches or enter swift water to make a grab without mitigating any undue safety risks - what started out as being one patient can needlessly become several patients.

A better choice would have the doc come to the scene. The pt wasn't allowed into the hospital until it was removed anyway. There's no need to risk additional people in general, much less with a transport, since the pt is supposed to remain still.


----------



## Rin (Oct 13, 2014)

@46Young  At the time they began transport, it was believed the patient just had shrapnel in his leg.  Granted, they didn't visually inspect the wound before beginning transport because it was already bandaged, but I don't think I would have recognized anything half-dollar sized (as it was described) as being an explosive.


----------



## 46Young (Oct 13, 2014)

Rin said:


> @46Young  At the tin the middle of an interfacility txp. I guess theynwere screwed at that point.me they began transport, it was believed the patient just had shrapnel in his leg.  Granted, they didn't visually inspect the wound before beginning transport because it was already bandaged, but I don't think I would have recognized anything half-dollar sized (as it was described) as being an explosive.



My apologies. I read the article again. It seems that the crew got the news during the interfacility txp. They can't exactly abandon him at that point.

However, if he refused to keep still, I would have told him that we were going to leave him in the bus since he could set it off. Or get orders for chemical restraint to keep him still.


----------



## Twitch559 (Oct 14, 2014)

Rin said:


> I'm a bit surprised that the poll yielded a unanimous "No."  I expected a few youngins with a hero-complex.
> 
> Now would anyone's answer change if the grenade had lodged itself in the leg of the man's hypothetical child?  If yes, at what max age do you think you'd be swayed to put yourself in danger?


I am new but I would not for the same reason as many others, we all have family to go home to at the end of the day. Also if something happens they now have at least 2 ppl to care for


----------



## samiam (Oct 27, 2014)

I dont really understand how something the size of a 1/2 dollar was one, so dangerous and 2 a actual still intact explosive. I mean sure it would probably shred the poor mans leg but that seems kinda small?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 27, 2014)

samiam said:


> I dont really understand how something the size of a 1/2 dollar was one, so dangerous and 2 a actual still intact explosive. I mean sure it would probably shred the poor mans leg but that seems kinda small?


It's not the size that matters....


----------



## samiam (Oct 28, 2014)

DesertEMT66 said:


> It's not the size that matters....


Lolo


----------



## Soldiermedic247 (Dec 7, 2014)

I agree it's not the size that matter. I have seen a picture an it is indeed real where a soldier had a blasting cap in his mouth and the only facial feature you could recognize was his eyes. Now here is the kicker, he was conscious and breathing while sitting up.


----------



## emt4lifes (Dec 19, 2014)

Rin said:


> I believe the article also stated the patient was hypotensive.  In any case, the dangerous nature of the scene trumps any requirement for medical personnel to stay.



completely agree. It's all about taking calculated risks, not being careless with lives.


----------

