Propofol/Ketafol

bakertaylor28 said:
Add on top of it the balance between using a drug first known as a "vet med" Vs. a drug that has a plain bad reputation in the popular media. Lest we not forget the Michael Jackson affair.
Click to expand...

Who cares? An uneducated public opinion should have zero influence on your medical decisions as a provider. Millions of people take rat poison everyday.
 
Chase said:
Who cares? An uneducated public opinion should have zero influence on your medical decisions as a provider. Millions of people take rat poison everyday.
Click to expand...

It makes a difference because when things go wrong, there's increased liability in connection with drugs that already have a certain stigma going into a situation. Therefore, it's a good idea to avoid them, unless protocol is undeniable as to specific narrow indication. This in fact is what has fueled the research into drugs that suffice as an alternative to warfin. "Rat Poison" just doesn't look good for them on paper in the courthouse.

Take, hypotheitically, the following two setences, perhaps in regard to the same complaint:

A.) Paramedic A. administered [x amount] of RAT POISON to [my client]

Vs.
B.) Paramedic A. administered [x amount] of sodium warfin to [my client].

Now, both statements are synomous. Which one do you THINK I'm going to use in a summons and complaint when it comes down to filing a law suit? I'm probably going to use B. because absent everything else it all ready looks BAD on you, if you happen to be the defendant.

Same thing with a medication originally developed and intended for large cats. A bit more difficult with propofol- but still doable because of it's legendary status in the popluar media as a "killer" drug to the uneducated public. And, unfortunately, it would be the "uneducated public" that decides one's fate in a jury trial. I'm willing to add to an opposing party's point, personally- therefore, I try to avoid such drugs where possible.
 
Last edited:
bakertaylor28 said:
Same thing with a medication originally developed and intended for large cats. A bit more difficult with propofol- but still doable because of it's legendary status in the popluar media as a "killer" drug to the uneducated public. And, unfortunately, it would be the "uneducated public" that decides one's fate in a jury trial. I'm willing to add to an opposing party's point, personally- therefore, I try to avoid such drugs where possible.
Click to expand...
Then you are not providing standard of care. If you actively look for reasons to withhold a medication that would be beneficial to your patient, especially one that is in use in ERs and EMS services nationally, you are not providing standard of care. Be more worried about doing the right thing by your patient then getting sued.
 
MonkeyArrow said:
Then you are not providing standard of care. If you actively look for reasons to withhold a medication that would be beneficial to your patient, especially one that is in use in ERs and EMS services nationally, you are not providing standard of care. Be more worried about doing the right thing by your patient then getting sued.
Click to expand...

What i'm saying is that these particular drugs are shunned by the public eye as being the standard of care, and it will be the public eye to a major extent that one will be judged by. Hence, one takes a second look at things. If protocol absolutely says ketamine then its one thing (at which point I'll be telling them to take it up with the person whom wrote the protocol.), If it allows for a choice, then one should opt for the better of both worlds if possible (even if it will make the job a bit more problematic), unless one is prepared to hire the experts to prove their choice would be superior to any and all of the alternatives. (and trust me the non-medically informed lawyer WILL try that point with a quickness.) Protocol IS the "standard of care". Giving a human a drug that was never originally intended for humans in the first place has the appearance of being below the standard of care, at least at first appearances. That's one of the major reasons we have protocols. It's really the concept of not being afraid to grab a bull by it's horns.
 
Last edited:
bakertaylor28 said:
What i'm saying is that these particular drugs are shunned by the public eye as being the standard of care, and it will be the public eye to a major extent that one will be judged by. Hence, one takes a second look at things. If protocol absolutely says ketamine then its one thing (at which point I'll be telling them to take it up with the person whom wrote the protocol.), If it allows for a choice, then one should opt for the better of both worlds if possible (even if it will make the job a bit more problematic), unless one is prepared to hire the experts to prove their choice would be superior to any and all of the alternatives. (and trust me the non-medically informed lawyer WILL try that point with a quickness.) Protocol IS the "standard of care". Giving a human a drug that was never originally intended for humans in the first place has the appearance of being below the standard of care, at least at first appearances. That's one of the major reasons we have protocols. It's really the concept of not being afraid to grab a bull by it's horns.
Click to expand...
Every single thread with you turns into some contrived, far-fetched legal scenario where someone gets sued. The real world just doesn't operate like that.

Can you cite a single case where this reasoning has been used to grant judgement against a paramedic in the United States? We've tried to find instances of paramedics getting sued in general in other threads mostly in vain.
 
bakertaylor28 said:
What i'm saying is that these particular drugs are shunned by the public eye as being the standard of care, and it will be the public eye to a major extent that one will be judged by. Hence, one takes a second look at things. If protocol absolutely says ketamine then its one thing (at which point I'll be telling them to take it up with the person whom wrote the protocol.), If it allows for a choice, then one should opt for the better of both worlds if possible (even if it will make the job a bit more problematic), unless one is prepared to hire the experts to prove their choice would be superior to any and all of the alternatives. (and trust me the non-medically informed lawyer WILL try that point with a quickness.) Protocol IS the "standard of care". Giving a human a drug that was never originally intended for humans in the first place has the appearance of being below the standard of care, at least at first appearances. That's one of the major reasons we have protocols. It's really the concept of not being afraid to grab a bull by it's horns.
Click to expand...

No. Just stop. Right now. Seriously, where do you get the rubbish that you post on here?

Ketamine WAS originally designed and intended for use in humans. It was first synthesized in Detroit in 1962 as a replacement for PCP, which was used as a general anesthetic in humans through the 1950's but had fallen out of favor due to its side effect profile. Like most drugs, it took years of testing to prove ketamine's safety, and it did not receive full FDA approval until 1970. In the interim it found popularity in veterinary medicine, because vet meds don't have to go through the same long approval process as human meds.

Even if Ketamine had originally been developed as a veterinary medicine, it has been fully FDA approved and widely used in humans for almost a half century. The idea that you'd encounter any legal trouble for using it is simply absurd.
 
Remi said:
No. Just stop. Right now. Seriously, where do you get the rubbish that you post on here?

Ketamine WAS originally designed and intended for use in humans. It was first synthesized in Detroit in 1962 as a replacement for PCP, which was used as a general anesthetic in humans through the 1950's but had fallen out of favor due to its side effect profile. Like most drugs, it took years of testing to prove ketamine's safety, and it did not receive full FDA approval until 1970. In the interim it found popularity in veterinary medicine, because vet meds don't have to go through the same long approval process as human meds.

Even if Ketamine had originally been developed as a veterinary medicine, it has been fully FDA approved and widely used in humans for almost a half century. The idea that you'd encounter any legal trouble for using it is simply absurd.
Click to expand...
Good history lesson on the drug. I do have to agree with you that he is coming up with some convoluted legal issues that don't exist yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top