Soon to be EMT-b, But an advocate for Medical Mariujana

[VentMedic]

...because in the hypothetical situation the law requires it. This isn't about checks in providing medical care. It's a hypothetical situation where the law is obviously wrong and the choice is to do the right thing or break the law.

Give an example of that hypothetical situation. In 30 years, I have not been forced by law to harm a patient.

However, how is allowing someone, who may be taking a medication that is not legally accepted with a possible medical condition that could be classified as debillitating by the laws that pertain to MM, have an EMT license not setting a patient up for harm

 

[TripsTer]

What I, and the person I quoted before are trying to say that we are against the people who go to doctor's offices, and falsely claim they feel a certain way just so they can get their "feel good meds".

Compare it to those who abuse your local EMS system. A guy calls 911, says he's hurting bad from that wreck with no-visible damage upon arrival, even though you can see the reflection of the guy that hit him who drives a bentley in his eyes. He gets what he wants, screaming with every bounce down the road, vowing that he'll have your license as well as the other guy's money when he's out. And when you see him again at the hospital after running that late call, he's walking out with a copy of a refusal in hand.

With that being said, there is of course plenty of people who need EMS everyday, but there is also a good number who you as well as I know, do not.

Same applies to the scrip drugs.

I agree with you that some people need it, but you don't agree with me that it's wrong to abuse them...let's reach a middle ground or a mutual understanding here...

 

[Veneficus]

Ok, I am sort of tired and have a long day ahead, but let me see if I can wrap this all up in one post.

Linuss,

If you look at the examples I posed about abortion I was thinking a little bigger and more morally complex than a simple IV start. In the event of a patient dehydrated to such extremis as to be in mortal peril, in the absence of another capable provider, I would not only support the starting of an IV by somebody trained in starting IVs (credentialed or not) but I would actively stand in their defense.

Tripster,

I think we agree in principle but not on the specifics of the example. As I am sure you are aware, in today’s society, people self dx and abuse all kinds of drugs. In fact I was discussing about a Munchausen patients today abusing insulin. Part of the problem is if the physician fails to act on made up symptoms, it could be considered nonfeasance. It is not right, but it is what it is.

If you would like I can repost about the paleopathology of modern psychiatric and psychological diseases. But in a nut shell these disorders have not been around that long. Similar in example to AIDS, I also mentioned malaria in an earlier post.

Vent,
You are starting to sound like an over educated EMT that can only fully immobilize all patients because that is what the rules say. Your focused knowledge set and scope has not put you in position to even consider when your medical skills might come into conflict with laws of society in 30 years. It is a reality JP and I will have to consider, particularly as medical science advances. I specifically cited abortion. It is not a hypothetical situation; it occurred in the US before, could occur there again, and is occurring in many nations around the world. But there are other examples, like using embryonic stem cells to “farm” replacement organs, alternative affordable treatments to people who cannot afford conventional medicine or in conventional facilities in the coming years, as well as a developing world market of selling donated organs for cash. In Turkey I am told by a native physician there is nothing to prevent paying for kidneys from perfectly healthy people. Moreover, the sale of a kidney can economically provide for an extended family for a life time. Once this transaction takes place, moral or not, it is a viable organ for transplantation. Currently In many nations this is prohibited by law. My opinion on its morality irrelevant. But like African diamonds, does a third party provider reject an already donated and available matched organ that could save a life or just toss it in the trash because it was procured in a questionable and possibly illegal manner? (I know it is difficult but try to just answer the question or admit it is beyond you instead of twisting the wording or creating a stawman to fit your point and avoid the topic)Better still maybe don’t reply at all and just think about it for a while. Some of you replies make it look like you can't comprehend the topic.

 

[VentMedic]

Vent,
You are starting to sound like an over educated EMT that can only fully immobilize all patients because that is what the rules say. Your focused knowledge set and scope has not put you in position to even consider when your medical skills might come into conflict with laws of society in 30 years. It is a reality JP and I will have to consider, particularly as medical science advances. I specifically cited abortion. It is not a hypothetical situation; it occurred in the US before, could occur there again, and is occurring in many nations around the world. But there are other examples, like using embryonic stem cells to “farm” replacement organs, alternative affordable treatments to people who cannot afford conventional medicine or in conventional facilities in the coming years, as well as a developing world market of selling donated organs for cash. In Turkey I am told by a native physician there is nothing to prevent paying for kidneys from perfectly healthy people. Moreover, the sale of a kidney can economically provide for an extended family for a life time. Once this transaction takes place, moral or not, it is a viable organ for transplantation. Currently In many nations this is prohibited by law. My opinion on its morality irrelevant. But like African diamonds, does a third party provider reject an already donated and available matched organ that could save a life or just toss it in the trash because it was procured in a questionable and possibly illegal manner? (I know it is difficult but try to just answer the question or admit it is beyond you instead of twisting the wording or creating a stawman to fit your point and avoid the topic)Better still maybe don’t reply at all and just think about it for a while. Some of you replies make it look like you can't comprehend the topic.

Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion.

Would his doctor be okay with fighting for him at the state level to be the exception? Maybe and maybe not since this guy is asking his question on an anonymous forum and not directing it at the people dispensing and do the scripts for his MM. Are they flying just under the wire in CA as some dispensaries and doctors have been doing without legal or medical justification?

As far as your examples of AIDS, if a healthcare provider has made the transition to the diagnosis of AIDS, there is a good chance they will not be working in a patient care area. Their HIV status may also exclude them from working in a patient care area.

Thus, a state board should have some authority over who obtains a license in patient care for the safety of the patient. Whether you like it or not the safety of the public and the patients are still a concern. Right now this discussion is still about obtaining an EMS cert in the U.S. and not the black market for organs in Turkey or Africa.

 

[Veneficus]

Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion.

Would his doctor be okay with fighting for him at the state level to be the exception? Maybe and maybe not since this guy is asking his question on an anonymous forum and not directing it at the people dispensing and do the scripts for his MM. Are they flying just under the wire in CA as some dispensaries and doctors have been doing without legal or medical justification?

As far as your examples of AIDS, if a healthcare provider has made the transition to the diagnosis of AIDS, there is a good chance they will not be working in a patient care area. Their HIV status may also exclude them from working in a patient care area.

Thus, a state board should have some authority over who obtains a license in patient care for the safety of the patient. Whether you like it or not the safety of the public and the patients are still a concern. Right now this discussion is still about obtaining an EMS cert in the U.S. and not the black market for organs in Turkey or Africa.

How ingenious.
The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.

Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature.
good riddence to bad rubish.

 

[JPINFV]

Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion.

I must have missed the part where anyone was advising him to break the rules. I see a lot of people casting doubt on his chance in the fire service and a lot of people advising him to talk to his physician, including Veneficus and I in the first page of the thread. Following that, I see a discussion about the moral, legal, and societal views on medical marijuana. However, discussing those topics is hardly in the least slapping him on the back and telling him to take on the world while using marijuana.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. Since apparently homosexuality and adultery laws are a joke, I'll go back to the civil rights era. If Rosa Parks was a licensed health care provider, should she have had her license revoked for breaking the law? ...and no, I'm not laughing with this question.

 

[VentMedic]

How ingenious.
The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.

Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature.
good riddence to bad rubish.

How is the black market organ program in Turkey going to help this guy get an EMT cert?

You again have a smoke screen based on what you have read on the internet that doesn't really pertain to the discussion.

 

[VentMedic]

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. Since apparently homosexuality and adultery laws are a joke, I'll go back to the civil rights era. If Rosa Parks was a licensed health care provider, should she have had her license revoked for breaking the law? ...and no, I'm not laughing with this question.

Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?

Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.

What part of my previous post do you find funny? Do you get a laugh when gays are denied employment, housing and the right to marry? Is that funny do you? Does that really sound like a laughable joke? Maybe it is to you but to those of us who do know gay people that have had their rights denied it is not. However, they were not using drugs or disabled to where they could not do their jobs either.

Screw around with someone else while married to your wife (or husband if you managed to marry in SF a couple years ago or where it might be legal) and you will discover how funny the adultery laws can be in court.

There was also a time when a black person would never have considered even applying for a license.

 

[JPINFV]

I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think that it's so funny, maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.

 

[Veneficus]

I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think that it's so funny, maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.

I am printing this out to show to my classmates and professors tomorrow in school as a classic example of the type of ancillary providers the US has.

I'll PM you the summary of the opinions.

 

[Meursault]

sage

How ingenious.
The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.

Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature.
good riddence to bad rubish.

I figured it was an ethics discussion, actually. I hate it when people muddy the water with morality.
Looking at the OP, it turns out it was largely a thread for practical advice and legal/employment issues.

Regardless of what it started as, it's since drifted off-topic. Now make up, children, and can we let the thread die now?

Actually, I'm surprised that it got so little pro-prohibition FUD. Normally a thread like this would have a lot more CRUISE CONTROL and a lot less productive discussion.

 

[BruceD]

I can't believe no one has brought this up.

A person registers 2-6-10, posts THIS topic and is never seen again.

-TROLL-

That is all.

 

[VentMedic]

I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think that it's so funny, maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.

Would you like to show where in any of my posts that I stated gay people have no place in health care professions? Are you the one what is saying gay people have no place in health care? Point out in any of my posts where I stated gays are funny and have no place in EMS or any profession. There are still laws in place that do not allow gays into certain occupations. Let me again repeat my previous post for you.

Originally Posted by VentMedic

Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?

Highlight the funny part. What do you find so funny about any of my statements in that post? Laws have been changed to allow gays entry into different professions as attitudes have changed.

Do you understand the stance pertaining to the EMS licensing board and illegal drugs? Are you upset that some states do have restrictions when it comes to the use of illegal drugs? Do you believe there should be absolutely NO restrictions on who can be an EMT? Anybody using drugs or convicted of raping a child should be allowed into the profession because you have a problem with "laws"? Are you stating it is your right to be stoned on the job that pertains to patient care? Like it or not there are certain laws that do exist for safety.

 

[SuperJew]

As for advocacy, there are demonstratable medical benefits of THC. However, the side effects as well as addictive nature (similar to nicotine)
.

It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol. if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.

 

[Pneumothorax]

dude admit it, youre a pothead.

 

[bstone]

It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol. if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.

SuperJew? First post was of an old thread. I agree with the content but can't help but be mildly confused by the username.

 

[thatJeffguy]

It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol. if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.

I agree.

It's so funny how many EMS providers try to set arbitary standards for who should and shouldn't be a provider.

I'd say that a decent percentage of EMS providers I know half-*** almost everything they do, never bother to do continuing education unless it's some bull:censored::censored::censored::censored: online "class" (usually on such powerhouse subjects as "handwashing"), are in horrible physical condition and drink frequently to excess. They don't expose trauma patients, they have their "own way" of doing things in the field (that contradict those ways thought up by doctors and other professionals), they break MV codes frequently and treat most patients with a disgusted attitude of "How quickly can I determine that this call is bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:, the patient doesnt' REALLY need my care and, once I've made that determination, how rude and condescending can I be to the patient, their family and any other providers that might show up?". If I meet someone that doesn't fit this description then I'll be pleased with their performance I really couldn't care less if they're going to go home (after work) and enjoy a joint while I go home and enjoy a beer. We've got so many real issues to deal with in EMS I see no reason to create more. Let's deal with the providers that aren't capable of caring for a cat first, then we'll see what other groups of people we can categorically deny membership to.

 

[MonkeySquasher]

I'll be the next troll...

I don't think marijuana should be legal, because there is no legal, scientifically reliable test for THC levels in the body, equating that to levels of "THC intoxication". Alcohol can be measured in the blood, and therefore a "legal" limit of alcohol intoxication is set. As far as I'm aware, you can't do that for marijuana.

If we really cared about the health of the human body, we'd make any kind of smoking (including/especially nicotine) illegal. And probably alcohol, too.

Then again, opinions are like rectal orafices...

 

[JPINFV]

If we really cared about the health of the human body, we'd make any kind of smoking (including/especially nicotine) illegal. And probably alcohol, too.

Then again, opinions are like rectal orafices...

See... here's the problem, and what honestly boggles my mind over the war on drugs. A long time ago (ok... not really that long...) we made alcohol illegal. Yea... it didn't work out too well...