Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

AED

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Just makes me think of all the times I've arrived on scene to

find a conscious and alert patient, with a friend/relative on

location telling me that they had to do " C-P-aura " on the

patient before we arrived. Yet with just a little

questioning, we learn that the patient was never in arrest--

in fact, many times they weren't even unconscious! (Yes--I

know it's " CPR " but EVERY TIME I've had this experience, the

person has pronounced the " R " as " aura " .)

Thank God for the built-in safeguards on the AEDs!

Maxine

hire-Pattison EMS

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:39:16 -0000

>

>

> Well I saw in the paper that the AED's are availble

> to anyone without

> a prescription. Hope ya'll are ready!!!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just makes me think of all the times I've arrived on scene to

find a conscious and alert patient, with a friend/relative on

location telling me that they had to do " C-P-aura " on the

patient before we arrived. Yet with just a little

questioning, we learn that the patient was never in arrest--

in fact, many times they weren't even unconscious! (Yes--I

know it's " CPR " but EVERY TIME I've had this experience, the

person has pronounced the " R " as " aura " .)

Thank God for the built-in safeguards on the AEDs!

Maxine

hire-Pattison EMS

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:39:16 -0000

>

>

> Well I saw in the paper that the AED's are availble

> to anyone without

> a prescription. Hope ya'll are ready!!!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just makes me think of all the times I've arrived on scene to

find a conscious and alert patient, with a friend/relative on

location telling me that they had to do " C-P-aura " on the

patient before we arrived. Yet with just a little

questioning, we learn that the patient was never in arrest--

in fact, many times they weren't even unconscious! (Yes--I

know it's " CPR " but EVERY TIME I've had this experience, the

person has pronounced the " R " as " aura " .)

Thank God for the built-in safeguards on the AEDs!

Maxine

hire-Pattison EMS

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:39:16 -0000

>

>

> Well I saw in the paper that the AED's are availble

> to anyone without

> a prescription. Hope ya'll are ready!!!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things they worry about paying when they need it but not latter, when you

hear the term don't worry about yo monies just takes em to da hozzpisstitle, you

know you will never receive payment for that trip. Which goes with are not none

oh me that be hurrss.

Re: AED

" Red " <fire@f...> wrote:

>

> I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't

call the

> ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid

for. I

> ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going

to do

> here. "

Hold it... you're suggesting that some citizens might worry about

having to pay their ambulance bill? Can't say I have ever encountered

that in 30 years.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things they worry about paying when they need it but not latter, when you

hear the term don't worry about yo monies just takes em to da hozzpisstitle, you

know you will never receive payment for that trip. Which goes with are not none

oh me that be hurrss.

Re: AED

" Red " <fire@f...> wrote:

>

> I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't

call the

> ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid

for. I

> ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going

to do

> here. "

Hold it... you're suggesting that some citizens might worry about

having to pay their ambulance bill? Can't say I have ever encountered

that in 30 years.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things they worry about paying when they need it but not latter, when you

hear the term don't worry about yo monies just takes em to da hozzpisstitle, you

know you will never receive payment for that trip. Which goes with are not none

oh me that be hurrss.

Re: AED

" Red " <fire@f...> wrote:

>

> I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't

call the

> ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid

for. I

> ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going

to do

> here. "

Hold it... you're suggesting that some citizens might worry about

having to pay their ambulance bill? Can't say I have ever encountered

that in 30 years.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red,

I can agree with the training part. But that's hard to enforce.

Already, the state has a law that states that a physician has to oversee

the acquisition and training for an AED. But it's rarely done. All

this change allows is purchase without a prescription, and that now

conflicts with state law.

=Steve=

Red wrote:

>There are many documented cases where fires have started and occupants or

>employees of the structure delayed notifying the FD because they tried, for

>up to 20mins, to extinguish the fire themselves, with fire extinguishers

>

>This is not a question of " IF " , but " WHEN " .

>

>When people have these new fancy tools(occupant use stand pipes, fire

>extinguishers, AEDs etc.), they gain a false sense of security, that they

>can control the situation.

>

>I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't call the

>ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid for. I

>ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going to do

>here. "

>

>So yes, I agree with you on that there NEEDS to be training that accompanies

>AEDs, I don't think they should be OTC. It should be a requirement to have

>CPR/AED certification to purchase them.

>

>

>Red

> AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red,

I can agree with the training part. But that's hard to enforce.

Already, the state has a law that states that a physician has to oversee

the acquisition and training for an AED. But it's rarely done. All

this change allows is purchase without a prescription, and that now

conflicts with state law.

=Steve=

Red wrote:

>There are many documented cases where fires have started and occupants or

>employees of the structure delayed notifying the FD because they tried, for

>up to 20mins, to extinguish the fire themselves, with fire extinguishers

>

>This is not a question of " IF " , but " WHEN " .

>

>When people have these new fancy tools(occupant use stand pipes, fire

>extinguishers, AEDs etc.), they gain a false sense of security, that they

>can control the situation.

>

>I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't call the

>ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid for. I

>ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going to do

>here. "

>

>So yes, I agree with you on that there NEEDS to be training that accompanies

>AEDs, I don't think they should be OTC. It should be a requirement to have

>CPR/AED certification to purchase them.

>

>

>Red

> AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red,

I can agree with the training part. But that's hard to enforce.

Already, the state has a law that states that a physician has to oversee

the acquisition and training for an AED. But it's rarely done. All

this change allows is purchase without a prescription, and that now

conflicts with state law.

=Steve=

Red wrote:

>There are many documented cases where fires have started and occupants or

>employees of the structure delayed notifying the FD because they tried, for

>up to 20mins, to extinguish the fire themselves, with fire extinguishers

>

>This is not a question of " IF " , but " WHEN " .

>

>When people have these new fancy tools(occupant use stand pipes, fire

>extinguishers, AEDs etc.), they gain a false sense of security, that they

>can control the situation.

>

>I can just imagine the thoughts going through one's head. " Don't call the

>ambulance, we have the same thing they use, and it's already paid for. I

>ain't gonna pay for some ambulance to come out and do what I'm going to do

>here. "

>

>So yes, I agree with you on that there NEEDS to be training that accompanies

>AEDs, I don't think they should be OTC. It should be a requirement to have

>CPR/AED certification to purchase them.

>

>

>Red

> AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there though(the

laws), especially for CYA.

AED

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>>have a fire.

>>>

>>> Lee

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

wrote:

>

> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there though(the

> laws), especially for CYA.

Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

enforced or repealed.

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

wrote:

>

> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there though(the

> laws), especially for CYA.

Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

enforced or repealed.

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

wrote:

>

> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there though(the

> laws), especially for CYA.

Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

enforced or repealed.

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

Re: AED

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> wrote:

>>

>> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

>> though(the

>> laws), especially for CYA.

>

> Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> enforced or repealed.

>

> Mike :)

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

Re: AED

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> wrote:

>>

>> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

>> though(the

>> laws), especially for CYA.

>

> Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> enforced or repealed.

>

> Mike :)

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

Re: AED

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> wrote:

>>

>> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

>> though(the

>> laws), especially for CYA.

>

> Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> enforced or repealed.

>

> Mike :)

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever need an aed I will shock my self and then call 911 is another problem

we deal with.

========================================

AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever need an aed I will shock my self and then call 911 is another problem

we deal with.

========================================

AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever need an aed I will shock my self and then call 911 is another problem

we deal with.

========================================

AED

>

>

>

>

>>Don't get me wrong i'm all for the AED's availble for anyone, as long

>>as we can tighten the reigns on the training NEEDED for them. There

>>are a few scenarios people throw out that to me are foolish. Overall

>>AED's save more people than before we had them. Just because you

>>have a smoke detector doesn't mean you won't call the FD when you

>>have a fire.

>>

>> Lee

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to jump in here to try to clarify what's being said. The " Good Sam "

laws are not " enforced. " They are applied through the civil legal process.

The GSL law is only used when somebody gets sued for negligence. Then that

person has the option of pleading the GSL as a defense. It is called an

" affirmative defense " and it does not automatically act to do anything. What

happens is that the defendant, in his responsive pleading to the Petition or

Complaint that has been filed against him, state in one of the paragraphs that:

" Defendent denies that his is liable to Plaintiffs and hereby invokes the

provisions of Section xxx, Negligence Code of the State of EMS Utopia, which

defendent asserts fully protects him from being found negligent and liable to

Plaintiff. " Or words to that effect.

At that point, the defense acts to force the Plaintiff to prove that the

GSL doesn't protect the defendant. This basically turns the tables on the

Plaintiff, since normally all he needs to do is prove negligence. Now he not

only needs to prove negligence, that that the negligence was of the magnitude

that overrides the protections afforded by the GSL. Generally, this requires

that the Plaintiff prove gross negligence, reckless conduct, or wilful and

wanton behavior (roughly all the same thing) in order to overcome the limited

immunity of the GSL.

So the GSL is really a grant of limited immunity, but it must be asserted

(pleaded) by the Defendant, and then the immunity is available to him unless and

until the Plaintiff overcomes that limited immunity by proving a higher

degree of negligence.

Clear as mud?

Gene

In a message dated 9/20/2004 9:18:26 AM Central Daylight Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to jump in here to try to clarify what's being said. The " Good Sam "

laws are not " enforced. " They are applied through the civil legal process.

The GSL law is only used when somebody gets sued for negligence. Then that

person has the option of pleading the GSL as a defense. It is called an

" affirmative defense " and it does not automatically act to do anything. What

happens is that the defendant, in his responsive pleading to the Petition or

Complaint that has been filed against him, state in one of the paragraphs that:

" Defendent denies that his is liable to Plaintiffs and hereby invokes the

provisions of Section xxx, Negligence Code of the State of EMS Utopia, which

defendent asserts fully protects him from being found negligent and liable to

Plaintiff. " Or words to that effect.

At that point, the defense acts to force the Plaintiff to prove that the

GSL doesn't protect the defendant. This basically turns the tables on the

Plaintiff, since normally all he needs to do is prove negligence. Now he not

only needs to prove negligence, that that the negligence was of the magnitude

that overrides the protections afforded by the GSL. Generally, this requires

that the Plaintiff prove gross negligence, reckless conduct, or wilful and

wanton behavior (roughly all the same thing) in order to overcome the limited

immunity of the GSL.

So the GSL is really a grant of limited immunity, but it must be asserted

(pleaded) by the Defendant, and then the immunity is available to him unless and

until the Plaintiff overcomes that limited immunity by proving a higher

degree of negligence.

Clear as mud?

Gene

In a message dated 9/20/2004 9:18:26 AM Central Daylight Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to jump in here to try to clarify what's being said. The " Good Sam "

laws are not " enforced. " They are applied through the civil legal process.

The GSL law is only used when somebody gets sued for negligence. Then that

person has the option of pleading the GSL as a defense. It is called an

" affirmative defense " and it does not automatically act to do anything. What

happens is that the defendant, in his responsive pleading to the Petition or

Complaint that has been filed against him, state in one of the paragraphs that:

" Defendent denies that his is liable to Plaintiffs and hereby invokes the

provisions of Section xxx, Negligence Code of the State of EMS Utopia, which

defendent asserts fully protects him from being found negligent and liable to

Plaintiff. " Or words to that effect.

At that point, the defense acts to force the Plaintiff to prove that the

GSL doesn't protect the defendant. This basically turns the tables on the

Plaintiff, since normally all he needs to do is prove negligence. Now he not

only needs to prove negligence, that that the negligence was of the magnitude

that overrides the protections afforded by the GSL. Generally, this requires

that the Plaintiff prove gross negligence, reckless conduct, or wilful and

wanton behavior (roughly all the same thing) in order to overcome the limited

immunity of the GSL.

So the GSL is really a grant of limited immunity, but it must be asserted

(pleaded) by the Defendant, and then the immunity is available to him unless and

until the Plaintiff overcomes that limited immunity by proving a higher

degree of negligence.

Clear as mud?

Gene

In a message dated 9/20/2004 9:18:26 AM Central Daylight Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Those aren't laws in the same sense that we're talking about here -

they're crafted excpetions to existing laws. The " Good Samaritan " law

is a crafted exception to various civil laws that are routinely

" enforced " by civil courts, and the self-defense defense is a crafted

exception to the Penal Code.

When dealing with " CYA " laws, you either have to decide that the law

needs a crafted exception and you enforce the rest of it, or that you

should simply repeal (or not pass) the law to begin with.

Mike :)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:52 -0500, Red

wrote:

> So you don't agree with the good Samaritan law? and self defense defense?

>

>

> Re: AED

>

> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0500, Red

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> enforcement is always a problem, with any law. It should be there

> >> though(the

> >> laws), especially for CYA.

> >

> > Laws should never exist solely for CYA. Either they should be

> > enforced or repealed.

> >

> > Mike :)

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...