Re: flyboy

February 20, 2006

" Bobby Brinson " wrote:

> Well, for starters.flyboy.now really.

I presume you take offense to my use of the term. It really wasn't

intended as an insult. In a previous career I was a " flygirl " .

> Another thing I know is that I posted

> on this actually more in a neutral position.

Indeed, yours was not inflammatory, resentful, sarcastic or obtuse.

> I'm also sorry I just didn't have time to post

> here while serving in Iraq.

I was unable to communicate by email or just about any means while I

was in Somalia, so I understand. And welcome back, by the way.

> I was unclear on which " flyboy " you were referring

I was referring to all persons who replied to the person addressed

in my original message with the tired old standard " me too " . I refer

to the " protect my turf at all costs " mentality so often seen in our

profession. Just about anything in this profession can cause

unproductive, reactionary behavior. Why do we behave so? Where does

the mentality come from? Who taught us to be this way?

If someone has data supporting a theory and the opposition, rising

in vengeful indignation, offers only emotion as response, who gains?

Are we standing firm in our beliefs for the benefit of the patient?

The profession? Simple selfishness? If data exists and we deny, then

continue defending a debunked practice, who gains?

Someone said that those pointing to deficiencies in our current

practices should not try to change things until there is something

else to offer. Think about that. We are doing something which is

clearly killing people, but we should allow it to be continued until

we figure a way to kill fewer people, even though modifying or even

putting an end to the current practice would kill fewer people.

Where is the logic?

You don't like the way I said it, I'm sorry. I don't speak as well

as some on this forum, but I meant no insult. I only wanted to point

out that some people can't seem to get past personal emotional

attachments long enough to see the big picture.

> With respect,

Respect returned, now I've got to go to work.

--

February 20, 2006

Mr. Brinson:

Thank you, from the country, and from me personally . I am the Family

Readiness Group leader, for the 8th BDE, 95th DIV of the Army Reserves. I am

aware the type sacrafice you and your family had to make in order for you to

defend the freedom of us all. I never miss the opportunity when it presents

itself to publicly thank a soldier. I don't know when your service was or when

you came back, but you have the graditude of the nation. I am also the mother

of soldier, thank your mother as well.

Sincerely,

Debra Parsons

Bobby Brinson wrote:

" .helicopter message was from one flyboy or another and every con was from

someone I have seen post on this topic previously. "

Well, for starters.flyboy.now really. Another thing I know is that I posted

on this actually more in a neutral position, despite my job function. Also,

I have posted on this site before; it just has been a while. I'm also sorry

I just didn't have time to post here while serving in Iraq. I am posted this

because I was unclear on which " flyboy " you were referring to also.

With respect,

Bobby

February 20, 2006

Mr. Brinson:

Thank you, from the country, and from me personally . I am the Family

Readiness Group leader, for the 8th BDE, 95th DIV of the Army Reserves. I am

aware the type sacrafice you and your family had to make in order for you to

defend the freedom of us all. I never miss the opportunity when it presents

itself to publicly thank a soldier. I don't know when your service was or when

you came back, but you have the graditude of the nation. I am also the mother

of soldier, thank your mother as well.

Sincerely,

Debra Parsons

Bobby Brinson wrote:

" .helicopter message was from one flyboy or another and every con was from

someone I have seen post on this topic previously. "

Well, for starters.flyboy.now really. Another thing I know is that I posted

on this actually more in a neutral position, despite my job function. Also,

I have posted on this site before; it just has been a while. I'm also sorry

I just didn't have time to post here while serving in Iraq. I am posted this

because I was unclear on which " flyboy " you were referring to also.

With respect,

Bobby

February 20, 2006

Mr. Brinson:

Thank you, from the country, and from me personally . I am the Family

Readiness Group leader, for the 8th BDE, 95th DIV of the Army Reserves. I am

aware the type sacrafice you and your family had to make in order for you to

defend the freedom of us all. I never miss the opportunity when it presents

itself to publicly thank a soldier. I don't know when your service was or when

you came back, but you have the graditude of the nation. I am also the mother

of soldier, thank your mother as well.

Sincerely,

Debra Parsons

Bobby Brinson wrote:

" .helicopter message was from one flyboy or another and every con was from

someone I have seen post on this topic previously. "

Well, for starters.flyboy.now really. Another thing I know is that I posted

on this actually more in a neutral position, despite my job function. Also,

I have posted on this site before; it just has been a while. I'm also sorry

I just didn't have time to post here while serving in Iraq. I am posted this

because I was unclear on which " flyboy " you were referring to also.

With respect,

Bobby

February 20, 2006

After reading my own message I think I was still unclear. As usual I

talked too much and didn't say enough. Let me state it more simply.

I am AGAINST doing things because we have always done it that way, or

because " it feels good " , or just for the money.

I am FOR making decisions about patient care and moving our profession

into the future based upon data and current science.

I am neither FOR or AGAINST helicopters. The data seems to suggest we

aren't doing it correctly, but I have never seen data in support so I

really don't know. I'm inclined to go with the data we have and would

thus be less inclined to call for a helicopter.

My original response and the follow up were intended to point out what

appears to be a mercenary, keep off of my turf attitude rather than a

true quest for the best in patient care and the future of our

profession.

And now I've really got to go to work.

--

February 20, 2006

After reading my own message I think I was still unclear. As usual I

talked too much and didn't say enough. Let me state it more simply.

I am AGAINST doing things because we have always done it that way, or

because " it feels good " , or just for the money.

I am FOR making decisions about patient care and moving our profession

into the future based upon data and current science.

I am neither FOR or AGAINST helicopters. The data seems to suggest we

aren't doing it correctly, but I have never seen data in support so I

really don't know. I'm inclined to go with the data we have and would

thus be less inclined to call for a helicopter.

My original response and the follow up were intended to point out what

appears to be a mercenary, keep off of my turf attitude rather than a

true quest for the best in patient care and the future of our

profession.

And now I've really got to go to work.

--

February 20, 2006

After reading my own message I think I was still unclear. As usual I

talked too much and didn't say enough. Let me state it more simply.

I am AGAINST doing things because we have always done it that way, or

because " it feels good " , or just for the money.

I am FOR making decisions about patient care and moving our profession

into the future based upon data and current science.

I am neither FOR or AGAINST helicopters. The data seems to suggest we

aren't doing it correctly, but I have never seen data in support so I

really don't know. I'm inclined to go with the data we have and would

thus be less inclined to call for a helicopter.

My original response and the follow up were intended to point out what

appears to be a mercenary, keep off of my turf attitude rather than a

true quest for the best in patient care and the future of our

profession.

And now I've really got to go to work.

--

February 20, 2006

No, the flyboy doesn't offend me at all. I was just pointing to the

originality of the term. I don't offend easy so don't worry there. I love my

job and advocate safety and necessity as much as possible. I spent many

years as a provider " on the ground " and have seen the benefits AND abuse of

aircraft utilization. For those guys here that say that helicopters are of

no use, and that they cannot think of any reason to use them, to them I call

BS. Now is there an OVER utilization of HEMS, perhaps. I do agree with doc

Bledsoe in that the true " need " for HEMS lies more in the rural setting,

somewhere that the closest trauma or " major " medical facility is over an

hour away. (by major I mean heart cath/ intervention, neuro, etc ) Who cares

how FAR these facilities are, it's about how much time it takes to get

there, right. I worked in the ATCEMS system and know that, even though your

5 miles away, it can still take you 45 minutes to get there! So my argument

isn't pro or con, it's about the education. One of my jobs is to make sure

providers think in those terms, to make logical, resourceful decisions. Oh,

and as far as " serving my country " well, I don't stand alone in that deal!

(Right Ross T?) There are many brave guys and gals on this forum. Don't

thank me, I just did my job. Oh, and isn't Somolia a wonderful place? Yea, I

know!

Hey, Ross, drop me a line!

With Respect,

Bobby

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of simple_emt

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:21 AM

To:

Subject: Re: " flyboy "

After reading my own message I think I was still unclear. As usual I

talked too much and didn't say enough. Let me state it more simply.

I am AGAINST doing things because we have always done it that way, or

because " it feels good " , or just for the money.

I am FOR making decisions about patient care and moving our profession

into the future based upon data and current science.

I am neither FOR or AGAINST helicopters. The data seems to suggest we

aren't doing it correctly, but I have never seen data in support so I

really don't know. I'm inclined to go with the data we have and would

thus be less inclined to call for a helicopter.

My original response and the follow up were intended to point out what

appears to be a mercenary, keep off of my turf attitude rather than a

true quest for the best in patient care and the future of our

profession.

And now I've really got to go to work.

--

February 20, 2006