|
Post by 2 on Jan 27, 2011 3:53:20 GMT -5
, patient or patients. why are you nitpikin again? ;D I am not nit picking, I am correcting your error. Triage is put into place to enhance the survival of the greatest number of patients not ensure the survival of any single patient. Sometimes the patient with the most severe wounds is put last on the list. Since your experience in this field seems limited you might want to read a little about the triage process before commenting. and that is what interpreting all available information involves, using the triage system, or not, we can only do what we are capable of, and our interpretation will always be questioned by someone that disagrees with our interpretation. if someone is triaging a disaster, each person needs the best possible care, and i will continue to call that the BEST interest of the patient, surely someone will interpret the care in another way, but to do LESS than the best possible in the interest of the patient, is against nursing principles, as far as i know. the key word is how do we interpret the manual, and if no one is available to care for everyone, it takes a good nurse to find the best solution for each patient, knowing what she knows about nursing... can a severe head injury be more important than a laceration, it sure is. but if the nurse interprets it as too far gone, does that mean that the treatment was wrong, no, it only means there was not enough help to help everyone injured. it happens all the time, in disasters.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2011 7:44:08 GMT -5
, patient or patients. whether triaging or not, the individual patient is utmost importance to any nurse. i will defend that comment. Alright. Back to the example I gave. You have three victims. Transportation is the limiting factor. You are the triage leader. Who gets the first ride? The victim with the sucking chest wound, the one with the severed femoral artery, or the one with the severe head wound who is fixed and dilated? And once you have made you decision explain how that is caring for the individual patient.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 27, 2011 8:13:31 GMT -5
whether triaging or not, the individual patient is utmost importance to any nurse. i will defend that comment. Alright. Back to the example I gave. You have three victims. Transportation is the limiting factor. You are the triage leader. Who gets the first ride? The victim with the sucking chest wound, the one with the severed femoral artery, or the one with the severe head wound who is fixed and dilated? And once you have made you decision explain how that is caring for the individual patient. easier than caring for multiple patients, it is all common sense. of course with the profound influence of tv , most people are sorely lacking in common sense, eh?
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jan 27, 2011 14:18:32 GMT -5
Since when is this a christian message board?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2011 15:59:43 GMT -5
Alright. Back to the example I gave. You have three victims. Transportation is the limiting factor. You are the triage leader. Who gets the first ride? The victim with the sucking chest wound, the one with the severed femoral artery, or the one with the severe head wound who is fixed and dilated? And once you have made you decision explain how that is caring for the individual patient. easier than caring for multiple patients, it is all common sense. of course with the profound influence of tv , most people are sorely lacking in common sense, eh? You didn't answer the question. Who gets the first ride? How is that decision caring for each individual victim?
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 27, 2011 16:29:52 GMT -5
Why? Because it sounds real bad? The conversation leads to kayos and confusion? No rules but the rules of the stronger, the wiser, the learned? All is defined by chance and rational Spock like reasoning? No morality, no absolute truths? You see how easy it is to tear your faithlessness in a God apart? Because with the assumption that there is no God, the moral fabric and all intelligent reasoning as we know it is destroyed because then 'Anything goes, nothing is right or wrong!' Let's stop here. Do you want to discuss this point? You are, in essence, claiming that without a belief in god there is no morality. Can you defend this claim? Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' For someone who does not believe in a lawgiver, the laws are meaningless to him and will only claim this law for his protection from others. But he himself can and will break it to gain power, wealth etc.
A thief knows it is wrong to steal, but he does it anyways. Why?
But what if a President of a world power says: "What is truth?" As Clinton did under trial. Then the thief questions; what is stealing? Then; What is a lie?
You see, why would an unbeliever in God keep the law if it goes against his welfare? Just ask my old boss. He cheated, lied and stole till he was filthy rich. But when someone stole from him, he ran to the law to prosecute them. Come on Rational, does the cat take a swim in a cold pond every morning? That is how comfortable it is for an atheist to keep to the truth all day long, every day. This is why our laws have been decemated, don't have to go for a cold swim anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 27, 2011 21:20:49 GMT -5
whether triaging or not, the individual patient is utmost importance to any nurse. i will defend that comment. Alright. Back to the example I gave. You have three victims. Transportation is the limiting factor. You are the triage leader. Who gets the first ride? The victim with the sucking chest wound, the one with the severed femoral artery, or the one with the severe head wound who is fixed and dilated? And once you have made you decision explain how that is caring for the individual patient. Sucking chest wound. If transportation is the limiting factor the severed femoral artery can be field treated -- tied off and wait for the next ride. If it cannot be tied off the patient will bleed to death in a few minutes anyway - no need to waste a ride on him. The head wound is a lost cause - black tag 'im. Sucking chest wound cannot be effectively field treated, but has the potential for effective treatment in a proper facility, thus needs the ride. No, I have no experience. I work at a bank and once fainted at the sight of my own blood.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 0:22:41 GMT -5
Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god. What do laws and morality have to do with each other?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 28, 2011 0:35:47 GMT -5
Alright. Back to the example I gave. You have three victims. Transportation is the limiting factor. You are the triage leader. Who gets the first ride? The victim with the sucking chest wound, the one with the severed femoral artery, or the one with the severe head wound who is fixed and dilated? And once you have made you decision explain how that is caring for the individual patient. Sucking chest wound. If transportation is the limiting factor the severed femoral artery can be field treated -- tied off and wait for the next ride. If it cannot be tied off the patient will bleed to death in a few minutes anyway - no need to waste a ride on him. The head wound is a lost cause - black tag 'im. Sucking chest wound cannot be effectively field treated, but has the potential for effective treatment in a proper facility, thus needs the ride. No, I have no experience. I work at a bank and once fainted at the sight of my own blood. That was my order too.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 3:26:42 GMT -5
easier than caring for multiple patients, it is all common sense. of course with the profound influence of tv , most people are sorely lacking in common sense, eh? You didn't answer the question. Who gets the first ride? How is that decision caring for each individual victim? that is where interpretation comes into play, eh? besides, which of the three has insurance (sorry, that was my initial reason for making the point : the best interest of the hospital, i mean patient) ..... an altruistic nurse would not be affected by the factor of who has the insurance, but that was my point. needless to say, this has become an issue of whether or not the said (triage) nurse can properly care/assess multiple patients or just one patient at a time. in your example, it would certainly be difficult to care for all three, and i am sure that is what your point is. that is where common sense comes into play, as i can not vision a manual that will state which of the three should be the first to ride, and if a triage nurse wishes to 'go by the manual', that is what it is. but still , whatever the choice, all three will be affected by the choice, and when the boat is sinking, do we bail out, or fight?? if you want me to choose which of the three rides, it would need to be a better example than the one you chose, in my opinion. that same example can be used in the ER, to decide which patient gets treated first, if all three arrived at exactly the same time, and only one nurse available, to treat them all, and each one critical. I would give the doubt to whoever makes the decision. each one is/can be treated, as best interpreted by the hospital, i mean nurse, i mean nurses, i mean triaging manual, i mean: ''que sera sera'', it was the best that could be done at that moment in time for all three.... according to the protocol of whoever was in charge. yes, i think you will disagree, but that is OK, too! ;D i do not know who (of the three) should be the first to ride, certainly it would somewhat depend on if i could feel comfortable with my choice, and if all three could get at least some treatment, and if i could properly treat any of them.... but to answer your question, hmmmm.... is there any way to interpret the triage manual to suggest that common sense should be ignored? i hope not! ;D yikes, do you believe in miracles? this would be a great example of testing my faith in miracles, eh?
|
|
Shosho
Junior Member
NEVER JUDGE ANOTHER!!! Remember the prophet Hosea? (Hosea 1:2)
Posts: 180
|
Post by Shosho on Jan 28, 2011 3:59:20 GMT -5
ariandgable said: "Fred won't have to do that, even Holocaust surviving Jews deny the Holocaust, if they didn't they would surely have repented by now and accepted their Messiah. By them helping further the Venus Project by helping destroy all moral laws, their love for money they actually speed up their next Holocaust. But this time, they will not be able to blame God, but only themselves. They'll be playing the funny movie 'Religulous' by Bill Maher to them as they lead them into the death chambers. All naked in line they'll listen to their famous talk show host Howard Stern asking; "do you take it up your a__? Come on honey, take it off... yeah..." God will listen to their last laugh... on themselves. God help us, and His People the Jews. Lord, when will the scales be lifted?"
This is so ignorant it's nearly unbelievable that someone would post it. Perhaps you might explain what you meant by this??
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 4:29:18 GMT -5
ariandgable: they'll listen to their famous talk show host Howard Stern asking; God help us, and His People the Jews. Lord, when will the scales be lifted?" This is so ignorant it's nearly unbelievable that someone would post it. Perhaps you might explain what you meant by this?? is a Jew a religion , or a race of people? i think when people post negative things about Jews, they are ignorant of what a Jew is, they believe that a Jew rejects God's son, Jesus?? and yet, a true Jew would never reject God's son, if they knew it was God's son , would never reject. i wonder what ari meant too?
|
|
Shosho
Junior Member
NEVER JUDGE ANOTHER!!! Remember the prophet Hosea? (Hosea 1:2)
Posts: 180
|
Post by Shosho on Jan 28, 2011 5:12:42 GMT -5
ariandgable: they'll listen to their famous talk show host Howard Stern asking; God help us, and His People the Jews. Lord, when will the scales be lifted?" This is so ignorant it's nearly unbelievable that someone would post it. Perhaps you might explain what you meant by this?? is a Jew a religion , or a race of people? i think when people post negative things about Jews, they are ignorant of what a Jew is, they believe that a Jew rejects God's son, Jesus?? and yet, a true Jew would never reject God's son, if they knew it was God's son , would never reject. i wonder what ari meant too? Interestingly, people forget that Y'shua came and lived among His people... the Jews. The multitudes who followed Him were JEWS. The talmidim (students/disciples) were Jews! Jews are a group of people by birthright, or by choice. Much more than the religion of Judaism which makes a Jew... Even ORTHODOX Jews pray daily for Moshiah to come. Is it any wonder when they see the Moshiah (messiah) allegedly represented by ignorant people that they believe He can't have come (yet) and are praying for His coming?? If you want to prove that He has come, and that He LIVES and REIGNS in your heart, this is hardly the way to do so! If you are going to claim salvation, you MUST have the ruah ha kodesh, Spirit of Holiness. Ignorant bigotry is not in the least representative of the Spirit! Just for the record, there are no Jews who deny ha shoah. We lost our families to the evil deeds of mankind. It was NOT a punishment from G-D, in Whom is ALL Good, and from whom ALL good comes. The sins of the fathers are NOT visited upon the children. Millions of innocent people died, and not only Jews....
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 5:46:39 GMT -5
is a Jew a religion , or a race of people? i think when people post negative things about Jews, they are ignorant of what a Jew is, they believe that a Jew rejects God's son, Jesus?? and yet, a true Jew would never reject God's son, if they knew it was God's son , would never reject. i wonder what ari meant too? Interestingly, people forget that Y'shua came and lived among His people... the Jews. The multitudes who followed Him were JEWS. The talmidim (students/disciples) were Jews! Jews are a group of people by birthright, or by choice. Much more than the religion of Judaism which makes a Jew... Even ORTHODOX Jews pray daily for Moshiah to come. Is it any wonder when they see the Moshiah (messiah) allegedly represented by ignorant people that they believe He can't have come (yet) and are praying for His coming?? If you want to prove that He has come, and that He LIVES and REIGNS in your heart, this is hardly the way to do so! If you are going to claim salvation, you MUST have the ruah ha kodesh, Spirit of Holiness. Ignorant bigotry is not in the least representative of the Spirit! Just for the record, there are no Jews who deny ha shoah. We lost our families to the evil deeds of mankind. It was NOT a punishment from G-D, in Whom is ALL Good, and from whom ALL good comes. The sins of the fathers are NOT visited upon the children. Millions of innocent people died, and not only Jews.... such irony. thanks for sharing , i have many Jewish friends.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 6:59:03 GMT -5
easier than caring for multiple patients, it is all common sense. of course with the profound influence of tv , most people are sorely lacking in common sense, eh? You didn't answer the question. Who gets the first ride? How is that decision caring for each individual victim? like the wiki said; triaging was created for treating wounded in world war II, and for that reason, i believe it was originally meant to keep people (nurses) from trying to use their own logic/reasoning/common sense , and by having a triage manual, the nurse could go by the book/manual and not worry about doing what logic /common sense would indicate, wars are never logical anyways, and dealing with the casualties would certainly be a difficult task, and the fewer nurses available to treat them all takes great skill to get the best results, imo.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 8:37:54 GMT -5
Sucking chest wound. If transportation is the limiting factor the severed femoral artery can be field treated -- tied off and wait for the next ride. If it cannot be tied off the patient will bleed to death in a few minutes anyway - no need to waste a ride on him. The head wound is a lost cause - black tag 'im. Sucking chest wound cannot be effectively field treated, but has the potential for effective treatment in a proper facility, thus needs the ride. No, I have no experience. I work at a bank and once fainted at the sight of my own blood. Sent the femoral artery with pressure to control the bleeding. Sucking chest was treated with a bandage wrapper and tape. The head wound expired before transportation returned. Good call though. I think it could have gone either way.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 8:57:00 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question. Who gets the first ride? How is that decision caring for each individual victim? needless to say, this has become an issue of whether or not the said (triage) nurse can properly care/assess multiple patients or just one patient at a time. No, this has become an issue of what triage actually is. It is the job of the triage team to look at all the patients and determine the order of treatment that will result in the highest number of survivors. The point is that there are not people to care for them so you have to make a decision of the order in which they will be transported. And while you are looking for the manual how many will die? That is right. Triage is not for the single patient. The decisions affect the whole group. What do you want to be different? I didn't mention the others who were not in dire straits. It could be but that is not the example I provided. You are the triage person. And all you have to do is support your contention that the the point of triage is for the good of each individual victim. You are in charge. The transportation is waiting to evacuate the victim you choose. Explain how whatever choice you make will be for the good of the individual and not the good of the group as a whole. I am not going to disagree but wile you are standing with your hands in your pants people are dying. And if wishes were fishes we all would cast nets. But the task of the triage person is to make the decision so at the end of the day the most people survive. You see, in this exercise whatever decision you make will not be the best decision for two of the individuals. That simply is not the reason for triage. Sure would be but that is not the way the world works. You need to make the decision. And as I suspected, you didn't answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 9:05:25 GMT -5
As it turns out the sucking chest wound was more manageable in the field. The artery, with pressure, could be controlled for a time but really was more urgent. The decision was also based on the fact that the chest could wait for the second trip but probably the artery could not. Of course, seeing the victims provides a lot more information.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 28, 2011 9:06:13 GMT -5
Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' According to statistics, Christians outrank Atheists in USA jails. Guess that law isn't working so well.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 12:40:21 GMT -5
Sucking chest wound. If transportation is the limiting factor the severed femoral artery can be field treated -- tied off and wait for the next ride. If it cannot be tied off the patient will bleed to death in a few minutes anyway - no need to waste a ride on him. The head wound is a lost cause - black tag 'im. Sucking chest wound cannot be effectively field treated, but has the potential for effective treatment in a proper facility, thus needs the ride. No, I have no experience. I work at a bank and once fainted at the sight of my own blood. Sent the femoral artery with pressure to control the bleeding. Sucking chest was treated with a bandage wrapper and tape. The head wound expired before transportation returned. Good call though. I think it could have gone either way. judgment call, yes, what is the correct interpretation of protocol
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 12:49:50 GMT -5
rational, let me get this straight, does the question you are asking have a correct answer? if it does, then what is it? if it needs to be futher analyzed by using the correct triage manual, then it seems there is no right answer, as i have not found the universal (triage manual). what can you tell me?
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 13:20:42 GMT -5
No, this has become an issue of what triage actually is. It is the job of the triage team to look at all the patients and determine the order of treatment That is right. Triage is not for the single patient. The decisions affect the whole group. It could be but that is not the example I provided. You are the triage person. And all you have to do is support your contention that the the point of triage is for the good of each individual victim. You are in charge. The transportation is waiting to evacuate the victim you choose. Explain how whatever choice you make will be for the good of the individual and not the good of the group as a whole. I am not going to disagree but wile you are standing with your hands in your pants people are dying. And if wishes were fishes we all would cast nets. But the task of the triage person is to make the decision so at the end of the day the most people survive. You see, in this exercise whatever decision you make will not be the best decision for two of the individuals. That simply is not the reason for triage. And as I suspected, you didn't answer the question. i am working on what the question is, then i will answer the question. all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care? maybe the question should be: when does an injured person, become a patient? answer: when the injured person is receiving the best possible care,(not looking for doing the impossible on this)
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 14:00:38 GMT -5
Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god. What do laws and morality have to do with each other? Morality: accepted moral standards
Tell me, in this Venus Project Utopia, sorry, Beyond Utopia, who will 'set' an accepted moral standard, Mr. Clinton? Who, do you have an idea?
How is the world to 'unite' on an accepted moral standard unless it's written down or explained and understood by the whole world without question?
I remember talking to you about this some years back, and the Holocaust came up. We argued about the German Christians who hid Jews in their attic, and when the SS came to ask them about it, they lied. Remember I said I could not lie, nor could any real Christian lie to cover the fact.
So once again, once the laws are abolished (and it is almost at that point today) who will set the MORAL STANDARD? What will be the standard that an Arab, a Jew, a Negro, an atheist, a homosexual, a thief, a professional hit man (doctor/nurse) a child molester, a wife abuser, an elderly woman, an elderly man, the sick and the crippled, the handicapped could willingly accept?
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 14:12:21 GMT -5
Reviewing: with a triage nurse, do not treat an individual/ patient, even if only one can ride? does the other individual not get any care??? i believe my comment was : the best interest of the patient.
in this case, there is only one patient . a patient, is only a patient, if it is getting nurse/doctor care would you call me a patient, if i was left behind , and the injured individual was driven to the hospital? when is a patient really a patient? perhaps now we should define what a patient is, eh ;D? if i recall correctly, you did not think it was proper for me to say a triage nurse was trying looking out for the best interest of the patient. and you justify your point, with an example of only one individual (patient) riding to hospital, thus there is only one patient. the triage nurse did look after the patient, the other individuals , have not became patients yet.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 28, 2011 14:25:34 GMT -5
As it turns out the sucking chest wound was more manageable in the field. The artery, with pressure, could be controlled for a time but really was more urgent. The decision was also based on the fact that the chest could wait for the second trip but probably the artery could not. Of course, seeing the victims provides a lot more information. I didn't know what sucking chest wound is, but it sounded like an open chest/lung involvement, so I deemed it most serious. (Yes, seeing the victims is necessary for adequate triage. ) I also was "assuming" prompt backup for the artery wound.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 28, 2011 14:34:44 GMT -5
As it turns out the sucking chest wound was more manageable in the field. Of course, seeing the victims provides a lot more information. (Yes, seeing the victims is necessary for adequate triage. ) I also was "assuming" prompt backup for the artery wound. i agreeeeee hmmm, this is kinda like assessing scruples to the discission, what happened to the universal manual?? ;D
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Jan 28, 2011 15:13:19 GMT -5
We will be required to count nats next...
I was fast tracked one time. But hey Ive also been last and waited and waited and waited.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 15:46:47 GMT -5
Rational quote; "There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god."
Where? The jungles of Africa, or South America? The Australian Aborigines? The Muslim countries? The India-Indians? The American Indians? The Filipino's deep in the jungles? Where? They all worship a form of God or even gods.
Oh yes, the UN that is creating this OWO/NWO through the Zeitgeist Venus Project. Only problem here is that their version of morality is to have no laws, allow men to express their freedom from Gods ancient and suppressing commandments, allow sex at any age with any gender, and to have abortion on demand. Wow, all of the worlds problems solved.
I get it, the problem is the moral laws given by God, right? This creates lawbreakers. No law-no problems. Hey, isn't that what Jesus came to teach us? "Love your neighbor as you love yourself.. do unto others as you would have them do to you, and so on?" Oh yea.. the thing is that it is from Jesus, and we cannot include religion in this New Venus Version of Morality.
Let's see... the communists had a good idea, 'no God but man'. 'We are all ONE working toward one goal.' It didn't work. Hitler had a good idea, the super race, accept there too was a Little problem, he was part Jew. Result; Suicide.
I know, we got it now: No more borders- thus no more wars No more languages-but one No more money- everyone working for a common good. No more individual stores, farms, no fishing or hunting for food- all will be supplied for you. No more studying for a job for 4-6 years and have to accept a job in another field because what you studied for became extinct- a job will be appointed for you tailored to your qualification. No more religions, for you will all learn that you are your own god, that you create your own destiny, well... actually we'll create one for you. You know, just in the beginning to help you adjust. No more; 'I have a bigger house, a better car, a bigger boat' etc.. for all will be provided for you. No more; "I have four chickens and a pig.." for you will have nothing but what we provide for you, which will be very nutritious food that will enable you to work long hours in the job we'll give you, ... sorry, I mean the job you'll love. Hey, just look at North Korea, see how happy the people are? They rather work in a factory we provide for them then waste time in college. Just look at their dedication, when a co-worker is sick, they stay over to finish the job. In three days and the worker is still sick, they are replaced by a new healthy and eager to work worker.
Where is the worker that was sick? Why do you care? Look on the bright side.. you won't have to stay over to finish the work for that lazy .. I mean, poor sick co-worker. You put your 12 hours in, and your done. Just pick up your rations for the day, get on our supper modern shuttles and your in your pre-fab apartment and in bed in twenty minutes.
Entertainment? Boy, have we entertainment for you! You will love your job so much that you will not even think about any foolish entertainment. Sex? That's funny, for we will take control of reproduction. You will not have to worry about abortions anymore, for you will never get pregnant again. So sex will become a thing of the past. Artificial pleasure helmets on the way home from work will stimulate your mind sufficiently. Joy and happiness awaits the whole world... well not really the WHOLE world, for we can only manage about a Billion right now.
"But what about the rest of the people on earth.. where will.." Oh stop it. You are not thinking collectively or rationally. You will be one of the few who will enter Beyond Utopia... now unless you have a problem with that, remember we are watching your every move, and even monitor your every thought. The 'MASTER' Computer can predict your actions ahead of time. Complaints will be the thing of the past... and you will act your part with a smile. Any deviations in facial expression will be taken seriously, as rebellion. We cannot have a One World Order with rebellious people. But don't worry, you will be renewed as soon as your production count falls below 99%. You'll love 'Renewal' and Dagon will love y... well just don't worry about it, that is our job.
Joy.. Joy.. Happy... happy.. once you CHANGE. For now just sleep... sleep... and soon you'll awake in a beautiful New World .. order. And believe me, THERE.. WILL.. BE.. ORDER!
|
|