Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-it-has-come-to-this dept.

LA Paramedics Told Not To Transport Some Patients With Low Chance Of Survival:

The Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency issued a directive Monday that ambulance crews should only administer bottled oxygen to patients whose oxygen saturation levels fall below 90%.

In a separate memo from the county's EMS Agency, paramedic crews have been told not to transfer patients who experience cardiac arrest unless spontaneous circulation can be restored on the scene.

Both measures announced Monday, which were issued by the agency's medical director, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, were taken in an attempt to get ahead of an expected surge to come following the winter holidays.

Many hospitals in the region "have reached a point of crisis and are having to make very tough decisions about patient care," Dr. Christina Ghaly, the LA County director of health services said at a briefing Monday.

[...] "We do not believe that we are yet seeing the cases that stemmed from the Christmas holiday," Ghaly added. "This, sadly, and the cases from the recent New Year's holiday, is still before us, and hospitals across the region are doing everything they can to prepare."

'We Are Not Abandoning Resuscitation': LA County Healthcare Leader Speaks Out After Memo Raises Concerns:

Los Angeles County hospitals are so inundated, officials said they're just trying to provide the best care they can for the people who need it.

The memo sent out on December 28 by the medical director of L.A. County's Emergency Medical Services agency, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, addressed how first responders should treat stroke and heart attack patients, saying a patient should be treated at the scene first and have a pulse during resuscitation before transporting them to the hospital.

[...] The medical director of L.A. County's Emergency Services Agency, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, assured CBS2 that officials continue to do all they can to save patients' lives at the scene and the hospital, as they always have.

"We are not abandoning resuscitation," Gausche-Hill said. "We are absolutely doing best practice resuscitation and that is do it in the field, do it right away... What we're asking is that — which is slightly different than before — is that we are emphasizing the fact that transporting these patients arrested leads to very poor outcomes.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (8 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (#1095206) Journal

    Darwin didn't say that. He said that's the way species interactions happened in nature. The "Social Darwinist"s profoundly misrepresented what he said. Many of them intentionally, and for their own profit. Some, however, seem to have done it purely because they didn't like anyone who wasn't a wealthy white male of (pick a nation, there's lots of choices).

    P.S.: Even so, Darwin profoundly underestimated the complexity of the behavioral rules. So has everyone who's written anything accessible on the topic...and many who only wrote for a professional audience. The intersection of Game Theorists, Geneticists, and Ethologists is nearly a null set...and you probably need to add a few more specialties in there to cover the full range of interactions.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:55PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:55PM (#1095242)

    Social Darwinists aren't always racists, many just want an excuse for their narcissism and for punishing/justifying mistreatment of the homeless, poor, race, culture. Still basic bigotry, but not always race related.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:47AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:47AM (#1095397)

      I say let the southerners inbreed themselves out of the gene pool.

      Or is that racist? "Southern" is a race, right?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:47AM (#1095422)

        It is stupid prejudiced bigotry, you don't need to stop being angry at racist assholes but delving into your own type of hatred isn't much better especially if you make the same mistake of generalizing entire populations.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:10AM (#1095438)

        There are only two races. Us and Them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:05AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:05AM (#1095457)

      They absolutely are. Social Darwinism is pretty closely related to Naziism and eugenics. People claiming otherwise are either ignorant or liars.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:26PM (#1095772)

        "nazi" is a Jew slur and there's nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.

    • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:37AM (1 child)

      by ChrisMaple (6964) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:37AM (#1095497)

      Have you even bothered to read any of Herbert Spencer's works, or are you just spouting what your fever-fantasy image of Social Darwinism is? It's not simple and it's not vile.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:34AM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:34AM (#1096080) Journal

        You're correct, I've never bothered to read any of his works. I haven't read much on evolution written before 1960, and don't consider it likely to be worthwhile. So if you've found a "Social Darwinist" who isn't there because of some variety of bigotry, I'll accept your word for it. I only read Darwin because he was the source. Do remember that Darwin's evolution was before genetics was known outside of a monastery.

        P.S.: FWIW many people whose opinions I respect did not consider Spencer's interpretation to be sound even before the "new synthesis" put a solid foundation under "main-stream evolutionary theory". I do admit that prior to the new synthesis the theoretical interpretations of evolution were quite shaky, but the evidence hasn't changed (only expanded, deepened, and gotten richer). And his theories are reported to not follow the then existing evidence....so he must have had some other reason for them. You are free to impute any motives that you feel appropriate, but they need to be consistent with the selection of evidence that he made.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.