Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
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, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:04PM (14 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:04PM (#1095316) Journal

    We were told that you only get death panels and shortages from socialized medicine!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:21PM (#1095329)

    Turns out the death panels were right behind us the whole time!

    Seems to be a law of nature

    Gaslight
    Obstruct
    Project

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by helel on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:10AM (11 children)

    by helel (2949) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:10AM (#1095360)

    It's all about the sorting algorithm used. Under a socialized system you'll have panels that, at least in theory, prioritize patients by need, likelihood of success, and years of life that can be saved. This means that a poor child might receive a kidney before a rich businessman or a working class adult might receive limited cancer treatment before an elderly trust-fund baby.

    Conservatives aren't against rationing treatments, food, or anything else. They just prefer that the algorithm used to do so look at how much money someone has ahead of any other factors. That way the businessman (job-creator?) gets the kidney and the poor child dies and that the geriatric who never worked a day in their life continues their entitled existence an extra half-dozen years while the (wo)man who can barely afford to take time off to get the diagnosis loses out on decades they would otherwise spend supporting their family.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:57AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:57AM (#1095380)

      I am fascinated by this supposed link between a preference for incremental changes in government rather than radical, and a desire to ration access to health care by funding sources.

      This is the first I've ever heard of such a link. Would you care to explain your analysis?

      Oh, and if by "conservative" you really meant "hypothetical randian extremist strawman" that could be worth pointing out as well.

      • (Score: 2) by helel on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:20AM (6 children)

        by helel (2949) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:20AM (#1095387)

        To be fair, by "conservative" I mean anyone who favors a market-based approach to health care. Treatment for those that can afford it.

        Please, feel free to share the factors you feel should be used when determining who receives first access to limited supplies, and any factors (such as being unable to pay) that should disqualify them before consideration.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:59AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:59AM (#1095405)

          How about medical opinion? Regular triage processes?

          As for market-based, I'm not aware of many people outside the anarchist fringe who disapprove of a social safety net. It seems to be a pretty strong point of consensus, actually. Even night watchman state libertarians tend to speak in favour of functions with strong externalities such as national defense, logistics and public health.

          So basically, you're barking at anarchists up a tree.

          You bark hard, my friend. Bark at those anarchists.

          • (Score: 2) by helel on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:13AM (3 children)

            by helel (2949) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:13AM (#1095410)

            Thats... Uhh... Do you know what triage is?

            And if I understand correctly you don't see that ability to pay should play any role in deciding who gets care and who does not? Random houseless individual comes in off the street should have the same access to care that Bill Gates or the president of the United States does?

            I admire your idealism.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:03AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:03AM (#1095486) Journal

              And if I understand correctly you don't see that ability to pay should play any role in deciding who gets care and who does not?

              Eventually, ability to pay matters because no matter how deep-pocketed the society is, you can demand more health care than it can afford to pay.

              • (Score: 2) by helel on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:48PM (1 child)

                by helel (2949) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:48PM (#1095587)

                The AC suggested that only medical expertise should play a role in distributing medical care. Yes, some treatments may be limited due to costs or supply constraints and in those cases medical opinion would see no difference between a houseless individual and the richest person in the country. Whoever has greater need, greater odds of success, and more years of life to gain gets it and no amount of money should change the decision, according to the AC.

                I can only imagine how upset the AC is with the current state of affairs where insulin, a drug we can easily produce enough of for everyone that needs it, is rationed by monetary income such that people routinely die for its lack [snopes.com].

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 06 2021, @09:20PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 06 2021, @09:20PM (#1095811) Journal

                  The AC suggested that only medical expertise should play a role in distributing medical care. Yes, some treatments may be limited due to costs or supply constraints and in those cases medical opinion would see no difference between a houseless individual and the richest person in the country. Whoever has greater need, greater odds of success, and more years of life to gain gets it and no amount of money should change the decision, according to the AC.

                  And the rich person, should they exhaust the above cost/supply constraints, is simply going to go out of that system to get the medical care they want. As I noted before, money will make a difference.

                  I can only imagine how upset the AC is with the current state of affairs where insulin, a drug we can easily produce enough of for everyone that needs it, is rationed by monetary income such that people routinely die for its lack.

                  They're also rationed by artificial supply constraints which the bleeding hearts such as Mr. AC have had a hand in creating. After all, we can't have the Alec Smiths of the world killed by substandard/unregulated insulin.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:25AM

            by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:25AM (#1095448) Journal

            If only. The GOP regularly attempts to sabotage then cancel anything resembling the social safety net.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:54AM (2 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:54AM (#1095401) Journal

        The link is clear. The current mercenary style medicine DOES ration care based on ability to pay. That is somewhat tempered by things like medicare and medicaid.

        The conservative as champion of incremental change is long dead. They now propose radical changes towards privatization while opposing incremental moves towards a social safety net. They tend to want to go "back" to some fictional never-was state and no proposal is too radical if it does that.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:01AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:01AM (#1095406)

          It sounds as if you're not talking about conservatives, but about radical reactionaries.

          Radical: wanting to make big, sweeping changes.

          Reactionaries: wanting to go back to some past state (real or imagined).

          If you're going to insist on using the terms of political science/political economics, how about using them to describe what the connotation of the words addresses? Maybe even for a trial period of a month or three?

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:58AM

            by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:58AM (#1095430) Journal

            I am talking about the current GOP which calls itself "conservative" for hysterical raisins.

            I use that term because that is the term used on the news, in political commentary, and by the GOP itself.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:59AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:59AM (#1095484) Journal

    We were told that you only get death panels and shortages from socialized medicine!

    You want a death panel? I give you the "Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency".