Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Have a Slow, Quiet Friday the Thirteenth

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

 

Superstitious appears to be common among medical people, so this may be seen as offensive. If you doubt me, comment that it is slow or quiet and see how many respond negatively, while they do not receive any criticism for their superstition-based complaints. Rather, people will make excuses for coddling the superstitions of those who are entrusted with the lives of patients.

The evidence does not support their superstitions.

One study did appear to show that women die in motor vehicle collisions more often on Friday the 13th, but that appears to be due to a lack of understanding of statistics by many who cite the article.
 

An additional factor is anxiolytic medication, used by significantly more women than men in Finland (7), which has been reported to reduce attention span and worsen driving performance (8). . . . Why this phenomenon exists in women but not in men remains unknown, but perhaps the twice-as-high prevalence of neurotic disorders and anxiety symptoms in women (7) makes them more susceptible to superstition and worsening of driving performance.[1]

 

The author suspects that those people with conditions that could be diagnosed as neuroses or anxiety disorders may be disproportionately affected by superstition.

In other words, superstition is not an external force affecting you. You are doing it to yourself.

The sample size was national, but still small, and was not able to adjust for many possible confounding variables, so the study would need to be replicated using a much larger data base to be useful.

In other superstition news – the next apocalypse, in a long line of predicted apocalypses, is going to be this Sunday – the 15 of October, 2017, according to David Meade. Meade twice previously predicted that a magical planet would hit the Earth and kill us all. This time he claims that his calculations are accurate, because that was the problem with his previous calculations – inaccuracy, not that they were a superstition deserving of derision.

If you are superstitious, and feel that your neuroses/anxieties will cause you to harm others, or yourself, you may want to stay home today and Sunday – perhaps even until you are capable of grasping reality.

Of course, we would never base treatment on superstition in medicine.

Amiodarone is the go to antiarrhythmic drug for cardiac arrest and ventricular tachycardia, but there are much safer much more effective drugs available. We have our own prophets misrepresenting research results to make it seem that using amiodarone for these is a good idea. The research says these preachers are wrong. The next guidelines will probably promote the superstition and reject the science.[2],[3]

Ventilation during cardiac arrest has been shown to be a good idea only for patients who arrested for respiratory reasons. We do a great job of identifying these patients. We have our own prophets misrepresenting research results to make it seem that providing ventilations for these is a good idea. The research says these preachers are wrong. The next guidelines will probably promote the superstition and reject the science.[4]

Medicine is full of superstition and superstitious people.

Why?

Too many of us believe the lie that, I’ve seen it work.

I have also written about the superstition of Friday the 13th here –

Acute coronary syndrome on Friday the 13th: a case for re-organising services? – Fri, 13 Jan 2017

The Magical Nonsense of Friday the 13th – Fri, 13 May 2016

Happy Friday the 13th – New and Improved with Space Debris – Fri, 13 Nov 2015

Friday the 13th and full-moon – the ‘worst case scenario’ or only superstition? – Fri, 13 Jun 2014

Blue Moon 2012 – Except parts of Oceanea – Fri, 31 Aug 2012

2009’s Top Threat To Science In Medicine – Fri, 01 Jan 2010

T G I Friday the 13th – Fri, 13 Nov 2009

Happy Equinox! – Thu, 20 Mar 2008

Footnotes:

[1] Traffic deaths and superstition on Friday the 13th.
Näyhä S.
Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;159(12):2110-1.
PMID: 12450968

Free Full Text from Am J Psychiatry.

[2] The PROCAMIO Trial – IV Procainamide vs IV Amiodarone for the Acute Treatment of Stable Wide Complex Tachycardia
Wed, 17 Aug 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

There are a dozen links to the research in the footnotes to that article. There are also links to other articles on the failure of amiodarone to live up to its hype.

[3] Dr. Kudenchuk is Misrepresenting ALPS as ‘Significant’
Tue, 12 Apr 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[4] Cardiac Arrest Management is an EMT-Basic Skill – The Hands Only Evidence
Fri, 09 Dec 2011
Rogue Medic
Article

.

The Upside Down, in a Ditch, During a Tornado Intubation

Whenever pathetic intubation success rates are discussed, this complex, almost impossible intubation becomes one of the excuses for the low intubation success rates.

The problem with the example is that we are supposed to assume that intubation is the right thing for this patient.

 

Wrong.

 

How hypoxic are we trying to make the patient?

How long are we trying to delay extrication?

If the patient needs an airway right now, why are we messing around with an endotracheal tube, rather than using our heads?

Don’t we have more important things to do that stroke ourselves in public?

This article presents a case in which an air medical flight crew encountered a potentially difficult airway when a trauma patient deteriorated in-flight.[1]

Also a difficult situation.

The crew elected to sedate and paralyze the patient and place a laryngeal mask airway without a prior attempt at direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.[1]

They didn’t even try?

This is the end of intubation. How are paramedics supposed to have self respect, if one of our own is going to stab us in the back, like this?

We aren’t supposed to be doing what is right for the patient, but doing what is right to make sure that nobody ever takes our tubes away.

How are we going to be able to BS people with the upside down, in a ditch stories?

Sure, they do happen.

Rather than look at them as examples of great intubation skill, we should look at them as demonstrations of a need for remediation.

Next time, we should think about what is best for the patient, rather than what will make a good war story – at least a good war story for people who don’t understand patient care.

[youtube]3I_Ds2ytz4o[/youtube]

An endotracheal tube is not significantly more secure than other airways, nor does it do a great job of keeping detritus out of the lungs.

The term Rapid Sequence Airway (RSA) is coined for this novel approach. This article describes and supports this concept and provides definitions of alternative and failed airways.[1]

One sad part is that this was considered such a novel concept only five years ago.

A much sadder part is that this would still be novel in many places.

Footnotes:

[1] Rapid Sequence Airway (RSA)–a novel approach to prehospital airway management.
Braude D, Richards M.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007 Apr-Jun;11(2):250-2.
PMID: 17454819 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

.

Nontraumatic out-of-hospital hypotension predicts inhospital mortality


ResearchBlogging.org
Also posted over at Paramedicine 101 (now at EMS Blogs) and at Research Blogging. Go check out the excellent material at these sites.

An interesting examination of something that we take for granted. Does any instance of hypotension increase the risk of death for patients with life-threatening or potentially life-threatening conditions? Hypotension is categorized as SBP (Systolic Blood Pressure) less than 100 mm Hg, rather than SBP <90.

They assessed patients with respiratory distress, syncope, chest pain, dizziness, altered mental status, anxiety, thirst, weakness, fatigue, or the sensation of impending doom.

Due to the difference in age of the groups, the non-hypotensive group was abbreviated (truncated) to match the significantly older (P<.0001, unpaired t test) hypotensive group within one standard deviation. This cut the non-hypotensive group from 2,733 to 1,362 – eliminating just over half of the group. This should do a good job of controlling for the age difference. There were two locations for the study, but the significant difference in ages was only observed at one location.

Nonexposure patients were thus priority I or II transported patients, aged 48 to 84 years, with systolic blood pressure always more than 100 mm Hg and with 1 or more of 10 predefined symptom documented.[1]

That misrepresents the nonexposure (not hypotensive) patients. These patients did not have continual measurement of their blood pressures. A minimum of only one set of vital signs was required.

I do try to take vital signs when there is a change in patient presentation, but I have noticed that not everyone behaves as I do.

A lack of documentation of <100 SBP is not the same as systolic blood pressure always more than 100 mm Hg. Here are some of the problems with assuming that all <100 SBPs were identified by a random assessment of at least one set of vital signs –

Were vital signs assessed with every change in presentation?

Were all changes in presentation observed?

Is a drop in SBP always going to be accompanied by a change in presentation?

Is hypotension always going to be accompanied by a change in presentation?

The answers are – No, No, No, and No.

Inhospital mortality was determined by first searching the Social Security Death Index.[1]

Is this a good method of differentiating between living people and dead people?

If the government thinks I am alive, that does not mean that I am alive. If the government thinks I am dead, that does not mean that I am dead, nor that I have a <100 SBP.

Secondary analysis measurements were the relationship between age and inhospital mortality in hypotensive patients, the relationship between the initial out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure and inhospital mortality, the inhospital mortality rate of transient versus sustained hypotension, and a calculation of the sensitivity and specificity of out-of-hospital hypotension for inhospital mortality.[1]

At one site, SBP from 91 to 99 appears to improve survival. This may be just the law of small numbers at work. Those with transient hypotension are probably going to have blood pressures that are close to the dividing line.

Venue 2 has similar results, except here there are larger increases in the death rates at 91 – 99 and <70.

The sustained low blood pressure appears to be the real danger, while transient low blood pressure does not appear to be significantly different from zero assessments of low blood pressures.

the mortality rate among these 255 patients was 33% (95% CI 27% to 39%).[1]

The effect of a sustained low blood pressure would have been a good study to follow this study.

Is it predictive?

Does it predict something that we can reverse?

Does sustained low blood pressure mean sustained in spite of treatment?

What kind of treatment(s) would be appropriate?

Patients with a systolic blood pressure equal to 100 mm Hg were not included in the analysis; at venue 1 this was 23 patients, and at venue 2 it was 252 patients.[1]

Those patients would have had one or more measurements of SBP = 100, but no measurements of SBP <100. 5.8% (regardless of group) at venue 1 and 3.5% of the nonexposure group at venue 2. The 252 patients would have added almost another half (47.3%) to the exposure group at venue 2.

This raises an important question.

Why is this one SBP so commonly represented as the lowest blood pressure in the vital signs?

How often will 100 be the lowest documented SBP in any group?

Is <100 only a little more than twice as likely as 100 for the lowest documented SBP?

Does documentation of <100 SBP require treatment under a different protocol/algorithm?

There were 3,128 patients at venue 1 and only 23 SBP measurements of exactly 100.

There were 7,679 patients at venue 2 and 252 SBP measurements of exactly 100.

Venue 2 has only 2 1/2 times as many patients, but 11 times as many SBP measurements of exactly 100. Were the exclusions for SBP exactly equal to 100 done before truncation and matching? We cannot tell from the information provided.

Footnotes:

[1] Nontraumatic out-of-hospital hypotension predicts inhospital mortality.
Jones AE, Stiell IG, Nesbitt LP, Spaite DW, Hasan N, Watts BA, Kline JA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;43(1):106-13.
PMID: 14707949 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Jones, A., Stiell, I., Nesbitt, L., Spaite, D., Hasan, N., Watts, B., & Kline, J. (2004). Nontraumatic out-of-hospital hypotension predicts inhospital mortality☆ Annals of Emergency Medicine, 43 (1), 106-113 DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.008

.

911 Call Abuse By The 911 Call Taker?

A 17 year old girl uses foul language.

Shocking?

No.

A 911 caller uses foul language.

Shocking?

No.

Yet, for some reason the 911 call taker for the Lincoln Park Police Department loses his cool and hangs up on the caller. Again and again.*

She runs down the street to the police station to try to get what she was calling for – an ambulance – and she is arrested.

That’ll teach her to call 911 about a medical emergency!

Here is the video with the recording of the 911 calls.

I agree that the girl, Adrianne Ledesma, sure does not seem to get the picture, either. Her father just had brain surgery and is now having a seizure, but she is worried about suing the guy on the phone. Maybe Dad should sue over this, but have a lawyer prevent his daughter from receiving any of this money.

It is not at all clear if the father is still seizing, or was ever seizing, or how often this happens, but this kid needs to start acting responsibly. If you have a family member with a medical condition, you need to learn to deal with it, not try to figure out whom you might sue for giving you a hard time.

The police officer, Seargent Robert McFarlan, must have a doozy of an excuse. He has been working for 20 years (5 years longer than Daniel Martin). He may not have any skeletons in his closet. He refused to comment.

What is his job?

His job is to dispatch the appropriate people to deal with whatever emergencies occur during his shift. His job is to calm down people on the other end of the phone, so that he may obtain the information he needs. Once he knows there is a request for an ambulance, he should start sending the ambulance. I am guessing that Lincoln Park has Enhanced 911, which is a form of caller ID. He does not know what is going on, but there has been a request for an ambulance.

Wouldn’t it be nice if I could refuse to deal with people if they used less than polite language. I wouldn’t even get to a lot of the calls with the language used by some of my partners.

Assuming that we did make it to the call without expletive, the families, by-standers, and patients have been known to use the occasional indelicate expression. I have been yelled at repeatedly for taking too long because the patient was not white. Not that dispatch provides that kind of information, or even asks for it, but some people have priorities that have nothing to do with the patient. They just use the patient as an excuse to cause trouble, such as to sue.

The malice of these by-standers is not the fault of the patient.

This is a part of the job. If we feel threatened, it is appropriate to leave until police arrive and deal with whatever violence/potential violence is there. Of course, if I am on the other end of a phone, am I in any danger?

The refreshing news on this is that the Chief of Police has been open about dealing with this. This is not the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

It is important to note that Sgt. McFarlan has had a career of meritous service, has never had a disciplinary action until this incident, and was suspended without pay for two weeks and sent for training after this incident.[1]

Never had a disciplinary action in 20 years? How many people can claim that? But what happened on this call?

As part of this post, I would like to include another pointer. The times when you should probably not get yelled at for using foul language include just about every legitimate reason to call 911. There is no justification for 911 acting as Miss Manners, especially since Seargent McFarlan uses obscenity during the 911 call, too.

Here is an imaginary call to the 911 Hypocrisy Line.

911Hello, 911 Hypocrisy Line, how may I help you?

CallerI need a *&%$#@ ambulance.

911Hold on there, Missy. I’m not gonna put up with that $#!+. You’re going to have to call back again and act like a professional this time.

911 call takers do put up with a lot of abuse on the phone. I am not defending abuse of 911 in any way. I wonder how many times they hear the words, Thank you, at the end of a call. They deserve our thanks. They do not deserve to be lumped in with the few who make the news for bad judgment.

Hat tip to Medic(three).

The Wall Street Journal has a story about this and a couple of law suits about two other 911 calls in Michigan. What’s Going On With 911 Operators In Michigan?

Footnotes:

^ * David Konig has a different take on whether the hang up is by the 911 call taker or the caller. If the caller hung up, what was she thinking? That is a rhetorical question. We all know that she was not thinking. Maybe it is due to the emergency, but what does hanging up accomplish? The link is below [1]

^ 1 Lincoln Park 911 Operator Denies Service Over Swear Words
David Konig
Article

For those not familiar with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and Daniel Martin references, use the search box in the upper left of the browser window. You will get more information than you ever wanted on OHP and Daniel Martin.

.

Happy Independence Day – Thank You Thomas Paine

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.[1]

So begins the publishing success that was the equivalent of Harry Potter in the 18th Century. This is not a work of fiction. This is not something that deals with magic and fantasy. And yet it persuaded many people to risk everything for a goal that was considered pure fantasy at the time. A bunch of colonies were going to unify and rebel against Great Britain. The opinion of many of the colonists was that such a plan would be nothing but a Great Folly.

What convinced these colonists to risk everything?

Let me be clear on everything. Their lives. Their property. The lives and property of their family members. Torture. Not waterboarding, but the organ failure producing torture of places that are not America. This was not simply going all in in a game of poker. This all in was limited only by the imagination of one’s captors. They were going to engage in treason.

You don’t really think they were endangering their families by rebelling, do you?

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[2]

Corruption of Blood?

It sounds dramatic. It is.

English Crim. Law. The incapacity to inherit, or pass an inheritance, in consequence of an attainder to which the party has been subject

When this consequence flows from an attainder, the party is stripped of all honors and dignities he possessed, and becomes ignoble.[3]

Of course, all of that presumes that the family is still alive to contest this in court. It also presumes that their property hasn’t been given away, or sold. That probably presumed too much for the time.

The best selling book in the colonies in the 18th Century. Common Sense.

Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘TIS TIME TO PART.[1]

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.[1]

We have taken this idea of security and expanded it to mean a security blanket. Those who fought to separate from England would be embarrassed at the depths to which we have sunk in our risk paranoia. There is no freedom that some many would not sacrifice for the delusion of complete safety.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered;[1]

Outside of Corruption of Blood and a few other technical terms, the document creating the eventual government of the United States of America is simple and resistant to disorder. Contemporary legislation is in a whole different category.

The Bill of Rights is a bunch of restrictions on the government. These restrictions make it more difficult for the government to lock you up. A side effect is that it is also more difficult for the government to lock up bad people. Pick pockets, embezzlers, thieves, rapists, child rapists, murderers. All of them are protected by the Bill of Rights.

Did the people, who just risked everything, not realize the consequences of what they were doing? Did child rapists not exist back then?

They understood.

They understood that the rights of the citizens are more important than the desire to punish the guilty. When we become more concerned with punishing the guilty, than with protecting the Constitution that protects us, then the tyrants have won.

When something is presented as being for the children, it is because this is an attempt to get around logical debate and appeal to emotion. There are places where the people have little, or no, protection from their government.

China.

North Korea.

Cuba.

China may need to give up some of that control. Why? The benefits of a market that is open to countries with more freedom. The inability to suppress information. The desire, of so many of their citizens, for freedom. Maybe we should have an exchange program with China.

Send us your citizens, who are yearning to be free. We will send you our citizens, who are yearning to avoid risk.

Win and Win.

We are a nation of immigrants that has given up and decided to play it safe. We are trying to trade off our liberty for the illusion of safety. We do not deserve that liberty. We need to bring in people who do – the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Cubans, and others. What do we lose by sending them our people – people who do not understand what they have?

We are having a mid-life crisis. Rather than trying to recapture freedoms, we have given up. We want to crawl back into the womb and hide. What if somebody hurts my feelings with mean words. What if somebody hurts my child? What if somebody hurts me? That is the price of being an adult. That is the price of living in the real world.

There are plenty of people, who will tell us they can protect our feelings.

Liars.

There are plenty of people, who will tell us they can protect our children.

Liars.

There are plenty of people, who will tell us they can protect us from the big bad terrorists.

Liars.

Maybe we should educate our citizens. Most of these citizens are just citizens because of the accident of being in the US when they took their first breath. Maybe we should educate our citizens about what others gave up for their freedoms.

Visit some war memorials. Read of the mistreatment that led people to move here. Read of the mistreatment that led people to fight for freedom. Freedom can just as easily be lost. Too many people sacrificed everything they had for us to barter away freedoms for a little temporary safety.

Freedom isn’t easy.

Footnotes:

^ 1 Common Sense
by Thomas Paine, initially published anonymously
Links include the postscript, which is dated 2/14/1776, only just more than a month from the first printing.
Full Text, in several formats, from Gutenberg
Maybe you don’t want to read this, but would prefer to listen to someone else reading.
Full Text Audio, in several formats, from Librivox

^ 2 Constitution for the United States of America
Article. III.
Full Text

^ 3 Corruption Of Blood
The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon
Definition

.

FBI Most Wanted List Addition – Domestic Terrorist

Should be Considered Armed and Dangerous.

The FBI is offering a reward of up to $250,000 for information leading directly to the arrest of Daniel Andreas San Diego.

An animal rights extremist wanted for allegedly bombing two San Francisco-area office buildings in 2003 has been added to our Most Wanted Terrorists list—the first domestic terrorist to be included with international terrorists such as Usama Bin Laden.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, 31, should be considered armed and dangerous. His domestic acts of terror were planned to destroy property, to cause economic hardship for the companies he targeted, and possibly to take lives—one of his bombs was laced with nails to create potentially deadly shrapnel. We are offering a reward of up to $250,000 for information directly leading to his arrest.[1]

Farther down they state:

The first bombing occurred on August 28, 2003, outside Chiron Life Science Center in Emeryville, California. When authorities responded, a second bomb was discovered, but exploded before it could be disarmed, raising the possibility that the device was planted specifically to target first responders.[1]

Bombs wrapped in nails. One did not go off until after first responders arrived?

We should probably assume that it was just an accident. He didn’t mean to hurt anybody. He is only protecting animals. After all, bombs send a message of piece – a piece here, a piece there PEACE.

He may be celebrating Earth Day by blowing something up.

Seems as if this guy has studied the methods of other terrorists and wants to kill as many people as possible. Destroy, maim, Kill – no mercy until you get what you want. These groups value animal lives above human lives. They are not interested in just peaceful political means of convincing you, although they do try to convince you that they are peaceful.

The goal of terrorism is Terror.

Some of the research I cite in my posts is animal research. While it would be nice to not use animals in research, there are some things about toxicity that you cannot learn from a computer model. There are some things that you do not want learned by experimentation on people. At least, not until after some semblance of safety has been established with animals. Maybe he will target my blog. Here terrorist, terrorist, terrorist.

Some of what I eat is from animals that have been killed to feed me. Some of what I wear, belt and boots, is from the hide of an animal that was killed to clothe me. When I had a motorcycle, OK more than one, I wore leathers to protect me from leaving my skin on the pavement. I don’t want to be the one killing the animals, but I do not deny where the food and clothing come from. I do not deny that there are animals killed to do research.

I wonder what people who actually do take care of animals think about all of these animals first organizations. Ambulance Driver points out that they are mostly just a bunch of boobs. Actually, he is a bit more forceful than that. since it is too short to clip just a sample, here is his entire post[2]:

Subversive Thought Of The Week…


…simply because I despise sanctimony in its varied forms…

PETA has killed far more dogs than Michael Vick.

Compared to these [finger quotes] animal rights activists [/finger quotes], he’s a piker.

Ambulance Driver is no stranger to animals, since he trains dogs (in addition to being a paramedic, instructor, blogger, author, lecturer, gun enthusiast, father, and all around lazy guy). No, he doesn’t train dogs to fight. He trains dogs because he loves working with dogs.

That is a conservative point of view. What about liberal people from the research community? Surely they must support terrorism to protect animals. Drug Monkey has similar sentiments, expressed with a few more paragraphs of information.

This is a great and very welcome step in the PR game with respect to Animal Rights Activist wackanut terrorism. After all, placing on the Most Wanted list…does that really change how hard the US and international authorities are looking? What it most certainly does do is raise the public recognition and understanding of Animal Rights terrorism, who these people really are and what is being supported when they send their money to PETA and the HSUS (which is not your local Humane Society, as much as they’d like you to think that they are). Perhaps it can open the eyes of celebrities who support, perhaps unknowingly, these Luddite, anti-science, fringe element activities.[3]

Also, today is the day for Pro-Test @UCLA. This is a rally in support of animal research. It is a non-violent rally, unless somebody from one of the animal protection organizations plants a bomb, or engages in some other terrorism.

These animal rights organizations are not much different from Theodore Kaczynski[4], the friendly neighborhood Unabomber.

Do not donate money to organizations that support terrorism, just because they have people who look good naked, or have cute pictures of kittens, or because they make you feel guilty about some poor little animal. They are only taking your money. They are not making things better. Lolcats is cheaper and more humane. PETA – People for the Unethical Treatment of Humans is just the most visible of these[5]. The Humane Society of the United States is not far behind in misuse of money[6], [7]. And then there is the ALF, not a mannequin from Melmac, but the most activist of these organizations. Terrorists just aren’t nice people. Supporting terrorists is not nice, either.

Footnotes:

^ 1 New Most Wanted Terrorist – First Domestic Fugitive Added to List
fbi.gov
4/21/09
FBI announcement

^ 2 Subversive Thought Of The Week
Ambulance Driver
Article

^ 3 FBI Places Alleged ARA Terrorist on Most Wanted List
Drug Monkey
Article

^ 4 Theodore Kaczynski – Unabomber
Wikipedia
Article

^ 5 7 Things You Didn’t Know About PETA
PETA Kills Animals
Article

^ 6 ALF Terrorist John Goodwin: HSUS Dogfight Czar
John Goodwin Exposed
Article

^ 7 What IS The Humane Society of the United States?
Bark ‘n’ Scratch Newsletter
Scroll down to What IS The Humane Society of the United States?
Newsletter

.

Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say

Photo credit

Another scientific breakthrough. Can a cure for cancer be far behind. Not that kind of behind.

Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say

Brain areas linked with handling tools respond to images of women in bikinis
They also remember these women’s bodies better than those of fully-clothed women
Future research could look at if women depersonalize men in certain situations

As a man, who has been known to not immediately avert his eyes from an image of a non-burkha wearing woman, allow me to translate.

Brain areas linked with handling tools respond to images of women in bikinis

Pornography and tool handling are obviously intertwined. If you give a man a hammer, he thinks that just about every woman should be nailed with it.

They also remember these women’s bodies better than those of fully-clothed women

It is difficult to remember what one cannot see. On the other hand, with the proper tailoring much of the physique can be calculated by the astute anatomist.

Future research could look at if women depersonalize men in certain situations

It is scandalous that one could even suggest that these tools of arousal have minds of their own. To believe that, one would have to accept that Chippendales and similar clubs are not just visited by drag queens. These drag queens so good at make up, that the male strippers are unaware that the drag queens they are grinding on – are men. Clearly, the drag queen theory of arousal deserves equal time in the science classroom.

We are still left wondering if the line, She has great eyes, started with the burkha or with the bikini. Perhaps this is going to be used to justify new burkha laws. If the female arousal is shown to be true, in spite of what we all know about sugar and spice (the ingredients for little girls, not the sister act), there will probably be a demand for murkha laws.

Think of the benefit in being a mystery man trying to pick up a mystery woman, or mystery person, or person of mysterious gender. That isn’t a beer belly, I just like to carry my man purse in the front. No need to get a hotel room, since the burkha/murkha hides everything from view. You can now have intercourse right out in public and nobody will be able to prove it. You will have no idea if the person in the other urkha is who you think they are, if they are using protection, or even what their gender is. This will be the dawn of the Promiscuous Age. In the PA, no child will know who Pa is.

The participants, 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton, took questionnaires to determine whether they harbor “benevolent” sexism, which includes the belief that a woman’s place is in the home, or hostile sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.

And that isn’t the headline?

If I have only two ways to view women – at the stove, barefoot and pregnant or as castrating termagants – is it a surprise that I choose a third option? Maybe Princeton screens out men with other views on their admissions paperwork.

.

California Good Samaritans Hunted to Extinction By Lawyers

GruntDoc and Symtym have brought a California Supreme Court decision to the attention of a lot of people. This is an important bit of legal folderol, except it is not of little value. This can cost you a lot of money. In two posts, California gets even more screwed up: predictably, Good Samaritans (Decent People) hardest hit and More on the California Good Samaritan debacle, GruntDoc describes how he feels about these lawyers at play in the fields of the hourly rate.

California’s Good Samaritan Law and the Byzantine California Supreme Court decision,[1] that is an example of legal Three Card Monte, come from GruntDoc and Symptym. Ten gallon hat tip for all of this.

Well, I wasn’t going to be getting to sleep anyway, if this tedious and juvenile attempt at parsing the legislative intent didn’t put me to sleep. Perhaps it is the near toxic dose of caffeine that foiled their attempts at sedating readers of their decisions. The attempts to defy logic are not so easily explained.

First, I am not a lawyer.

Does that matter?

It shouldn’t. The goal of the Good Samaritan Law is simply to encourage people to help others, when professional rescuers are not already there. The extent of the encouragement is to make it difficult to be found at fault, in a law suit, for injuring the person they are trying to help. That’s it. Let me print it right here.

No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.[2]

And I should explain what the emergency was. It seems that the patient was partying with the defendant and others, smoking some marijuana, drinking some alcohol – the usual behavior of a fine upstanding citizen preparing to drive. The patient was not driving, but her car was involved in a crash in Topanga Canyon. A nice ride – when sober. I hesitate to speculate that being stoned and drunk had anything to do with the vehicle leaving the roadway. The Good Samaritan defendant was in another vehicle, why limited the stoned drunk driving, when you can form a caravan. She was also not driving. The second driver pulled over to assist (apparently he is not a lawyer). The defendant went to assist the passenger, pulled her from the vehicle, and did not move her away from the vehicle, although she claims that it was about to explode. The patient suffered an injury to her spine that resulted in paralysis. This decision makes no attempt to determine if pulling the patient from the vehicle has anything to do with the paralysis, whether leaving her in the vehicle would have made a difference. We do not know. The justices were just playing around with how many ways you could provide care dancing on the head of a pin. It’s what some justices think they are supposed to do. No mention is made of whether the justice in the majority were smoking marijuana at the time of the decision. If we were to emulate their reasoning, we might find them guilty of intoxication without any evidence., but by creatively and inconsistently twisting the intent of the possibly related laws.

I could give plenty of examples of the sleight of hand used by those in the majority, but it all boils down to this. They assume that when the word medical is used, or when the law is included in a medical section of the legal code, that is significant. That wording tells us exactly what was in the minds of the legislature. The legislators all think with one mind. They all vote together for exactly the same reasons. How could anyone ever suggest that there is discord in a legislative body. They vary from being elegant in their subtlety to making Dick and Jane books seem cryptic. Fortunately, the justices understand exactly what was in the mind of the legislators – It is not what the legislators wrote.

When these omniscient legislators leave out the word medical, we should not pay any attention to that. The legislators made their intent abundantly clear in vague language elsewhere. Only the interpretation that this is designed to encourage provision of medical care to someone who does not need rescuing, can be drawn from the law.

I will provide one quote from the dissent:

Thus, in the majority’s view, a passerby who, at the risk of his or her own life, saves someone about to perish in a burning building can be sued for incidental injury caused in the rescue, but would be immune for harming the victim during the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation out on the sidewalk. A hiker can be sued if, far from other help, he or she causes a broken bone while lifting a fallen comrade up the face of a cliff to safety, but would be immune if, after waiting for another member of the party to effect the rescue, he or she set the broken bone incorrectly. One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim.[3]

The justices clearly did consider the contradiction between what the wording and their interpretation of the intent of the legislature. The dissenting justices also found for the plaintiff, but did not agree with the reasoning of the majority. The dissenters felt that the behavior of the defendant, apparently stoned and drunk, was not consistent with her claim that she thought the vehicle was about to blow up.

Now that this is quite clear, you should understand that the first rule of the House of God[4] (as modified for pre-hospital use) should be – At the scene of an emergency the first procedure is to take your own pulse call a lawyer for a consultation about whether this is an emergency, whether the emergency is medical, and whether you are trained to the level of an untrained person. In other words, you should film this, because a person dying on film could be worth some money to you. If you do anything that is not medical, but is an attempt to help, you should expect to pay money to anybody who might have an injury. At least, if you have any money left after paying for all of the lawyers.

I received my basic EMT and paramedic training in California. Nobody ever suggested such an interpretation of the Good Samaritan Law in any of my training. Our training was to help people. The specifically idiotic parts of the EMS law did receive special attention.

The Good Samaritan Law was written by a bunch of politicians. Suggesting that they were so careful in their wording in one place for a specific reason, while their vague wording in another place has no specific reasoning is ridiculous. The idea that they were thinking along these lines, these are the same politicians who write all of the other laws in California, is giving them too much credit. The law was written to encourage by-standers to help. As interpreted by this court, it has the opposite meaning – Do not help.

Footnotes:

^ 1 S152360
Van Horn v. Watson (or whatever they decide to call it)
Full Text PDF


^ 2 California Health And Safety Code Section 1799.102
Good Samaritan Law from onecle.com

^ 3 S152360
Van Horn v. Torti (or whatever they decide to call it, but how is that for an ironic name?)
p. 18 and 19/32 of the pdf counter.
Full Text PDF

^ 4 Rules of House of God
by Samuel Shem
some description from Respiratory Therapy 101: Just Keep Breathing in
Rule Three

.