home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!remote!UUCP
- From: Jeffrey.William.myers@f102.n151.z1.fidonet.org (Jeffrey William myers)
- Newsgroups: misc.emerg-services
- Subject: NO DOCS FOR NYC EMS
- Message-ID: <728106974.AA36639@remote.halcyon.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:07:00 -0800
- Sender: UUCP@remote.halcyon.com
- Lines: 41
-
-
- jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
-
- >In article <Pine.3.05.9301222117.A18490-c100000@sun.panix.com>
- dannyb@PANIX.COM (Daniel Burstein) writes:
- >>Richard Gutwirth: Many people will end up going to the hospital that
- don't
- >>need to go to the hospital, because the ultimate authority not to
- take
- >>them rests here in telemetry. So what will happen is that we'll be
- >>transporting someone who does not need (to go to the hosital, and
- while
- >>we're doing this) a cardiac arrest will occur, and (we won't be there
- to
- >>help).
-
- >Huh? How is it possible in New York for a paramedic to take someone to
- the
- >hospital that doesn't want to go? Do they have the authority to arrest
- the
- >patient, or do they simply have immunity from kidnapping laws
-
- Down in NYC, they are allowed to call in to medical control and request
- permission to release patients whom they feel do not need to go to the
- hospital or do not require ambulance transport. My understanding is
- this
- practice is in place to help reduce over crowding and to get units back
- in
- service quickly in an overloaded system to take care of the emergency
- calls.
-
- Does any other system use this practice?
-
- Jeff Myers
- NYS AEMT-Intermediate
-
- * Origin: Gated by remote.fidonet.org (1:343/94)
-
- * Origin: Micro Message Service NCRTP (919)779-6674 TBBS 2.2M
- (1:151/102)
-
-