It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DHS & CDC have decided who doesn't get treatment in a "mass casualty critical care event"

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

DHS & CDC have decided who doesn't get treatment in a "mass casualty critical care event"


www.news24.com

Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.

People older than 85.

Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

Severely burned patients older than 60.

Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.



If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here".


I think what caught my eye in the article is the fact that Homeland Security is making a concerted effort to get people on the same page. It feels like there is a sense of urgency.

With everything else going on right now, I am not so sure that this is comforting.

www.news24.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I don't know about you but in case of a pandemic or emergency of any kind the government or any of their Nazi agencies will be the last thing I would trust with anything.

I rather dig myself a hole in the ground with enough water and food to last me several years.


All this sounds like one of those government take over science fiction film.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
really this is applying military standards of care to civvy street - battle triage is the `norm` - basically injuries are typed up `will this person live even with care` answer no , they`re given morphene and put in a corner answer yes there worked on straight away - the top group are those who will live without serious care - heres the first aid kit.

its taking those methods to the nth degree



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Realistically, if things get REALLY bad, you have to pick your battles. Come up with a plan that uses your resources to the greatest effect. Maybe it sounds cruel to some, but if there's only so much to go around then you need to use it wisely. So from that perspective I can see people who have debilitating conditions or those who are towards the end of their life cycle being lower on the list. You need to give support to those who would get the most benefit from that support first. Whether or not you trust this plan to be carried out correctly is another issue. I personally think it's good that they even came up with a plan.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by an0maly33
 


My question is "Why now?" This is a relatively common sense plan, so I have to wonder if they know something or are planning something that would require this. Why didn't they issue this after 9/11, why not after Katrina? Why now?

It could be nothing and simply the timing of things, but this is a conspiracy site and this one has my spidey senses tingling.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Good point! I picked up on this perspective but forgot to address it. I also wonder why such a plan wasn't developed in the wake of previous tragedies. It does seem like they're expecting something to happen. Like you said, could just be odd timing combined with lack of previous ambition.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Perhaps this is link to the problems that China is experiencing with foot mouth disease recently and the upcoming Olympics, it may be some contingency plan in case some of the visitors from countries all over the world including US may come back infected with something.

After all is not vaccine for the new outbreak in China that is killing mostly children.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The concept of triage is not new for civilian health care people. I will grap a Triage tag and scan it for you guys to see.

Any Fireman, paramedic, EMT et al. has an understanding of mass casulty triage. I in fact given my position would be expected to eprform the god like role. You usually have more than one triage officer.

It really makes sence and if supplies of vaccines are limited, health care workers can, do, and should have first dibbs as they will have to take care of the sick.

Its cruel but you have to give the strongest the best chance of surrvival.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The concept of triage is not new for civilian health care people. I will grap a Triage tag and scan it for you guys to see.

Any Fireman, paramedic, EMT et al. has an understanding of mass casulty triage. I in fact given my position would be expected to eprform the god like role. You usually have more than one triage officer.

It really makes sence and if supplies of vaccines are limited, health care workers can, do, and should have first dibbs as they will have to take care of the sick.

Its cruel but you have to give the strongest the best chance of surrvival.


This is an excellent point. My mother, rest her soul, spent her entire life as a certified RN, and one of the things she sometimes grappled with was the fact she might be called upon to perform triage during a big emergency. It does seem heartless and cruel, but in a critical situation with limited resources one has to make difficult choices and, if the danger is ongoing, hope to live long enough to regret it later.

As for the timing of this release I doubt it has anything to do with impending doom. My guess is the folks at DHS and CDC finally figured this stuff out and published it as a "Hey, we're working hard!" reminder. Remember, Bush is the "CEO President", and he says he runs the gov't like a business. One thing I've noticed in my career is that in business, and I'm sure it's often this way in gov't too, real decisions and work to back up those decisions often take a back burner to "important" things like who's in charge of what, who gets the credit when things work and who will be the patsy when plans fail. From my most recent working experience I can say this happens a lot--and then the peons get to bust their butts to actually do the hard work at the last minute and hope nothing gets too screwed up in the process. I think that's exactly what we're seeing here: Agencies that need to show some kind of progress after screwing around too long, publishing a "plan" that probably isn't even half complete. There's no conspiracy here IMO. Just typical CYA.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I agree with marg on this one... But I know most people here are not in a position where they can be at home 24/7 and simply avoid all this crisis outside, if something were to happen.

Still, kind of following what marg has said, I've heard that in the case of emergency, or "pandemic", the LAST place you want to be is the hospital!!

Virology is fascinating as hell. A virus can "evolve" and gain resistences in only ONE generation!! The strongest strains of anything will probably be jumping around in the hospital.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Considering how much red tape and nonsense any proposal like this has to go through before an actual proposal is drafted, let alone released to the public, this is probably something that has been worked on for quite awhile. Most likely it was born a few years ago when SARS was scaring the hell out of people or shortly after when the avian flu scare started making the rounds. I'm not reading anything into the timing on it since every program about pandemics and epidemics comes right out and states it isn't an if but a when and with every passing flu season which doesn't turn pandemic we're just that much closer to the big one. Nice to see some level of preparedness battle plan being worked on.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
It might be because May is National Critical Care Awareness and Recognition Month. The link provided in the op refers to the May issue of CHEST so I thought I'd take a look there but the latest issue is April 2008, not May. No mention of the study.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Tuebor]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Regardless of whether or not there is a standardized protocol or whether or not there are those who would stand in the way of a standardized protocol, if there is a massive crisis that stretches emergency care beyond its capacity, first responders and everyone up the chain of command will be forced to implement a triage protocol for the simple reason that it is better save a few rather than lose everyone because emergency services were wasted on those whose survival was minimal to begin with.

Under normal conditions, we take pride in caring for the weakest among us, but such is a luxury of our advanced civilization. A triage such as is being described here is like the social custom of saving the women and the children in severe crises.

It is better to keep alive the promise of the future than it is to save the lives of those who cannot secure the future on their own.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
This to me is no different than women and children first on a sinking chip, with that I mean that it makes sense.

One thing that will bother me though in case like this is for example seen my father denied healthcare because of his age but then the care that could have gone to him been used instead on inmates and the sort.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Well guys, here is the yahoo article on the same story.
Yahoo article

This is my favorite line from their take on the report.

Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone."
That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said.


Pretty crazy stuff. Depending on how you read into this statement.

I am going through mass casualty training right now for the DHHS. I am involved with the disaster mortuary. I am interested to see if these guidelines will be covered in any of my classes.


[edit on 5/5/2008 by palehorse23]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
While I understand the reasons for such a list, it can also be used for a disturbingly wrong reason... enforced natural selection.

Now bare with me, before anyone starts pulling the [NUTCASE] card out.

Should a food crisis hit the United States, a quick way for the government to eliminate the problem AND the blame in one swoop, would be to release one of the many biological weapons they store on their own people.

Make it look like a pandemic swept the nation.

Now the population is more controllable, the ratio of food to people is balanced better, and everyone completely forgets there was a food shortage in the first place, and congratulates the government on their quick decisive actions helping the people during the pandemic.


Pretty sick eh?

I wouldn't be surprised to see them do it... they've done plenty other disgusting things... this one actually seems less far fetched than some of the crap they've actually pulled off.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by johnsky]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of people who understand triage here. It's heartbreaking but necessary to ensure that those who have the best chance at long term survival are given priority.

Since this is ATS, I feel another angle should be brought up.That issue is allocation of resources during such an emergency. Is it outside the realm of possibillity that certain areas could recieve more resources than other areas based on criteria other than need/population. A quick example could be two hospitals that serve different demographics be they socio-economic, race, or even the way that district votes. All else being equal do you think that the hospital on the poor side of town would recieve the same allocation of resources that the hospital on the rich side of town would?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
A problem with this system of allocating care and resources is its potential for misinterpretation (accidental or intentional) by the people who will be in charge of implementing these guidelines. Earlier this semester triage was covered in lecture (and sparked a lot of heated discussion in class; I'll admit now I'm one of the "idealistic" students) but even our instructor admitted that this is one of the grayest areas of healthcare. It's easy to parrot "survival-of-the-fittest!" when it isn't you or your mother or your child being shuffled to the end of the line.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Ok, no matter I think this is sad. To say someone cant live because they have diabetes or Lupus, or high blood pressure. Or any other health problem. These people can live normal lives. They just require a few medicines.

This is only one of the reasons why they want the chip in people so they can scan you and say, “Oh just the right age for having a baby put her over there. Oh this one has diabetes let’em go. This one is 63 let’em die. They will separate us old and young healthy and non healthy.

While our strong men just sit back and let them do what they want. Cause we don’t have strong, brave men any more!!




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join