reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
Trying to make a distinction between a wild animal and a human is like comparing apples to Pluto.
An active shooter is intent on accomplishing there goal, which is to kill specific people / large numbers of people. An animal attacking a human and a
human attacking a human are not even compatible counter examples to each other.
What is seen more often in an emergency room ER?
Humans being shot?
Humans being stabbed?
Humans being beat?
Depending on where you live it could be a mix. The larger picture though is when a mass incident occurs, where there are large numbers of wounded /
dying / dead, it never revolves around wild animals. The point is to prepare (as much as one humanly can) the first responder / first receivers to be
put into an environment where true emergency triage / emergency medicine comes into play.
As I pointed out in other posts its normal for medical staff to deal with the every day situations. When you introduce elements that move a situation
beyond the normal, a new set of action / thinking / planning comes into play.
Let me give an example -
When dealing with large amounts of wounded individual you resort to triaging them as a group.
* - You ask any person who is able to stand and walk to stand up and move to area B.
* - The people left behind are then triaged based on injury / chance of survival.
* - Of those individuals, a decision must be made, and I cant emphasize that enough, MUST be made to determine which patients can be saved and which
That mind set is not a normal part of everyday scenarios, and runs contrary to the medical services goal. If you have a person who is critical and on
the verge of death arrive at the Hospital on a normal day, the patient is admitted and every effort is made to stabilize / save the patient.
When a situation occurs where medical services are stretched, a person who might have been seen the day before might not be able to be seen during
Individual encounters in the ER are designed to save the persons life.
Mass Casualty encounters moves into the area of preventing death by concentrating on those who can be stabilized.
While it looks easy enough in writing / text / disaster plans, it becomes something completely different for the person who is forced to triage mass
casualties in that manner. Its not something that a person can adequately be prepared for, regardless of training. However, that does not mean we
should not train on the off chance we ever have that situation occur.
When you introduce a further destabilizing element into the mix, like the victims being children / elderly / invalids, the decision on triage becomes
even more difficult. Even more so when the persons triaging have children / relatives of the same age / background as the people they are dealing
with. While I don't want to ever see an incident where those decisions have to be made, simply ignoring them and the training for those situations
serves no one.
Even Law Enforcement faces these situations. Its one thing to respond to a shots fired call and seeing a person or child has been killed. When we
respond to an active shooter event in a school, we are forced to deal directly with the carnage of dead / injured children. As much as we want to
stop and help every person, we cannot until we can stop the threat and secure the area.
What people fail to realize is medical / fire generally are prohibited from entering a scene until secured by law enforcement. If we stop and check
every person we come across, that's time wasted searching for the threat, which adds time to the clock meaning Medical / Fire are that much more
delayed in doing their job.
While I understand your argument, I don't agree with it. Ignoring training in areas that could be considered 1 in 100 million chances of occurring is
dangerous. The mindset of "it will never happen here" is precisely why the training must be done.
Because there is always the possibility that a deranged person living in an area that has the mindset of "it will never happen hear" will act out
their plans knowing full well that their actions will stand a better chance of occurring, concluding with the results the deranged person wants
instead of the conclusion everyone else wants.
While opinions and what we should or should not do should be considered, unless a person is directly involved in those scenarios, one will never know
how they will act / process the images they see etc.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)