Califorinia State pushing laws to let sick die in case of a major disaster

[pimf]

Now why would the state of California be doing this?

State guidelines lay framework for deliberately letting some people die during next disaster (http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/753359.html)

"Older, sicker patients could be allowed to die in order to save the lives of patients more likely to survive a massive disaster, bioterror attack or influenza pandemic in California.

It's not how nurses and doctors are accustomed to doing things, nor how Californians expect to be treated. But it is part of a sweeping statewide plan being praised for its breadth, even as it rankles providers who will have to carry it out.

The new "surge capacity guidelines" released by the state Department of Public Health, depict a post-disaster health care environment that looks and feels nothing like the system most Californians depend on.

It provides for scenarios in which patients could be herded into school gymnasiums for life-saving care or animal doctors could stitch up the human wounded and set their broken bones.

The 1,900-page document lays the practical – and ethical – groundwork for local and county health departments, hospitals, emergency responders and any able-bodied health care worker likely to be called upon in a catastrophe.

Striking in its specificity and its frank focus on the need to suspend or flex established laws and to ration health care, the plan is being hailed as a model for the rest of the nation."

Now consider these articles.

Warning: The Fed Releases Crisis Preparedness Video (http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7064)

Rule by fear or rule by law: American detention centers? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL)

Are These Real Concerns To Americans? (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UnderTheRadarMedia/~3/244609719/)

Flashback Pre September 11/Anthrax attacks: US lawmakers warned of "dark winter" in case of bioterrorist attack (http://web.archive.org/web/20010820080213/http://sg.news.yahoo.com/010723/1/19mqc.html)

Pre September 11/Anthrax attacks: US lawmakers warned of "dark winter" in case of bioterrorist attack (http://www.archive.org/details/July252001WarningOfBio-weaponAttack) audio

History Channel: Anthrax attacks an inside job (http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/history-channel-anthrax-attack-was.html)

[alex_de_large]

hmmmmmm makes sense to me.

[Spike Lee]

I will not consider those articles.

[pimf]

I will not consider those articles.

LOL why not? What's not to consider?

One is the Sacramento Bee:

The Sacramento Bee is a daily newspaper published in Sacramento, California, in the United States. Since its creation in 1857, the Bee has become Sacramento's largest newspaper. The original newspaper was owned by the McClatchy family of California. The Bee was the foundation for McClatchy Newspapers, a regional chain that grew into the nationwide McClatchy Company. The Sacramento Bee is one of the five largest newspapers in California (alongside the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Orange County Register ), with distribution in the Sacramento Valley and its surrounding areas.

The second one is an alternative news site, all sourced btw.

The third is the San Francisco Chronicle, which btw is based off the Army's website and was also reported in the Houston Chronicle circa 1999.

The fourth was from a blog, all sourced, if you even bothered to check it out.

The fifth was from Yahoo News Singapore, but good luck trying to find the original online. I had to go to the "Way Back Machine" for the source.

The sixth is an audio broadcast that goes into a pre 9/11 pre anthrax attack from July 25, 2001.

The seventh is from the History Channel BBC covering the anthrax attacks.

[American Infidel]

Being a former medic, I can say that triage has been around for a long time. It's nothing new. In a scenario of mass casualties, versus limited medical staff, it's important to treat patients who will likely be saved by medical treatment, while leaving those who are probably going to die, last.

It's not pretty and it may seem inhumane, but consider the fact that the goal is to prevent death. Ignore someone with a sucking chest wound, while operating for five hours on a man with a bullet lodged in his brain and on life-support, and you'll likely lose two patients. Crude example, but you should get the core reasoning behind it.

It's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. It may seem morbid to leave the dying, until last, but wasting time on someone who will probably die, anyway, risks the lives of those who will live, if treated early enough.

[pimf]

Being a former medic, I can say that triage has been around for a long time.

Why are they pushing laws now? Are they expecting/predicting a catastrophe, like they did they did pre-anthrax attacks, which were erroneously blamed on Iraq?

[Spike Lee]

LOL why not? What's not to consider?

One is the Sacramento Bee:

The Sacramento Bee is a daily newspaper published in Sacramento, California, in the United States. Since its creation in 1857, the Bee has become Sacramento's largest newspaper. The original newspaper was owned by the McClatchy family of California. The Bee was the foundation for McClatchy Newspapers, a regional chain that grew into the nationwide McClatchy Company. The Sacramento Bee is one of the five largest newspapers in California (alongside the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Orange County Register ), with distribution in the Sacramento Valley and its surrounding areas.


Yes. This article is an artivle about the Califorinia State pushing laws to let extremly ill die in case of a major disaster.
The second one is an alternative news site, all sourced btw.
The second is raising speculations about a video released during a time of financial instability. It makes sense that it would be released but the text adds in its own reasons on why it would of been possibly released. It's not saying this is THE REASON why. It just speculates on why and it speculates in a parnoid manner. It reads like an op-ed.
The third is the San Francisco Chronicle, which btw is based off the Army's website and was also reported in the Houston Chronicle circa 1999.
This is an op-ed.
The fourth was from a blog, all sourced, if you even bothered to check it out.
This is a blog that brings up stats on people visiting their site and what they will plan to show people on this blog.
The fifth was from Yahoo News Singapore, but good luck trying to find the original online. I had to go to the "Way Back Machine" for the source.
Yeah and so what? A lot of these presentations were made before 9/11.


The seventh is from the History Channel BBC covering the anthrax attacks.

So what? The History Channel airs shit about conspiracy vids involving aliens, Bigfoot and JFK. All of which are done with the same experts and creepy music.

[pimf]

Except you leave out the fact that the anthrax attacks were erroneously blamed on Saddam when the point of origin were from Ft. Detrick Maryland and that there was no way they could have been from Iraq.

And also why are they now pushing laws.

So what is it that you are not considering?

[American Infidel]

Why are they pushing laws now? Are they expecting/predicting a catastrophe, like they did they did pre-anthrax attacks, which were erroneously blamed on Iraq?

I don't know why this article is just surfacing. We've been preparing and training, for years, for such an event.

I can provide you with some unclassified information, though. After 9/11, President Bush signed an order to create a "common language" statute, that would prevent radio traffic from police, fire departments and emergency medical services from being misunderstood. In other words, the abandonment of 10-codes. I'm sure you're familiar with the common, "Ten-Four", which means, "I copy" or "OK".

10-codes, on paper, is a great idea. It takes a little less time, tying up the radio, by saying, "Ten-Six" instead of "I'm busy", especially in a chaotic environment, where a lot of people are trying to say something. However, the 10-codes weren't standardized, throughout the country...or even from one county to the next.

For example, if my county suffered a major terrorist attack and police officers from neighboring counties were called in to help, their 10-codes will probably be completely incompatible with the ones in my county. For instance, 10-9, by my county's codes, means, "I didn't hear what you said...tell me again." In another's county, 10-9 might mean, "Officer down...need backup immediately".

That problem reared it's ugly head, when agencies from states, far from New York, responded to the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon. The New York 9-1-1 dispatchers were overwhelmed with incompatible 10-codes. An EMS unit might have radioed that they need ALS (Advanced Life Support) backup, while the dispatcher understood the 10-code, as, "I need a tow truck at my location". You can see the importance of either standardizing the 10-codes or abolishing them, altogether.

So, the common-language rule was put into place. Any agency still using the 10-codes, were supposed to be denied federal funding, as the FCC was (supposedly) monitoring radio traffic. Instead of saying, "Ten-Four", we were supposed to say, "Copy". Instead of saying, "Ten-Six", we were supposed to say, "Busy. Standby". As far as my job is concerned, we still have to use common language, instead of 10-codes. However, we have to know what 10-28 and 10-32 mean, at the same time.

Agencies refused to stop using 10-codes and the government allowed the rule to dissolve. I don't know about any other county than my own, but our State Police absolutely refused to stop using 10-codes. Yet, they're still receiving federal funding, despite the orders to use common language.

In a round-about way (and I know it's a long post, by now), standardization has been set up, at lest, in theory. It's not implemented in every state or county or parish, but it should be. If triage has not been widely accepted as the best way to deal with mass casualties, up until now, it's surprising to me.

I thought the trends from California set the stage for the rest of the US. Apparently, it's backward, in this case.

[pimf]

So it would appear that now there are to be laws passed in California to allow for health care for some, but not for others, and this is to be a model for the rest of the US, based on some upcoming disaster.

It is safe to say, just based on what we know from experience, that the disaster will be either a collapse of the economy (depression), a terror attack (whether real or staged), or a pandemic outbreak (whether real or staged).

Either way, this is a negative social indicator especially based on previous social indicators.

[American Infidel]

So it would appear that now there are to be laws passed in California to allow for health care for some, but not for others, and this is to be a model for the rest of the US, based on some upcoming disaster.

It is safe to say, just based on what we know from experience, that the disaster will be either a collapse of the economy (depression), a terror attack (whether real or staged), or a pandemic outbreak (whether real or staged).

Either way, this is a negative social indicator especially based on previous social indicators.

Did you not even read what I wrote? The goal is to maximize the number of lives saved.

I see no conspiracy theory, here. I just see a time-tested use of triage, in a mass-casualty scenario.

[n00b_rocket]

So it would appear that now there are to be laws passed in California to allow for health care for some, but not for others, and this is to be a model for the rest of the US, based on some upcoming disaster.

It is safe to say, just based on what we know from experience, that the disaster will be either a collapse of the economy (depression), a terror attack (whether real or staged), or a pandemic outbreak (whether real or staged).

Either way, this is a negative social indicator especially based on previous social indicators.

How the fuck do you stage a pandemic?

[American Infidel]

How the fuck do you stage a pandemic?

If he responds that it's government-sponsored, I'm bailing out of this sinking thread. And, that's what I get for trying to bring reason to an irrational conversation, I guess.

[n00b_rocket]

If he responds that it's government-sponsored, I'm bailing out of this sinking thread. And, that's what I get for trying to bring reason to an irrational conversation, I guess.


LOL I might join you.

[MelL]

Being a former medic, I can say that triage has been around for a long time. It's nothing new. In a scenario of mass casualties, versus limited medical staff, it's important to treat patients who will likely be saved by medical treatment, while leaving those who are probably going to die, last.

It's not pretty and it may seem inhumane, but consider the fact that the goal is to prevent death. Ignore someone with a sucking chest wound, while operating for five hours on a man with a bullet lodged in his brain and on life-support, and you'll likely lose two patients. Crude example, but you should get the core reasoning behind it.

It's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. It may seem morbid to leave the dying, until last, but wasting time on someone who will probably die, anyway, risks the lives of those who will live, if treated early enough.

I'm no medic and have no training beyond the pressure bandage in basic training lol but even I recognized triage as well. This is definitely nothing to be alarmed about.

[Henkie]

So if I get it right, this means that in situations when you are forced to choose who you rescue, you rescue the ones that actually stand a chance of survival, right? It sounds a bit cynical, but in essence quite reasonable and I can't essentially find something wrong with it.

[droogsteve]

Being a former medic, I can say that triage has been around for a long time. It's nothing new. In a scenario of mass casualties, versus limited medical staff, it's important to treat patients who will likely be saved by medical treatment, while leaving those who are probably going to die, last.

It's not pretty and it may seem inhumane, but consider the fact that the goal is to prevent death. Ignore someone with a sucking chest wound, while operating for five hours on a man with a bullet lodged in his brain and on life-support, and you'll likely lose two patients. Crude example, but you should get the core reasoning behind it.

It's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. It may seem morbid to leave the dying, until last, but wasting time on someone who will probably die, anyway, risks the lives of those who will live, if treated early enough.

As a current Paramedic, I'll confirm this as 100% accurate. In a MCI (Mass Casualty Incident), the triage system can be seen by the untrained as pretty brutal. For example, say you come upon a patient in respiratory arrest. You're allowed ONE quick attempt at repositioning the airway. If they don't start to breathe spontaneously, you walk away, even with a pulse. No CPR, no airway adjuncts are allowed to be attempted. You don't have time to waste on someone with such a poor chance of longterm survival.

Agencies refused to stop using 10-codes and the government allowed the rule to dissolve. I don't know about any other county than my own, but our State Police absolutely refused to stop using 10-codes. Yet, they're still receiving federal funding, despite the orders to use common language.

Yeah, there was a lot of talk about abandoning 10 codes, but it just sort of went away. In NY, I believe it had a lot to do with institutional arrogance. Instead of getting rid of them, the FDNY and NYPD pretty much said "We're the big dogs, so instead of abandoning our 10 codes, all the smaller local agencies should change theirs to ours." Of course the smaller agencies felt that they were being bullied and kept their old codes out of spite. So 7 years after 9/11, ego and stupidity are still endangering public safety.

[Canuk]

I don't see why this is issue is worthy of being in the Current events section. I say this because this legislation by the Californian Government seems to just be common sense. As many have stated the triage system is used by many emergency responders, this system I guess is just being enforced by California law.

[burningcow422]

i see nothing wrong with that

[_Joe]

Why are they pushing laws now? Are they expecting/predicting a catastrophe, like they did they did pre-anthrax attacks, which were erroneously blamed on Iraq?

Perhaps it is a response to the disaster that Hurricane Katrina was.

[rand0m]

They are aiming a bit low aren't they ...

How about pushing smokers and morbidly obese people to the back of waiting lists.

How about cutting down on the whole 'stretching old peoples lives out'. I find it disgusting how we see it fit to draw out terminally ill peoples deaths. That person is in constant pain, he is in a completely degraded embarrasing state and he has nothing in his future except a slow drawn out pathetic death.

When they cross the line of no return the doctors duty should be to the patients dignity, and that dignity is letting the patient die in a pain free peaceful state.

... woops did i just open a new debate?

[Death_Revenant]

Looks like something interesting will happen in the next few years.

[pimf]

Did you not even read what I wrote? The goal is to maximize the number of lives saved.

I see no conspiracy theory, here. I just see a time-tested use of triage, in a mass-casualty scenario.

Nah I was drunk it was tdlr last night, but I read it now. Thanks for the comments and your brining reason to this thread.

I also didn't mean to say staged pandemic, I meant to say staged bio-terrorism attack, like the staged anthrax attacks.

I am glad that the State of California is kind enough to let us know of their upcoming procedures though.

[Spike Lee]

Perhaps it is a response to the disaster that Hurricane Katrina was.

Thats what I was thinking.

[_Joe]

Nah I was drunk it was tdlr last night, but I read it now. Thanks for the comments and your brining reason to this thread.

I also didn't mean to say staged pandemic, I meant to say staged bio-terrorism attack, like the staged anthrax attacks.

I am glad that the State of California is kind enough to let us know of their upcoming procedures though.

Didn't someone die of anthrax...?

[Chewy]

Being a former medic, I can say that triage has been around for a long time. It's nothing new. In a scenario of mass casualties, versus limited medical staff, it's important to treat patients who will likely be saved by medical treatment, while leaving those who are probably going to die, last.

It's not pretty and it may seem inhumane, but consider the fact that the goal is to prevent death. Ignore someone with a sucking chest wound, while operating for five hours on a man with a bullet lodged in his brain and on life-support, and you'll likely lose two patients. Crude example, but you should get the core reasoning behind it.

It's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. It may seem morbid to leave the dying, until last, but wasting time on someone who will probably die, anyway, risks the lives of those who will live, if treated early enough.Yep. In most major evac or response centers triage is a rather rapid response and some are left to die.


Why are they pushing laws now? Are they expecting/predicting a catastrophe, like they did they did pre-anthrax attacks, which were erroneously blamed on Iraq?Has fuck all to do with Iraq, little green men or crazy shit like that. Katrina is why.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-10-26-katrina-investigation_x.htm

[Frosty]

They are aiming a bit low aren't they ...

How about pushing smokers and morbidly obese people to the back of waiting lists.

How about cutting down on the whole 'stretching old peoples lives out'. I find it disgusting how we see it fit to draw out terminally ill peoples deaths. That person is in constant pain, he is in a completely degraded embarrasing state and he has nothing in his future except a slow drawn out pathetic death.

When they cross the line of no return the doctors duty should be to the patients dignity, and that dignity is letting the patient die in a pain free peaceful state.

... woops did i just open a new debate?

This doesn't have anything to do with the article though. You just ranted about letting terminally ill people die.

The article discusses a mass casualty incident and how people who are too injured to revive or those that don't have a good chance of surviving are overlooked for those who do. It's called triage, a medical process generally used in MCIs in developed countries.

[painfulogic]

I think terminally ill people should be allowed to take any drugs they want. Rather than being kept alive for years as you slowly die, imagine taking acid, shrooms, ecstasy, coke, and eventually meth until it kills you. Now that is a fucking way to go out.

[rand0m]

This doesn't have anything to do with the article though. You just ranted about letting terminally ill people die.

The article discusses a mass casualty incident and how people who are too injured to revive or those that don't have a good chance of surviving are overlooked for those who do. It's called triage, a medical process generally used in MCIs in developed countries.

Well the whole point in refusing treatment to the worst off patients is all in saving vital medicine and attention for those that will a higher chance of living.

Why stop in emergencies, people that purposely damage their body for pleasure shouldn't be put on the same priority as those that have never smoked in their life. Saving the medicine and attention for those who deserve it while discouraging vile practices like smoking.

[pimf]

Didn't someone die of anthrax...?

Yeah, but after the investigation led back to Ft. Detrick, MD the FBI's case went cold.

[_Joe]

Yeah, but after the investigation led back to Ft. Detrick, MD the FBI's case went cold.

I never heard that, I would think the media would be all over that

[pimf]

I never heard that, I would think the media would be all over that

They were pretty quiet about it overall.

Anthrax Probe Shuts Army Lab (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/05/national/main634257.shtml)

Also, members of the White House went on Cipro, an anti-bacterial, on 9/11.

Judicial Watch Wants to Know Why White House Went on Cipro Beginning September 11th (http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml)

"In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch is aggressively pursuing the disclosure of the facts and the decision for White House staff, and President Bush as well, to begin taking Cipro nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.

“The American people deserve a full accounting from the Bush administration, the FBI , and other agencies concerning the anthrax attacks. The FBI’s investigation seems to have dead-ended, and frankly, that is not very reassuring given their performance with the September 11th hijackers,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. “One doesn’t simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew nine months ago, “ he added.