Site Search
Trauma-List Subscription


Would you like to receive list emails batched into one daily digest?
No Yes
Modify Your Subscription


Home > List Archives

Clamp the the chest tube in an EMS placed chest tube

docrickfry at aol.com docrickfry at aol.com
Sat Apr 8 13:48:09 BST 2006

That's right--the "oppressive MD chip on the shoulder"
We are just a bunch of goons, but never seemed to be called names in this adolescent way until we challenge someone to justify their position and they cannot--instead of conceding " no, I really do not have any data to support what I am doing" like an actual adult, the messenger starts getting called names--I kind of remember doing that myself in about 1st grade.
Look up the word "debate" in the dictionary please?
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brault <c_brault at yahoo.com>
To: Trauma &amp, Critical Care mailing list <trauma-list at trauma.org>
Sent: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 03:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Clamp the the chest tube in an EMS placed chest tube

docrickfry at aol.com wrote:  That's when in the hospital Pret--review the ATLS 
manual and see if you see a single word or patient scenario in which the patient 
should or did get such intervention in the field. I actually would not have any 
problem with doing a needle in the field for a clinical diagnosis of a true 
tension PTX with shock--the problem is, it never happens--needles are stuck all 
over patients (I had one in the liver a few weeks ago) because of reasons like 
"I couldn't hear good breath sounds" or "he complained of difficulty breathing" 
or "he had a bruise on his chest" etc all with normal vital signs. There seems 
no control over the criteria used for needling in the field and surprisingly 
little understanding of why they are or should be doing this. In reading posts 
on this list over a few years, such seems true everywhere.
  Hey if we removed form usefull medical interventions all the acts carreid out 
by clueless MDs you guys would be selling apples))))))
  Actually a few existing studies and countless more would be very good/better 
at identifying wich MDs, wich circumstances these acts should be barred or 
subject to a targeted credentialisation process.
  Just like with the medics
  But obviously
  With more bias in favor of the credentializing (real or symbolic) than the 
simple barring
  Not a conspiracy
  Just simle honest human/tribal nature))))

trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:

More information about the trauma-list mailing list