Crazy Kids Crazy Call

[crazycajun]

I think what ABC is getting at is that maybe the kid's mum didn't have to see his pecker to agree to treatment. I think as a card carrying member of the male gender we should strive to avoid the potentially large amounts of embarrassment associated with the dumb S**T we do with our penis's (penisi? many penises?). I have told the parents of one child (16), who was having OB/GYN problems and was pregnant, that she was having menstrual problems and needed to be seen in the ER. I didn't need to mention that she was pregnant to obtain consent. I think what tender and ABC are getting at is just have a little sensitivity when it comes to our genitalia, especially for a teenage boy.
Personally, I'd kill myself before showing any family relation my injured penis.

Again, It is the law here. I cannot refuse her request. Now in your case I could have. If any PT regardless of age is pregnant, a parent or the expected father they are considered adults as far as healthcare is concerned. If that can be verified, I can treat and transport w/o any other consent.

 

[usalsfyre]

It's the apparent lack of PATIENT (the kid) advocacy here that bothers me a bit. I don't have a problem with your treatment, or even informing the mother of the general nature if the issue, only the lack of discretion showed.

There's the absoloute, literal interpretation of the law, and then there's using a little discretion while being a patient advocate and following the spirit of the law.

All that needed to be said was "your son is experiencing a problem with his genitals. We are going to treat him, but I'm asking for your sons's sake to give him some privacy". If she pressed further, distribute information in the smallest chunks possible.

Exposing him to Mom's ridicule does nothing good in this case. I highly doubt the parent would chose to persue any action against you if you handled this respectfully and compassionately.

Any chance your gunshy on legal issues from your previous experince?

 

[Pummpkin]

LOL, great call. As my sergeant told me, "Write down an account of all of the interesting calls you run and you'll find yourself with a novel's worth of experience." You can't make some of this stuff up!

 

[crazycajun]

It's the apparent lack of PATIENT (the kid) advocacy here that bothers me a bit. I don't have a problem with your treatment, or even informing the mother of the general nature if the issue, only the lack of discretion showed.

There's the absolute, literal interpretation of the law, and then there's using a little discretion while being a patient advocate and following the spirit of the law.

All that needed to be said was "your son is experiencing a problem with his genitals. We are going to treat him, but I'm asking for your son's sake to give him some privacy". If she pressed further, distribute information in the smallest chunks possible.

Exposing him to Mom's ridicule does nothing good in this case. I highly doubt the parent would chose to pursue any action against you if you handled this respectfully and compassionately.

Any chance your gunshy on legal issues from your previous experience?

This has nothing to do with my previous experience. It is simply the law. To continue to distribute information in chunks only causes more time w/o treatment for the PT. When you give a vague response to a question by a parent I can assure you more questions will follow. You also doubt the parent would pursue action against me but you have no idea on how many lawsuits are filed each and every day here. You may be OK with putting your career in jeopardy but I am not. I followed not only the law but our protocol as well to the T. I would also love to hear you explanation to a judge when he asks you to define "following the spirit of the Law" and asks you what gives you legal right to interpret the law as you see fit. It is simply fact that this young man has absolutely no right to privacy when it comes to his parents and healthcare treatment. If his mom says this is how it's going to be and follows the law, you nor I or anyone else can change that. Not to mention by using you thought process you have given treatment to a PT without the legal guardian being informed completely of the nature of injury/illness and the complete method of treatment. Let me ask you this. If you arrive on scene of a child hit by a car and the parent refuses treatment for that child are you going to treat the child anyways? Or will you respect the parents rights and decisions, completely inform them of the possible outcome if the child does not receive treatment, document everything and have them sign a refusal?

 

[usalsfyre]

Let me ask you this. If you arrive on scene of a child hit by a car and the parent refuses treatment for that child are you going to treat the child anyways? Or will you respect the parents rights and decisions, completely inform them of the possible outcome if the child does not receive treatment, document everything and have them sign a refusal?

Life-threatening injury to a child where the parent is refusing care in the State of Texas? In 99% of cases the child will be taken into law enforcement custody on suspicion of abuse and treatment will proceed.

Non-life threatening? Yes we will take time to explain consequences, but a kid hit by a car is a piss-poor comparison to an embarrassing incident such as this.

There's no reason to not make an attempt to preserve this young man's dignity. If she begins to be verbally abusive towards the patient, ask her to leave. While we're doing comparisons, would you let a verbally abusive husband stick around why you tried to treat his wife?

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt this was the intention when your protocols an the law were written. Again, at least make an attempt to preserve dignity. You recently mentioned a very frivolous lawsuit that was filed against you on here. Again, are you SURE that this had no bearing on how you handled this situation? Because the kid and parents could just as easily sue for something like what you did.

 

[CANMAN]

This has nothing to do with my previous experience. It is simply the law. To continue to distribute information in chunks only causes more time w/o treatment for the PT. When you give a vague response to a question by a parent I can assure you more questions will follow. You also doubt the parent would pursue action against me but you have no idea on how many lawsuits are filed each and every day here. You may be OK with putting your career in jeopardy but I am not. I followed not only the law but our protocol as well to the T. I would also love to hear you explanation to a judge when he asks you to define "following the spirit of the Law" and asks you what gives you legal right to interpret the law as you see fit. It is simply fact that this young man has absolutely no right to privacy when it comes to his parents and healthcare treatment. If his mom says this is how it's going to be and follows the law, you nor I or anyone else can change that. Not to mention by using you thought process you have given treatment to a PT without the legal guardian being informed completely of the nature of injury/illness and the complete method of treatment. Let me ask you this. If you arrive on scene of a child hit by a car and the parent refuses treatment for that child are you going to treat the child anyways? Or will you respect the parents rights and decisions, completely inform them of the possible outcome if the child does not receive treatment, document everything and have them sign a refusal?

Sorry man law or not, if you are willing to not render care to a child struck by a car because his parents say no, then you my friends have some issues. At that time I would operate on implied consent. Implied consent is generally defined as "what a normal person would want done," for a parent to not want aid rendered to their injured child is not normal. With the utmost swiftness get LE involved and I am sure with some swag you could get them to side with you, laws or not... There comes a point where if a parent is making decisions that are going to NEGATIVELY affect the outcome of the child then they have no rights, Parents refusing blood products due to religious beliefs comes to mind here and utimately the child will recieve the blood. This would be a case by case things obviously, critically ill child struck by car gets treatment, parents wish to refuse and child has a laceration I might think a little differently if I was operating under such strict law.

 

[crazycajun]

Life-threatening injury to a child where the parent is refusing care in the State of Texas? In 99% of cases the child will be taken into law enforcement custody on suspicion of abuse and treatment will proceed.

Non-life threatening? Yes we will take time to explain consequences, but a kid hit by a car is a piss-poor comparison to an embarrassing incident such as this.

There's no reason to not make an attempt to preserve this young man's dignity. If she begins to be verbally abusive towards the patient, ask her to leave. While we're doing comparisons, would you let a verbally abusive husband stick around why you tried to treat his wife?

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt this was the intention when your protocols an the law were written. Again, at least make an attempt to preserve dignity. You recently mentioned a very frivolous lawsuit that was filed against you on here. Again, are you SURE that this had no bearing on how you handled this situation? Because the kid and parents could just as easily sue for something like what you did.

The laws in Texas are just that. The laws in South Carolina are different so what you do in Texas does not mean it will fly here. If a parent refuses treatment of a minor no matter the nature of injury we cannot treat as long as her mental status is not altered. Furthermore LE will not likely get involved if the parent cites religious belief. This then becomes a civil matter and LE here doesn't get involved in civil matters. I also don't think it is a piss-poor comparison. We are talking about parental consent. You say ask her to leave but I do not have that authority. She is the parent and I have no say so in the way she speaks to her child and neither do you. As far as a husband verbally abusing his wife I cannot make him leave but I can remove the LEGAL CONSENTING adult from the situation. The problem is the child in question cannot legally consent to anything. Again, this instance has nothing to do with the suit that was filed against me. I followed the laws and protocols then just like I did with this call and just like I do with every call. I am not risking my future nor the future of my family by breaking protocol or laws. You are correct the parent could sue me (not the kid however) but I can promise you all of my documentation is correct and I followed protocol and the law to the T so she would have no case.

 

[crazycajun]

Sorry man law or not, if you are willing to not render care to a child struck by a car because his parents say no, then you my friends have some issues. At that time I would operate on implied consent. Implied consent is generally defined as "what a normal person would want done," for a parent to not want aid rendered to their injured child is not normal. With the utmost swiftness get LE involved and I am sure with some swag you could get them to side with you, laws or not... There comes a point where if a parent is making decisions that are going to NEGATIVELY affect the outcome of the child then they have no rights, Parents refusing blood products due to religious beliefs comes to mind here and utimately the child will recieve the blood. This would be a case by case things obviously, critically ill child struck by car gets treatment, parents wish to refuse and child has a laceration I might think a little differently if I was operating under such strict law.

Sorry man but I am not going to jail for breaking the law. You claim implied consent but if that parent has no altered mental status and cites religious belief you cannot treat here. If you do it is battery. If you transport it is felony kidnapping. Now where you live things may be different but to get LE involved here is a very slim possibility. Most will tell you it is a civil issue and they will not get involved. remember the Bible Belt. South Carolina laws are written by this theory and belief.

 

[usalsfyre]

Crazycajun, it must be a pain to have to act unethically to stay inside what's legal. This is the kinda crap that happens when people try to legislate "family values".

Good luck, and glad I don't have to deal with that kinda issue.

 

[firetender]

I think I'm beginning to hear you...

In the Bible Belt, if Mom's there, she's legally the Boss!

Re=reading your OP I heard you say you told the kid to show his Mom his bowling pin, you did not do a Matador's cape thing with the blankets so the kid still had the choice.

The fact that you had to place legality as your primary determining consideration is not a negative reflection on you but of the system that defines you.

Something is screwy.

I look at it this way: If I see the blood circulation of a limb (of any kind!) being compromised by the non-theraputic application of a tourniquet, my understanding is that the longer the constriction occurs the higher are the odds of loss of that limb. Therefore, I am going to intervene first and beg forgiveness later.

Unless, of course I can hear the rustling of court papers? I guess my point is that's quite an extra, unnecessary burden to carry.

 

[WelshMedic]

I woke up thinking about this situation this morning. Don't ask me why, I'm sure my psychotherapist will tell me

Most of the salient points have been made in this argument so I have nothing new to bring to the table. I am, however, appalled by the lack of sensitivity here. The poor kid did something stupid. So then he asked for your help and you decided to ridicule him by following the letter of the law. I don't care which state you are in, it was unnecessary. One of the most important aspects of caring is empathy. You failed in a spectacular fashion here. You could have solved this differently and respected the wishes of a distressed and embarassed teenager. Instead you took an alreadt twisted law and used it against him. Shame on you!!!!

CM

 

[crazycajun]

I woke up thinking about this situation this morning. Don't ask me why, I'm sure my psychotherapist will tell me

Most of the salient points have been made in this argument so I have nothing new to bring to the table. I am, however, appalled by the lack of sensitivity here. The poor kid did something stupid. So then he asked for your help and you decided to ridicule him by following the letter of the law. I don't care which state you are in, it was unnecessary. One of the most important aspects of caring is empathy. You failed in a spectacular fashion here. You could have solved this differently and respected the wishes of a distressed and embarassed teenager. Instead you took an alreadt twisted law and used it against him. Shame on you!!!!

CM

It seems very easy for you as well as others to point fingers and tell me I made the wrong decisions. You sit and make comments, insults and pass judgment on me without a care in the world. However, this is not your career. It is not your certification that would be terminated. It is not you that would be arrested. It is not you that would watch his family be destroyed because of it. I have been in EMS for over 22 years. I have more respect for and from my community, my Pt's and my employer than most will have in a lifetime. maybe you should read some of my other post before you decide to judge me. Many of you seem to think you have such a better solution to the call but fail to mention how you would have done it so I could challenge you. So, Shame on me? I think not. Shame on you for judging me when you have no Idea how things work here.

 

[usalsfyre]

Many of you seem to think you have such a better solution to the call but fail to mention how you would have done it so I could challenge you.

I told you, I'd explain the general situation and ask for privacy. Unless demanded or I heard "the rustling of court papers" as firetender put it there's no way I'd expose this kid to Mom. You have no idea how well this approach would have worked, because you didn't even attempt it, as you felt exposing the kid to Mom right off the bat was the right way to go. Anecdotally I've found communication using the right tone and words can go a long way, but I wasn't there either.

So, Shame on me? I think not. Shame on you for judging me when you have no Idea how things work here.

You came on here and posted an embarrassing situation in a rather lurid manner. The way you handled it rode the line ethically, exposed the patient to ridicule in a way that has the potential to cause long term emotional and psychological harm. The way the thing was presented was (to me) "look at how stupid this kid was and how bad we embarrassed him with Mom, we got a good laugh from it" What did you expect? Puppy dogs and rainbows? Having a private chuckle about the kids stupidity is one thing, the way you come across though is slightly sadistic.

I wasn't there, I don't know how your system works, but you put yourself out there to be judged. You've had some decent post, and an apparent long-term background in EMS, I don't begrudge you that. However this is the kinda stuff that other health professions point at when they say EMS providers aren't caring.

 

[WelshMedic]

You came on here and posted an embarrassing situation in a rather lurid manner. The way you handled it rode the line ethically, exposed the patient to ridicule in a way that has the potential to cause long term emotional and psychological harm. The way the thing was presented was (to me) "look at how stupid this kid was and how bad we embarrassed him with Mom, we got a good laugh from it" What did you expect? Puppy dogs and rainbows? Having a private chuckle about the kids stupidity is one thing, the way you come across though is slightly sadistic.

I wasn't there, I don't know how your system works, but you put yourself out there to be judged. You've had some decent post, and an apparent long-term background in EMS, I don't begrudge you that. However this is the kinda stuff that other health professions point at when they say EMS providers aren't caring.

I wanted to reply earlier,but was beaten to it by the excellent post above. I'm sorry Crazy Cajun but I tend to agree that the manner in which you originally posted this shows us how you really felt about it.

"Crazy Kid" was a pubescent teenager exploring in his own sexuality in a, to others, a harmless way. There was no conflict of interest and I still believe that it should have been handled with more tact and sensitivity.

You posted it and lay yourself open to criticism, don't cry to me that I shouldn't judge. I am judging the facts as they are told to me by you in this case. No more, no less.

Carl.

 

[CANMAN]

I think I am gonna have to agree with usalsfyre here man, and I am not trying to roast you. In my short time on the forum I have gotten replies which didn't care for but thats what a forum is. If you post you are going to get multiple peoples opinion and point of view, especially from medics. Thus is why I like operating in a single ALS provider system

Anyways, I think that one thing that I have picked up from which some people have over looked is how easy to deal with the Mother was during the start of the call. Obviously EMS showing up to her house was a shock but yet when the child asked for privacy and you asked the mother to let you assess the situation it doesn't seem like she gave you any static at that point. Seems like she calmly complied and waited until you came back out to inform her of what was going on. I don't know too many mothers who have EMS show up randomly to their house and wouldn't be busting in to see whats wrong with their child. Now that leads me to my next point either A: she is a reasonable enough person to understand that its personal issue to her child and didn't need to see the actual wang in question, or B: she doesn't care a ton about the child. Either or I feel as if you would have explained the nature of the injury and the fact that the child is mortified I think she woulda went with the flow. I don't know too many mother's who would be dying to see their child's tools when I tell them it kinda resembles a balloon animal

 

[Aidey]

The way I see it, you put your concern about the law above the patient's wellbeing.

 

[lampnyter]

I would gladly go to court to keep this kids privacy. I can guarantee you that the judge would pass this by without second thought. Nobody in their right mind would say that allowing the mother to do what she did was the right thing. The kids 15, not 5. In the court of law im pretty sure that the judge would listen to his side of the story.

 

[WelshMedic]

I would gladly go to court to keep this kids privacy. I can guarantee you that the judge would pass this by without second thought. Nobody in their right mind would say that allowing the mother to do what she did was the right thing. The kids 15, not 5. In the court of law im pretty sure that the judge would listen to his side of the story.

And I would take the stand with you:usa:

Carl

 

[eypeon]

this has to be the funniest call I've heard of! I was laughing so hard my roommate came in to check to see if I was okay. LOL