3 ms·

It’s curious how there seem to be 2 schools of thought in this thread; always with the ambulance or ambulance only when required. I’m not totally sure why it’s

by aidos 8y ago

It’s curious how there seem to be 2 schools of thought in this thread; always with the ambulance or ambulance only when required. I’m not totally sure why it’s created such a huge disagreement. Obviously there are some injuries which totally don’t need an ambulance, and some which do, and then a big grey space in the middle where it’s harder to tell. Unfortunately, in some places (like here in the UK), there aren’t the resources to err on the side of caution as much as in other places (by the sounds of some commenters). Being able to have an ambulance arrive within 10 minutes for any situation sounds like a wonderful luxury if you have infinite resources to burn. I personally was impressed they dispatched an ambulance when we delivered our baby at home (on the bedroom floor!). But I also felt a bit like it was a resource that might have been wasted.

screye 8y ago
You are getting it wrong. There is only one claim, ie. "Ambulance when required". The point of contention is who decides what required means. Tesla has a perverse cost saving incentive to recommend the cheaper option. The person in shock is no position to make a rational decision. It is medical practitioner's responsibility to put his practice before his employer and decide what is a medically appropriate response. The emergency service has an incentive to be deployed regardless of severity. The comments section in general, agrees that a severed finger and crushed hand are sufficiently severe injuries to warrant an ambulance. It seems pretty.obvious to me that lay-managers and CEOs should not be the ones deciding emergency policy. That is what trained practitioners are for and the expectation is that they will hold the org to a certain regulatory safety standard.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  Are sufficiently severe injuries to warrant a physician, not an ambulance. And the cheaper option for Tesla would be not to hire a team of full-fledged doctors waiting in a room 365 days/year for taking care of any injured worker.

by aidos 8y ago

screye 8y ago

You are getting it wrong. There is only one claim, ie. "Ambulance when required". The point of contention is who decides what required means. Tesla has a perverse cost saving incentive to recommend the cheaper option. The person in shock is no position to make a rational decision. It is medical practitioner's responsibility to put his practice before his employer and decide what is a medically appropriate response. The emergency service has an incentive to be deployed regardless of severity. The comments section in general, agrees that a severed finger and crushed hand are sufficiently severe injuries to warrant an ambulance. It seems pretty.obvious to me that lay-managers and CEOs should not be the ones deciding emergency policy. That is what trained practitioners are for and the expectation is that they will hold the org to a certain regulatory safety standard.

pvaldes 8y ago
Are sufficiently severe injuries to warrant a physician, not an ambulance. And the cheaper option for Tesla would be not to hire a team of full-fledged doctors waiting in a room 365 days/year for taking care of any injured worker.