3 ms·

It's not a choice between a doctor and a layman, though. It's a choice between a volunteer who's only trained in the very basics and watched a couple of intubat

by strken 7y ago

It's not a choice between a doctor and a layman, though. It's a choice between a volunteer who's only trained in the very basics and watched a couple of intubations, and nobody at all. How much training does someone need before they become a clear net positive for the patient?

cm2187 7y ago
I rather had in mind a nurse who would step up but still know when to call the doctor when things look unusual.
jacquesm 7y ago
A couple of years should do it. A volunteer would not just be a 'net negative' but would leave a lot of dead people. Why is it so hard to see that the people that operate this stuff are not just button pushers but specialists that have been schooled over years to take care of people? The ICU staff would not even allow the doctors to mess with their setup because it is critical and it is their responsibility until some either dies or is discharged from the ICU and allowed to move back to a normal ward. Think 'airline pilot' not 'assembly line worker'.
- strken 7y ago
  Again, it's clear that a volunteer is far worse than a trained professional. At what amount of training does a volunteer become better than nothing? If I had to choose between an uncontrolled emergency landing, and an emergency landing done by a volunteer who did two days of training, I'd choose the volunteer every time. I understand that the volunteer does not have the training to fly or land safely and that becoming an airline pilot takes a lot of training, but that doesn't matter if there's no pilot available. If 20% of patients die with trained ICU staff, 90% die with no ICU staff, and 70% die with a trained volunteer, and you have no more ICU staff, then the volunteer is a net positive and the volunteer has left a lot of dead people. The question is not whether the volunteer is even anywhere close to a trained professional in effectiveness, it's whether the volunteer is better than sticking a red or black tag on someone's bed and leaving them to die.

by strken 7y ago

cm2187 7y ago

I rather had in mind a nurse who would step up but still know when to call the doctor when things look unusual.

jacquesm 7y ago

A couple of years should do it. A volunteer would not just be a 'net negative' but would leave a lot of dead people. Why is it so hard to see that the people that operate this stuff are not just button pushers but specialists that have been schooled over years to take care of people? The ICU staff would not even allow the doctors to mess with their setup because it is critical and it is their responsibility until some either dies or is discharged from the ICU and allowed to move back to a normal ward. Think 'airline pilot' not 'assembly line worker'.

strken 7y ago
Again, it's clear that a volunteer is far worse than a trained professional. At what amount of training does a volunteer become better than nothing? If I had to choose between an uncontrolled emergency landing, and an emergency landing done by a volunteer who did two days of training, I'd choose the volunteer every time. I understand that the volunteer does not have the training to fly or land safely and that becoming an airline pilot takes a lot of training, but that doesn't matter if there's no pilot available. If 20% of patients die with trained ICU staff, 90% die with no ICU staff, and 70% die with a trained volunteer, and you have no more ICU staff, then the volunteer is a net positive and the volunteer has left a lot of dead people. The question is not whether the volunteer is even anywhere close to a trained professional in effectiveness, it's whether the volunteer is better than sticking a red or black tag on someone's bed and leaving them to die.