4 ms·

I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation

I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive. For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms. Trying to describe a homeless man sleeping on rotten cardboard boxes who is covered in urine and feces with needles strewn around everywhere, who is both asking for help and attacking them is VERY HARD to do without using a term that someone could potentially find offensive.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I don't understand: you just did that. What was difficult about it? (and I'll note that you spent a bunch of time mentioning ultimately irrelevant details. Being homeless, or in an area with feces and urine and cardboard probably aren't relevant to anyone responding. The important facts are that there's a person in need of immediate medical assistance, the area is potentially hazardous, and the person is being uncooperative). Those are the three things that need to be conveyed.
- AHappyCamper 6y ago
  They're relevant details because they directly affect the health and safety of the ambulance staff, and protocol dictates that they call in on anything that could be hazardous to them. Not to mention that those details could affect the treatment of the patient. See? This is the problem. The filtering is more important to some people than actually doing the job correctly. This is why speech must be free, because I don't want a paramedic who's treating me to be debating exactly how to define me to dispatch. I just want them to save my life.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    No, I don't see. Precise communication is of the utmost importance in life and death situations. Consider pilots. The communication is extremely structured so as to precisely convey relevant information. Pilots are trained specifically and at length on how to communicate over radios in normal and emergency situations. This is done to make communication more efficient and effective. And these choices are data driven. You're arguing for essentially the opposite of that. > They're relevant details because they directly affect the health and safety of the ambulance staff A person being homeless is not relevant to the health and safety of the medical staff. A person sitting on wet cardboard is not relevant to the health and safety of the medical staff. The area being hazardous is relevant, and was conveyed. You may argue that "the area has feces and needles" is necessary to communicate. And that's fine. > This is why speech must be free, because I don't want a paramedic who's treating me to be debating exactly how to define me to dispatch No, if this is your goal what you want is paramedics who are well trained in how to communicate effectively over radios, much like pilots are. This has nothing to do with free speech. Restrictions and regimentation on speech in this context would actually make the communication more effective. For example, specific guidance on what things should be communicated about the hazardous area: that feces and needles are relevant but that cardboard boxes and homelessness aren't. This way, there are fewer wasted words.
pbourke 6y ago
"conditions are unsanitary and dangerous to the crew and patient is confused and ucooperative yet is requesting assistance" That seems better than "there's a homeless guy with a bunch of needles and feces" in terms of descriptiveness. Edit: aren't communications protocols a very standard thing among first responders / military / hospitals / etc?
coffeeling 6y ago
> For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms. The tragedy of that is that IATs don't even measure what they purport to or, generally, work: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691619863798 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161986379...

joshuamorton 6y ago

I don't understand: you just did that. What was difficult about it? (and I'll note that you spent a bunch of time mentioning ultimately irrelevant details. Being homeless, or in an area with feces and urine and cardboard probably aren't relevant to anyone responding. The important facts are that there's a person in need of immediate medical assistance, the area is potentially hazardous, and the person is being uncooperative). Those are the three things that need to be conveyed.

AHappyCamper 6y ago
They're relevant details because they directly affect the health and safety of the ambulance staff, and protocol dictates that they call in on anything that could be hazardous to them. Not to mention that those details could affect the treatment of the patient. See? This is the problem. The filtering is more important to some people than actually doing the job correctly. This is why speech must be free, because I don't want a paramedic who's treating me to be debating exactly how to define me to dispatch. I just want them to save my life.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  No, I don't see. Precise communication is of the utmost importance in life and death situations. Consider pilots. The communication is extremely structured so as to precisely convey relevant information. Pilots are trained specifically and at length on how to communicate over radios in normal and emergency situations. This is done to make communication more efficient and effective. And these choices are data driven. You're arguing for essentially the opposite of that. > They're relevant details because they directly affect the health and safety of the ambulance staff A person being homeless is not relevant to the health and safety of the medical staff. A person sitting on wet cardboard is not relevant to the health and safety of the medical staff. The area being hazardous is relevant, and was conveyed. You may argue that "the area has feces and needles" is necessary to communicate. And that's fine. > This is why speech must be free, because I don't want a paramedic who's treating me to be debating exactly how to define me to dispatch No, if this is your goal what you want is paramedics who are well trained in how to communicate effectively over radios, much like pilots are. This has nothing to do with free speech. Restrictions and regimentation on speech in this context would actually make the communication more effective. For example, specific guidance on what things should be communicated about the hazardous area: that feces and needles are relevant but that cardboard boxes and homelessness aren't. This way, there are fewer wasted words.

pbourke 6y ago

"conditions are unsanitary and dangerous to the crew and patient is confused and ucooperative yet is requesting assistance" That seems better than "there's a homeless guy with a bunch of needles and feces" in terms of descriptiveness. Edit: aren't communications protocols a very standard thing among first responders / military / hospitals / etc?

coffeeling 6y ago

> For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms. The tragedy of that is that IATs don't even measure what they purport to or, generally, work: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691619863798 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161986379...