Hacker News Reader

Comment by PhasmaFelis | Hacker News Reader

> crushed or severed fingers [...] isn't stuff you need to call an ambulance for.

What?

I think this reaction is justified. The HN reality distortion field is at effect here where otherwise intelligent and rational people make completely unlevel arguments on the basis of weird logic.

One or more SEVERED FINGERS absolutely does justify an emergency response like calling for an ambulance. You know, "severed finger?" Meaning a finger that's been detached, ripped ragged, caught from it's bone and pulled off - that's what a severed finger is.

People in here are seriously arguing that it doesn't merit a call to an ambulance. As if a person in that situation is going to deduce the pros and cons of the situation at the time.

Common sense is too often a stranger here. Logic can take you far, but as in the case of this thread, much too far out.

>As if a person in that situation is going to deduce the pros and cons of the situation at the time

Isn’t the complaint that the doctor did exactly that, and decided against the ambulance? (with the issue being that the cons may not have actually been full with the patients best interests in mind); the defense being that the doctor wad exactly the person who should be making that decision, and there’s a decent chance he was correct (based on his potential capacity to seize any life-threatening aspect of it, and assuming he did so)

It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made to make the claim that an ambulance should be required under any circumstance, having lost a finger. But even a tiny amount of trust in the doctor actually doing his doctoring is enough to say... maybe an ambulance would be unecessary, and a medical professional is probably the best person to make that call. If you’re not assuming malice, that is

If I severed my finger, I would call an ambulance.

If I severed my finger and a doctor came and gave initial treatment, and said "now get yourself to a hospital, but it's no longer urgent", I would take a Lyft too.

In the context of there being doctors on-site at Tesla who would be assessing/caring for the injured person, if the person is stable/stabilized and the severity of the injury requires treatment at a hospital (say surgery but they're not bleeding out etc) - just getting them to the hospital in a reasonable manner should be the goal, yes? We can make assumptions about what would take longer to get to the workplace and then to the hospital - a Lyft nearby or an ambulance who perhaps has to travel further.

A severed finger is a pretty serious and catastrophic injury. You think workplace clinic has the ability stabilize that kind of injury, such that there's little difference between a 10 minute and a 30 minute trip to the hospital? Don't you there's a better outcome than the patient not bleeding to death, like getting to a surgeon ASAP to increase the chances of a successful reattachment surgery?

Besides the dickishness of pressing a typical Uber/Lyft driver into emergency service, ambulances have other advantages, such as the legal authority to speed and clear roads, and on-board medical equipment to continue stabilizing the patient during the trip.

Like I said, we can make assumptions about travel time difference between Lyft and an ambulance - however unless we're in the actual scenario and know the circumstances, and likely times/estimates for each, a private driver can certainly be faster than when an ambulance can arrive (and likewise what is the indirect cost if not using that ambulance means someone else gets an ambulance faster who more reasonably needs it?).

Maybe an ambulance is slower than a Lyft. What's definitely faster than a Lyft is: a car that's already on-site, driven by a co-worker tasked to take you to the hospital.

Can we agree that, even if an ambulance isn't the best choice, it's amazingly callous to make a person with a severed finger sit around and wait for a fucking taxi rather than pull someone else off the line?

I don't think anyone was arguing against what is likely the fastest option (someone already on-site driving), it's however possible that once being assessed but before being ready to go, a vehicle could be ready to transport them immediately - whether that is someone from on-site or a Lyft et al that was ordered.

So you continue to make assumptions about a Lyft being faster than an ambulance. Do you also believe that an ambulance lacks trained medical personnel and equipment compared to a Lyft?

I'm sorry, what is this "indirect cost" of using an ambulance, when the purpose of them is to service severe injuries? Maybe you think a severed finger is no big deal, but how common do you think severed fingers are, to think that victims constitute a serious threat to the supply of ambulances on any given day?

> Do you also believe that an ambulance lacks trained medical personnel and equipment compared to a lyft

It depends on the case. The problem is that people has a stereotyped vision of what is an ambulance. One vision that is typically urban and adapted to their country. The truth is that there are at least three types of ambulances and they are very different when in isolated areas or in big cities.

> how common do you think severed fingers are, to think that victims constitute a serious threat to the supply of ambulances on any given day?

Emergencies happen in clusters much more often than you could think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com