Hacker News Reader

As a citizen of a civilized country with properly funded and educated emergency services, it's baffling to me that the US faces these relatively simple problems. In my country, a police patrol would respond along with the ambulance. The three officers would restrain the person if necessary. Since there are three of them in a patrol car, since they have proper equipment (and don't carry firearms) and proper training, they don't have to hurt anyone to restrain the person and let the medics do their jobs.

How big is your country? How diverse is its population? These things matter.

what role does diversity play

It masks the class problems of extreme wealth inequality as racial problems so that potential solutions focus on the wrong thing, and the targets are middle-class white people instead of ultra-rich people of any race.

so in the US middle class white people are seen as the problem instead of ultra rich minorities?

Notice how you fell into the race trap again, even though I said "of any race". It's not "the ultra rich minorities", it's "the ultra rich, period". Race doesn't have anything to do with what is 100% a class problem.

I think it's telling of how pernicious the racial propaganda is, that you changed my "of any race" to "minorities".

Oh I see maybe just “the ultra rich” without “of any race” - saying “white people” then “of any race” as the counter example implies non-white, still too much race emphasis (plus most of the ultra rich are white, which further confused it for me)

By all means tell me why you think they matter. It's still a matter of funding-per-capita. Stopping someone with a knife is the same regardless of their ethnicity.

(We do have a lot of immigration, but I don't see the relevance.)

Yes, the USA is significantly under-policed compared to other OECD countries. Defund the police? How about multiplying by ten.

USA 240 police per million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

I read that as 243 per 100,000

Ballpark, but under Australia's 264 per 100,000, more than England and Wales at 227 per 100,000 and less than Scotland at 318 per 100,000.

Ahhhh, sorry.

The numbers are quite variable between different countries. I presume partly because the definition or role varies?

I deal with numbers and I see those (England, Wales, Australia, USofA) as "ballpark" close to each other .. relative to 170+ other countries about the globe.

The UK and Australia have similiar policing roles and behaviours, quite different to the US - more uniform within the countries, significantly less use of guns and force, etc.

The USA policing numbers are comparable to those in England, Wales, and Australia.

Those countries also don't have a massive drug epidemic/import war from mostly china, and a shit policy on mental health conditions.

The UK and Australia both get container loads of cocaine, meth and other drugs, and have thriving local drug networks.

Damn near half the population of Australia has used illicit drugs at one point or another:

    According to the 2022–2023 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), an estimated 10.2 million (47%) people aged 14 and over in Australia had illicitly used a drug at some point in their lifetime (including the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals), and an estimated 3.9 million (18%) had used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months. This was similar to proportions in 2019 (43% and 16%, respectively) but has increased since 2007 (38% and 13%, respectively) (Figure 1).

~ https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/illicit...

What Australia does have is proactive health policies, prison terms with rehab, a decent chance of drug use not marking a person for life, etc.

Do they have as many excuses as Americans do when it comes to talking about why America has legitimate problems with policing and violence?

I don't get it why must be he sedated? Shouldn't he have the right to refuse service?

Presumably the vape shop owner wants the person gone, and so the cop then gets involved to remove them by force. Arguably, if medication isn't used, the outcome will be worse for everyone involved. Can a mentally unfit person be shot by a cop for trying to bite them? Yes.

I have to squint a little but I think I can see another problem here.

It is professional negligence to abandon a patient with altered mental status.

>It's either: I hold him down and the medic gives him 5mg of midazolam or he's the cop's problem.

That's unacceptably dangerous without knowing what drugs the bleeding person is on. Even alcohol makes the risks of giving midazolam increase significantly.

So... taze him and then cosh him instead?

> Even alcohol makes the risks of giving midazolam increase significantly.

It's either that or he bleeds to death.

The only contraindications for midazolam in my protocols are:

(1) Hypotension (See below for ET bucking) (2) Known hypersensitivity to midazolam

There has to be a way to make a safe protocol.

In the case of Elijah McClain they gave him a 500 mg dosage when the maximum dosage was 350mg. He stopped breathing shortly thereafter

Is there not some way to start with a dosage that would be safe for a smaller person and to give additional drugs if needed. Is there a way to give a drug that doesn't cause death (THC maybe)?

I understand the need to calm people down, but giving them a drug that where 1/10th of a gram of error is the difference between life and death seems reckless.

Simply put, if your intervention ends in death when death wasn't a possible outcome before, I would much rather that you and the cop just drive away and leave this to professionals who are able to handle this without accidentally killing people.

Presumably there is somewhere on earth where this is a solved problem, what are they doing?

I'm sure there are legitimate cases where sedation is reasonably the best available solution. The problem is - who draws the line? There was a case the other day where a university professor was tackled to the ground, her head hitting the cement, and forcefully handcuffed because she had tapped a police officer on the shoulder asking him to stop what he was doing to a student. She was booked for assaulting a police officer, which is clearly a "combative" thing to do. Do you think the officer who tackled her down and then climbed on top of her should also have the authority to inject her with a sedative at his discretion? Do you think that, in an environment where simply not following directions promptly to the full satisfaction of the arresting officer can result in being tased or even shot, law enforcement also needs to be able to sedate people whenever they find it appropriate?

> Do you think the officer who tackled her down and then climbed on top of her should also have the authority to inject her with a sedative at his discretion?

The person you're replying to is, assuming they're not lying, a medical professional.

> Do you think that, in an environment where simply not following directions promptly to the full satisfaction of the arresting officer can result in being tased or even shot

Are you suggesting that a person trying to bite folks is on equal legal footing with a college professor tapping an officer on the shoulder? In any case, sedatives are unquestionably less lethal than guns (and probably tasers, where Google suggests hundreds of people die in the US from being tased by the police each year). Putting aside whether the officer's discretion in such a situation is being wielded appropriately, sedation (by the numbers) is essentially never a worse option than what police have at their disposal already, no?

The person you're replying to is, assuming they're not lying, a medical professional.

Medical professional, sure... But not a doctor. Not a nurse. And often facing immense pressure from LEO (even nurses get pressured).

Are you suggesting that a person trying to bite folks is on equal legal footing with a college professor tapping an officer on the shoulder?

You missed the whole point.

>The problem is - who draws the line?

The local EMS Medical Director. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526093/

There's not a single instance in the article mentioning the EMS Medical Director being consulted in any of the 94 cases gone wrong (much less being held accountable). Multiple cases where the EMTs were pressured by the police, though.

The ems director publishes standing orders.

It is impossible to consult with the medical director, or even medical control, on all cases so you rely on protocols and standing orders to perform your duty.

All jurisdictions have standards for sedation.

If any clinician feels pressured by the police to do something contrary to the standard they should call their ems supervisor— they’re paid to be mean to cops and charge nurses.

People have thought of all of this already.

I expect systems to be as perfect as I am, so “im-“.

are things able to restrain someone without sedating them nonexistent now?

> If forced sedation is banned the critical nationwide shortage of EMS personnel will become much worse than it already is.

Nationwide shortage gets worse because people can't kill other people without consequence? Fine. At least I won't be worked on by people that have no concern[s] about killing someone - just because they're scared.

To whit: What is the point in being an EMT/EMS, if you do not care if you're killing people, as is demonstrated by the article? It seems entirely antithetical to the entire point of your role/job, does it not?

You should reread the post. He is saying it is basically impossible for to help certain people without sedating them. That means they WILL die. Instead they could sedate a person and they MAY die.

Your policy would result in more deaths.

> You should reread the post.

Did you RTFA? Are EMTs/EMSs - entirely - incapable of telling police to not put their body weight on the backs of "certain people" (to use your vernacular), which clearly contributes to the issue of them dying -- negating the levels of the drug being another contributing factor?

There is shared culpability in these scenarios but, sure, no one could handle these people for hundreds of years before sedation was used, so they killed them all, right? That's your and the OP's rationale, from what you're saying.

> Your policy would result in more deaths.

My policy? More deaths? Give me the numbers/statistics on how this policy has saved _more_ lives. I'll wait...

I'm not sure what you are even saying. This has nothing to do with police or putting body weight on a person. If anything not using sedatives would lead to more EMTs putting body weight on people.

This is literally the "some of you may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" meme?

I'm not smart enough to invent a rainbow cannon that shoots wellness beams.

Perhaps you are.

I don't volunteer to be in situations that I know ahead of time I can't handle without potentially lethal risk to the other participant, is the difference here.

In fact I do volunteer to be in similar situations for different reasons, and part of that decision is the acknowledgement that as the only guaranteed willing participant, it is my responsibility to bear the risk of the encounter.

I don't get where cops and, apparently, some EMTs find the mentality of "I choose to be here, so I may harm you to ensure my safety." Simply choose not to be there! Do something else with your evenings my man.