From: George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 12:44:27 EDT
John W Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote: "Triage doesn't mean doing nothing, but doing what is
> possible with the resources
> available. If you expend resources on a Category 1 patient before taking
> care of all
> the 2s, you have a good chance of losing both. If you first treat all
> the 2s then
> they'll probably survive & you may then have a chance of saving some 1s.
> Like I said, George, I understand the triage concept.
> My point is simple -- if one suspects (as I do) that one cannot reliably
> distinguish between categories 1, 2 and 3, then the concept is not very
> helpful. It is also not very helpful when one has only 1s to treat! <G>
> You seem to be fairly certain you can make that judgement with some
> reliability. You may be right. I do not claim that expertise.
Yes, deciding which category folks should be placed in can be difficult. Triage
nurses have to have a good deal of experience to do this effectively, & I suppose in
borderline cases should err on the side of caution. But not all cases are borderline.
3d degrees burns over 90% of the body are 1, heart attacks in middle aged persons 2, &
sprained ankles are 3. Similarly, it doesn't take a lot of expertise to see that Ken
Ham is 1, most lay Christians in conservative churches who aren't professional YEC
spokespersons are 2, & theistic evolutionsts (a term I don't like) are 3.
I would in this matter try to judge anybody in the abstract before hearing what
he or she had to say and what kind of responses the person gave to questions or
challenges. Actually my own inclination would be to err on the side of trying to
convince a likely 1 rather than ignoring a possible 2. But that's partly because I have
a penchant for argument (surprise?) though I realize it isn't always fruitful.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 13:57:18 EDT