Posted on 06/01/2002 2:27:47 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Says monday:
By Federalizing airport security he has guaranteed that it will be more costly and less efficient, just as everything that the Federal Government is involved in.
Says marajade:
Is that right? Does that include the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA too?
So in the above exchange you're just changing the entire topic of the post without expecting to cull ANY benefit from the allusion? Why bring up the FBI or CIA at all?
As for the fact that the old screeners weren't doing their job, you change the process through accountability. Speaking of, how about addressing my issue of accountability. Notice the mindset of the article. Many posters on this thread continue to attack AA, even though TSA is responsible for this. But as long as you're at it, what about all of the recent failures and mishaps since they've gone federal. If I'm not mistaken, someone has actually started a bump list of them. By your reasoning, that's incentive enough to take the job away from them. But guess what. Government claws are in it now. And the only thing you can be guaranteed of is, they will continuallly cost more, they will never get better, and they will never be held ultimately accountable for what they do.
You forgot to blame him for your ugly personality as well.
Ait travelrs frquently experience motion sickness (see those little bags in the seat pocket?) and in that instance, a patient with a wired mandible is in big trouble.
Most of the patients I have attended carried the cutters on a lanyard around the neck. Any "screener" should have made a decent inquiry into this issue, caontacted superiors for advice, etc. The "too busy" employee is a cadidate for dismissalin my book.
This entire thread, article and all, is a perfect example of how TSA is not being held accountable. I'm not going to delineate the examples again. If you choose not to see it, I can't help you.
You know if private can't do it and federal can't do it, what do you suggest is the answer?
Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but there could have been modifications to the previous system, just like the current changes, and they don't seem to be doing much better. But I'm not the one contending that just because it is federal, it is somehow better. Prove that it's better, and while you're at it, show how the improvements, if any, are inherent in the "federal" model and in no way could have been taken up by the private sector.
I've found at least one web site that references the practice of providing wire cutters to jaw surgery patients, and it noted only that it "may" be necessary. Hardly a "malpractice lawyer's dream" (and since when did a member of the armed forces have recourse to a civilian personal injury landshark when it comes to claims against military medical personnel? Not when I was in the service anyway).
I have no reason to doubt your word - its just that the doctors and RN I've talked to about this (one a member of my family) said that they had never heard of issuing cutters to a jaw surgery patient. (To be fair, I do not know if they had ever treated patients that had to travel afterward, which could be one of those situations where wire cutters would be a necessary precaution). Additionally, during an interview with an oral and maxillofacial surgeon on a radio talk show I heard on Friday, that physician said that he had never heard of the practice.
Ait travelrs frquently experience motion sickness (see those little bags in the seat pocket?)
Yes, I am quite aware of the presence and purpose of emesis bags on commercial aircraft.
and in that instance, a patient with a wired mandible is in big trouble.
If that patient had eaten solid food recently, then I would agree. However, in the case of a patient who has only ingested liquids, I simply don't see what this "big trouble" might be. Jaw surgery patients have to have enough of a gap present between their teeth to ingest liquids, don't they? And, wouldn't that gap be sufficient to allow expulsion and prevent aspiration of fluid if the patient vomited?
Most of the patients I have attended carried the cutters on a lanyard around the neck.
You are a physician or medical professional then?
Any "screener" should have made a decent inquiry into this issue, caontacted superiors for advice, etc. The "too busy" employee is a cadidate for dismissalin my book.
All that the patient's doctor had to do to avoid all of this was write a note for the patient to show to airport security, EMTs, or civilian hospital ER staff (if he fell ill during the trip). Further, I believe that it is asking a lot of a $7.00 an hour airport screener to know all the intricacies of this situation, unless the patient presented a note of explanation prepared by a physician, which he didn't have in this case. And, for that, I hold the physician much more culpable than I do the screener.
I don't recall if it was stated in the story whether the screener who confiscated the cutters/denied boarding had contacted his or her supervisor or not, so I cannot comment on that.
Yes, I am an RN (working on an MSN) and have been inthe profession for 40 years.
That gap between the teeth? Try breathing through a straw. If the patient vomited, that space would hardly be adequate to expell and emesis.
The $7.00/hour folks aren't the ones to make decisions of that magnitude...supervisors should be called upon...and any nurse or physician at the airport (including numerous EMTs) could be consulted.
Don't forget...this was an American soldier...a wounded one...that alone should have been of some consideration in these decisions and actions.
Because the possibility of having to open Lt Miller's airway in an emergent situation exsists. It may be a remote possibility, but it is there just the same.
Not instucting a patient to have the wirecutters at hand is the same as leaving a signed, blank check at the bedside.
I bet they have never heard of inserting a foley catheter (the one for urine) into each nostril either---but quite common on a floor that deals with nosebleeds. Trust me, standard bedside procedure requires access to wirecutters and they are sent home with the patient, if his jaw is still wired shut.
Visualize getting sick & the vomit having nowhere to go but back down the throat while you are retching to get the stuff out of your mouth into the toilet. It could kill you.
Listen the issue was security was lax because screeners were at fault. Screeners were hired mostly by airports, not airlines. Most of the screeners failed criminal background checks because the private company the gov't procured with didn't care or didn't even do them. At least the gov't will do it. Get it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.