Jump to content

Social workers join doctorate level


Recommended Posts

Not likely. I have done everything short of armed revolt including cancelling my PAC donation in protest and nothing has changed.

If you want to have some fun wander over and start a thread about the sitting AAPA president simply leaving the board early in her term with zero explanation to the membership. See how fast it gets shut down.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

FWIW, there are people actively posting on Huddle who are no longer legally able to practice as PAs.  I know, because in at least one case I reported the misconduct that got that PA into a negotiated settlement with the board to retire.  If we want to start cleaning up Huddle, let's remove the retired members (sorry, Bob) from the ability to post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boatswain2PA do you do any research before blindly posting articles? 

Neither of these individuals were social workers, they were outreach workers associated with the Safe Streets program in Baltimore. Nowhere that I've seen has said anything about them responding to a potentially violent call and being killed as a result. The SSP takes individuals with a criminal past and uses them in a peer outreach format to inside change in their own neighborhoods.

Police have no idea where or why this poor guy was shot. The other man who was killed in January was found dead shot in the head in the projects, again with no association between his murder and a violent/potentially violent incident.

Unless you have information that I haven't found?  If so I'd appreciate your linking it, showing that their deaths have anything at all to do with "defunding the police".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CAAdmission said:

It appears that doing so is the stated plan in a lot of places, is it not?

Is it? I guess inasmuch that ANY call/problem could be considered violent sure. The idea that they will be sending SW alone to knife wielding maniacs is ridiculous.

For liability purposes alone I'm sure the areas the choose to send SW as solo responders will have tight parameters for which calls are appropriate.

Again, no relationship to the above news story though (that I can find)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you disagree there has been a major push by the vocal minority within one political party to defund the police and use social workers to respond to many 911 calls?

I agree there is no reporting that these murdered well-doers were on a 911 call.  What I have seen reported on this has been brief news snippets with virtually no information.  

Doesn't change my post that the strongly pushed idea of sending social workers to 911 calls instead of police is the dumbest idea ever in the history of social work.

I'm sure Ventana will close the thread now.....

Edited by Boatswain2PA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
On 7/9/2021 at 8:36 PM, Boatswain2PA said:

Do you disagree there has been a major push by the vocal minority within one political party to defund the police and use social workers to respond to many 911 calls?

I agree there is no reporting that these murdered well-doers were on a 911 call.  What I have seen reported on this has been brief news snippets with virtually no information.  

Doesn't change my post that the strongly pushed idea of sending social workers to 911 calls instead of police is the dumbest idea ever in the history of social work.

I'm sure Ventana will close the thread now.....

I might, but instead I'll just call out publicly that your 1) explicitly politicizing an the idea of non-police response rather than dealing with it on its merits, and 2) calling out a moderator here are both poor form.  To wit, my advice:

Grow up and learn to talk about tough topics without trying to make political points.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
7 hours ago, MediMike said:

For liability purposes alone I'm sure the areas the choose to send SW as solo responders will have tight parameters for which calls are appropriate.

Here in Washington State, due to the interpretation of a recently enacted statute, my local LE agencies are not sending officers to non-crimes.  Like, for example, attempted suicides.  Or unspecified medical problems at houses that have histories of domestic violence.  Basically, in a few of these cases, the 9-1-1 callers will not receive service: LE's not coming, and Fire/EMS decides they can't safely enter the scene without LE presence.

I wish I was kidding. I spent the better part of an hour yesterday talking with my fire chief about just this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev,

Will these cases totally lack 911 service, or will they just have to wait until LE responds after fire/EMS calls for them?  I can't imaging LE not responding to a fire/EMS request for them - though they certainly could be delayed depending on call volume, location, etc.

I am concerned about the use of social workers in some situations.  The information that the 911 call taker gets, much less the portion of that they relay, may not be anything like what's happening on scene.  I've walked into several GSW scenes alone unexpectedly when the dispatch information was "sick person", "family screaming for an ambulance", etc.  On the other hand, my mother as a medical social worker made home visits many times in bad areas without ever having a problem.  These were home health visits and not 911 responses.  She also made a point of being there between mid-morning and early afternoon - when most if not all of the bad actors were asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
13 hours ago, ohiovolffemtp said:

Will these cases totally lack 911 service, or will they just have to wait until LE responds after fire/EMS calls for them?  I can't imaging LE not responding to a fire/EMS request for them - though they certainly could be delayed depending on call volume, location, etc.

It's a matter of liability for police officers in scenes where there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress.  I don't pretend to have read up on all the legislative nuances, but it's basically opened up liability for LE being places where there's no crime reasonably suspected to be in progress.

Consider this scenario:
- Roommate calls 9-1-1 on emotionally disturbed person sitting in tub with straight razor and (presumably self-) slit wrists.
- EMS enroute, calls for LE.
- LE correctly ascertains no crime in progress, does not respond, notifies dispatch, who notifies EMS.
- EMS now has the choice to enter the scene with a known EDP with a bladed weapon, or not enter the scene due to known safety hazards.

Now, that particular scenario may be a bit far fetched, but we have had other instances where "no crime in progress" means EMS is not rendering 9-1-1 service to callers requesting it due to responder safety issues.

If it were up to LE, they would absolutely keep our backs covered.  Nice thing is, if everything goes well, minimal paperwork.  But it's not up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rev ronin said:

It's a matter of liability for police officers in scenes where there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress.  I don't pretend to have read up on all the legislative nuances, but it's basically opened up liability for LE being places where there's no crime reasonably suspected to be in progress.

Consider this scenario:
- Roommate calls 9-1-1 on emotionally disturbed person sitting in tub with straight razor and (presumably self-) slit wrists.
- EMS enroute, calls for LE.
- LE correctly ascertains no crime in progress, does not respond, notifies dispatch, who notifies EMS.
- EMS now has the choice to enter the scene with a known EDP with a bladed weapon, or not enter the scene due to known safety hazards.

Now, that particular scenario may be a bit far fetched, but we have had other instances where "no crime in progress" means EMS is not rendering 9-1-1 service to callers requesting it due to responder safety issues.

If it were up to LE, they would absolutely keep our backs covered.  Nice thing is, if everything goes well, minimal paperwork.  But it's not up to them.

Interesting.  Could you post the RCW/WAC that has instituted this change? Or is it a local protocol? I haven't heard any rumblings of this and remain closely tied to the EMS community, would like to be able to take a closer look at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
30 minutes ago, MediMike said:

Interesting.  Could you post the RCW/WAC that has instituted this change? Or is it a local protocol? I haven't heard any rumblings of this and remain closely tied to the EMS community, would like to be able to take a closer look at this.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House Passed Legislature/1310-S2.PL.pdf#page=1

Section 3, (2)(a) ends with:

"and leaving the area if there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed;"

I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the law, but this is the only thing that seems to prohibit LEs from deploying with fire/EMS for potentially (but not imminently) hazardous but non-criminal situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More