Do it for the children
I’ve written before and ranted on air about using kids as human shields for adults furthering their own interests. When teacher unions demand the bulk of the $26 billion dollar bailout (their second) to save their jobs and the use the health and welfare of children as the shield, it’s repulsive. There is nothing compassionate about bankrupting parents and the children to further your own economic interests. Here is yet one more case.
Courtesy of Reason TV via Hotair this is a well balanced report on a California bill that never reached the floor that would have allowed teachers to administer emergency medical attention to children having seizures. The bill was blocked by the Nurses union much to the dismay of the parents, the AMA, The Epileptic Society, et al.
I believe medical attention should generally be delivered by medical professionals, but that is not always possible. I myself inject a drug once each week which if administered improperly could be fatal. But it’s impractical for me, or others like me, or diabetics or countless numbers of others to run to the Doc every time we need to use a syringe.
In this case, the emergency treatment sounds as fool proof as it can possibly be, and when a child’s life is at stake, why would California not pass this bill. Your thoughts?
Holy, holy, holy…this is scary stuff. And it's disgusting that these kids are being used as a way to increase the number of public school school nurses. This stinks of self-serving union politics…
The example of CPR was an excellent one…we would NOT be better off if only RNs or other medical personnel were allowed to administer it. It doesn't sound like there's a moment to spare when one of these children is having a seizure. And he assumption that female students would be molested during the administration of diastat is asinine. All of these bizarre reasons NOT to administer the drug but what about the biggest reason TO administer it? To save a child's life. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
"Do it for the children" has mutated into "do it to the children", considering the "little" gift of the enormous debt that is being passed onto our children.
As a teacher myself, I have to carry epipens on field trips, but hate the thought of having to use one (and haven't yet). Its not the injection at all, but the fact that it would be administered at a crucial and stressful moment, yet calmness and correct procedure are required, and thats with an epipen than is injected in the thigh through the clothing! In this case, again at a very stressful time, I'd have to clear the classroom of the (depending on the age) very worried/curious/cooperative/you name it kids, pull down the students pants and administer the shot. A much better alternative for the student (and yes, me)would be to to call the school nurse, the medically trained professional in the building, I take the class away when she gets there, and let the professional do the job. I would do anything for my kids, but would I do it anywhere near as well as a nurse? absolutely not. You're not just giving a shot, you're managing your nerves and your care and concern for the kid as well. I would do it if I had to, but its much easier said than done. I really enjoyed this video, especially its evenhandedness of both sides, but my only quibble with it is that it makes giving the shot sound much easier than it would actually be.
Then of course there's the ugly but real, legal aspect of it all. If the teachers are trained to do it, does that mean they are responsible for doing it when the time comes? This to me is a very secondary issue, but I'm sure it is part of the reason unions are against it.
I truly hope this isn't really about union jobs, I would imagine there have been many opportunities in Cal. to lobby for more nurses. but this isn't a "do it for the children issue" either. Its much more complicated.
If teachers and their unions really cared about kids, we'd have kids graduating from high schools who could read- especially since no one spends more on education than the USA! If the unions care so much, then maybe they'd prove it by passing on a raise, accepting generic meds, or paying for their own viagra and birth control? There's a teacher on my street- he's in bed when I leave for work, he's on the couch when I get home from work, and he's off all summer with a paycheck that's fatter than mine- and he probably voted for the hopey changey guy who was going to spread the wealth around!
I don't know, I'm kind of torn…
If this is such a life and death risk for the child why don't the parents just home school their child? Why would they want to put that responsibility in someone else's hands?
On the other hand, if they are paying taxes and their child is spending 7 plus hours a day in the care of school officials then I would hope someone would be responsible, step in, and administer medical care to save the child's life whether they are certified or not.
Adults using kids as shields to furhter their own interests? Kind of like a tape of a childs voice that gets a lot of play time on soundoff. "I worry, my mommy worries"