Jackdaw said:
Please don't generalise about military medical technicians. I have been patched up by them more times than I can remember and they have also saved the lives of a few of my boys more than once.
Yes their training may not be up to the standard of an NHS equivalent, but the work they undertake is totaly different. Battlefield first aid is, by nature, much different from the work the NHS has to undertake. Often, because of the casualty's position within the battle space, it is almost impossible to do anything more constructive than to give them a drip and some morphine and wait for them to die.
That's exactly my point. They are trained to give what are probably otherwise fit and healthy men, probably the best treatment, for what they probably need, who would probably die without it. They work on "probably" as do the people that train them, which is OK on a battlefield because the alternative is probably death. It's an acceptable field expedient risk. But "probably" isn't anywhere near good enough for civvi street.
Often, it's more about apeasing the wants and needs of the guy's mates, who want something to be done and need to see it happen before they can move on to the next job that will get them shot.
It is more often the case that soldiers are patched up just enough to get them back to an aid post.
No argument.
I remember being taught on a civi first aid course not to use a tourniquet, yet, funnily enough, it was the only way I could stop one of my lads bleeding out after stepping on a land mine.
Again, another example of the difference between a battlefield and civvi street. First aiders should not be making life over limb decisions in this country. There are not that many situations in the UK, where a first aider
would need to save someones life with a tourniquet and inappropriate use may needlessly cost someone thier limb. Exerting a lot of pressure will almost always be enough to stop them exsanguinating untill someone gets there. It's a big thing to decide to sacrifice someones limb in order to save their life and you should blimmin well know what you are doing, before doing it in the streets of britain. One the battlefield, well if you dont do it, who else will? Totally different context, responsibility and resources.
My point is this: The numpties you mention may not have any GCSE's or civilian equivalent qualifications, but they do have to pass an intelligence test and master the techniques they are taught. And these techniques have been tried and tested on people like me for quite a long time. Yes new techniques and ways of thinking come into popularity within civi street and the military medical community are often the last to adopt these changes, but sometimes it goes the other way. The Falklands War enabled military medical personnel to see the effects of cooling on a bleeding casualty's survival rate. They directly correlated this to the examples and data seen in the warm climate of Vietnam and they quickly realised the results. Next thing you know, the derigour way of treating a severe bleed is to cool the casualty to slow the blood flow and hence loss.
Sorry for the long post, and please don't take offence as would be all too easy.
Jackdaw
Yes, military battlefields are often places where pioneering techniques can be practiced that would not be allowed in hospitals. Sometimes they are adopted, but not always. Civvi hospitals cant "experiment" in the same way that can be done on a battlefield. Cyanoacrylate was developed for vietnam and is now used in hospitals. Quik-Clot is also under ratification for use in civillian hospitals.
My point is, military medical technicians take far, far more on thier shoulders in a battlefield, than they should ever consider doing in civvi street. They may be doing stuff, without really knowing why - they certainly dont have anything like the training you would need to make some of those decisions in civvi street - many of which would demand a doctor at least. It's appropriate for them to practice over thier heads in a battle field, because of the field expedient natuire of it, but it's not appropriate for them to practice like that on the streets of Britain. A telephone call will bring equipment and people who are fully trained and fully accountable. It would be extremely neglegent for a military medic to practice field expedient techniques on British civillians.
I have worked in a trauma intensive care unit for the last 7 years, I'm qualified, registered, accountable skilled and experienced. There is no way in hell I would take it upon myself to site a cannula and give Hartmans to a casualty on the street - or anywhere, because a telephone call will bring help in minutes, it's simply not needed. If I did, I'd probably loose my licence and the GNC would probably want to know why the hell I was travelling round with Hartmans and a venflon in my FAK.
Regarding qualifications, all nurses in the UK are qualified to a minimum of diploma level, many have degrees and many have several degrees. If a civillian trained nurse enters HM forces, it is as a commisioned officer. Depending on experience, it would be as either Lieutenant or Captain. Doctors would go in as either Captain or Major. This obviously isnt a relection of their military prowess, but reflects their qualifications, training, skills & experience.
Military medics are battlefield first aiders.
However, my numpty's comment was unfair and I apologise, I used it to deliberately over-state the point, but it was unfair. They do what they have to do under difficult conditions and it's a good job that they do. But you must realise that the stuff they do on a battlefield is way over and beyond anything they should be doing in the streets of Britain.
heavy humping all that stuff around.
