Hospital refuses to treat 8 year old and other evacuees due to radiation exposure

Hospitals and temporary refuges are demanding that evacuees provide them with certificates confirming that they have not been exposed to radiation before they are admitted.

The eight-year-old daughter of Takayuki Okamura was refused treatment for a skin rash by a clinic in Fukushima City, where the family is living in a shelter after abandoning their home in Minamisoma, 18 miles from the crippled nuclear plant.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

This is terrible. As if being exposed to radiation is not bad enough, now these people are being refused treatment. So sad. There must be something that can be done to help people that have been exposed to radiation. Stories like this and the video of that mayor in Japan pleading for help make me feel so bad for the people there. God help them please....

There's that idiotic law...paramedics are at risk of being fired if they disobey certain orders..and one is such 'Can't put themselves at risk for others.'

Now, being from the public you can do..but paramedics can get FIRED because of that.
It's THEIR choice to help someone and potentially put their life at risk.

Let's take an example:
A boy is drowning.
A policeman can't save him because there are no firemen, paramedics etc...

Idiotic. I'd just do it anyway.

If this continues, this same view with radiation...there are going to be much more deaths than we have already..and the only culprit there is the law.

If I am not mistaken there are certain medical quarantine protocols that are used for radiation poisoning. What is sad is that those protocols are NOT ALREADY IN PLACE.

I wonder given, this situation, if the Japanese people really know what is going on. I mean why would anyone need to prepare for mass radiation casualties?

reply to post by BlackPoison94


As a paramedic in California I can tell you there is no such law, there are safety policies that every company has, and you are taught that your safety comes first, because if you die then you will not do the victim any good. I have been on calls were I didn't put my safety first and thankfully they turned out well, but I do know a few people who have paid the ultimate price trying to work outside their capabilities.

In this case it sounds like the hospital is worried about these patients coming into their facility and causing exposure issues, if that is the case they need to set up temporary facilities to handle just radiation issues.

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
If this continues, this same view with radiation...there are going to be much more deaths than we have already..and the only culprit there is the law.

Exactly. Although, I'm no expert in the effects of radiation, but I might imagine that after enough radiation exposure the hospital could only do so much. But it is still there duty to help these people and at least help ease their pain, haven't they been through enough already?

Originally posted by rbilly001
reply to post by BlackPoison94

 

As a paramedic in California I can tell you there is no such law, there are safety policies that every company has, and you are taught that your safety comes first, because if you die then you will not do the victim any good. I have been on calls were I didn't put my safety first and thankfully they turned out well, but I do know a few people who have paid the ultimate price trying to work outside their capabilities.

But, anyone choosing a career in the medical field has to realize they might be risking their health to save others. Your job is to help others. Of course you want to limit the danger to yourself, but if you can't put the well being of others ahead of your own then you picked the wrong field. I agree though that you have to make a tough decision, because saving one patient could inhibit your ability to save others. You have to decide if it is best to save one person at a great risk or let them go so you can save 50 other people. If you save 1 person and it kills you, many others may die because you are not there to help them. Its definitely no easy decision. But I think as a worker in the medical field you must make that choice with need of the public in mind, not just because you are concerned about your well being for selfish reasons.

I'm not calling you out at all, especially since you sound like you are the type cares most for the well being of others. I'm speaking more towards people working in the medical field in general. However, I know it is easier to say these things while looking at it from the outside; but, I will soon be joining the field as a nurse.

I just think the danger posed by treating people who have been exposed to radiation is not great enough that these people should be turned away. As you mentioned, there could be things done to help them.

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


As a paramedic I risked my life every day, I have been exposed to all sorts of nasty things, I have almost been hit on the road many of times. I have been shot at, stabbed, and attacked more than once. I have worked 100 plus hours straight with little to no sleep, I have payed many prices, but I will not attempt something that I and my patient are not going to survive. Again it does'nt help the victim if you die trying to save them. That doesn't mean that you shy away from danger, I have gone into situations that were pretty sticky because that was my job and I was properly trained to give both my patient and I the best chance of survival possible. But as an example I would not attempt a cliff rescue or a swiftwater rescue unless I had the basic safety equipment and training, unless my assesment of the situation said I could pull it off, then at that point I choose to take the risk of dying. Every situation calls for a risk vs reward assesment of the situation that involves many aspects not just safety of yourself.
If you think working in the rescue field means that you have to give your life in a stupid attempt that if fails will not only kill you but your patient and possibly more bystanders, then you are watchin to much TV.
Take 9/11 for instance, that is a situation were any rescue worker would have done the same thing. 343 fire service members died trying to save thousands of people. Look at the group working in the nuclear reactors in Japan, there is a handfull of people who will probably die a horrible death working to save countless number of lives.
The life of the victim is no more valuble than the life of the rescue worker, life is life and personally I do this line of work because I enjoy helping people, not because I want to throw my life away at some flawed half thought out rescue attempt.
My initial response was only pointing out that there is no law stating that a rescue worker has to put his safety and well being above the victim, just safety rules that promote the use of common sense in order to ensure the people tasked with saving the citizens of the community don't die needlessly in a stupid senseless manor.

Now back to the subject

The situation here is less likely to be about the medical staff and more about the safety of the other patients in the hospital. If you have 200 people in that hospital and you bring one patient who has had major radiation exposure into that faciltiy you have now exposed 200 people and made the problem worse and completly taken that facilty out of commision. Every system I have worked in has a protocol for toxic exposure in place, most counties in california have 1 or more facilities with the ability to set up temp facility outside able to handle toxic off gassing and exposure. The fire departments are trained to decontaminate patients before bringing them into a facility. You need to look at the bigger picture here,

Fire, police and EMS workers die in the line of duty all the time, its a risk we take and accept, but throwing your life away in a stupid manor isn't one of them

reply to post by rbilly001


This is apparently the law where I reside; UK.
Quite ironic I think.
They allow deaths while they try to reduce the number of them phftt.