The Instigator
JMCika
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mantizah
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Golden Hour

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 53278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

JMCika

Con

This debate is on weather or not EMS personal should have protocols regarding the "Golden Hour" of trauma. The "Golden Hour" is a concept that states that a person should be on an operating table within an hour from the time of a traumatic injury. For example a victim of a motor vehicle collision who meets priority II or I trauma levels should be on the operating table with in one hour of the car accident.

I will be arguing ageist having protocols for meeting the "Golden Hour."

First round acceptance.

Last round closing remarks only.
Mantizah

Pro

Alright. Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1
JMCika

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

What is the Golden Hour and what is the science behind it?

The golden hour is a concept that a person who is involved in a trauma should be in the operating room with in one hour of the accident. This sounds like a logical idea but what exactly does science say about this? Truthfully nothing. In an article that was published on EMS World website states that there is no science behind it but it is actually the oppion of a single doctor1. In another study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine states that there was no difference between time intervals and mortality in trauma2.

Safety concerns for EMS personnel regarding the Golden Hour.

According to an article on the National Volunteer Fire Council A leading cause of death for EMS personnel are motor vehicle accidents3. Most accidents that involve ambulances are when the ambulance is responding to a call or on the way from the scene to the hospital and they involve running stop signs and stop lights. Removing the pressure of making the Golden Hour would in turn help decrease the amount of accidents and result in lower Line of Duty Deaths.

Safety Concerns For the Patient.

The same argument I made above applies here too. Less accidents on the way to the hospital means less patient injury's and deaths from those accidents. On top of that many traumas involve some sort of extrication weather that be from a vehicle or a house. This takes time. Putting pressure on the Fire Fighters to hurry to extract the patient leads to mistakes and possibly injuring the victim even further.
Conclusion
Due to the lack of evidence and safety concerns I feel that any protocol involving the "Golden Hour" is based on a medical urban legend and has no thought regarding EMS safety, Fire safety, or public safety.

Resources
1 http://www.emsworld.com...
2 http://www.sciencedirect.com...
3 http://www.nvfc.org...
Mantizah

Pro

An hour is by no means the definitive time a trauma patient should be receiving heavy treatment by. It's simply a dramatization of the urgent need to get patients to the hospital quickly, and indeed, that is the job of the EMS. The driver isn't going to suddenly flare up the engines when the time since the accident approaches an hour, he's going to be rushing it the whole trip. The patient has a far better chance of surviving if they get to a hospital sooner as opposed to later. That's a fact. There's reason to rush.

You also pointed out the fact that the leading cause of death among EMS personnel is motor vehicle accidents. That is true. What else is a person who works on a moving hospital gonna die of? Malaria? Also, I'm sure the patient is far more likely to die from not getting to the hospital quickly enough than from an impromptu motor vehicle collision.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(medicine)
http://www.emsworld.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JMCika

Con

JMCika forfeited this round.
Mantizah

Pro

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrrrrrrr damn. What a shame. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
JMCika

Con

JMCika forfeited this round.
Mantizah

Pro

Laa lala lala laa lala...
Debate Round No. 4
JMCika

Con

I must apologize for not posting my other arguments I have been busy with finals and work. If you would like to redo this debate I would be willing to. Any way on to your arguments1

The patient has a far better chance of surviving if they get to a hospital sooner as opposed to later. That's a fact.

Could you provide evidence? If you would have looked at my sources above or read my argument about you would have seen that this is no evidence of increased mortality for any length of time exceeding one hour.

“You also pointed out the fact that the leading cause of death among EMS personnel is motor vehicle accidents. That is true. What else is a person who works on a moving hospital gonna die of? Malaria? Also, I'm sure the patient is far more likely to die from not getting to the hospital quickly enough than from an impromptu motor vehicle collision.

Just because they are more likely to die from a MVC does not mean we should not do what we can to reduce the number of fatalities. A study by Emergency Dispatch concluded that there is only a 43.5 second mean time saved when running with full lights a siren[1]. As mentioned above there is no evidence to support an increased mortality rate for any length of time after the first 60 min so why risk the lives of the patient, EMS personnel, and the public for 43.5 seconds?

Mantizah

Pro

Mantizah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mantizah 2 years ago
Mantizah
Sorry I missed the last round... I had like my whole argument already written up too...
No votes have been placed for this debate.