I have an idea (which has probably already occurred to others): why not have EpiPens available alongside defibrillators? Both are the sorts of things that are needed immediately to be effective, and despite their considerable expense and maintenance needs defibrillators are becoming more and more commonplace in public areas and workplaces. EpiPens are less expensive and less dangerous than defibrillators even when used incorrectly. Moreover, most people who might one day need an EpiPen don't have one, either because they're moderately expensive (~$40-$100 without insurance) or don't carry it around with them or don't know they're deathly allergic to something. I'm sure they could come with straightforward instructions on their dosing and usage, the way defibrillators do. It seems like the biggest thing in the way is that EpiPens require a permission slip from a doctor, which seems ridiculous if such a requirement is standing in the way of saving some people's lives.
Used an Epi pen on myself once. It is not hard jab, push. Something like that. I think there are pics on the pen. I am allergic to red hornets. Wherever they sting me, blows up and stays that way for at least a week, could be longer but I went to the doctor.
Probably because EpiPens have a shorter shelf life and are a controlled item for a good reason. If someone is not trained in recognizing a true reaction versus, say a seizure, and administers an EpiPen injection to a person who is not having an allergic reaction, there is a damned good chance you can stop their heart. On top of that it would be a hell of a lot easier for some jackass to "break the glass" and steal one than it would be to abscond with an AED. When it comes to out of cost expenses, every pharmaceutical company out there has an assistance plan for those with out insurance offering free or majorly discounted drugs. Some free clinics may offer them for free as well. So I can't see that as a justification. There really isn't an excuse under those circumstances for not carrying one.
the problem with epipens is they are always in my desk drawer when I need them on the mountain, I have recently taked the track of, being non-hostile to ground hornets will do me more good then jabbing a needle in my thigh after 200 hundred of those cock-suckers have put me on the ground.
Epinephrine (aka synthetic adrenaline) is a controlled substance for a reason. Not the least of which, believe it or not, is that a lot of people are allergic to it. One of my Aunts is allergic to it. Stab her with an Epi-Pen and you've killed her. Pushing Epi when it's not needed can also cause a whole slew of bad things to happen. There's also the issue of short shelf-life. We have to buy eight of the things a year. Trust me. It sucks.
^ Defibrillators can likewise be unsafe when used incorrectly, and they have parts that expire or need maintenance. Do more people die because they needed an EpiPen, or because they got one?
AED s will not activate unless the system detects a rhythm that will respond to a shock, such as v-fib. If Asystole is detected the AED won't activate because it does not respond to shocks. Is almost impossible to put the pads on incorrectly. Its Baba proof. AEDs also require a lot less maintenance. Sorry but EpiPens not being in n public is a good thing
You need training in advanced cardiac life support before you should even consider using epi. EMTs train for years and still don't use it. It wouldn't take much for a huge mistake to be made in the general public.
I guess it's used for allergic reactions too, but if you have compromised cardiac function there are other factors to consider.
I think Prufrock was suggesting it for allergy situations. I'm not advocating for his idea, but an epi pen is a very easy life saving procedure for somebody having an extreme reaction. We've never had to use my daughter's pen, but if it came down to it, I could easily save her life and the only cardiac training I have (CPR) wouldn't come in to play at all.
It is an invaluable tool. Yeah you dont have to have advanced ACLS training to administer one. You do need to know that the victim is actually suffering an attack and is not allergic to the med. I think the easy thing is to just make a slim belt holster for the pen and that way you can keep it on your person at all times. No muss, no fuss.
Frontline is right. AEDs thanks to decades of use and advancing technology have gone from being a sophisticated life saving device to being virtually "idiot proof". I've been trained on one as part of my CPR training and it is not difficult at all to do correctly (assuming someone can follow a pictogram)
The problem isn't usage. Administering an epipen couldn't be much easier. The problem is understanding whether it's an appropriate medical decision. If it is, great, but if it isn't, you can actually kill the person. You need to know their medical history to determine whether it's an appropriate response. That's why a doctor decides whether to prescribe it, and the patient or proxy learns how to recognize the symptoms calling for use- it can be dangerous without this information.
Then, like CPR, maybe epipen usage should be incorporated into first aid classes. Why should people who are trainable have their hands tied in an emergency situation because some other people are drooling idiots?
I've always wondered what effect an EpiPen would have on a hangover. I think a couple liters Saline Solution, an IV kit, two airplane bottles of your choice liquor and an EpiPen would be a pretty effective Get Right Kit. Give yourself the saline solution intravenously as a quick fix the dehydration, the shots to take the edge off the short term withdrawal your body is going through, then the EpiPen to wake you up/clear your head. I do miss working in an environment where the occasional gnarly hangover was expected, IVs were everywhere, and we were encouraged to practice giving them to each other.
We keep telling you' because you can kill someone with out knowing their background medical history. We can't say this enough. With out that info, even if you know someone is going into shock, and you know with 100% certainty that an EpiPen would be the right course of action, you still have no idea if the person will have an allergic reaction to it and die.
That calculus makes no sense. If someone is going into shock and you know that they probably need an EpiPen or they'll die, and they die from a bad reaction, they still die. If the chances of getting killed by an EpiPen are far lower than the chances of being saved by one, it makes sense to find ways to make them more available. Moreover, most of the cases I've been reading about where people died from serious allergic reactions knew they needed an EpiPen (or their parents/guardians knew they needed one) but either didn't have immediate access to one or were denied it on the grounds that they might die from an allergic reaction to the injection. Better to watch them die from anaphylactic shock than take a chance, I guess. The drooling masses will continue to gape fecklessly at an emergency situation as usual.
Okay so if someone feels that a victim needs immediate medical care, but is not trained, then better for that person to just wing it and hope for the best? Really? Even for trained medical professionals there are limits to the care that one can administer. An EMT can only do so much. An RN can do more but less than an MD. There is a very valid reason for this. No it doesnt. The chances of getting killed by an EpiPen are only lower if you KNOW that you don't have an allergic reaction to it. In your first example, the victim chose to not carry a necessary life saving device on their person that they know they need. For example with my scouts, all scouts who have been prescribed an EpiPen must have it on their person at all times. If a doctor says that an EpiPen is not the right solution for you then unfortunately you suffer the consequences of survival of the fittest in its most raw form. It sucks, but that's life. And that is an appeal to emotionalism and has as much validity as those who say that gay marriage is wrong or gun ownership is wrong simply because they feel that is the way things should be. Let me give you an example. With my current training needed for my volunteer position, sought on my own, I can deliver basic and advanced 1st aid. If you get a major arterial bleed I can stop it in seconds and save your life. I am working on my own to the point to where I will be able to open up the thoracic cavity. In other words my training is beyond what 98% of the general population has. Even with such training I would never in a million years administer an EpiPen to anyone unless they had been prescribed it. It is simply too damned dangerous, too much of a risk. Some times the best solution is to do nothing other than dial 911 and wait until more advanced care can arrive and yes, hope that they get there in time.
If you want, look at the atropine (sp) injectors for an NBC attack. Pretty similar to an EpiPen. One year a bunch of dumb shits at 3rd Ranger Battalion decided to do that very experiment. They all wound up be evaced to Martin Army Community Hospital and barely survived. I'll just stick to the "giving yourself and your buddies" IVs solution and leave it at that.
Yeah, but IVs are so... blah. Everyone does IVs. Now I feel like figuring out the right way to do the atropine!
I didn't say people need to remain ignorant about how to use them. Like we've had with defibrillators, there is opportunity for design improvements and education in first aid classes. So, what exactly are the chances of getting killed by an EpiPen? And how do they compare with the numbers of people dying from allergic reactions? Obviously that's not enough, if there are still people dying for want of prompt treatment of allergic reactions. If we had that mindset about all other medical conditions, we wouldn't have medicine at all. Which wasn't the best solution for heart attack victims, hence the new defibrillators everywhere. I swear, it sounds like you'd rather people just keep dying from potentially preventable causes than entertain the idea that things could be improved.
Short of the long, cut the bullshit hysteria. Alphaman, a PA, has said this is bad ju ju. Elwood, who has training as a first responder, has said this is bad ju ju. My wife, who is getting her ARNP, has said this is bad ju ju. Doctors all over the place, say it is bad ju ju. I, with the level of training I have, have said it is bad ju ju. But you know better? It's not any of us want anyone to die. It's that in this case the cure can be very well much more worse than the problem. The AED was developed and deployed because the technology finally reached the point, and the software was able to be written, so that the device could distinguish the event and determine if a victim would benefit from it's use. Before this, you're best bet was CPR and that wasn't much. So prior to the AED sometimes you did the best you could but you basically watched someone die. It sucks and I've been there. I've had a guy have a heart attack right there in front of me. I've felt and heard his sternum crack as my buddy and I did compression. I worked my ass off while his family members were freaking out. I watch this guy die right under my hand and I hated it. But I also knew that there wasn't shit else I could do. I knew that, as glib as it sounds, shit happens. Right now there is no way to make an EpiPen that is able to query a victim to see if the victim will have a negative reaction prior to its administration on the victim. The testing for that right now is too long and involved. You get something that can do that in a minute or so and I'll change my mind. Until then, its "shit happens". Until someone miracle whips a solution out of their ass then yes, you have to live with the fact that some folks will die. You don't have to like it, I sure as hell don't. You just cant bend the laws of reality to soothe your conscience. You cannot start medical care that carries that much of a risk. Not legally, not morally, not ethically.
I bet all those people would have said defibrillators everywhere would be a bad idea, before the design was improved. Thank goodness inventors don't feel so hopeless.
Quit the ass hattery. Nobody is saying a smart EpiPen is a bad idea. The bad idea is wanting to use dumb pens as if they were smart.
Give it a rest. No one ever thought defibrillators being used by untrained personnel were a good idea before the introduction of AEDs.
No, nobody but me seems to be even thinking about the possibility of a 'smart' EpiPen. Rather just throw up their hands and say "life sucks! don't bother!" and not bothering to investigate whether it actually is worse to use one incorrectly or to not use one when it is indicated.
That is not what people are saying, they say yes a smart epi-pen is a good idea. They're saying using one on someone you do not know, and do not know what underlying medical condition they have is a bad idea. Can you distinguish between an asthma attack and someone going into anaphylactic shock? You sure as hell do not want to give someone epinepherine without knowing if they are allergic to it
