Tucson Shootings Reminder of Military's Role in Trauma Care. appeared in the wonderful McClatchy chain of newspapers. I wrote about it in a comment on one of last night's open threads, and this diary is a slight reworking of that comment, because (a) I think people should read the article, and (b) there was one part that really caught my attention, and about which I wish to make a few comments.
The article explores among other things the background of Peter Rhee, the trauma surgeon who directed the efforts of treatment and University Medical Center in Tucson a week ago. He did finally get experience of treating trauma patients in combat in Afghanistan, but his early training was during a time when the military had little experience, because we were at peace.
It was where and how the military adjusted to provide appropriate training that caught my attention.
In 1992, the Navy set up the Navy Trauma Training Center at the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California hospital. The idea was straightforward: Navy doctors would work side by side with civilian doctors as the gunshot victims of L.A.'s street violence came through the hospital. Doctors there were seeing wounds from weapons that once were fired only by soldiers.
Rhee got his first exposure to a steady diet of trauma after he became the training center's director in 2002.
Rhee saw much more intense situations in Afghanistan. I am not downplaying that. But let me emphasize what caught my attention: as the gunshot victims of L.A.'s street violence came through the hospital. Doctors there were seeing wounds from weapons that once were fired only by soldiers
Forget about Glock-19s with extended magazines. Think not only of M16s and AK-47s, but also of M4s, of 50 caliber weapons (including some handguns). Think of teflon coated bullets.
Some of the wounds trauma surgeons deal with are like those in a war zone.
In Tucson, as the article reminds us, they are close enough to the Mexican border to deal with some of the results of the violence coming from that country.
Regardless of your position on private ownership of various kinds of weapons, consider only this - should we really be in a situation where our trauma centers have to be prepared to deal with the results of weaponry more appropriate for a combat situation? If so, what does that say about us as a society? If not, what the hell are we going to do about it?
In response to my comment, FoundingFatherDAR noted
Unfortunately, L.A. has had to close some of it's trauma centers in key locations due to excessive cost overruns. That means fewer places in L.A. for doctors to practice such skills.
But the need for the services provided by the trauma centers has not gone away. With apparent recent spikes in sales of guns and ammunition in the last week, one wonders if the need may in fact increase, although that is at this point speculation.
Like many, I was shocked by last Saturday. I have reflected , both in writing online and in private conversations, on various aspects of what happened. And I remain troubled, as I was in that comment last night. So let me repeat the paragraph with which I ended it:
Regardless of your position on private ownership of various kinds of weapons, consider only this - should we really be in a situation where our trauma centers have to be prepared to deal with the results of weaponry more appropriate for a combat situation? If so, what does that say about us as a society? If not, what the hell are we going to do about it?
I am interested in responses that people may choose to offer. I will read, but I prefer not to comment back: I want to learn, hopefully serving mainly to provoke a discussion which can benefit us all.
Peace.