"For this patient population, less is more," Temple University Hospital surgeon told VICE News.
WATCH MORE on HEALTH here: http://bit.ly/2zwSD9o

Harry, at times it is difficult to rationalize how we can give one group treatment and withhold treatment from another group. Your concern is shared by many others. I would just like to share why scientific studies are designed in such a manner and why I think this is ethical. In a nut shell, a scientific study needs to observe two different groups. By comparing the results from the two different groups it should be clear which method works best. As was discussed, the doctors have been gathering information for years on the success of their patients and which treatment they were given. They already have great reason to believe that when it comes to gunshot wounds “less is more.” The physicians are now doing what the scientific community refers to as a controlled study; which is what I referred to above where scientists look at two groups. Generally, controlled studies are the most precise way to come to the most accurate conclusion. And with the approval from the FDA these physicians will figure out which method is best. Secondly, in an emergency, like being shot, the medical team does everything in their power to do the most good for their patient. Because the patient is in a non-responsive state and is unable to make their own medical decisions the medical team’s role is to keep the patient alive. The trauma surgeons are implicating non-maleficence; which means that medical teams are not to do harm to their patients. (This is where I’d like to direct some thoughts to Daniel Atwood). The doctor’s findings have shown that the more that is done to a patient before reaching the hospital the worse off the patient is in the long run. I think that this is ethical because the team is acting in the best interests of the patient. As a community we have accepted that pre-operative treatment is necessary for survival as Daniel indicated. However, maybe it really isn’t the best way to treat gunshot victims and we won’t know for sure until the study is finished. I don’t see it as a lifesaving treatment is being withheld from the patients. Instead I see it as a medical team that is preventing unnecessary harm from happening to the patient before surgery. Again, it does seem a little strange to think that less can be more but through this study we will find out how to better help gunshot victims and through it help the lives of many others.

This Vice interviewer is really hot

"umm tbh i'm someone who disagree with the study" stfu u fukin moron, u don't know shit

One of the rare times I hear about my city/university on this channel and its negative haha

Ministry of Propaganda

Isn't this low-key unethical bc some people will get the new method used on them while some don't? What if one method works better than the other and the lives that could have been saved were lost bc they used the wrong method?

Lawsuits for this medical racism in less than two years….Mengele would be proud of those two awkward white women doctors.

The fact of the matter is….. Men are just pussies now… Back in the day, throwing fists was the top of list as far as handling confrontations and misunderstandings…. Back then, even that was the last resort… Smart people talk out problems… Now it's just bang… Dead… Game over… A million factors and climbing…. What a fucking horror show….

I, for one, appreciate this piece from VICE. So much of what VICE has been producing lately smacks of anti-2A, pro-Hillary, "lets just gloss over obvious and discerning questions of political corruption, graft, nepotism, and sexual misconduct." Instead of taking a talking point like "gun violence in Philadelphia," and spinning it into a hit piece on the 2A with the typical cliche argument of "its the guns, stupid," VICE has actually produced something that looks at gun violence through a different focal point; in this instance: trauma medicine. It's refreshing to finally examine the issue of gun violence without dredging up–the now pulverized–dead horse into the conversation.

And, to the point, these trauma surgeons are onto something with their theory. Those professionals who work in trauma medicine tend to get over focused on IV access and fluid resuscitation. Why? Because that's some high speed shit right there. Sure. But getting to IV access can be a distraction from the bigger objective: hemorrhage control and immediate evacuation to an MTF. This is the difference that the two surgeons are talking about when they say "basic life support" vs "advance life support." In other words, as a first responder, just worry about hemorrhage control and transport. Don't waste time dealing with IV access.

This is further compounded by the fact that a systolic blood pressure of 93mmhg is enough to dislodge any would-be clots developed by your blood's natural clotting factors. Therefore, even with a casualty with absent radial pulses, it might not be beneficial to start fluid resuscitation to get their bp up above 80mmhg. If transportation is going to be delayed for a long time (i.e., more than 20 minutes), then initiating fluids is a must in order to get adequate perfusion to the brain and other vital organs. But in a major city like Philadelphia, where medical transportation to an MTF isn't likely to be delayed for more than 20 minutes, waiting to start IV access might do more harm than good. That's what these two surgeons, I think, are driving at.

Lol lets flip a coin on this guy — heads he gets basic, tails he gets advanced…

Americuhhhhh – we need our guns no matter the cost

the two doctors give off a look of crazy feminists and should not be trusted with such study. More of liberal madness.

An IV seriously? What the actual fuck do you think saves lives on the battlefield? What the Serious Fuck.

This reminds me of all of the medical advances that tend to develop when Western countries go to war. All of the combat injuries that Western doctors get to treat results in much better emergency trauma care back home – which in turn benefits medical science all across the entire world.

Googles are so prone to violent criminality that they're actually serving a somewhat similar role that our soldiers serve when they volunteer to risk their lives and limbs by fighting overseas. And that's because more black Americans are shooting each other every year than Islamic jihadists are shooting and blowing up our troops even at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what living around black people is like; constant warfare.

Living around Googles is a complete nightmare, but at least one of the benefits of having large numbers of Googles in your society is that our medical expertise benefits from having to treat so many people that have been savagely beaten, stabbed, and shot.

God bless our Googles. They're truly our greatest Americans for serving as human guinea pigs for science.

And ROFL at 1:49. "BLACK AND NOBEL" "WE SHIP TO PRISONS"

I am not too sure about that study but what I am 100% sure about is that the host is a PERFECT 10!!!! damn

A little more research on BLS and ALS services would have benefited this report, or at least making it a little more clear to the viewer.

They act like they've never heard of Tranexamic Acid, Hextend, X-stat or kerlin.
If you're going to do these "scoop and run" type assessments and most of your own paramedics are opting out, you know there's something wrong.
The science is that it puts more emphasis on getting them to surgery as fast as possible. But why not treat on your way if you can? I have so many questions about this. Anyone have a link to the data supporting this???

The girl at 2:49 in the back in the orange .. Okay I'll stop but I can't wait to become a Trauma surgeon!!

uneducated people