Talk:Medical emergency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


TIA is not a medical emergency. Axl 11:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if you happen to know that it is a TIA and not a stroke. RogueNinjatalk 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Would classify it as a medical emergency. We now have TIA clinics which work up TIAs within 24hours. It is as much of an emergency as angina maybe more so. You treat the TIA to prevent the stroke. Treating strokes is like closing the door after the horse has left the barn. TNK in stroke give a slit improvement in morbidity but has no effect on mortality. Preventing the stroke will improve both.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic issues[edit]

Like many other first aid-related pages this article makes the capital mistake of addressing the reader in first person. The final section, for example, exhorts emergency physicians to keep their skills up-to-date. This is intensely patronising, annoying and childish. Nobody likes to be told what to do, especially by a free encyclopedia. Moreover, most readers are not emergency physicians, and a large number of them will never (need to) gain the relevant skills. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article accordingly. Please refrain from writing "you" apart from in a direct quote. JFW | T@lk 10:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meanings of "medical"[edit]

The way this page is written, it does not deal with the idea that a surgical emergency might not be a medical emergency.

This page does not make this distinction. Please sign your posts, Nqn. JFW | T@lk 10:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

US terminology[edit]

This article seems choc-a-block full of US style terminology. To make it clearer to all people, it needs some form of clean up.--jrleighton 04:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Care to give some examples so that whoever does this clean up knows what needs cleaning up? --Corvun 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing. Comment attached to wrong article ! Oops...was in the middle of horrible saving timeouts on several windows. :-)--jrleighton 04:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I've been having a horrible time with timeouts here on Wikipedia too. I predict a fundraiser in the not-too-distant future. --Corvun 11:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed / Example needed[edit]

I'm baffled by some of the "citation needed" / "example needed" tags in this article. The lead, for instance, asks for examples of emergency conditions that may be, and citations that they can be, treated by the patient themselves. The one seems redundant in the absence of the other, and as the lead contains no examples of medical emergencies it seems stylistically bizarre to start listing examples of certain types of emergency.

The most egregious example, though, is the "citation needed" tag half-way down the "Response" section, which asks for a citation to support the statement that bystanders can be used to keep the area around a casualty clear to give the responder room. This seems a basic statement to me, rather than something that needs to be evidenced. I'm not clear on WP policy on removing tags, so I have just removed this last one for now in the hopes that someone better versed in policy will see the edit and assess the relevance of the other tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)