I can't believe how long people like you argue just for the hell of it. Hypothermic shock takes HOURS at most to be fatal, not days, and it doesn't take any outer temperature factors to send an injured person into shock. Keeping the body from shock is a priority as well, esp when someone's shivering, cold and under-dressed, and if lung-bleeding was an issue he shouldn't have wasted time gripping her lower extremities and staring at them sweetie; it just more and more proves my point. It would be incredibly easy for her mom to drape her while the dad tried opening her lungs. And for the last time, no one could see closely enough what's happening to cause vaginal bleeding in such a situation, it would NOT be more urgent than her lung issue and so the only thing to do then would be to put a pillow or something similar between her legs and focus on keeping her from hypothermia or drowning in lung fluid. Again, if you claim to know anything about saving a life hon, you need to acknowledge all emergency care needed, which includes covering the patient, NOT staring at her crotch if she's not hemorrhaging from it, which she wasn't. This argument is horse *beep* and I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up.
reply
share
iamthat1
9 years ago
ok so you think it could take hours for hypothermic shock. well death from bleeding or not breathing can happen in seconds. that's why every clinician in the world knows the simple ABC of emergency. lol. and seriously, why are you so offended that he 'looked between her legs'. again, he only looked enough to notice she wasn't still bleeding, and happened to therefore realise she was raped.
after finishing removing the bullet, stopping bleeding and emptying the lung fluid, he did end up wrapping her in a blanket. I am not 'not acknowledging' all emergency care needed, i'm talking about priorities. he absolutely should never have even thought about warming her before doing all those things. you just don't realise that you dreamed up this 'hypothermic shock' possibility, simply because you were offended with the way he handled her. but he had to handle her like that first, or she could and would have died.
reply
share
whitespirit26
9 years ago
You have no clue about shock related to trauma, how bad it is to leave a wet and shivering girl on a hard floor while you perform an invasive procedure on her with no cover or how blatantly bull and half-assed the entire thing was and yeah, it would occur to someone in the medical field to try and prevent shock, especially a father, and while he was busy it should have occurred to the mother too. The fact that he even removed a freaking BULLET from her body without giving her any covering during that non-emergency procedure makes it doubly stupid. This is simple and common sense, not something "dreamed up" on the spot, so you're wasting your time on a bogus argument that started years ago for no conceivable reason.
reply
share
iamthat1
9 years ago
it is not at all bad to leave a wet, shivering girl on a hard floor while performing an invasive procedure TO RESTORE HER BREATHING or REMOVE A BULLET, things which will kill her instantly if you don't do it. what don't you understand about this?
this is basically you: "wah wah but she looked exposed and she's a girl and he's a big bad man and he shouldn't get to see or touch her"
i love how you have capitalised 'REMOVING A BULLET' without giving her any covering. yes, of course, remove a bullet before covering her. get it through your head, covering or warming her is basically a zero priority. it is like saying, why didn't he give her panadol to reduce her fever in that situation. maybe she had a high fever and could have eventually died from it? that is equally likely to her dying from hypothermia in that situation.
and you call removing a bullet a 'non emergency' procedure. ROFL. yep not at all an emergency. just stopping fatal bleeding and removing a soure of fatal infection. no big deal.
the conceivable reason i am arguing this is i hate feminist idiots like yourself. who see a realistic, good scene like this one, and immediately start complaining that the man was bad to the girl. hahaha. i feel sorry for you.
reply
share
whitespirit26
9 years ago
You're clueless as a post about regular procedure; if it wasn't important to cover patients, doctors would leave them half-naked on the operating tables all the time during surgical procedures instead of draping them virtually from head to toe like they ALWAYS do. No dear, the bullet wouldn't kill her immediately and between the two very invasive procedures on a traumatized body, one of the two PARENTS there should have tried to keep her warm. Keep trumpeting your ignorance, you've managed to be insulting in the midst of nonsense, an interesting feat indeed and can barely string a proper sentence or rebuttal together while shooting put-downs. *beep* feminism, you're as ignorant about medicine as they often are.
reply
share
iamthat1
9 years ago
this is so fun for me, just because of how wrong you are. the absolute only reason patients are covered everywhere except the surgical site is to reduce risk of infection. it has absolutely zero to do with warming patients. rofl. next, you say the bullet wouldn't kill her immediately. another great joke. yes, a bullet lodged inside you causing bleeding internally and externally, can kill you very, very fast.
no patient in an emergency life/death procedure would ever be draped, in fact it is more important they are as exposed as possible so as not to miss anything.
you can argue till doomsday about this but you will get nowhere because your entire theory has absolutely zero merit. hilarious.
reply
share
whitespirit26
9 years ago
Yeah. That's what medics do all the time, leave people cold and with barely any clothes so while they're performing one invasive procedure, they'll see what other wounds are left untended and bleeding out; makes perfect sense.
reply
share