Medical Assistant - Reserve

[RD]

Ok. I just want a simple and short answer. If I wanted to become a medical assistant in the regular forces how long do you think it would take to become a combat medic?

 

[Armymedic]

Sorry, no short answer.
If your posted to a Brigade (Fd Amb) after your initial training, once you are qualified ql 5 (after 3 yrs) then you‘ll get tasked (not posted) to a cbt arms UMS. If you are fit, smart and lucky you might get the arm that you want. That is, as dictated by the Fd Amb RSM (here in Petawawa, anyway).
That help you?

 

[RD]

Yeah, it helped. Thanks

 

[themaskeduser]

speaking of which, when medics need to use any forms of weaponry
what do they use?

last time i recalled medics only need weapons for self defense
correct me if i'm wrong

 

[cpl forrester]

i have seen medics with side arms but that is classed as a active medic most under the red cross r unarmed as to not make them a direct target there is debate at this time in many armed forces that the role of medics will change for the wars that lay ahead that medics should all be active medics(with fire arms ,close support) as thy are nowa days always the first target because they r the only people with the balls to sit up when everyone else has there arse in the grass..............but do medics really want to be armed as there calling may not mean that they want to kill but to save live that is for them to decide!..?

 

[MedCorps]

The Canadian Forces Medical Group Headquarters actually has direction on this <smile>.  It goes a little
something like this. 

All medical pers have the right and duty to protect their casualty and themselves from attack.  They follow the same Rules of Engagement as everyone else, except they cannot take offensive action under the tenents of the Geneva Convention (Non-Combatant Status). 

Thus they are allowed to take defensive measures.  "Defensive measures" is a little bit of a blurry term.  One could use a Carl Gustav in a defensive role against armour, or artillery as final protective fire.  For small arms the medical branch does not see things quite the way I do (oh well) and has limited small arms in the defensive role to the following:

1 - Service Pistol (BHP)
2 - C7 / C8
3 - C9 (Although we never really shoot, exercise or train with them) (someone correct me, I would honestly love to hear that some medical unit is running the C9 Shoot to Live program... ah, only if I was the Trg O). 

They have also allowed the M18A1 Directional Fire Device (read: Claymore) to be taught (read: sighting) on the Officer Field Course as a command detonated area defensive tool.  Again we do not train on it and you will not see it on exercise.  Medical Services Officers who go on advanced training (Army Tactical Operations Course, and Army Operations Course) are also exempted, and allowed to plan for all weapons systems in use by the CF. 

CFMGHQ has also come out with an exemption to the above, in that all weapons covered by the individual battle task standard (C6 GPMG, M2/M3 Carl Gustav, M72 (NM72E5), C13 grenade, M203) will be taught, but only the unload drill.  This is to allow a Medical person whom comes upon a casualty with a weapons to make it safe, and thus treat the casualty. 

Until defensive is clearly understood by the powers that be, the best we can do is train  our medical pers to be highly skilled on the C7 and Pistol. 

Hope that helps,

Cheers,

MC

 

[Infanteer]

Since most of our likely opponents are probably not even aware of the Geneva Convention, let alone be signatories to it, should we perhaps be a little more liberal in training our medical branch to be quite capable of fighting in a low to mid intensity conflict.  An example may be that Med A's with light infantry units would be responsible first and foremost with casualty care and evac, but would also be quite competent at fighting in the field when required.

 

[MedCorps]

Ah... because that would make too much sence.  Too bad you do not work at CFMGHQ. 

The big head in Ottawa (as an organization, not one person) really feels that the Red Cross is bullet proof, bomb proof and even fire proof (but only one weekends).  In the world on nod ambulances are not ambushed, UMSs have a force field and the BMS is just a marking on the enemy forces map that they choose to ignore. 

Oh, well... maybe someday people that matter will figure it out. 

Until then (if anyone is listening), train hard on the pistol and C7 and fight easy next war.  Returning fire is the best form first aid when being shot at.  I know... it is never easy to come up with range time, SAT time and prying ammo out of the HQ allocation table is like delivering a baby in the back of an HLVW on a bumpy road, but keep at it.  SAT is low to no cost, good small arms coaching is free.  If you cannot get the funding / position / convincing the giant head it is a good idea to send Med Techs on the SAC Course then import (or better trade) the expertise from the Combat Arms.

Cheers,

MC

 

[Infanteer]

The big head in Ottawa (as an organization, not one person) really feels that the Red Cross is bullet proof, bomb proof and even fire proof (but only one weekends).  In the world on nod ambulances are not ambushed, UMSs have a force field and the BMS is just a marking on the enemy forces map that they choose to ignore.

The Brit Medic (and Infantryman trained as a Combat Medic) who gave us military first aid training on course (far superior to anything I got from our military) said that at company level and below they refused to wear the red cross on their arm as those things just made them bigger targets....

 

[themaskeduser]

speaking of those armbands
do meds wear the red cross armbands at all times eg; part of dress or they only wear those when they're in the field?

 

[combat_medic]

Infanteer: I feel the same way about the arm bands. One ex I was employed as enemy force with fighting patrols and OPs going up against us. We were doing some counter-patrolling and were getting bumped every now and then, so the LAST thing I needed was to make myself MORE conspicuous by adding a red brassard to the mix (HERE I AM, SHOOT ME, SHOOT ME!!!). When employed in a medical, non-tactical capacity such as a range medic, it makes to have the red cross out, but I think that many people do think that it is some bomb-proof, bullet-proof invisible shield. While an enemy MAY not shoot at someone wearing the red cross, if a medic accompanying a patrol or an advance gives away their position because of the shiny red target, it doesn't make their buddies any less dead.

While indentifying medical services in certain positions is important, it shouldn't replace common sense. If tactics dictate that a red cross would pose a danger, then it shouldn't be used. If an enemy is known to have not signed or obey the Geneva Convention, then why make the visibility of certain troops more prominent?

In addition, while the theory of medical services states that they will only fire personal weapons, and only in a defensive role, medics still end up as candidates on courses and instructors. I've seen medic NCOs show up on a course expected to instruct machine guns and other platoon support weapons when they themselves have never handled them beyond a simple "unload" lesson, and have never fired the weapons in their lives. Unless the new restructuring of the medical services intends to run its own basic and leadership courses, they should operate at the same MLOC (ELOC?) standard as the remainder of the CF, and that includes full TOETs on all support weapons, fieldcraft and basic infantry skills/tactics refreshed on a yearly basis.

 

[vr]

The first point of the last post is a moot point.  There is no justification for a medic to take part in enemy force on exercise.  This illustrates why restructure of the medical services is necessary.  Medics in outlaying units had very little idea about proper medical doctrine.  During regular unit training or exercises there was nothing for them to do. thus they became supply drivers or the Adm Coy "boy".  In many cases because nobody knew any better they were allowed to "tag along" on the fun stuff like patrols, enemy forces, and OP's all the while professing to all that they were medics.  Soon enough both they and their superiors believed that this was how medics operated.  As these individuals rose and percolated through the Reserves they took this perverted worldview with them leading to many headaches when medical units tried to work according to doctrine.

A small patrol/OP doesn't need a trained medic.  Harkening back to a thread on the LFRR board there is nothing a medic can do on patrol that a First Aid trained soldier can't.  You're lucky to have 2 medics per coy/sqn/bty so you don't waste them on stuff like that.

The decision to display crosses is made by the formation commander on the advice of the Fld Amb CO.  A large part of the passive defence of medical units is effective cam & concealment when mobile or stationary.  Red crosses do not prevent use of march or track discipline either.  Decisions regarding conventions like the Geneva convention are NOT made by individual soldiers, see Iraq.  If you are in a situation where the enemy can shoot at the reds of your medic's crosses then you've got bigger problems than that.

In an ideal world we would all be trained riflemen first and tradesmen second like the USMC.  The Marines however don't have medics and rely on seconded Navy corpsmen for their 1st/2nd line support.  We couldn't afford to do it even if we wanted to.  Imagine having to run a proper SQ for every member of the Reserves:  it can take up to 2 years for some to get it now.  Medics need to be proficient in their personal weapons to carry out their primary duty which is caring for the wounded.  We used to do all the MLOC drills on the support weapons and it wasted much time (which is money) and effort.  We were lucky to see some cbt arms unit's broken weapons once a year.  It makes sense for a medic to only have to make a wpn safe in order to treat a casualty. 

 

[Fraser.g]

Bravo Usul!

I could not have said it better.

It is nice on Ex to send a medic out with a patrol as experience only. By seeing the conditions our brothers in arms work under makes us better able to treat them. However this should not be confused with doctrine.
A infantry coy is lucky to have a medic in our real world and no CSM would squander that resource by sending them out on patrol.

GF

 

[starlight_745]

Good post Usul.  Just a note on Brassards, on most larger scale exercise scenarios I have been involved with, the higher hq has almost always had the policy of no display of the red cross forward of the BMS.  This seems logical to me and if your BMS is under contact you are in deep do do anyways, you're gonna need more than a couple c-6's and c-9's.  I think we dearly need a program similar to the US Army combat lifesaver which can bridge the gap between self/buddy aid and the company medical technicians.  The new combat casualty care course looks good but it doesn't see to be offered on a continuous basis, probably due to the chronic lack of instructors plaguing the army right now.

 

[MedCorps]

The Tactical Combat Casualty Care Course is the way ahead.   CFMG seems to be more supportive of it (and / or no one cares and we are just offering it anyways).    You will see more and more of this course in the future.   It also has solid support from a few LCol level MOs.    

A TCCC was run before Roto 0 OP ATHENA (complete with issue of leg bags) and was very well recieved by the warfighters.   It has also been run a few other times in Ontario (both for Med Techs and non Med Techs).   In talks with the TrgO of 2 Fd Amb there have been quite a number of request from the combat arms to run this training pre- OP ATHENA Roto 3/4.   Eventually solid guidance will come out with the content of the course standardizing it, and I expect that the soldier leg bag, and the one handed tourinquet (which was again issued to Roto 0 OP ATHENA) will become a CMED kit listed item.   I have also taught the course for the Brits (RE-EOD, RMP and Army Air Regt) and they seems to be quite smitten with it.  

If you reckon that the majority of "savable" combat deaths being:  
  - External compressable hemorhage - 60%
  - Tension Pneumothorax - 21%
  - Airway Obstruction - 9%    

it only makes sence to train the warfighter.   If you can get hands on at minute zero of the injury and stop bleeding, decompress chest, open airway you are doing a lot for the casualty.   The Medic generally is not around at minute zero or there are just too many casualties (remembering that military trauma happens is a multi-player sport).   If I could invest money in trauma medicine for the CF it would be in TCCC and good (vice crappy) First Aid Training for the population.   The better shape they bring them to us (or have them in location in)   the easier as medical folk our job is <smile>.  

If you care below is a list of the supplies in the leg bag kits issued for OP ATHENA Roto 0:

CPR Mask x 1
NPA x 1 set
Small KY Jelly for NPA x 6 pk
OPA x 2
Bulb suction x 1
Asherman chest seals x 2
Alcohol Swabs x 4
14 ga angiocatheters x 2
Tourniquets x 2
Field dressing x 2
Triangular bandages x 2
OpSite x 2
EMT Sissors x 2
Latex Gloves x 2 pr
Roll of tape x 1
Skin marker x 1

User trials on the leg bag were being conducted in theatre by DRDC - Toronto (DCIEM).    Anyone seen any results?  

Cheers

MC

 

[combat_medic]

So if it is an inefficient use of time and resources to train a medic in anything other than basic individual weapons, then should all medical NCOs be removed from teaching any courses beyond BMQ? Should a MCpl or Sgt in a Med Coy who has never handled a C6 other than a single unload drill a few years past be teaching recruits or leadership candidates the TOETs and theories of machine gun fire on an SQ/PLQ course? While completing the necessary medical training is important, do medics at some point cease to be soldiers? The USMC has, in my opinion, an excellent policy in that no matter what trade you are, first and foremost you are a soldier. You can't simply disregard all MLOC training (which, if done regularly, should only take a training night or two and a weekend ex) because you're in a medical trade. How on earth can you expect a medic Cpl on a leadership course to lead a section attack, a recce patrol, and an occupation of a defensive position if they don't even know how to handle the weapons, or apply the tactics involved?

On my leadership course, while all candidates were "supposed" to have all such skills squared away before they were even nominated for leadeship training, many non-combat arms troops were so clueless that they weren't even aware of how many men were in a section, and couldn't even identify the difference between a C9 and a C6. This was a complete drain of time and resources for the staff and other candidates to bring them up to speed on BASIC soldiering skills because their home units didn't think it was a priority for them to know it. No matter if you're a superstar in your trade, it doesn't matter a lick if you can't be a soldier. If you can't lift a rucksack or know not to stand behind a Carl G when it's firing, then all the CSS trade skills in the world will be meaningless.

If the new, restructured medical services want to run their own courses, similar to the Comms branch in which soldiering skills are de-emphasized in favour of trade-specific skills, then that's their decision to make, but if medics are continuing to take and instruct on currently existing army courses, then their soldiering skills have to be as up to date as the remainder of the CF. To do otherwise just creates a bigger shortfall during summer courses, and it wouldn't surprise me if the staff sent such candidates and leaders home until they get their basic skills to an acceptable level.

 

[Donut]

Combat_Medic, firstly, I seriously doubt the USMC policy states that all members are "soldiers" first, I strongly suspect that they are "Marines" first, tradesmen second.   Call a marine a soldier and see how he reacts.

Secondly, we need to look to the skills required on deployment, and identify the time-lines necessary to make a medic deployable.   If we can teach and/or refresh "army" skills faster and cheaper then "medic" skills, the obvious answer is that, in peacetime, we teach medical skills and bridge with the "army" skills as required;   If the opposite is true, we do the reverse:   teach "army" and bridge to medical skills.  

It may be most beneficial to have both programs running concurrently, teaching FEBA-type "combat" medics the medical skills they need pre-deployment, and teach the high-end medical specialists "REMF" medics the "army" skills they'll need prn.

The future of armed conflict is theorized to be both the "three-block war" and a come as you are conflict; the latter precludes a lot of build-up/work-up, and obviates the reserve force to a large degree; the former calls for a cross section of skills with different focus in different phases.

If we take as a starting point a civilian paramedic, we can, according to the overall tng plan, turn him into a soldier with BMQ/SQ and a military medical orientation, about 10 weeks in total.   Take that same person, but without being a paramedic, and it's 10 weeks to being a soldier, 13 weeks to being a paramedic (not including pre-study, a&p, etc), and 16 more weeks to be clinically trained.    The delta, from paramedic to soldier, is about 10 weeks, from civi to paramedic to army medic is 39 weeks plus some actual clinical exposure and patient care experience.

The tactical combat casualty care course is good, will save lives, and has undoubted benefit, but it is not a replacement for a trained prehospital professional; it is the actions that professional takes under austere and dangerous conditions to save lives.   It is a standard of care appropriate for a hostile environment.

As far as medics teaching wpns etc, the philosophy is that if you can teach, you can teach.   Once you know a skill, you can teach it.   You don't need to be an Infantry Sgt to teach MG theory, you just need to know it.  IST is there for a reason.   If you've got 3 infantry MCpls and 3 CSS MCpls, guess who should be teaching the class?

In response to your comment about leading section attacks etc on PLQ, the point of PLQ is to test you leadership, not your infantry skills. Infantry skills are the great equalizer when you're not teaching ISCC; everyone needs to be familiar with them, not SME's.   We all have stories about the tactically dubious maneuver that results in a PLQ PO pass, BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE DEMONSTRATED A KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP, APPLIED THEM, AND LED HIS TROOPS.  

The gunner given the small party task of evac'ing wounded from the minefield didn't prod properly, didn't prove the ground, didn't immobilize the blast-injured patient, but he lead his section using sound planning and leadership and got the patient out with the resources available.   Would I want him as the med pl QRF IC? no!   Would he want me laying his guns?   NO!   did they each demonstrate and apply the principles of leadership in a military setting? Yes.

We turn kids into soldiers without a problem, we just can't seem to turn them into both soldiers and health care professionals at the same time.

D Fraser

 

[combat_medic]

So why is it that "medic" and "soldier" are mutually exclusive terms?

 

[Donut]

I agree they shouldn't be, but with current budget and tng levels, they are. 

Marine and soldier, however, are.

;D

Perhaps we need the CFH's back?

 

[combat_medic]

I'll admit, my bad for the Marine/Soldier thing. Heck, I've referred to naval friends as "soldiers" without realizing the implication, and it makes them cranky.

Oh, and what is a CFH?