Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 23

Underneath the arches (December 15)

banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was aware that this section, reposted from WikiProject UK Railways and WikiProject London Transport, had archived while reading a piece by Hazel Sheffield, Hackney car mechanic sings 'Stand by Me' for crowd funder to save his garage, this morning in issue 203 (December 2023) of Hackney Citizen. As the links [1] explain, some of these arches, which carry tube (subway) trains where they surface in the outer London suburbs, are owned by Transport for London. But that's not the whole story. It appears that in preparation for the London Overground original Victorian brick viaducts were transferred to TfL - although those which carry National Rail services as well were not. On these latter routes, station buildings served only by the Overground network were transferred to TfL, but those served also by National Rail services remained with Network Rail. The suburban line out of Liverpool Street into East Anglia (and some other lines) did not become part of the Overground network - the trains were run by "TfL Rail" ahead of the service being integrated into the Elizabeth Line. As regards the Hackney TfL arches, under the auspices of the East End Trades Guild, there is a proposal to create the "Trades Guild Community Land Trust" to assume ownership, which will be an issue in the 2024 London mayoral election. The new mayor of Hackney, Caroline Woodley, has been invited to participate in the discussion. 2A02:C7B:103:7100:B94A:9354:1ADC:B013 (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The upshot of that RefDesk discussion was the creation of Draft:Railway arches in London which is in the course of construction. Perhaps you could help with that, or if not, add the information above to the article's talk page? Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's a banned user, so he won't be doing that. --Viennese Waltz 20:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshistune story

Utsubo (うつぼ) is a fictional character invented by Genzō Murakami for his novels "Minamoto no Yoshitsune", appearing also in some TV series and movies about Minamoto no Yoshitsune. Can you help me to find some sites about her detailed story in the novel and in the other versions, also in Japanese? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.182.165 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US Paramedics Guilty for Overdosing Man with Ketamine

I was just reading about two paramedics who were convicted in the death of a man stopped by police with overdose of ketamine. I'm shocked that they can inject someone with a drug against their will. This wasn't even a legitimate medical intervention like administering naloxone to save someone from an opioid overdose. The ketamine was used for no other reason than to subdue someone. How can performing such a medical intervention possibly be legal/ethical? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See The Expanding Role of Ketamine in the Emergency Department which says:

...ketamine's dissociative properties have made it a popular choice for sedating profoundly agitated patients. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UK legal situation is explained in this article (perhaps the US guidelines follow similar priciples?):

Physically restraining patients exhibiting uncooperative or violent behavior can exacerbate underlying problems, cause physical injury to patients or caregivers, and result in asphyxia. When conventional de-escalation techniques fail or are otherwise impractical, prehospital sedation may be necessary. Prehospital sedation should only be administered by appropriately trained and supervised EMS clinicians, and must be for the medical benefit of the patient — not solely for law enforcement restraint purposes.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also the history of the diagnosis (or "diagnosis") of excited delirium, which may be treated (or "treated") with sedatives. Common symptoms of excited delirium seem to include being Black, and being subject to the use of force by police. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is Aurora hosting their review panel's "INVESTIGATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS" and the "Aurora EMS Protocols" for Summer 2019. Legally, i think in general the legislatures of U.S. states enact patient consent laws (and exceptions) and delegate rulemaking authority to one or more departments. Responding agencies would then be responsible for developing protocols for EMS to act under, and for ensuring those protocols comply with federal and state law and professional ethical standards, etc. Ethically, ...reasons for unilateral liberty restrictions are typically that being confined, strapped down, or sedated are necessary to prevent the person from harming themselves or others[2] emphasis added.

What should be legal or ethical, and what degree of latitude is given by society to those acting in perceived "emergency" situations (when human beings seem to often be cognitively ill-equipped to make appropriate decisions), and the appropriate way to handle the inevitable failures, is a matter of opinion. fiveby(zero) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]