America's Army player saves life using medic training

[MarkB]

Interesting story.

A longtime America's Army player became a first responder at a tragic car accident last November by employing life saving techniques he learned by playing the America's Army game. Twenty-eight year old Paxton Galvanek was able to evaluate and treat the victims at the scene. Paxton credited the combat medic training he completed in the popular America's Army online PC game with teaching him the critical skills he needed to react appropriately in this crisis situation. This is the second time an America's Army player has reported successfully using medical skills learned through playing the game to respond in a life-threatening situation.

In order to assume the role of combat medic in the America's Army game, players must go through virtual medical training classes based on the actual training that real Soldiers receive. The creators of America's Army developed the training scenarios with young adults in mind, recognizing their need to be able to respond in emergency situations. Through the game, players learn to evaluate and prioritize casualties, control bleeding, recognize and treat shock, and administer aid when victims are not breathing.

"Because of the training he received in America's Army's virtual classroom, Mr. Galvanek had mastered the basics of first aid and had the confidence to take appropriate action when others might do nothing. He took the initiative to assess the situation, prioritize actions and apply the correct procedures," said Colonel Casey Wardynski, America's Army Project Director. "Paxton is a true hero. We are pleased to have played a role in providing the lifesaving training that he employed so successfully at the scene."

After the incident, Galvanek wrote the America's Army team to thank them for including the medical training in the game. He said, "I have received no prior medical training and can honestly say that because of the training and presentations within America's Army, I was able to help and possibly save the injured men. As I look back on the events of that day, the training that I received in the America's Army video game keeps coming to mind."

"I remember vividly in section four of the game's medic training, during the field medic scenarios, I had to evaluate the situation and place priority on the more critically wounded. In the case of this accident, I evaluated the situation and placed priority on the driver of the car who had missing fingers. I then recalled that in section two of the medic training, I learned about controlled bleeding. I noticed that the wounded man had severe bleeding that he could not control. I used a towel as a dressing and asked the man to hold the towel on his wound and to raise his hand above his head to lessen the blood flow which allowed me to evaluate his other injuries which included a cut on his head," said Galvanek.

Galvanek's Story:

On November 23, 2007, Galvanek was driving West-bound on I-40 in North Carolina with his family. About 25 miles south of Raleigh he witnessed an SUV on the east-bound lanes lose control of the vehicle and flip about five times. While his wife called 911, he stopped his vehicle and ran across the highway to the scene of the accident.

Assuming the role of first responder, he quickly assessed the situation and found two victims in the smoking vehicle. Needing to extract them quickly, he helped the passenger out of the truck and noticed he had minor cuts and injuries. He told the man to stay clear of the smoking car and quickly went to the driver's side where he located a wounded man. He pulled the driver to safety on the side of the road.

Galvanek immediately noticed the man had lost two fingers in the accident and was bleeding profusely. The victim had also suffered head trauma. Galvanek located a towel, put pressure on the man's hand, and instructed him to sit down and elevate his hand above his head while pressing the towel against his lost fingers. Galvanek then attended to his head cut and determined that injury was not as serious as his hand.

Roughly five minutes later, an Army Soldier in plain clothing arrived on the scene of the accident and informed Galvanek that he was medically trained and could take over until the paramedics arrived. He looked over the injured men and told Galvanek that he had done a great job. Once the Soldier assured Galvanek that the two men were in stable condition and there was nothing more he could do to assist until the paramedics arrived, Galvanek left the scene and continued on his journey.

I played this game a lot years ago, and have recently gotten back into it. I have quite a lot of medical knowledge already just out of personal interest, but I remember the medic training shown in AA is quite expansive, especially for a game. It's good to see that someone can actually transfer knowledge from a game into a real-life situation like that.

YouTube interview with Paxton Galvanek here.

[pistonj92]

That is amazing. Wow I hope MVP could help us save a life later on.

[MarkB]

Somehow, I doubt it. Would be nice though!

[RaptorQuiz]

That's amazing. Love(d) that game (AA). I remember when the medical training was introduced, and I thought that it was quite detailed and might be valuable some day.

Very interesting story.

[SESbb30]

thats awesome

[sportnut1486]

Its good to hear something good about video games and not how they cause violence.....

[abc006]

Perhaps that's a very good aspect, but I still find it disgusting that the army thinks they can simplify war and the killing of actual lives into a video game.

[RaptorQuiz]

Perhaps that's a very good aspect, but I still find it disgusting that the army thinks they can simplify war and the killing of actual lives into a video game.

:shock:

You've got to be kidding me. abc is worried that the Army has released a video game that might show violence.

The game actually does as decent of a job as one can expect a game to do at showing that there is a lot more to being in the armed forces than the parts they show in the movies and on TV.

As medically-retired former Army, and a former big-time lover of the AA game, I can say, you seem to have completely missed the point.

[Kccitystar]

That's an awesome story. At least it wasn't on Faux (Fox) News...they spin everything completely differently.

It would be hilarious this coming season if you see the following headline, "Hughes throws no-hitter, credits MLB video game for success"

[Strike3GoBraves]

As a volunteer firefighter/EMT, I actually consider this bad news rather than good. Contrary to popular opinion, we do not live in a Good Samaritan society. Rather, we live in a litigious society and the guy could actually have been sued for his actions. Because he is not a certified health care provider, he could've gotten sued to the max if something went wrong and it turned out he was only going off something he learned in a computer game.

What I hope this story does not do (and this is where the bad news portion comes in) is motivate people to do something just because they saw it done in the media. Nothing is truly what it seems and this is why training is so important.

Its very fortunate that this story had a good ending, but it is definitely an example of what not to do. While there are Good Samaritan laws, most of them protect people who are actually trained in at least First Aid. From what this story says, he had no medical training whatsoever.

[KillerBs]

Perhaps that's a very good aspect, but I still find it disgusting that the army thinks they can simplify war and the killing of actual lives into a video game.

They're just doing what everyone else is doing. It's not like they're the only ones who are doing it. Besides, it's just a game, and it's nothing like actual war. I think you're getting a little too worked up.

Raptor, you were in the army?

[lautrec]

That's an awesome story. At least it wasn't on Faux (Fox) News...they spin everything completely differently.

It would be hilarious this coming season if you see the following headline, "Hughes throws no-hitter, credits MLB video game for success"

Yeah, the only thing worse than Fox would have been Communist/Clinton "News" Network, or CNN. Or, ABC (A Bunch of Commies), or NBC (National Bull***t Channel), or CBS (Complete Bull S**t), or the grandaddy of them all, the MSNBC, or Maybe Some Nutjobs Believe this Crap.

Our national media......disgusting.

[RaptorQuiz]

Raptor, you were in the army?

Unfortunately briefly (due to injury w/ over 12-month rehab time), but yes.

[abc006]

:shock:

You've got to be kidding me. abc is worried that the Army has released a video game that might show violence.

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying, the army is trying to make training for the killing of human lives simplified into a game. Killing is not a game. It's like I see web ads for the army, where there's a little flash game in the ad, and you have to do something army-like, and then you click on it, and it sends you to the website, etc.. I'm saying that the army is advertising war as a video game.

They're just doing what everyone else is doing. It's not like they're the only ones who are doing it.

Oh, OK, never mind, they're not the only ones doing it! That makes it all better! That must mean it's actually a very wise thing to do because it's so popular!

Besides, it's just a game, and it's nothing like actual war.

Yes, I know it's not war. For example, war is real, the game isn't. I know that. But do all of the soldiers understand that when they go out they're killing real, living, breathing people and not figments of a video game?

[lautrec]

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying, the army is trying to make training for the killing of human lives simplified into a game. Killing is not a game. It's like I see web ads for the army, where there's a little flash game in the ad, and you have to do something army-like, and then you click on it, and it sends you to the website, etc.. I'm saying that the army is advertising war as a video game.

Oh, OK, never mind, they're not the only ones doing it! That makes it all better! That must mean it's actually a very wise thing to do because it's so popular!

Yes, I know it's not war. For example, war is real, the game isn't. I know that. But do all of the soldiers understand that when they go out they're killing real, living, breathing people and not figments of a video game?

Is this a serious observation? Do all soldiers understand that when they go out they're killing real, living, breathing people and not figments of a video game? Look, you may be totally anti-American, totally anti-war, totally bought into the left-wing rhetoric, but come on, you can't possibly expect to present THIS as a reasonable arguement. Since it's obvious you have not had any military experience, let me "enlighten" you, as I have. The Army/military has a mission. It relies FULLY upon clear thought and decision making of its soldiers. They gain NOTHING by trying to "trick" their clients into believing that they are not engaged in reality. The Army/military, believe it or not, WANTS their soldiers to STAY alive, to be more successful in accomplishing their mission. I know that's a lot of though food to digest all at once, but yeah, logic sometimes is hard to swallow. We were trained from day one, the enemy is trying to KILL YOU. Do NOT let this happen. We (the military) are going to show you how to NOT let this happen to you - and why, you ask? Because the Army spends a lot of money training us to stay alive and COMPLETE the mission. They want us alive. They DON'T mislead about the dangers out there, and the job you must do as a soldier. My thinking is you are apparently stuck in the video game loop, and cannot comprehend reality. What a ridiculous statement.

[RaptorQuiz]

lautrec - thank you for saying something true and intelligent, I was starting to get dizzy, reading a few of the posts in this thread.

ABC - I respect you as a "person" as well as I can, possibly, since I've never met you in real life, and the only way I know you is through this website.

But, that being said, the posts you've made in THIS thread sound absoultely rediculous.

First of all: War needs no advertising. This is just a foolish thing to say, and it's trying to spin the purpose of the Army and other armed forces in a direction that is totally ludicrous. War, as they say, "sells itself." It's going to happen. This is simply an unfortunate truth. Wether you think that the U.S. Governement started this war, or that war, or we responded to and joined this war, or that war... it doesn't matter. Whatever the case may be: Once the United States becomes involved in a war (and I am using the term "war" liberally here)... it becomes the duty of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force to respond to the call, and take up whatever fight they are so ordered to by their commander-in-chief.

The only "advertising" being done by the armed forces, with all the commercials, appearances at "career days," and yes, even the AA video game is for one purpose: To present, in a way that the current generation can see and understand, the following things:

(1) The mission and the purpose of the United States military

(2) The actual physical and mental requirements and costs of involving yourself in that military

(3) The potential benefits to be gained by serving in the military

(4) And, specifically the AA game, shows a semi-realistic but highly simplified version of basic training, rifle training, medical training, simulated training-combat, and then "real" combat, facing a live enemy in hostile territory.

This is not advertising. Obviously - in fact, the AA game is probably not very effective AT ALL as a recruiting tool. If anything, it is a public relations tool, devised to give SOME kind of picture of what soldiers go through during their training and everyday life... this is a picture that is largely unavailable to the general public, spawning mistrust and confusion as to what Army (etc) life is really like.

If you're just attacking the genere of first-person shooters, saying that ALL of those games promote violence, etc - then THAT is your right, to have that opinion. However, trying to say the AA game is trying to GLORIFY the act of waging war and trying to translate it into a real-life desire to join the military to then go and "kill me some towel-heads"... sir - if you HONESTLY believe that mental jump is possible - then, HOPEFULLY, you would be one of the recruits never to make it through the training process and the "mental screenings" involved.

Those types of people aren't welcome in today's military. Are there still the "crazies" in the military? Of course, just like you can find mal-adjusted weirdos in EVERY career. There was a long time when the military, and specifically the Army, was a landing spot for trouble makers and burnouts that had nothing left to do with their lives. This was a dark time for the Army, and many millions of dollars and man-hours were put in to CHANGING the core of the military, and redefining it as an organization: Creating a MUCH higher standard for its soldiers to live up to. The Army is now built around the seven core values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.

Nowhere in those seven core values do you see "Forget what it means to defend your country, and just start having fun killing people."

Are you aware that only a tiny fraction of the members of the U.S. military will ever actually directly fire a shot in anger at a living, breathing, human being? For every infantryman on the "front line," there are literally thousands of soliders supporting him. (I say "him," because to date, the U.S. Army still does not post women into active combat roles).

Finally, to try to wrap up my post which is rapidly becoming far too long, I will respond to the same "point" abc tried to make that angered laurtec as well:

Yes, I know it's not war. For example, war is real, the game isn't. I know that. But do all of the soldiers understand that when they go out they're killing real, living, breathing people and not figments of a video game?

The training I received from the U.S. Army ended just days before my graduation from basic training. I suffered a severe knee injury, that did not allow me to complete my training, and the length of the resulting rehabilitation time, coupled with the fact that I graduated from college during the following 12 months, leaves me in a somewhat nebulous state with the U.S. Army. At first, I was told I was simply medically discharged (and thus hold no rank). However, I occasionally receive mailings and other paperwork that lists me as medically retired, holding the rank of SPC E-4 RET (Specialist, Retired).

Anyway - I tell you that bit of backstory so that I can say that, YES my training and experience is highly abreviated when compared to those individuals that actually went on from basic training (where I stopped) and then to advanced individual training, and then into service (in whatever field they chose) as active, reserve, or national guard. I am admitting to my limited experience...

But, I am saying that even during my short 10-weeks in the U.S. Army (9 and a half, really), I experienced and received training that TOTALLY contradicts the point you were trying to make.

The U.S. Army spends a boatload of money and spends every waking (and even some non-waking) moment of a soldier's basic training performing several tasks:

1. Breaking down the recruits' sense of "individual functionality," meaning NOT that they try to break down your sense of self, but reinforce the concept of you, as an individual (Army of One, if you will) functioning as a part of the larger whole: Your Unit, Your Branch, Your Military, Your Country.

2. Teaching that it will be up to you, should you ever face combat, to make wise and intelligent decions to (1) keep yourself alive and (2) follow all given orders to accomplish your mission while (3) protecting your own and the lives of your fellow soldiers.

3. Give you the tools, skills, and training neccesary to accomplish these goals while also enforcing the importance of retaining your ability to discern right from wrong. A great deal of my own training centered around the possibility of combat in an urban setting, and the importance of being able to quickly identify combatants versus non-combatants. Also, time was spent learning to both issue and follow orders, while being able to identify orders that may be illegal.

My training may have been slightly different than the usual cookie-cutter Basic training, because (A) mine was an accellerated course, and ( I was scheduled to immediately attend OCS (Officer Candidate School) in Georgia after Basic, thus I was given a little more (positive) attention from officers and NCO's and a little more (negative) attention from the other recruits, who were continuing on as Enlisted men.

Anyway, all of this rambling boils down to the point that I have experienced, even in my limited time, the Army first hand, and know the time and energy spent trying to create a citizen-soldier that will be responsible and intelligent, and be a fixture in a uniform that the entire nation can be proud of. NOT the worthless pukes that often get the air-time on television for commiting inhumanity to man. While the problem of degenerates doing degenerate things while in the military may be declining, thanks to the changes made in the military's makeup, it will never totally go away. That is a fault of human nature.

As for the issue at hand: The Army isn't advertising or glorifying war with its video game, or any of its recruiting tools. It's doing the same thing it's always done: Trying to find the most effective ways to educate those that are interested in potentially joining up about Army life.

There is nothing glorious about war or killing. This is a value I hold both personally and one that was instilled upon me by my U.S. Army training. However, if a fight is brought to us, the U.S. Army (and all of the other branches) are trained to be prepared to respond with maximum efficiency and lethality when defending the United States Constitution and all the the values contained therein.

[Strike3GoBraves]

America's Army is a good game, but it is definitely a propaganda piece. I'm honestly a little ashamed that it would have come to this, where a game is used to attempt to recruit young men to join the military because they think its all action, adventure, and excitement. For one, America's Army should've been violent. VERY violent. I think any "realistic" game about the military should depict just how terrifying the weapons we utilize are.

Enjoy it, but understand its only trying to give you a feel of all the great things you could experience in the military. As a Navy man myself, I struggle with the fact that I may end up doing some awful things in the future.

[abc006]

Is this a serious observation? Do all soldiers understand that when they go out they're killing real, living, breathing people and not figments of a video game? Look, you may be totally anti-American, totally anti-war, totally bought into the left-wing rhetoric, but come on, you can't possibly expect to present THIS as a reasonable arguement.

OK, you need to get something straight: I love America. To say that because I'm against an Army video game and anti-war that I'm anti-American is insensitive, ignorant, and insulting. I was born and raised in America, as have my parents. One of my grandmothers was born in Poland but her family immigrated to the US to escape from the pogroms when she was a baby. The rest of my grandparents had parents born in Eastern Europe but were born in the US after their parents immigrated. America had given my family the freedom and opportunity unavailable in pretty much every other country in the world, as it has to millions of other families in addition. I find it disgusting that you think that because I am against one political party's views that I am against the country. Why do you think myself and millions of others care about issues we disagree with so much? Because we care about the country and we want to change it for the better. That is the fundamental thing about Democracy, that the people work together to change something they are not happy about because they want to help their country. By saying that all the citizens of a country must all agree with the same stance or they do not support their country is vandalizing the house that the whole of democracy is built upon.

[KillerBs]

I don't think he was actually calling you anti-American, anti-war, and bought into left-wing rhetoric. I think he was saying that even if you are all of those things, you can't present what you said as a reasonable argument. That may not be how he meant it, but that's how I read it.

[RaptorQuiz]

I don't think he was actually calling you anti-American, anti-war, and bought into left-wing rhetoric. I think he was saying that even if you are all of those things, you can't present what you said as a reasonable argument. That may not be how he meant it, but that's how I read it.

That's how it read to me too.

[fred13]

OK, you need to get something straight: I love America. To say that because I'm against an Army video game and anti-war that I'm anti-American is insensitive, ignorant, and insulting. I was born and raised in America, as have my parents. One of my grandmothers was born in Poland but her family immigrated to the US to escape from the pogroms when she was a baby. The rest of my grandparents had parents born in Eastern Europe but were born in the US after their parents immigrated. America had given my family the freedom and opportunity unavailable in pretty much every other country in the world, as it has to millions of other families in addition. I find it disgusting that you think that because I am against one political party's views that I am against the country. Why do you think myself and millions of others care about issues we disagree with so much? Because we care about the country and we want to change it for the better. That is the fundamental thing about Democracy, that the people work together to change something they are not happy about because they want to help their country. By saying that all the citizens of a country must all agree with the same stance or they do not support their country is vandalizing the house that the whole of democracy is built upon.

..so... you decided to just miss the entire point of both Lautrec and RQ's posts by focusing on this one thing, that truly, had nothing to do with anything?

[lautrec]

OK, you need to get something straight: I love America. To say that because I'm against an Army video game and anti-war that I'm anti-American is insensitive, ignorant, and insulting. I was born and raised in America, as have my parents. One of my grandmothers was born in Poland but her family immigrated to the US to escape from the pogroms when she was a baby. The rest of my grandparents had parents born in Eastern Europe but were born in the US after their parents immigrated. America had given my family the freedom and opportunity unavailable in pretty much every other country in the world, as it has to millions of other families in addition. I find it disgusting that you think that because I am against one political party's views that I am against the country. Why do you think myself and millions of others care about issues we disagree with so much? Because we care about the country and we want to change it for the better. That is the fundamental thing about Democracy, that the people work together to change something they are not happy about because they want to help their country. By saying that all the citizens of a country must all agree with the same stance or they do not support their country is vandalizing the house that the whole of democracy is built upon.

OK, this is AGAIN the poorly thought-out quote I would expect to get from you. You didn't read my post, you ASSUMED, as you have obviously done with the whole issue of the Army/Military is. Did you see the word "may" in my sentence? No, you jumped to conclusions, because rational thought does not enter your mind. Only demagaugary, rhetoric and pre-disposed opinions. Do yourself a favor- if you EVER want to have respect or have others consider anything you say as valid, DON'T immediately resort to underhand, non-intelligent flaming. READ what is posted, then respond accordingly. If you go off on unitelligible rampages, people see you for what you are.

[lautrec]

Fred, Raptor, KillerBs

I see that you got the gist of what I was saying. I am not calling out specific individuals, but merely pointing out that you may have the strong opinions AGAINST the military (or any other thing) - but you still need to deal with truth and rational thought processes.

EXAMPLE (this is for abc) - I, Lautrec, am not overly fond of Hillary Clinton. I have many opinions of her, and what I believe her agenda to be. However, if I were to make a broad statement that I believe she would like to take all my money and give it to undeserving welfare recipients, it would ONLY be my opinion, AND it would inflame her supporters, who don't see it in that light. Therefore, it is incumbent of me to make my argument, supported by facts. I could start by saying that Hillary has been quoted as saying “We’re saying that for American to get back on track, we’re going to cut [the Bush tax cuts] short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.†—Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco - Which, while it's true, and makes an argument for me, it probably won't make a difference on whether you vote for her or not. It DOES serve to show ONE small reason why I don't care for her as a politician. It is an exercise in debate, NOT inflammatory rhetoric. Let's get clear on that. Anyway, for all you Hillary supporters, PLEASE don't jump to conclusions to this without understanding the context here. Thanks.

abc, you probably are a great kid and all, who knows? But seriously, you need to examine the content of your posts before just going off half-cocked. It takes away from clear, concise debate, and only serves to muddy the water, eliminating real action changing discussion.

[abc006]

OK, this is AGAIN the poorly thought-out quote I would expect to get from you. You didn't read my post, you ASSUMED, as you have obviously done with the whole issue of the Army/Military is. Did you see the word "may" in my sentence? No, you jumped to conclusions, because rational thought does not enter your mind. Only demagaugary, rhetoric and pre-disposed opinions. Do yourself a favor- if you EVER want to have respect or have others consider anything you say as valid, DON'T immediately resort to underhand, non-intelligent flaming. READ what is posted, then respond accordingly. If you go off on unitelligible rampages, people see you for what you are.

A) Unintelligent flaming? Irrational thought? Flaming would be more along the lines of "**** you, you ****!" followed by many more similar sentences of that nature abundant in four letter words. I'm not that stupid, I know like most people that that's obviously not going to get you any respect or will do anything to prove your point. I wouldn't want to do that anyway. That's why I responded with points of substance to back up my argument. How is:

That is the fundamental thing about Democracy, that the people work together to change something they are not happy about because they want to help their country. By saying that all the citizens of a country must all agree with the same stance or they do not support their country is vandalizing the house that the whole of democracy is built upon.

unintelligent and flaming? Enlighten me here.

You're missing the point. Even saying that I may be Anti-American is insulting, since you're reaching the conclusion that that's even a possibility from my expressed opinions. You even put "bought into this left-wing rhetoric" in the same breath, like that's a near synonym for Anti-American. In addition, you put anti-war in along with the other two apparent negatives in your opinion, like that's just as bad as the other two mentioned. As a matter of fact, I am anti-war and a pacifist. It's going to be amusing if you think that that's as bad as being anti-American. I think we should all choose our words and phrasing much better in general for the future.

[RaysFTW]

I thought that the rescuer used some pretty technical tactics and I mean the training is very in-depth (heard from my friend), so he could be like half-way trained. I thought the rescuer did well though, saving lives.