As a doc I'd like to offer my perspectives and thoughts. Flying about 500,000 miles I've been involved in 5 in flight medical emergencies, none of which required a diversion. Medlink is a very valuable consultation service--another medical mind can be helpful when the diagnosis is unclear. I think it may also be protective of the health care provider if a decision to not divert is made, a poor outcome (or not) resulted, and the Medlink doc was involved in the decision making process. (US legal system <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> ). .. .As far as to where to divert, getting down ASAP may well not be in the best interest of the patient. If I was confident that a passenger was having a myocardial infarcation, and I was flying over North Dakota, it would be in the patient's best interest to fly an extra 20-30 minutes so they could be taken to a hospital upon landing that could provide definitive therapy (e.g,. thrombolysis or angioplasty/stenting) rather than to a small community hospital that would just end up transferring him, at the cost of several hours and more dead heart muscle. Obviously, the advantages (and risks) for continuing on needs to be communicated to all involved.. .. .I must say that in the medical emergencies I've been involved in the pursars have all been exceptional in the handling of the situation. (Some variation among regular FA's.) More so than I would expect from individuals who don't interact with sick people daily in a chaotic environment. A criticism I have is that the selection of drugs and dressing in the aid kits I've used tend to be 10 to 20 years behind the times. However, the inclusion of AED's on many planes is very helpful--in addition to defibrillation the monitor function is extremely helpful.. . . . <small>[ 29 March 2002, 05:05: Message edited by: SEA&ski ]</small>