Scott presents the argument that whilst Emergency Physicians are amazing, as it stands, Emergency Medicine is failing. Scott presents the system as it should be. This involves stabilising the critically ill before admission to the ICU, seeing sick patients in appropriate time and seeing the less sick patients as you can. The issue as it stands, is when this system breaks down. He talks about the ‘boxes’ which now includes the ‘not sick at all’ patient. This leads to Emergency Physician’s not doing what they are trained to do. Scott discusses the issues with the outcome measurements of Emergency Departments. Hospitals measure patient satisfaction and wait times. Moreover, Scott argues that a trip to the ED should be the worst day in a patient’s life and measuring their satisfaction is misleading. A good medical outcome should be the indication of success. Scott also discusses the issue of Emergency Physicians not dealing with emergencies for most of their practice. This, in Scott’s eyes, leads to cognitive dissonance, where ED doctors are not doing what they are trained to do. Simon argues that Emergency Medicine is not a failed paradigm. Emergency Physicians are trained to help people, when people feel that they need to be treated. He claims that doctors in this speciality want to treat a wide variety of people across a wide spectrum of disease. Evidently, Simon discusses a ‘revolution’ in Emergency Medicine. An increasing number of people are attending Emergency Departments across the world. The generalist approach of Emergency Medicine is critical in triaging, treating, and helping these people in their moment of need. The skills, breadth of knowledge and wisdom and ability to work across a range of specialties and in uncertainty is what makes Emergency Medicine and the physicians who work in it special. Join in the debate as Scott and Simon argue for and against the place of Emergency Medicine. Finally, for more like this head to our podcast page. #CodaPodcast