EMT suspended

This story really made me shake my head and wonder. What should this young man have done?

source

Basically what happened is this. A 20 year old volunteer EMT/firefighter 'broke the rules' because an ambulance driver must be 21 years old. He made multiple calls for an ambulance but, none were available. He got in the ambulance and drove the 4-5 miles to the home of a 4 year old and took him and his mother to the hospital. Let me repeat. He tried for 15 minutes to find another ambulance. He drives a fire truck and ambulance for another ambulance service. BUT a 7 member panel voted 4-3 to suspend him for breaking the rules. At what point do 'following the rules' outweigh the life of a 4 year old?

That is basically a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" scenario. But I might have done as what that boy has done. Saving lives is a lot better option that worrying over being fired for violating the rule.

reply to post by Khaleesi


Common sense and saving a life is out weighed by those who want to use their power to control others.

Link doesn't work for me.

policy, protocol and procedure be damned .... 'd like to think that I'd of done the same ... despite and no matter later ramifications.

good job young man.

common sense would be to line up the 4 voters who had him suspended and give them a public flogging

reply to post by Bedlam


Try this one.

www.recordonline.com.../20131227/NEWS/312270334&cid=mostclicked

or this one.

www.theblaze.com...

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


to add:

having read the full story.... he was 'offered a 60-day suspension' But CHOSE to resign instead..... of his own volition.

Still think he's standing by his actions, and can't really see any reason to dispute, question or be critical of the same.

he did what He thought best .... given the circumstances.


need more like 'im.

Sort of nuts. It's not like there was a better option he could pursue. One year? BS.

If that's how it happened, then I am quite sure a more honorable and caring department/company/city/county will pick him up right away.

He helped a child.


15 minutes?! Sounds like some things need to be re-done there. Maybe they need more funding or staffing.

Why didn't the EMT (on scene) with the SUV (I haven't seen that yet) just throw the kid in the back and drive the 2 minutes instead of wasting all that time? Even if the ambulance had some needed equipment it would have been faster to just drive him to the hospital. Could have had him there before the ambulance arrived at the scene. I have pretty much 0 knowledge of EMT stuff so won't be surprised if someone can offer up a good explanation. Guy not allowed to transport in his SUV? I'm sure a neighbor would happily haul ass to get the kid to the hospital.

I think this is going to be one of those knee jerk reaction stories. It sounds like the young guy has a history of this type of behavior, a history that we aren't privy to. Yes, I would have probably done the same thing if it was necessary. I don't see how it was necessary though. If there was no other way to safely transport, I get it. To me it almost sounds like an excuse to take the ambulance.

It's weird to me that it wasn't an insurance issue. That's what I would have thought. I would have been more OK with the suspension too. Let people do that without punishment and the insurance company is going to be PISSED.

I also think it's a little weird he resigned. Being temporarily suspended is a slap on the wrist, and that he wasn't outright fired should quell some people's knee jerk anger a bit (I hope).

Can't say if I agree or not with the action taken by any of the parties involved without more info.

Domo1
Why didn't the EMT (on scene) with the SUV (I haven't seen that yet) just throw the kid in the back and drive the 2 minutes instead of wasting all that time? Even if the ambulance had some needed equipment it would have been faster to just drive him to the hospital. Could have had him there before the ambulance arrived at the scene. I have pretty much 0 knowledge of EMT stuff so won't be surprised if someone can offer up a good explanation. Guy not allowed to transport in his SUV? I'm sure a neighbor would happily haul ass to get the kid to the hospital.

I can only give you my opinion on that based on my experience working in the medical field. While I was in x-ray school, we were told NEVER EVER transport a patient in our personal vehicle, for insurance reasons. The EMT on scene was alone and a volunteer, unless I misread. Being a volunteer, the SUV was likely his personal vehicle. But that is an assumption on my part. Also, being the lone EMT on scene, it would be unwise to transport the patient even if the mother went along. He/she would be considered responsible for the child's care and if something happened en route he/she can not drive and treat the patient. Unless the parent has medical training they could potentially do the ABSOLUTE WRONG action in an attempt to help and the driver would still be held accountable.

I think this is going to be one of those knee jerk reaction stories. It sounds like the young guy has a history of this type of behavior, a history that we aren't privy to. Yes, I would have probably done the same thing if it was necessary. I don't see how it was necessary though. If there was no other way to safely transport, I get it. To me it almost sounds like an excuse to take the ambulance.

It's weird to me that it wasn't an insurance issue. That's what I would have thought. I would have been more OK with the suspension too. Let people do that without punishment and the insurance company is going to be PISSED.

I also think it's a little weird he resigned. Being temporarily suspended is a slap on the wrist, and that he wasn't outright fired should quell some people's knee jerk anger a bit (I hope).

Can't say if I agree or not with the action taken by any of the parties involved without more info.

Yeah 'history of this type of behavior' is a great excuse. I've seen that excuse used in the medical field before. Funny thing about that, when you are reprimanded there is a paper trail. I've seen supervisors retroactively file reprimands when it suited their purposes. Not saying you are wrong but it is a convenient excuse. "He has a history but we won't tell you what it is." Yeah uh huh. Heard that one before.

My personal opinion. It IS all about insurance. They just don't want to admit it. That's just my opinion.

Well, let's hope there isn't another war. By the time we've carried out our risk assessments, contacted our insurance companies, held enquiries and polished our halos, the other side will be celebrating victory on the lawns of the White House and Buckingham Palace.

reply to post by Khaleesi


I didn't even consider the initial EMT was using his personal vehicle. What you said makes a lot of sense. I've always lived in fairly large cities and have never seen an EMT show up in anything but an ambulance (or fire truck). We have the Fire Dept. SUVs but I always thought they were watch commanders or investigators or something. It would make sense if they're not allowed to transport in an SUV personal vehicle or not.

I don't doubt that sometimes a paper trail can magically appear. Another good point. Considering we were not informed of the previous transgressions, a nice tidy excuse indeed.

I think it's about insurance too. My bet is that it's department policy to not allow those under 21 to drive, and that stems from insurance constraints, but they are able to make a public statement with a little word trickery and say it was the violation of department policy. I just figure without all the facts there's no point in being outraged at anyone. I think I enjoy taking the unpopular argument sometimes just for the sake of having an argument. I've also been guilty of taking articles with scant information at face value and looking foolish.

Another 'victory' for the insurance industry and their 'rulez'.

Its not like he was not qualified to drive emergency vehicles.

He was also a part time police officer.

This is a case where training should have over ruled age limits.

reply to post by Khaleesi

I am currently an EMT. It comes down to the insurance liability for the company, nothing else.

You would not believe the things we aren't allowed to do. Stupid stuff. I cant personally give someone a cold pack or bandaid that's not logged in on the call sheet.

He wasn't 21 as most insurance companies require for Police, Fire, Medical, and ER vehicles coverage.

Still, he did the right thing and shouldn't be punished because of it.

Domo1
reply to post by Khaleesi

 

I didn't even consider the initial EMT was using his personal vehicle. What you said makes a lot of sense. I've always lived in fairly large cities and have never seen an EMT show up in anything but an ambulance (or fire truck). We have the Fire Dept. SUVs but I always thought they were watch commanders or investigators or something. It would make sense if they're not allowed to transport in an SUV personal vehicle or not.

I don't doubt that sometimes a paper trail can magically appear. Another good point. Considering we were not informed of the previous transgressions, a nice tidy excuse indeed.

I think it's about insurance too. My bet is that it's department policy to not allow those under 21 to drive, and that stems from insurance constraints, but they are able to make a public statement with a little word trickery and say it was the violation of department policy. I just figure without all the facts there's no point in being outraged at anyone. I think I enjoy taking the unpopular argument sometimes just for the sake of having an argument. I've also been guilty of taking articles with scant information at face value and looking foolish.

Actually, I appreciated the questions you posed. In today's litigious society there were no 'correct answers' to this situation. Have I ever transported someone in my personal vehicle? YES! Each situation is different but sometimes a little common sense goes a long way. This situation involved a child having seizures so, no I would not have transported in my vehicle as a lone EMT. Would I have driven the ambulance, against regulations? Yes I would have. You would be surprised at how instinct kicks in during emergencies. I never think about 'rules' in those moments, just about the patient and how to best help them.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by Khaleesi

 

I am currently an EMT. It comes down to the insurance liability for the company, nothing else.

You would not believe the things we aren't allowed to do. Stupid stuff. I cant personally give someone a cold pack or bandaid that's not logged in on the call sheet.

He wasn't 21 as most insurance companies require for Police, Fire, Medical, and ER vehicles coverage.

Still, he did the right thing and shouldn't be punished because of it.

I worked in the medical field long enough to know "this isn't about insurance" was pure BS but thank you for confirming it. Yes, I would believe the things you aren't allowed to do! Been there and I really feel for you. Be safe and thank you for the wonderful job you do.

Ummm folks, he was a volunteer.
I'm sure their are other organizations that would take such an assertive young man.
No harm if a company just does not want free workers.
Screw them and their board, this young man should make sure everyone knows the company name that puts their protocols above human life.