It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.