On paper it's brilliant, we have the EW(Scotland) Act 2005 which should allow prosecutions to be brought to be bear if someone doesn't pull over when you're behind them. Unfortunately, it's incredibly hard to prove out on the road. Hospital staff have an easier time of it because of the number of witnessess/CCTV. Sadly, in my experience, police are less keen to charge people on it because they're not used to the way that it applies to other organisations, differing as it does (and please don't ask me how it does!) to obstructing a police officer, etc.

Kal (law librarian this month, hopefully EMT by August!)

but they're not even prosecuting the buggers who physically attack you right in front of their noses!

It looks good. Only time will tell.

The law looks fairly clean but there's a much easier way: simply pre-emptively absolve emergency workers of any crimes committed in the persecution of their duties.

If you'd run over the idiot in the crossing (as we were all hoping you'd do), another ambulance would've had to be called for him. That ambulance would, in turn, most likely be slowed by another idiot who thought he owned the stripes, and who himself would be run over. Not all of these idiots would survive and I figure within a couple years the entire situation would resolve itself.

As soon as the public know that emergency workers truly have carte blanche to cause as well as treat injuries, you'll never again hear of an emergency worker being attacked, harrassed, accosted or otherwise interrupted while carrying out his duties.

Utopian, I know, but very workable.

EMT, License to Kill.

I can see it.

uhh... i thought we already had one of those.
oh bugger...

so what happens when the person who attacks you goes to court and his lawyer demands to know if the job was a genuine emergency? does the service have to prove it was a real emergency, hence making it an actionable offence? what happens if, as with most ambulance 999 calls, it didn't really constitute an emergency at all? or what happens if they're no longer responding but have just finished? none of these circumstances seems to be covered.

Every call to 999 is, by definition, an emergency. The uncertainty is much like the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment: until verified it both is and isn't an emergency but must be treated as one until proven to be the other because there's a human life at stake. From the time our heroes are dispatched until the time they arrive, it's an emergency and they are therefore justified in using all means necessary to arrive, including speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving on shoulders, running red lights, taking priority over road usage. We already allow this.

Anyone callous and selfish enough to impede emergency workers, -- many who risk their lives trying to save others -- deserves the full contempt of society. By putting his own convenience and whim before the health and safety of others, a person necessarily sacrifices his own welfare to the whim of others. Somewhat Hammurabic stuff, I concede, but our laws often deny the rights of those who would deny the rights of others. My idea is only a logical extension of this.

hi there, firstly, great blog.
this looks good, and at least they acknowledge us lifeboat crews as an emergency service, useually its just the coastguard.

I wonder if this will eventually extend to our response to calls, ie when we are on the way to the station.

we had a prime example the other day where a crewman on a fishing boat had colapsed and was fitting, he, while treating him with oxygen etc was displaying signs of maybe a heart attack or the starts of a stroke, if we had been delayed in responding to this call he may well have deteriorated to the stage where we cant help any more, except steam back as fast as we could to the awaiting ambulance.

aparently the amb tech said that he was displaying signs of Myocardial Infarction, which if my limited medical knowledge is correct is the posh word for heart attack???

regards

hi there, firstly, great blog.
this looks good, and at least they acknowledge us lifeboat crews as an emergency service, useually its just the coastguard.

I wonder if this will eventually extend to our response to calls, ie when we are on the way to the station.

we had a prime example the other day where a crewman on a fishing boat had colapsed and was fitting, he, while treating him with oxygen etc was displaying signs of maybe a heart attack or the starts of a stroke, if we had been delayed in responding to this call he may well have deteriorated to the stage where we cant help any more, except steam back as fast as we could to the awaiting ambulance.

aparently the amb tech said that he was displaying signs of Myocardial Infarction, which if my limited medical knowledge is correct is the posh word for heart attack???

regards