‘Coroner condemns paramedics who refused to save drowning man in ditch ‘for health and safety reasons‘. This is the heading of an article appearing in the UK Mail Online from 18 July.
It appears that the paramedics refused to enter water to try and rescue the injured man, with the result that he drowned. The Coroner is reported as saying ‘I was brought up in a country where men risked their own lives to save the lives of others. That was a period in our history which has almost ceased. I do praise the actions of Pc Day, who dived in, but by that stage it was too late.’
We can and do make hero’s of emergency responders who risk their lives to save others, but there does have to be some point where the risk is too great and trying to save the life of one does not warrant risking the lives of others. We cannot know from this distance, what the ‘right’ decision was but it is heartening to note that the ambulance authority agrees that the paramedics made the right decision. There also appears to be some confusion that the first emergency service on the scene is there to do all the work required, which simply cannot be the case. The paramedics we can assume, were trained to deliver advanced life support to those that need it, not to rescue people from a ditch ‘5ft, with knee-deep mud at the bottom’, any more than a fire brigade is there to rescue someone from a cliff when there is a cliff rescue unit to be called (see ‘Legal confusion leads to unnecessary death’) or that the police at a fire are there to extinguish the fire (see Eburn, M.,‘Emergency services and health and safety’ (2012) 8(1) Crisis Response 10-13).
It does not appear that the Coroner’s report is available online so I can’t comment on the precise facts or the Coroner’s finding. The law does not however, require that the government save everyone that can be saved. It appears this man died because his friend was two times over the legal blood alcohol limit and drove the car off the road.
Michael Eburn
26 July 2013
Australian Emergency Law 
A lot of the general comments from the news blogs have been unfortunately calling the paramedics cowards which is quite sad to see. The news article listed appears to be written in an inflammatory manner probably aiding in the comments.
I’m not sure of the details of the case, but I was always taught if i believe it is too dangerous, I won’t proceed, as my partner and/or I are no use to anyone dead. Looking for danger is the basics of pre-hospital care in most ambulance service protocols and civilian first aid.
So if the paramedics thought that it was dangerous, and it appears they did – they made the right choice in my opinion.
As you have suggested, the cause of death appears to be his friend driving over the limit – hopefully that is made clear in the coroners report unlike the media report, instead of blaming the paramedics for not assisting.
The depth of the water in the ditch could have been gauged by the two men already standing in the water, or the amount of the Land Rover protruding from the water.
The paramedic crew would not enter the water (and I’m not saying they should), but PC Daly showed no hesitation. Wouldn’t PC Daly be subject to the same OHS legislation? How was his risk assessment so vastly different to that carried out by the paramedics?
Mr Rose, the coroner, asserts that alcohol was not the primary cause of the incident. I suggest that with a BAC of nearly 0.16%, that alcohol was a major contributing factor to the crash. In NSW (Australia) 0.15% constitutes high-range drink driving.
South Western Ambulance Trust insist the crew had to stay dry to provide ‘advanced life support’ such as defibrillation, which could have proved fatal for everyone at the scene if carried out too close to the water. This is true if defibrillation was carried out on the upturned vehicle in the ditch. But what ‘advanced life support’ can be administered with the casualty on the side of the car in the ditch, and the paramedics up on the roadway.
However, it is possible that Mr. Thornton’s traumatic head injury was such that he could not have been resuscitated, and drowning was secondary to that.
The driver of the vehicle Mr Braddick was convicted of drink-driving and banned from the road for three years. This seems to lenient in the extreme. In other jurisdictions this offence would have attracted a custodial sentence. Again in NSW, aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
PC Daly would we can assume be subject to the same legislation but it just goes to show that OHS legislation does not mandate behaviour, it requires an assessment of the risk and what if anything can be done to mitigate the risk. PC Daly may have simply come to a different conclusion as to the risk; or his employer may have so if the paramedics had been instructed not to do that sort of task that puts them in a different position; or they may have seen the task they were there to perform differently, the paramedics were there to provide car to the injured, not to effect a rescue; the PC may have seen his job as something different and what one is there to do affects the risk assessment. The real problem is that the way OHS is translated through training and edicts, like all Chinese whispers, means the message of what is required when delivered to the front line troops is quite different to what the law actually requires.
The UK HSE (Health and Safety Executive) have tried to explain how the police and fire and rescue services should approach OHS obligations (see ‘Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Police Service: An explanatory note‘ (http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/police/explanatory-note.pdf) and ‘Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Fire and Rescue Service‘ (http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/fire/duties.pdf); see also and the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service guide – ‘Corporate Manslaughter: Partial exemptions‘ (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#as15)).
Michael Eburn
31 July 2013.
Depth of water is not the only issue of concern. The combination of soft mud, swift water, entanglements, cold and a lack of visibility make the siduation potentially dangerous. Most of the public who refer to this rind as a “puddle” simply do not understand the inherent dangers of swift water rescue. Which incidentally is the reason why the police officer jumped in, when the paramedics did not.
When ESO’s work in the field, they work with limited information. Even if it were found that the danger was minimal that would still not constitute neglegence. We must rely on the collective wisdom of TRAINED peers. Who oddly enough, have supported the decision which the paramedics made.
The absolute first priority of any ESO is the protection of their crew. The second priority is themselves. Their third priority is the general public. So the rescue of a victim is a fourth priority, and a poor one at that.