[A man] drowned in a shallow boating pond in his local park, after suffering an epileptic seizure while feeding swans. A passer-by (a woman who was in charge of a small child so did not dare enter the pond) called the emergency services. But the first firemen to show up announced that they only had Level One training, for ankle-deep water, and needed to wait for a specialist team with Level Two training for chest-deep water.Remember when "Anarchy in the UK" sounded like a threat rather than a suggestion for improvement?
Sorry Folks, Nothing We Can Do
Our friends at Samizdata continue to chronicle the disaster that is the modern state from a British perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The only charitable way I can explain this is that the water was deep, and none of the adults in this scenario know how to swim.
Valerie
I have an opinion about that.
I work for a government hospital. We frequently get sued. If you go against protocol, you are hung out to dry.
Therefore, your internal moral drive must be strong enough that you will risk not only physical harm, but financial ruin if you screw it up.
I have confidence I would do the right thing in this instance, because I have in similar situations. But I twinge, wince, and cower as I do. It's easy to do the right thing in the movies.
Level One training is required to perform a rescue in *ankle-deep* water?!?
Adolph is kicking himself for not waiting long enough...
That's what you get when you let bureaucrats make the rules. The folks doing the rescuing are just doing their job, and following their rules. Breaking the rules means trying to find another way to feed your own kids and it's just not worth it to most folks. Besides "it's not safe". They've been told so.
William sends.
(Also remember that their most adventurous blood either came to The States or was killed off in The Wars.)
Charity in this case requires the facts to be different. The water was not even waist deep, there was no current, nor (apparently) was the footing treacherous. This was bureaucratic thinking preventing what should have been a zero effort rescue. Two people, TWO were stopped by "authorities" on site from "taking the risk" to save the man. I understand (somewhat) the motivation that you'll get hung out to dry by your bureaucrat supervisors if you get sued (which is why there NEEDS to be "Good Samaritan" laws protecting such acts). But when someone decides they'll take that risk, to STOP them from doing so borders on criminal to my mind.
I never like to read about inept rescuers who just added to the mortality count by going impulsively into unreasonably dangerous situations, but this was ridiculous. There's only one proper response to bureaucratic idiocy of this sort, and that's to defy it often and in great numbers, and throw the bums out of office who perpetuate it.
Texan,
Agreed, but we need to start here. Most days at work those in healthcare, Fire/Rescue, and LE face that same choice. Violate Rule X in order to do what's right,and risk getting hung out to dry, or obey all the rules and not meet our ethical standards. It's not good, yet it Is. I will spare the hall my personal beliefs as to why (the discussion really needs a good beer anyway).
William sends.
Oh, I agree. Our fire department was called out a few years ago for a possible drowning in the bay. The sheriff's deputies categorically refused to set foot in the shallow water where she was floating. Now, it turned out she was dead as Queen Anne before anyone even got there, so it wouldn't have mattered if the deputies hadn't had official restrictions placed on them, but in any case the local volunteer firemen (I was not there) felt no such compunction. Fire us? Hey, go ahead, buddy! And while you're at it, think about how you plan on stopping us in the meantime.
There's a lot to be said for arranging things so that we're as free as possible to say "no." It's not an approach that will help many people under current circumstances. Nevertheless, civil disobedience is an honorable and indispensable response to this kind of idiocy.
Good point, T99. As your example suggests, it's also good to be as free as possible to say "Yes, I will."
Yes, that's a better way to put it!
Surely you pulled this from the Onion.
It kind of reminds me of that ridiculous house fire over there a few years back. The firefighters and police showed great bravery in the line of duty. They fought and pushed and prevented neighborhood onlookers from saving a mother and her children from burning alive.
They burned alive. Not an ounce of water was spent. But at least anarchy wasn't unleashed.
Post a Comment