Posted By Chris Black Jason I reckon that the ambulance team would probably have made a decision based upon the condition of the casualty. They couldn't know that the woman would not be disposed to sue, even she is being presumptuous in making that statement since she cant possibly know the outcome of a possible incident. If she was dropped and suffered far more severe injuries that affected her ongoing health or employment then she would be a fool not to sue and her insurers might well do it on her behalf anyway, nobody knows what they will do ahead of an incident. The passer by talks about the situation as being a farce, how farcical would it be to have an injured lay-helper I can just see the daily mail headlines "hapless ambulance crew injure good samaritan". The problem is simple, newspapers are doing anything they can to sell a story and when it comes to matters of public service or safety you simply cannot win, they will find some sort of angle for the story so just do the job the best you can. At the end of the day i would prefer to look at the outcome positively. It was probably quite expeditious to use a helicopter rather than commit another ambulance crew. An accident victim received the best care and attention that could be supplied, an ambulance crew took a decision that protected their safety and left them free to cover other (possibly more urgent) cases and a member of the public was prevented from needlessly placing him or her self in a dangerous situation to help in a non-urgent case. Or as the Mail will say "Bonker-conkers safety gurus send helicopter to treat sprained ankle"

Posted By chris duncan Difficult one!! But what next?? Firefighters refusing to enter burning buildings till theirs been a risk assesment?? I don't think so, If I was a paramedic I'd expect to be carrying people on stretcher, if I couldn't I'd be looking for another job!!

Posted By J Knight Was a mate of mine who was instrumental in introducing a minimal lift policy in the Ambulance Service he worked for. Did he understand risk? Dunno, he'd been a Major in charge of a bomb disposal unit, so perhaps not...:) If you read this month's SHP there's an article on the psycho-social and physical causes of back pain, and it seems that carrying half the weight of a person 200 yards over unknown terrain could directly contribute to injury. The consequence would be what? One or two paramedics injured, possibly taking time off work, needing (expensive) NHS treatment; total cost, dunno, but probably more than the cost of flying a helicopter. So don't worry about what the tabloids might say, they have no interest in balance or objectivity, just in sales which their owners identify with a man in the pub agenda, John

Posted By peter gotch Jason, Looking at picture at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...england/kent/4079784.stm I can see that paramedics would consider attempting to push wheeled stretcher along footpath potentially dangerous, eg if hit a pothole. 200 yards a long way to carry a casualty along narrow rough footpath. I think the paramedics came to a reasonable conclusion and that the real problem lies in non-availability of the Kent and Essex Air Ambulances, hence delay in getting one from Sussex Police. If the Kent Air Ambulance had arrived within say half an hour this story would not have made the news. Peter

Posted By peter gotch Chris I don't know when you worked in a County Fire Brigade, but like Heather, I would hope that these days fire crews do not just rush in until they have assessed the situation. Here's a cut and paste from the internet.... The central guidance on fire service operations is based on the Safe Person Concept (Home Office, 1997), which recommended that all fire service operations should be based on assessments of risk to personnel as the central factor. This has led to risk featuring prominently in operational training and fire officers becoming well versed in the language of risk. The official publication on incident command for UK fire brigades states that: 'All activities should be conducted so as to minimise the risks to operational personnel and the public. All tactical and operational deployments must be based on a risk assessment. Where a significant risk (e.g. a chemical hazard or a dangerous structure) is identified steps must be taken to manage that risk though the application of preplanned standard operating procedures’ (HM Fire Service Inspectorate, 1999 Regards, Peter

Posted By Heather Aston Rob Who exactly were you referring to here - "What the hell is this world coming to - I don't think I've ever been so ashamed of some of my fellow safety professionals ever in my life." I'm the one who's ill today and supposed to be stroppy. I also am first aid and battlefield first aid trained as well (and yes I am, before you ask!). I too would have taken the practical option - indeed having been in similar circumstances (not such a serious injury) for real I have supervised others in doing just that. My point on this story - and I think several others' too was that we can see why the crew made the decision they did - not that it's what we necessarily would have done. Unfortunately "meaning well" and "taking the moral high ground" doesn't play well in the Civil courts in this country. Society sucks doesn't it? Heather

Posted By chris duncan I'm with Rob T on this on...and just to answer the fire brigade issue I'm not saying that individual firefighters don't perform a mental risk assesment before any job, because they do. But how would you feel if it was your house burning to the ground while you waited for the Sub Officer to arrive with his risk assesment and manual handling regs?? Like Rob said if your not fit to perform then go do something else!!

Posted By jason telford i hope the paramedics tied down the stretcher and put on some safety glasses when the helicopter arrived?

Posted By Karen Todd Well, if it's good enough for Paris Hilton... (I am of course referring to when she fell off the horse in The Simple Life 2 and was whisked off in a helicopter, but then she is worth, what $300m?). Sometimes stretcher carrying can be quite difficult. My husband was in the Coastguard and they did a feature for a TV programme, involving a largish celebrity who no longer works on an early morning TV programme. 4 strapping coastguards carried the gentleman in question a short distance on a stretcher, and my husband said it was one of their most difficult tasks ever (though celebrity in question did take them all to the pub and buy them a drink afterwards). One other time my husband and I came across a neighbour who'd fallen and broken his leg. When the ambulance crew arrived they requested my husband to assist them with the lifting, even though the ambulance was parked right there. Young chap was rather large and hubby was instructed by the ambulance crew to grab him by the belt and help haul him onto the stretcher, and then into the ambulance! Karen

Posted By Calum Stewart As a safety professional and a member of a mountain rescue team, I am regularly called to similar incidents where the ambulance service (or indeed the local air ambulance service) are literally only hundreds of meters away from the casualty. The simple truth is that these services do not carry the equipment, have the appropriate numbers of staff and do not have the training to carry injured persons over rough terrain without risking injury to themselves or others. As a full member of a mountain rescue team, I am expected to have those skills and be able to apply them in difficult situations. For example dealing with a broken leg half way up a cliff in the pouring rain. But I wouldn't expect a paramedic, doctor or even a fireman to have the necessary skills, including personal survival and navigation skills to deal with the situation. Excuse the pun - it's horses for courses. If the paramedics made the call that it was too risky for them to deal with it, then good on them! Calum S.

Posted By Jane Watts agree with Chris Black on this one. I would doubt that the ambulance crew would have made this decision if the casualties condition was life threatening. Whilst it can't have been pleasant for the woman, I would have thought she would have been made as comfortable as possible. Being a fellow horse rider and in the H&S profession, I can see both sides. Quite a lot of bridle paths are not suitable for people, let alone people with stretchers! It's very easy to say you would sue if all went wrong. But in the day of litigation you might have no alternative if you're insurance didn't cover you due to the negligent act of someone else!