Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
No, it doesn't, and I have already stated why.Settle down there, hero. I don't know how it works in other states, but around here EMS as a separate entity is becoming more obsolete, as many FD's are beginning to do all their own EMS. It makes the most sense.
Desolve the big fire departments, they aren't needed. Give the funds to EMS instead, who does a MUCH higher percentage of the calls.
Sorry, it's not really logical to have 4 people and an engine sitting around waiting for a fire when there's only a handful of working ones ALL year.
To say that FD's are not at all patient centered is ignorant, FD's have evolved over the years and although some old Jakes like to resist it, it's becoming increasingly EMS focused.
Only, and I put emphasis on only, to defend their budget.
I know there are firefighters who like doing EMS... but without a doubt the vast majority just want to 'put blue on red'.
And I dare you to tell me DCFD or DFD are "good" at running patient care.
Ta-da... it's the department requiring it, not the person WANTING to do it just to do it.On top of that, there aren't a lot of FD's that will take someone who isn't a basic, or in some cases a medic.
Sorry, I don't want the person who hates EMS in charge of my care with 60+ different medications that can kill me.
Does it really make sense that FD's should actually just devolve and try to stuff all that equipment on to an ambulance?
Rescue equipment? Yes, yes it does.
Hell, what makes the MOST sense is having EMS run fire, and not the other way around. It's 80/20 EMS to fire calls in every place that puts out statistics. Why should the less use entity be in charge of the other?
Not to mention the man power issue. Sure, you can recall an instance where 2 people can extricate someone but anyone with a brain will admit that it is far from ideal, because scenes become more complicated than that. Calling an additional ambulance for resources for one pt instead of an engine company is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous to call for an additional ambulance, but not to call for an engine that costs about twice as much, gets a lot less mileage, and has at least twice as many people on board?
That makes sense to you?
The biggest roadblock to this concept is funds. I don't care what XYZ agency does, mine runs BLS in vans. We don't have enough room in them as is, no we are not carrying cutters and spreaders on our trucks, not even in the box trucks. Who is going to pay for this training either? Is my company going to put me through the academy to learn how to use these tools? Some agencies are stingy about reimbursing employees for coned, much less superfluous rescue training that the FD already has, and has been doing for years.
And this was already answered by me: The agency that does 80% of the calls (EMS) should get the majority of the funds.
The very fact that you think our sole job is to transport shows you're either quite new, quite old, or anti-EMS.EMS has enough trouble getting over the ambulance driver image, I think it needs to stick to what it's ultimate purpose is: Safely treat and transport your patient to the hospital.
More technical, and complicated tasks should stay in the realm of FD's.
Why? Because they have been? The only reason why "fire does it" it because fire has "always done it". Again, I point you to the EMS agencies that do things from simple extrication to hard technical rescue... They've proven EMS can do it.
Ta-da! Extrication is a patient centered ordeal. Why have the least medically trained and educated personnel in charge of it?I won't deny that some FD's have to justify their budgets these days, and that's because there aren't as many fires as there used to be.
Should a cop be in charge of running a fire ground and putting out a fire?
Last edited by a moderator: