# Ellenville EMT breaks rules to help 4-year-old



## MMiz (Dec 27, 2013)

*Ellenville EMT breaks rules to help 4-year-old*

ELLENVILLE — The resignation of an Ellenville First Aid and Rescue Squad volunteer who admits breaking rules to transport a sick child to the hospital has caused an outcry in the community.

Despite squad rules requiring someone to be 21 to drive the ambulance, Sawyer got in the ambulance, drove some 4-5 miles, picked up the child, his mother, and the paramedic and got them to Ellenville Regional Hospital without an issue.

*Read more!*


----------



## Mariemt (Dec 28, 2013)

Seems to be more to the story than what is on here


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 28, 2013)

So he violated a clearly defined company policy?

Sounds like he was given an appropriate treatment.

Unless those seizures are status and the patient is become hypoxic/emic why can't we wait the few extra minutes?


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 28, 2013)

No resignation written on the spot should be accepted for 24 hrs.

Without knowing the whole story and sitting here with my cup of cocoa, here's a super-trooper who broke a rule and it worked out ok. It may not have been warranted, and the hair-trigger resignation points to some degree of immaturity (or he was smacked around by the Board and that wasn't mentioned). Another 20 y/o may not be as lucky nor as trained and employed. We also don't know if this individual has a history of shaving and dissing rules.

I think the person's boss should have been able to handle it. Calling in the Board was either overkill due to fear of being a boss, or due to the young man having pushed it to this point.


----------



## epipusher (Dec 28, 2013)

And if the ride went bad would they be asking for his head on a platter?


----------



## Hunter (Dec 28, 2013)

What's the issue? He broke a rule he should've taken the consequence into his decision, he was punished like he should've expected, if he shut up, accepted it and stayed on he probably would've gotten his position back soon enough. His resignation was rash and uncalled for.


----------



## AtlasFlyer (Dec 28, 2013)

This quote: "The suspension Sawyer was offered came from a * "culmination of different incidents" in which he violated policies and bylaws as well as other aspects of the Dec. 11 call,* Gavaris says. He says he can't elaborate on those incidents."  tells me there's a whole lot more to this story than the single incident, and that he took his "story" to the media to purposefully and publicly shame his employer. 

Rarely are things black and white, and I think there's more going on than _just_ this one incident with this particular individual.


----------



## unleashedfury (Dec 28, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> No resignation written on the spot should be accepted for 24 hrs.
> 
> Without knowing the whole story and sitting here with my cup of cocoa, here's a super-trooper who broke a rule and it worked out ok. It may not have been warranted, and the hair-trigger resignation points to some degree of immaturity (or he was smacked around by the Board and that wasn't mentioned). Another 20 y/o may not be as lucky nor as trained and employed. We also don't know if this individual has a history of shaving and dissing rules.
> 
> *I think the person's boss should have been able to handle it.* Calling in the Board was either overkill due to fear of being a boss, or due to the young man having pushed it to this point.



Being a volunteer agency it may have required a "special board meeting" to decide the fate of the member. At least thats how our local volley squads work.

OTOH he broke a rule, this one fortunately went ok. but what if he had wrecked the truck? 

whats the difference if a paramedic student who's not certified but can perform a needle cric, and was appropriately trained to do so? Or the EMT basic student whos just waiting on test results and a cert # to hop in the back of the truck becuase they are short? 

Nothing, he broke a rule even though his actions did not lead to a poor patient outcome or harm to the crew. The rules are the rules exceptions for one makes an exception for all.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Dec 28, 2013)

Interestingly, the headline in my EMS1 email said "EMT sacrifices job to save little girl". Slightly different spin, don't you think?

He wasn't authorized to drive the truck, he drove the truck. He knew the consequences of his actions.


----------



## unleashedfury (Dec 28, 2013)

DEmedic said:


> Interestingly, the headline in my EMS1 email said "EMT sacrifices job to save little girl". Slightly different spin, don't you think?
> 
> He wasn't authorized to drive the truck, he drove the truck. He knew the consequences of his actions.



Interesting the article here states he was a volley member, and a paid employee for another service. 

Reminds me how much I love the media.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Dec 28, 2013)




----------



## unleashedfury (Dec 28, 2013)

DEmedic said:


>



I just read the medicare fraud thingy about Rural Metro too

ETA - I see you don't want EMS1 cluttering up your inbox... Not on your safe sender list


----------



## triemal04 (Dec 28, 2013)

> Sawyer thought about Mobile Life Support Services, where he also works and drives ambulances...
> <snip>
> Sawyer, who's also a volunteer firefighter and a part-time police officer in two Ulster County departments,...
> <snip>
> ...


What's the term?  Whacker?  Ricky Rescue?  Nothing to see here folks, move along.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 28, 2013)

triemal04 said:


> What's the term?  Whacker?  Ricky Rescue?  Nothing to see here folks, move along.



Too many agencies, not enough brains.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 28, 2013)

unleashedfury said:


> Being a volunteer agency it may have required a "special board meeting" to decide the fate of the member. At least thats how our local volley squads work.
> 
> OTOH he broke a rule, this one fortunately went ok. but what if he had wrecked the truck?
> 
> ...




Zackly.

Triemal and Tigger, yes, reading between the slats of my crate this guy sounds like he's the Greg House of PHEMS.


----------



## ZombieEMT (Dec 29, 2013)

Agreed. If you choose to break the rules, regardless of how little they make sense or whether or not your agree with them, you should expect to suffer the consequences. Sure, maybe he did it for a good cause, but that does not change the fact that rules were breaking.

I think this applies whether or not he has a history, which apparently he does.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Dec 30, 2013)

Can't agree more.  After reading about the incident and the politic responses, I come to the same conclusion.  Probably an overzealous EMT that jumped on a call, in breach of policy, and got his reckoning.  

His immediate resignation and subsequent attempt at shaming his agency speak to his immaturity.  Granted, calls involving kids can work up even the best of us, but I imagine that he would have taken an ambulance regardless of the nature of the call.  Probably looking to swoop in and save the day, and unhappy that it blew up in his face.


----------



## BF2BC EMT (Dec 31, 2013)

*What would you do*

A 20-year-old upstate New York volunteer emergency medical technician was suspended after he broke the rules to drive a four-year-old child to hospital.

The board the made the decision to suspend volunteer EMT and squad leader Stephen Sawyer after he drove the Ellenville ambulance to pick up a four-year-old boy who was suffering from a seizure and take him to hospital.

Resigned: Stephen Sawyer, 20, resigned after the Ellenville First Aid and Rescue Squad suspended him for driving the squad's ambulance
The Ellenville First Aid and Rescue Squad's rules dictate that ambulance drivers must be at least 21 years of age....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-driving-sick-four-year-old-boy-hospital.html


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 31, 2013)

I'd have sent the first ambulance to the first call like the agency's protocol says to do "unless the second call is 'a bigger emergency'" or however they worded it, which the second call was not, from what has been released. 

He did have a relatively good reason as to why he did what he did, stated he knew a paramedic was en route to the Sz call and supposedly a driver en route to him so he send the first ambo to the second call since there was going to be a medical provider on scene of the first one shortly. This is all fine and dandy provided you have the authority to do that, which he did not. 

Furthermore, he had a record of previous unspecified transgressions. The defense "i drive an ambulance at work" does not work. If he had wrecked that ambulance there is potential that the squad could lose their insurance and hence their ability to operate leaving the area without EMS coverage. 

Furthermore multiple people renowned him as a "hero", he is not a hero. Without knowing more about the calls it's complete speculation however I'd be willing to bet I know where that pediatric Sz came from. If the patient is not actively seizing and is breathing adequately it is not a time sensitive emergency. Multiple seizures with periods of consciousness, while needs to be addressed is not life threatening. Status epilepticus is life threatening. 

My take on it is he wanted to go to the "better" or "cool" call then was forced to bite the bullet and drive in an attempt to cover up his mistake. Freelancing and self dispatching is not how it works, folks. 

Furthermore he ultimately delayed transport of the pediatric patient with all these shenanigans. I bet, no I guarantee, if it had gone the other way and the little one had a poor outcome the public outcry concerning this gentleman would be far different.


----------



## TransportJockey (Dec 31, 2013)

Robb said:


> I'd have sent the first ambulance to the first call like the agency's protocol says to do "unless the second call is 'a bigger emergency'" or however they worded it, which the second call was not, from what has been released.
> 
> He did have a relatively good reason as to why he did what he did, stated he knew a paramedic was en route to the Sz call and supposedly a driver en route to him so he send the first ambo to the second call since there was going to be a medical provider on scene of the first one shortly. This is all fine and dandy provided you have the authority to do that, which he did not.
> 
> ...



This. He broke the rules and he resigned instead of facing the consequences of I his actions.


----------



## ZombieEMT (Dec 31, 2013)

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=38495 .... see this link, thread already been created. I request we close and/or move.


----------



## MMiz (Dec 31, 2013)

ZombieEMT said:


> http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=38495 .... see this link, thread already been created. I request we close and/or move.


Threads merged.  Thanks!


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 2, 2014)

He broke the rules, he deserves to be disciplined. is it a stupid rule, sure, but it is the agency's rule. I know of several ambulance companies that didn't allow people under 21 to be drivers. stupid rule, yes, the those are the rules. And we both know your former employer had some stupid rules that you were still expected to follow, regardless of who stupid they were.

I understand everything worked out (this time). next time, where a 17 year old takes the ambulance, because there is no driver available, should that be allowed? what if he crashes? what if he gets lost? what if he can't back into the ER? if he does crash, how do you show the documented training he received? how may 0s can you write on the check? What if there is no medic available, maybe he should take the truck solo, and find a random person to drive the ambulance, to get the sick kid to the ER? You can't excuse his actions because there was a positive outcome.

He needs to grow up & be an adult; he broke the rules, he deals with the consequences. I would have done the same thing if I was in his place, but I would have served my time for my crime because I knowingly broke the rules.


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 2, 2014)

and just posting my response to comments that were made about this topic on my FB page by several career firefighters,  EMTs, supervisors, and paramedics....

Just reviewing what is on my page (not even taking into account what others have said on other FB pages):
1) there are dumb rules. There are also rules from management (volunteer or career). There are many that I don't agree with, and many on here don't agree with either. HOWEVER, they are still the rules of the agency. They exist for a reason, and that reason might be as simple as "60 years ago, we thought this would be a good idea, and it's worked for us for 60 years." Don't like them? don't be part of the agency. or become a supervisor, and change the rules. I know where i work, and have worked, there were rules. and if I wanted to continue to maintain my employment, I am expected to follow the rules. If I want to break the rules, I should probably have supervisory approval first.

2) Many have said "well, he saved the life, it needed to be done, it all worked out, no harm no foul." The ends DO NOT justify the means. This time nothing bad happened.. what about next time? We all remember what happened to the paramedics who performed the field C-section. it needed to get done, a life needed to be saved. what happened to them?

3) He broke the rules, and discipline needed to be taken. Otherwise the response of "well I needed to get the ambulance out the door" because a valid reason to break any rules. Is 60 days excessive? I think so, but it wasn't my call. Removal from the Junior Advisor position? he's 20; how much experience does he really have? Probably appropriate. communications committee? who cares. These has to be a consequence for his actions

4) This is a private, internal disciplinary action that should have never made the news. The agency can't say why exactly he was suspended (privacy laws and all), but he can play the hero to the media. Not only that, but now the agency CAN'T change their actions; doing so would be a clear sign of poor management, because they are letting the opinions of outsiders change how they operate. I am sure the public loves him right now... after all, he saved the day. What if he had crashed, while transporting the sick kid to the hospital. what do you think the public response would have been? Oh, and when I was separated from a former 100% career agency, I wasn't invited to the disciplinary meeting; I wasn't even made aware of it. they said I broke a rule, I wasn't able to give any response, they sent me a letter saying "thank you but your services are no longer needed, turn in your stuff to a supervisor as soon as you can." That's the norm in many EMS systems.

5) yes, they did not get a crew out. that is an issue. a big one. and many 100% career EMS systems have extended responses or can't answer all their calls, and it sucks when your mutual aid is unavailable. That's a completely separate issue, and has no bearing on his actions. He still broke the rules, and the response of "he did what was right, he took the ambulance to help the sick kid" doesn't excuse his actions.


----------

