Very true Vent. We are not aligned with Fire. We dont want to be aligned with Fire.
For good reason.
The core business of a Fire Department is, oddly enough, to fight fires. So let them fight fires. If they do not have enough work to fight fires, take the funding & give it to EMS as a seperate service, able to justify its position & funding.
I fail to see any correlation between Firefighting & EMS.
It doesnt work. Seperate them, Make each show why they deserve the money independent of the other, then see who is doing the work.
Just a thought, instead of EMS being an offshoot of the fire dept, the fire dept should be a sub branch of EMS!!!!!
It's not that simple. The FD is like an insurance policy for the public. Strip staffing and close houses, they won't be there in nearly enough time, and with enough numbers to get the job done.
http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/staffing.php
FD's across the country have taken over EMS for various reasons, both good and bad. Good things would be to ensure adaquate coverage of EMS after experiencing failure via private or third service EMS. By crosstraining providers you'll keep FF staffing up, have enough EMS providers, and curtail OT on both sides due to versatility of field personnel. You're also utilizing FF's productively during their downtime as effective, properly trained EMS providers. Getting the most for your money.
Bad things happen, however, when FD's assume EMS responsibilities and then put it on the back burner, redirecting funds back to the fire side at the expense of EMS. Having what amounts to "paper medics" only, as is part of the subject of this thread, is obviously wrong.
If a FD can run EMS properly and as effective (or more effective) as a third service provider, it's a good thing. Both available FF and EMS positions will be staffed, and EMS revenue will be realized by the FD. It's win-win only if run properly with proper respect given to the EMS side.
Firefighting and EMS may not have much in common, but I have witnessed the fire/EMS marriage work well around here. It can and does work, despite the lack of similarities of both sides. The main benefits are better staffing for both sides (dual role with a dedicated txp fleet), better coverage/response times for both sides, and EMS revenue going to the dept (if previously going to hosp/private EMS). It may be poorly run in other areas, but that's not everywhere. Sure, FF's could be used for garbage collection or some other form of manual labor on their downtime as some have suggested, but that would have no positive effect on staffing ratios, coverage, or response times, would they? It's the best use of resources for the municipality. This holds true more so for rural/suburban areas than urban areas, I'll admit.
The fire service in general is significantly more established and politically connected than EMS for a paradigm shift resulting in EMS running fire.
I imagine that the system in your country works well there, I'm not suggesting that fire and EMS merge out your way. Over here, it has worked in some places, and has been an utter fiasco in others. It's really a case by case basis. As such, it's difficult to make blanket statements about the system in general. There are plenty of examples of successes and failures from both sides, plenty to support either side of the argument.