A High Court judge ruled on the 23rd October 2006 that firefighters are not obliged to attend medical emergencies and save lives, pending the arrival of ambulances. Mr Justice Butterfield went on to say that although firefighters with medical training provide life-saving treatments before paramedics reach the incident, it is not part of the contract of employment.
Mr Justice Butterfield said that co-responding was not part of the contract of employment for firefighters in Notts and Lincs. Both Authorities had asked for legal declarations that co-responding formed part of the duty of firefighters employed on standard contracts.
The FBU argued that such duties were outside the scope of their contracts, the FBU went on to claim that such schemes had been used to 'paper over the cracks' in operational deficiencies of the ambulance service and diluted the efficiency of the fire service.
HRFU Comment
The ambulance service want co-responders, paramedics want co-responders. Why? Because the rapid intervention within four minutes by a co-responder enables the ambulance personnel and paramedics to use their skills to save the life of the casualty. Without the co-responder the skills of ambulance staff would be wasted.
The way that Lincs and Notts Fire Authorities went about “encouraging” their staff to engage in co-responder activities was without doubt wrong and the FBU response was understandable. However, on the past record we have little faith in the FBU agreeing to co-responder activities.
To the FBU we say, ask the many service and civilian co-responders and their communities about the realities of emergency care in rural areas. Ask the individuals and their families who have benefited from the attendance of a co-responder followed by an ambulance. The FBU will achieve nothing by a political challenge to co-responding other than deaths that would have been avoidable in their local communities.
|
