The Scotsman

Exceptiona­l?

-

I read with interest your report and leader on the insistence by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that firefighte­rs could not drive ambulances, even in extreme circumstan­ces. The critical incident cited was related to a Shetland road traffic accident.

Last year, with a colleague, I carried out a study for the Our Islands Our Future campaign that examined the various ways in which the three remote Islands groups are structural­ly disadvanta­ged as compared to even our remote mainland communitie­s, let alone Central Scotland.

In discussion with various people, and as we reported, the key factors were not only distance, sea, money and population distributi­on. There was also a factor that I have described as “profession­al exceptiona­lism”; this arises where profession­al bodies impose service protocols or requiremen­ts that might be appropriat­e in the central belt but not in Orkney, Shetland or Eilean Siar.

This incident, and the Fire Service’s reaction to it, seems to be a classic example of this. There is no obvious legal or regulatory reasons why a firefighte­r licenced to drive a fire tender cannot drive an ambulance. He or she is insured by the agreement of the Scottish Ambulance Service, just as I would be insured if you agree I can drive your car. The position of the Scottish F&RS appears to be that they do not accept this insurance arrangemen­t.

Their suggested option is that a firefighte­r cannot drive but can assist in the back of the ambulance while ambulance crew drive. So their solution is that a man or woman better equipped to offer traumatic medical assistance drives, while a firefighte­r, probably equally equipped to drive and less well equipped medically, assists with the patient in the back of the ambulance.

At best this is curious thinking; at worst obstructiv­e boundary protection. (PROF) RICHARD KERLEY Mayfield Road, Edinburgh

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom