Fireman faces punishment for risking his life in rescue

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

26 Mar 2007, 11:57 am

From The Times

Quote:

A fireman is facing disciplinary action after plunging into a river to rescue a drowning woman.

Tam Brown, 42, is the subject of an internal investigation by Tayside Fire and Rescue because he breached safety rules during the rescue in the River Tay in Perth.

He spent eight minutes in the cold water and at one stage feared that he would be swept to his death. But after dragging the 20-year-old woman to safety he was told by his employer that he had acted improperly by risking his life.

Mr Brown, who has 15 years’ experience as a fireman, was hailed as a hero by the young woman’s family but Tayside Fire and Rescue said that he had broken the brigade’s “standing instructions” on safety procedures.

(source)

Oh, for crying out loud!

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Mar 2007, 12:02 pm

Cretins.

I bet you any money you like they wouldn't be saying that if it was one of their own that he had saved.

CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 116,979
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

26 Mar 2007, 12:06 pm

This is stupid. Firemen risk their lives like this, all the time. :roll:

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

26 Mar 2007, 12:31 pm

jimservo wrote:

Oh, for crying out loud!

Indeed. This is what happens when the left get hold of power, and the story you quote really is no surprise, considering that our police force and ambulance service are known to let people bleed to death from gunshot wounds whilst they complete the now obligatory "risk assessment". The police won't even pursue suspects over a flat roof for reasons of safety! This culture of bureaucratic risk-aversion is endemic in the UK workplace, and it can only get worse now a complete industry has sprung-up around it. It's got to the stage where you need to complete a bloody risk assessment to take a crap here, these days.

krex
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Age: 61
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 4,471
Location: Minnesota

26 Mar 2007, 12:33 pm

If the women had been allowed to drown it would have cost the fire company nothing,if the fireman had died,it would have cost them money(life insurence or benifits to surviving family of firemen)This is about money,as many absurd things .

_________________
Just because one plane is flying out of formation, doesn't mean the formation is on course....R.D.Lang

Visit my wool sculpture blog
http://eyesoftime.blogspot.com/

janicka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,911
Location: Mountain Paradise

26 Mar 2007, 1:31 pm

The story says two important things -

1. The victim was loosing consciousness, so she could not assist herself with the rope that was thrown to her.

2. The firefighter was wearing a harness.

These two points lead me to believe that his actions were appropriate.

Claradoon
Supporting Member

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,964
Location: Canada

26 Mar 2007, 1:54 pm

My nephew the lifeguard told me that an assistant-lifeguard is not allowed to touch a drowning person - must wait for unconsciousness then grab and save. A fully trained lifeguard can grab a conscious drowning person. The idea being that until you are trained to fling people around, you'll get dragged to the bottom. This sounds awfully harsh, but when I thought about it again, I saw that it ends up with 2 live people instead of 2 dead ones.

So I'm wondering if there was a similar restriction on a fireman? He's fully trained for fires, of course, but not water. The harness - attached to what?

Maybe I'm just taking the other side. But *if* there are restrictions like that, then a spectacular event with guaranteed press coverage could not be ignored, although they might not do anything to him?

janicka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,911
Location: Mountain Paradise

26 Mar 2007, 2:30 pm

I've been trained to administer first aid as well and I've taught the Red Cross classes. And, yes, there are general ethical guidlines about not creating a second victim if there is a way to avoid it. There's also the heuristic of "life over limb" meaning, for example, if a person was ejected out of a car and is lying in the busy roadway, you should move them out of a busy roadway to preserve their life even at the risk of paralysis (limb). But it is unethical for someone who is not a trained first responder to attempt to extract someone out of a car when there is no threat of immediate danger.

In this situation, I would think that the risk posed to the victim by the water's current would be a pretty compelling reason for a trained and harnessed rescuer to go in. If she were flailing about a swimming pool, I would see the point in allowing her to loose consciousness. But in this situation, it seems like the risk would be too great, since she could get sucked under something in the water, or carried away from an area where a rescue could be performed.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

26 Mar 2007, 2:55 pm

Read the article:

Lister in the article wrote:

The brigade’s rules state: “Personnel should not enter the water.” The fire crew should instead have tried to haul the woman out using poles and ropes.

And:

Lister in the article wrote:

Stephen Hunter, chief fire officer of Tayside Fire and Rescue, admitted that fire engines in Perth were not equipped with the correct poles and ropes, but insisted that Mr Brown had broken the rules.

And:

Lister in the article wrote:

He said: “Firefighter safety is of paramount importance to us. Although our duties include rescues from flooding, there is no statutory obligation to carry out rescues from moving water.

We know they broke procedure because we know he went into the water..."

What's being said is that he should have just let her drown. Safety first, and all that crap!!

What you've got is morons interpreting rules written by other morons.

Welcome to Great Britain!

janicka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,911
Location: Mountain Paradise

26 Mar 2007, 2:58 pm

Lister in the article wrote:

The brigade’s rules state: “Personnel should not enter the water.” The fire crew should instead have tried to haul the woman out using poles and ropes.

I read that part. I interpreted that statement to mean that they should have tried to throw her a rope (or pole) first. They did. She wasn't aware/conscious enough to grab it.

It's seems like common sense that Step 1 of any plan would be to try and have the person grab a rope. Is Step 2 to let the person drown? How ridiculous!

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

26 Mar 2007, 3:25 pm

janicka wrote:

Step 2 to let the person drown? How ridiculous!

When the whole state apparatus inculcates a slavish adherence to bureaucracy at the expense of individual responsibility and initiative, you create the situation where the "correct" thing to do is to allow the person to drown. This is the UK in the 21st century; most people in their work will be familiar with analagous situations, but without the life-threatening consequences. Blindly following the rules often leads to a bizarre, sometimes inequitable, outcome. But this is what is expected of us by the state.

It has been said that rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wisemen.

nirrti_rachelle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,302
Location: The Dirty South

26 Mar 2007, 5:54 pm

Someone please issue an "Amber Alert" for these folks' brains.

_________________
"There is difference and there is power. And who holds the power decides the meaning of the difference." --June Jordan

RaoulDuke
Raven
Raven

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 103

26 Mar 2007, 5:55 pm

ascan wrote:

jimservo wrote:

Oh, for crying out loud!

The left has nothing to do with this. Bureaucracy is a problem in government no matter which way the party in power bends. Also, left and right imply tendencies towards certain economic policies (left tending towards socialism, right tending towards capitalism) and has nothing to do with anything related to this article.

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

26 Mar 2007, 9:56 pm

RaoulDuke wrote:

ascan wrote:

jimservo wrote:

Oh, for crying out loud!

Argeed.

Right-Wing nutjobs and Lefty Pinko's both hate paperwork!

_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!

Last edited by Flagg on 26 Mar 2007, 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Santa_Claus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,846
Location: City 17

26 Mar 2007, 9:56 pm

Flagg wrote:

RaoulDuke wrote:

ascan wrote:

jimservo wrote:

Oh, for crying out loud!

Argeed.

Right-Wing nutjobs and Lefty Pinko's all hate paperwork!

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

27 Mar 2007, 1:43 am

RaoulDuke wrote:

The left has nothing to do with this. Bureaucracy is a problem in government no matter which way the party in power bends...

The left have everything to do with this. I'm talking about the UK here, not the US. Labour — the main party of the left — have always been connected with a completely insane level of bureaucracy and government interference in the affairs of people and business. The left/right description has more than economic meaning within the context of a particular country.

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Fireman faces punishment for risking his life in rescue Post Reply New Topic

Fireman faces punishment for risking his life in rescue