I would normally leave reporting on the fire service across the pond to the FireGeezer, but this article sucked me in. An unsuccessful confined space rescue in Scotland has sparked a debate about what our priority should be as firefighters: the safety of the rescuer, or saving the victim?
Click here to see this must read account of what happened when a women fell down a mine shaft, and the Chief prevented firefighters from attempting a rescue. When the incident was reviewed, the Chief stuck to his guns that the incident was the success, even the thought the victim did not survive. Read about the review here.
In my opinion, the pendulum has swung to far to the side safety. In paraphrasing my good friend Buzz Melton, a retired Battalion Chief from Baltimore City “This job has an acceptable level of risk, if you don’t believe that, maybe you should work at McDonald’s…you can still be part of a team and help people”. I know saying that public safety comes before rescuer safety makes me cannon fodder for the safety Mafia. I’ll end up like Ray McCormick, with all trace of me wiped from the internet with out a trace.
Before you crucify me, take a minute to hear me out. I’m not endorsing that it’s ok for firefighters to die from preventable cardiac events, or that LODD from driving to/from incidents are acceptable, or that dying in an interior attack on a building that is already lost is part of our job.
I’m talking about taking a calculated risk with my life to save someone else’s life. This incident in Scottland is a perfect o example of firefighters basing the life safety decisions on “what the book says”, instead of a good risk/benefit analysis.
Let me put it this way, if you see someone that is drowning, what would you do?
A) Dive in the water with no life jacket and attempt a rescue, even though the SOP says not too.
B) Establish command, turn on the green light, and wait for a trained and equipped water rescue unit to arrive.
Option B is the clearly the safer action for the rescuer. It’s NIMS, OSHA, and FDA grade A approved. Never mind the fact that the victim may die before the water rescue team arrives.
Option A places the rescuer at risk of losing his or her life. However, if successful, it gives the victim the greatest chance of survival. The questions is, will you be successful?
I don’t believe that a NFPA standard, OSHA rule, or department SOP can make a pre-determined decision for you. In the end, it comes down to a firefighter make their best judgment call about “should I go or not”. We should focus our efforts on quality training and mentoring that helps our people make good risk/benefit decisions. Instead of handicapping them with rules about what not to do.
If I can swim, I try. If my definition of swimming is the doggie paddle and treading water, then I don't.
The problem with blatantly ignoring OSHA standards at least is that if anything unfortunate did happen to either rescuer or victim, there would be a lot more trouble at the end of things. Is it right? Who can say, honestly, without getting to the end of the situation?
People are not judged by their decisions before or when they make them. The final decision on whether or not the choice made was correct will, inevitably, come at the end; the judgment is based on the outcome.
So, worst case scenario, both rescuer and victim die, and OSHA comes in to do an investigation and finds out that protocol was not followed. Fines will be issued; the department could be cited, and if it was bad enough, people could lose jobs.
Of course, the hope is that the best case scenario wins out. Rescuer ignores the rules, for better or worse, and rescues the victim. No one is harmed, and, most importantly, everyone goes home. But again, the end will be all that would justify the means.
The problem with blatantly ignoring OSHA standards at least is that if anything unfortunate did happen to either rescuer or victim, there would be a lot more trouble at the end of things. Is it right? Who can say, honestly, without getting to the end of the situation?
People are not judged by their decisions before or when they make them. The final decision on whether or not the choice made was correct will, inevitably, come at the end; the judgment is based on the outcome.
So, worst case scenario, both rescuer and victim die, and OSHA comes in to do an investigation and finds out that protocol was not followed. Fines will be issued; the department could be cited, and if it was bad enough, people could lose jobs.
Of course, the hope is that the best case scenario wins out. Rescuer ignores the rules, for better or worse, and rescues the victim. No one is harmed, and, most importantly, everyone goes home. But again, the end will be all that would justify the means.