On Friday, a veteran Boston firefighter was killed when the ladder truck he was riding in crashed into a building. The truck was returning from a “routine medical call.” I don’t understand why large, cumbersome, expensive-to-operate, one mile per gallon ladder trucks are used to respond to medical calls. Is this a firefighters’ union way of increasing the work for firefighters so they won’t get laid off? Is this the equivalent of police working at road construction sites? Does this not pull a ladder truck out of action in case a fire happens? Why do firefighters need to respond at all to “routine medical calls.” And if they do need to respond to routine medical calls, in addition to ambulances, why not respond in a car rather than a truck? If this firefighter had died as a result of fighting a fire, it would have been an understandable tragedy. But for him to die as a result of using a large fire-fighting truck in a non fire-fighting situation makes no sense to me at all.
not to invite you to funerals.
<
p>Or to be less harsh, when someone dies, it’s nice to be a little more sensitive about the tragedy of their death before rushing off to make a point using it.
That’s not fair. I am not trivializing his death. I am trying to understand it. Maybe we can prevent future un-necessary deaths if we figure out what went wrong.
Why not ask the Boston Fire Department? Or try the google?
That on that apparatus, there were 3-4 trained first responders – EMTs, Paramedics and the like. In an emergency situation, you want whomever can get to you first. The dispatcher sends whichever vehicle can get there. If you have a problem with the system, you might try contacting the mayor’s office or the fire commissioner instead of blaming the fire dept. union, who have little to do with which vehicle responds. The post was more than just a little offensive and demonstrates little understanding of the system.
<
p>The fact is, day in and day out, these men put their lives on the line, no matter how innocuous the call.
I’m sorry for being offensive. I just don’t understand why firefighters have to “put their lives on the line” for routine medical calls. Wouldn’t an ambulance be a more reasonable alternative?
The media described the event as a “routine medical call, but one never really knows what will happen. It might be a woman in labor, or a newly arrived immigrant with TB. One call in a city near Boston featured a female taxi driver with Aids. These were all calls that my husband responded to.
<
p>Most major cities have firefighters trained as first responders, and ambulance services are typically not city run, but independent service providers.
<
p>And as for being offensive – it was the accusatory tone you took in order to explore an issue of which you had no understanding. These are just people doing their jobs and no where near the “equivalent of police working at road construction sites.” I could show you my husband’s paystub to prove it.
I again apologize for the perceived offensive tone. But my question remains: why send a fire-truck to a non fire situation. If firefighters need to respond to medical calls, why not have a car or van for these purposes.
<
p>Fire-trucks are large, cumbersome, expensive to operate, and, apparently, dangerous. Shouldn’t they be left in the station in case of a fire?