Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Ambulance Debate


There is a surprisingly intelligent discussion of the bidding for an ambulance contract in St. George, Utah.

None of the usual hyperbole by people who are not in EMS and don’t know better.

None of the usual hyperbole by people who are in EMS and should know better.

Image credit.


Hundreds of residents showed up at hearings last week to show support for Dixie Ambulance. They made impassioned pleas to maintain the local provider. Gold Cross supporters were just as impassioned about how they believed a change was necessary.[1]


The author goes on to ask those making the decision to ignore the emotions and to go with the ambulance company that provides the best care.

Very refreshing. Very smart.

Quite simply, please ignore the emotion on both sides in this issue. Instead, focus solely on the quality of care. It is that factor, and that factor alone, that the vast majority of residents in St. George want considered when making this choice.[1]


This is not a matter of watching some reality TV show and being persuaded by the person who puts on the most emotional show. those are scripted dramas, written to appeal to emotion.

Smart decisions are only rarely emotional. Emotional decisions tend to be the ones where we later ask, What was I thinking?

If Dixie Ambulance is the best choice — or at least equal to Gold Cross — then by all means, keep the local company as the service provider. If Gold Cross is markedly better with caring for patients, then make the switch for the betterment of residents.[1]


Yes, the tie should go to the incumbent. There needs to be a good enough reason to go through all of the head aches associated with changing out an ambulance service.

I could not find the name of the author, so I would guess that this is from the editorial staff. I hope the rest of their coverage of EMS is as well done.


[1] Ambulance Debate


Speak Your Mind