I see that there are at least three sides of this argument.
side 1- don't stop you already have a patient on board. they are your responsibility
side 2 - stop and render care until the other ambulance gets there
side 3 - stop only to ascertain injuries and notify dispatch as to what injuries.
Which side is correct - some would say side1, others side 2 and even others side 3
Does anyone have access to the law search system not sure what the name of it is.
If you do maybe you could do a search as to are there any lawsuits that fall under one of the three sides of this argument. What is the legal precedent to not stopping or for stopping??
If you have a medic in the back of the ambulance taking care of the patient and the driver gets out to check on injuries is that a bad thing? The patient is not suffering for the delay unless it's a long delay. (this does not include critical patients because no one will argue that you stop with a critical patient.). The emt or medic driver checks on injuries and the patient still has the same level of care that they started out with.
I personally don't see the harm in stopping.
let's put this on the other foot, many are saying that if they were the parents of the 9 month old and you stopped that you would sue.
how bout there is a patient in the car and you stopped long enough to get the address and call it to dispatch and you told the bystanders that you have another ambulance coming. Would you not be pissed off that the ambulance stopped but then kept on going??
Just curious how you'd feel or if you would sue the ambulance service for not rendering care???
What if you are the patient in that car and you saw the ambulance drive on by and not stop? You know it was one of the ambulances that service your town. What would you do? Would you sue them for not stopping.