Sacrilege

The words I am about to write will likely instill anger and fear in some readers. That I have even thought of them disturbs me, as they go against my belief in the fire protection model in which I have been raised.

As I see it, the current fire/ems delivery system focuses on protecting the lives and property of the individual, with the understanding that if the individual's property is protected, society's collective property will be protected as well.  If an aggressive interior attack is performed on my burning house, the fire will be prevented from spreading to my neighbors home and then those of the remainder of the neighborhood. The same concept is applied to commercial and multi-family housing buildings as well. If the fire is contained to a single room or area of the blacksmith shop, the fire is prevented from spreading to the general store.

In a similar way, the same concept is applied to EMS. If an individual has a life threatening injury or an emergent medical condition, the rapid application of ALS procedures will save that individual's life, sparing society the cost of supporting the survivors and the loss of a valued member of society.

Morally, I support the above concept. I think it is a noble cause to protect the individual from emergency situations. I hate it when an individual dies or when an individual loses their possessions to fire. Just because a disaster is limited in scope to one person, it doesn't reduce it's impact on that individual.

For a long time now, the protection of society through the protection of the individual has been acceptable to most of society. The willingness to financially support the existing system was widespread, with little opposition to it's cost. In many communities it was a priority, with other services being sacrificed to maintain or expand public safety services. Frankly, I am OK with that too. Society, as well as individuals, need to prioritize expenditures and fund the high priority items.

The current economic turmoil has triggered a backlash against the status-quo in government. While certain segments of society have always been opposed to government providing services, those opinions were countered by those of socially conscious individuals and organizations, who lobbied for increased levels of service.

The pendulum is now swinging the other direction. What was a smaller segment of the population who advocated a smaller governmental influence is now a much larger one. The rise of the Tea Party movement is a manifestation of the smaller government movement. This shift is a direct result of the dwindling resources of both individuals and governmental agencies. People are making less money and are therefore providing less revenue to the government.

The pinch is so tight in some areas, that the once sacred cow of public safety is now fair game. Many communities have laid off significant numbers of firefighters, are carrying vacancies and have closed or browned out fire stations. A few fire departments have even ceased operations. This situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

It has been my experience that the budgetary fortunes of local government trails that of the economy by about two years. It just takes that long for a reviving economy to filter through the tax collection system. As signs of any economic recovery being extremely slow, it is going to be quite some time before our situation improves.

Economic conditions, combined with the current political environment, lead me to believe that we have seen the pinnacle of public safety protection in our society and that future service delivery models will be that of lower expectations, not more.

Whereas now we spend a lot of effort on the protection of individual property, future delivery systems will likely focus on protection of the community - mainly the prevention of conflagration and the confinement of fire to the structure of origin. The days of twelve or fifteen firefighters arriving on scene within ten minutes may be numbered. The goal of having an interior attack underway within eight minutes of an alarm may no longer be desired and may be altered to adjust for greatly reduced staffing levels. Images of firefighters spraying water through an open window from the outside may become more common as levels of acceptable loss increase.

While this concept is repugnant to us, to those who manage government at a level higher than our departments, it is more than acceptable as it frees scarce budget dollars to use in other areas. Fire and police have long been viewed as necessary evils by many city mangers. Political pressure from unions, union supported politicians and other fire service organizations have prevented them from gutting fire service budgets in the past.

The recent debacle in Wisconsin and other attacks on public employee unions have exemplified a shift in attitudes toward public employees and firefighters in particular. Every form of media outlet is filled with ant-government, anti-union and anti-public employee diatribe. The conservative backlash against the protests and against governmental service in general has served it's purpose. Union influence is waning, maybe to the point of not being able to counter the attacks on public safety services.

As many requests for EMS services are made by people who don't vote and pay little taxes, EMS will not be immune either. The expectation of an immediate 911 response to any request for medical aid will be a thing of the past, waits for an ambulance will be like that of those at the ER. 

I hope that my vision of the future is wrong or at least not as dire. If this should be our future, us old timers will have to radically alter our way of doing business in order to comply with the new delivery system. Progressive, visionary managers may have to base their visions on the far past, not an idyllic future. Many of us may have to make changes to our lifestyle, as compensation will surely drop along with societal expectations.

The reality is that it is really not up to us, it is up to the public we serve. They are the ones who determine what levels of risk they are willing to accept. Despite our efforts to educate the them, it has been determined by many communities that we are just not worth the money and that they will take their chances. That will work out for most, until it is their ox that is gored.

Thanks for reading,
a pessimistic Schmoe