Risk assessment should be an aid, not a barrier, to emergency teams

WHATEVER the outcome of the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the death of Alison Hume in a mine shaft in Galston, Ayrshire, one searching question demands an answer: what exactly do "emergency services" mean when a health and safety culture prevents risks being taken? Risk is in the very nature of emergency work, whether it is rescuing children from a blazing house or saving a swimmer in distress. If there were no risk, there would be no need for such services.

The circumstances of the death of Mrs Hume will appal many. The 44-year-old mother of two lay dying for six hours while health and safety rules were put before attempts to rescue her. Group Commander Paul Stewart admitted he considered "risk assessments" to be an overriding importance. At one point, Mr Gregor Forbes, representing Alison's family, accused Mr Stewart of actively preventing firemen with more experience from doing their job.

Earlier, the inquiry at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court had been told that the fire officer also stopped a paramedic wearing rescue gear from being lowered down, denying Alison expert treatment. She was eventually brought out by a mountain rescue team, but died shortly after.

Commander Stewart said that, while he sympathised, he could not have considered anything without a full risk assessment. Hospital medics had managed to restart her heart, but after being wet and cold for more than six hours, it was the severe hypothermia from which she was suffering that removed all chance of survival. Alison's family were visibly shocked when Commander Stewart described her rescue attempt as "successful… It was a successful outcome in the fact that we managed to get the casualty out. Unfortunately, it was not successful in terms of what happened to the casualty."

"Successful" is an absurd description of this result. Clearly, a strict interpretation of health and safety guidelines had been applied. No-one should lightly set aside such guidance. It is there to protect lives and to prevent tragedies being compounded by foolhardy rescue attempts. But in this case the fire personnel on the scene were no novices. They were experienced in emergencies and had expressed a willingness to undertake a rescue. On this occasion, the rules were put first and Mrs Hume was left to suffer while firemen waited for the arrival of the mountain rescue team.

When emergency services are confronted with such dilemmas, some element of discretion must be allowed to rescue teams, rather than having the situation dictated by an adherence to a set of rules. Without this discretion, health and safety protocols could come to control all situations, leaving emergency service personnel powerless to undertake the job they are supposed to do. That job is to save lives in difficult and perilous situations. Risk assessment should be an aid, not a barrier, to the life-saving duties we expect of such teams. Clearly, this troubling case should prompt an early clarification of the rules under which we task the emergency services to operate; and a reassessment of Commander Stewart's suitability for leading such exercises.