In defense of ESD-1

May 6, 2009

Friends,

Not that long ago, many of the Texas EMS-L gang berated a paramedic and his

lawyer for suing PHI and its flight crew after a fatal crash in which the

medic's wife was killed. I seem to remember a great deal of wailing and

gnashing of teeth about defending EMS from lawyers.

This week, the opposite has taken place. A TV news reporter has made

allegations against an EMS service, County ESD-1, about its relationship

with that same private flight service. Now, the vigilante committee

appears ready to distribute pitchforks and torches to the indignant masses.

What's the difference here? I'm not sure. But I do know several things.

First, TV reporters are no less greedy than attorneys. Attorneys want

cash; reporters want ratings, which leads to cash for their employers.

Second, the allegations than an attorney makes for his client are proven or

disproven in court, in front of a jury. I've rarely seen the media show both

sides of a story. If you don't believe me, ask Jewell, the former

security guard falsely accused by the media of planting the Atlanta Olympics

bomb. Finally, an attorney who files false claims is subject to losing his

license. A reporter who makes up stories is not subject to any legal

liability outside of libel, which is virtually impossible for a public figure

to prove.

All I'm saying is that we need to remember that there are two sides to a

story. Unlike the PHI crash, though, this story will be decided in the

court of public opinion. Apparently, my friends in EMS have already decided to

crucify ESD-1, making a " trial " unnecessary. From what I know of EMS in

Houston, I would be very careful about throwing stones in a glass house.

And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll announce what some of you may

already know. I drive two and a half hours each way to volunteer with

County ESD-1, so I'm probably not without an opinion either. All I'd ask

is that you remember that the media has agendas too, namely ratings, and

that such agendas may seek to cast their version of the truth in a light most

conducive to their agenda, much like the lawyers that so many of y'all

despise.

Thanks,

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, Lic. P./NREMT-P

-Attorney/Licensed Paramedic/EMS Instructor

-Austin, Texas

May 6, 2009

I agree Wes, I didn't want to comment on this particular story because

I am quite frankly tired of ranting here because on more than one

occassion I have been made " wrong, " BUT I can assure you this story

upsets me just like the PHI story does. Some of the greatest medics I

have had the honor of working with have or still do work for ESD-1 I

trust their judgment and feel confident that they are some of the best

in the biz! As for the media well they are the media and always will

be. I will say this; maybe my beliefs are " fairy tale " like or

unrealistic but I truly beleive in things like " brotherhood, " honor,

and tradition and those who give their birthdays, Christmas' and

sometimes their very lives to the job they love are truley heros!

Maybe im nieve, and maybe that will be my downfall in the future of

this industry but I will stand by that beleif all the way down.

-Chris

Firefighter/EMT

Sorry for the spelling and punctuation this was sent from my iPhone!

>

> Friends,

>

> Not that long ago, many of the Texas EMS-L gang berated a paramedic

> and his

> lawyer for suing PHI and its flight crew after a fatal crash in

> which the

> medic's wife was killed. I seem to remember a great deal of wailing

> and

> gnashing of teeth about defending EMS from lawyers.

>

> This week, the opposite has taken place. A TV news reporter has made

> allegations against an EMS service, County ESD-1, about its

> relationship

> with that same private flight service. Now, the vigilante committee

> appears ready to distribute pitchforks and torches to the indignant

> masses.

>

> What's the difference here? I'm not sure. But I do know several

> things.

> First, TV reporters are no less greedy than attorneys. Attorneys want

> cash; reporters want ratings, which leads to cash for their employers.

> Second, the allegations than an attorney makes for his client are

> proven or

> disproven in court, in front of a jury. I've rarely seen the media

> show both

> sides of a story. If you don't believe me, ask Jewell, the

> former

> security guard falsely accused by the media of planting the Atlanta

> Olympics

> bomb. Finally, an attorney who files false claims is subject to

> losing his

> license. A reporter who makes up stories is not subject to any legal

> liability outside of libel, which is virtually impossible for a

> public figure

> to prove.

>

> All I'm saying is that we need to remember that there are two sides

> to a

> story. Unlike the PHI crash, though, this story will be decided in the

> court of public opinion. Apparently, my friends in EMS have already

> decided to

> crucify ESD-1, making a " trial " unnecessary. From what I know of EMS

> in

> Houston, I would be very careful about throwing stones in a glass

> house.

>

> And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll announce what some of

> you may

> already know. I drive two and a half hours each way to volunteer

> with

> County ESD-1, so I'm probably not without an opinion either. All I'd

> ask

> is that you remember that the media has agendas too, namely ratings,

> and

> that such agendas may seek to cast their version of the truth in a

> light most

> conducive to their agenda, much like the lawyers that so many of y'all

> despise.

>

> Thanks,

> -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, Lic. P./NREMT-P

> -Attorney/Licensed Paramedic/EMS Instructor

> -Austin, Texas

>

May 6, 2009