Interpreting the texts: Mr M

The case against Mr M seems to be entirely built on a particular interpretation of words which doesn't seem possible to put into question.

For example, the first allegation was that Mr M 'failed to immediately' act on the patient. I heard that the unfortunate man had suffered a heart attack in his car, and when the ambulance crew arrived Mr M commenced the procedures when the patient was on the trolley. The lawyer interpreted the guideline's word 'immediately' in a very literal way, and did not consider the context or pose questions about Mr M's decision. The printed word was 'immediately', and this was unambiguous according to the lawyer.

Secondly, a point about responsibility. The crew was made up as follows: Mr M plus one other, not qualified as a paramedic but of long service and experience. Ms J arrived a little later and joined them in the ambulance to the hospital. Mr M was the senior member and filled in forms stating that he took responsibility for this call. Much of the physical action (of resuscitation and so forth) was carried out by the two other members of the team. The question of delegation became transformed into 'abdication' as the fact was established that Mr M's hands had not actually performed the tasks.

The question at the heart of the hearing seemed to be more concerned with the fact that he wrote that he took responsibility whereas 'in fact' the other man pumped the heart while the woman pumped the air. What I'm driving at here is this: from my lay-person's perspective, I am not at all shocked to hear that a senior member of staff takes responsibility for the subordinates' actions. This is every day ordinary life. I didn't hear anyone say that the actions of the subordinates were dangerous or ill-conducted - no-one said that the outcome of this team's work resulted in a disaster for the patient. What seems to be of interest to the lawyers at the HPC was that Mr M was lying! This is a very strange interpretation of the text, but I do believe there's a very good chance that this was indeed the level of the allegation.

Mr M seems to have been severely punished (struck off the register, and his details published on the website) because he took responsibility, delegated to his staff, and made decisions according to the actual circumstances rather than mindlessly following the guidelines. I cannot see anywhere how the public was put in peril by his work.

One other thing. I was struck by Ms J's witness statement. She said she had been doing this work for about 20 years, had seen the other two team members around, and had no doubt whatsoever about their ability to manage the situation that day. She also said that she was someone who 'liked to help out'. I think this is probably why she had agreed to be at the hearing. My guess is she will be shocked at the panel's decision. I don't think it occurred to her that the hearing would be anything other than fair and reasonable. I wonder what she will think of the representation of her words in the report. They have her say that 'she recalled that [Mr M] had taken little part in the direct care of the patient'. I didn't hear her say that, and I didn't interpret her words as in any way damaging to Mr M. The summarising of her position in this way makes me very uneasy indeed.