Not to mention the time driving there body could have been used to go to emergency calls. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Crude as it may be, a person who is alive is of better use of an ambulance than one who is dead.
It's not common sense, it's a lack of proper working procedures.
The Coroner would require evidence of the body being removed from the scene, and identifying to someone at the mortuary. The trail of continuity where it had been left on the floor in the ambulance station could have caused all manner of evidential problems, never mind the issue of decency and respect.
I imagine it would have been in a body bag, not literally dumped in a pile on the floor.
Bare in mind we don't know the ins and outs of this case, it may have been perfectly acceptable.
They don't have to down tools at a set time, as that is impossible in the emergency services.
They should have taken the body to the mortuary to conclude the chain of evidence, and protect its integrity should there have been anything suspicious about the death.
or at the very least have handed it over to another crew immediately.
They don't have to down tools at a set time, as that is impossible in the emergency services.
They should have taken the body to the mortuary to conclude the chain of evidence, and protect its integrity should there have been anything suspicious about the death.
Your first paragraph, I know that. I was making the point that this round trip could have been disallowed for all we know due to the number of hours someone might have done.
The change of shift wouldnt have prevented him being taken to the mortuary, albeit with a slight delay. I would be happier if this hadnt happened but in reality, I would want to know more details of how the body was left before condemning anyone.
Your first paragraph, I know that. I was making the point that this round trip could have been disallowed for all we know due to the number of hours someone might have done.
The change of shift wouldnt have prevented him being taken to the mortuary, albeit with a slight delay. I would be happier if this hadnt happened but in reality, I would want to know more details of how the body was left before condemning anyone.
They didn't know the cause of death, and the Police were investigating, therefore it could be suspicious, or certainly a case for a Coroners Inquest.
In such cases, continuity of identification, and evidence is important. Leaving a body in an ambulance station compromises that, as well as it being simply wrong.
Handing it straight to another crew would have been acceptable, but just leaving it is not.
They didn't know the cause of death, and the Police were investigating, therefore it could be suspicious, or certainly a case for a Coroners Inquest.
In such cases, continuity of identification, and evidence is important. Leaving a body in an ambulance station compromises that, as well as it being simply wrong.
Handing it straight to another crew would have been acceptable, but just leaving it is not.
So they went off shift and the new shift comes on, how was it left, presumably there was a handover?
So they went off shift and the new shift comes on, how was it left, presumably there was a handover?
It was left over one hour. Shouldn't have happened.
If they were not prepared to do it properly, they should have declined to remove the deceased. it is not actually their job, but they will help out at times if a body is in a public place. If they were not going straight to the mortuary, and undertaker could be called.
Im not sure I believe that timeline. Normally in services like that, there is a hand over.
Yes that's what makes me suspicious as well. Are we to believe the area was without paramedic cover for an hour? I think more likely it was an hour before the next crew took it to the mortuary, rather than being literally unattended for a whole hour, probably more likely it was left unattended to, but with full awareness of, for an hour.
Yes that's what makes me suspicious as well. Are we to believe the area was without paramedic cover for an hour? I think more likely it was an hour before the next crew took it to the mortuary, rather than being literally unattended for a whole hour, probably more likely it was left unattended to, but with full awareness of, for an hour.
Nobody is saying the area was without paramedic cover are they? Of course there is a handover, however prior to this the time at the end of the shift is usually spent cleaning the ambulance, restocking it, doing checks etc ready for the next shift. Emergencies of course will take priority. The trip to was 22 miles away however, so if they'd have gone straight there, booked the body in to the mortuary then came straight back you're still looking at between one hour to one hour and a half, meaning they'd have been off late and handed over an ambulance that wasn't ready.
The article is all we have to go on as to whether the body was left unattended, so it's fair to assume that it was. If it wasn't then that makes thing somewhat better in terms of chain of custody evidentially, but it's still not particularly dignified.
Nobody is saying the area was without paramedic cover are they? Of course there is a handover, however prior to this the time at the end of the shift is usually spent cleaning the ambulance, restocking it, doing checks etc ready for the next shift. Emergencies of course will take priority. The trip to was 22 miles away however, so if they'd have gone straight there, booked the body in to the mortuary then came straight back you're still looking at between one hour to one hour and a half, meaning they'd have been off late and handed over an ambulance that wasn't ready.
The article is all we have to go on as to whether the body was left unattended, so it's fair to assume that it was. If it wasn't then that makes thing somewhat better in terms of chain of custody evidentially, but it's still not particularly dignified.
But it wasnt unattended in that no one knew about it or unauthorised people could have got at the body was it? (Im asking as I dont know)
Secondly then, what would have happend if whilst just about to take the body to the mortuary, they got an emergency call in? Do they go to that and take the body with them so its not 'unattended'?
So they actually left him in an ambulance station. They didn't turf him out next to the bins ready for collection by the dustcart like the the headline implies.
The next shift would have taken him to the mortuary so no overtime was needed. Sensible economics if you ask me.
Agreed. Misleading headline, sensible business decision. I wouldn't want someone inconvenienced by my death.
But it wasnt unattended in that no one knew about it or unauthorised people could have got at the body was it? (Im asking as I dont know)
Secondly then, what would have happend if whilst just about to take the body to the mortuary, they got an emergency call in? Do they go to that and take the body with them so its not 'unattended'?
The point is, for evidential integrity there has to be a record of who has custody of the body and when. Leaving it unattended, even if in a secure building such as an ambulance station, where only certain people have access is simply not good enough.
If they were taking the body to the mortuary they would be showing as unavailable and wouldn't be sent to an emergency call. The same applies to police officers on scene guards for example.
The point is, for evidential integrity there has to be a record of who has custody of the body and when. Leaving it unattended, even if in a secure building such as an ambulance station, where only certain people have access is simply not good enough.
If they were taking the body to the mortuary they would be showing as unavailable and wouldn't be sent to an emergency call. The same applies to police officers on scene guards for example.
Not at all. At that time the body was a piece of evidence in the investigation of a sudden or unexpected death.
I said if they were just about to leave for the mortuary, not on their way, so if they were still in the building?
I dont know how ambulance stations work but I would have thought that the ambulance station has custody whilst its there, or does it have to be a named person. What is the difference to it being a secure building such as a mortuary with only authorised people having access to that building, to the same circumstances in the ambulance station?
I said if they were just about to leave for the mortuary, not on their way, so if they were still in the building?
I dont know how ambulance stations work but I would have thought that the ambulance station has custody whilst its there, or does it have to be a named person. What is the difference to it being a secure building such as a mortuary with only authorised people having access to that building, to the same circumstances in the ambulance station?
A specific person has custody of the body. If that person is part of an ambulance crew, then that crew is unavailable, as they'd still be booked on to the incident in which they took custody of the body.
A mortuary is accepted as being an acceptable place for bodies to be stored without being in a specific persons presence. An ambulance station isn't.
I said if they were just about to leave for the mortuary, not on their way, so if they were still in the building?
I dont know how ambulance stations work but I would have thought that the ambulance station has custody whilst its there, or does it have to be a named person. What is the difference to it being a secure building such as a mortuary with only authorised people having access to that building, to the same circumstances in the ambulance station?
A lot of ambulance stations are empty, especially out of office hours, when crews are not there.
Such a building is not a place to leave bodies in any event. They are taken from the scene of death to a mortuary, and continuity of evidence is secure. The moral side of it is a different issue. I'm sure none of us would like this to happen to our friends or family.
The ambulance crew did not have to remove the body at all if they were not going to deal with it properly. They could have asked for an undertaker, and should have if that was their plan.
But it wasnt unattended in that no one knew about it or unauthorised people could have got at the body was it? (Im asking as I dont know)
Secondly then, what would have happend if whilst just about to take the body to the mortuary, they got an emergency call in? Do they go to that and take the body with them so its not 'unattended'?
If they were on a run to the mortuary, they were unavailable. This is one reason why ambulances don't generally remove bodies. It takes up too much of their time, and they may be needed for something else.
However, if they agree to take a body, they should do it properly.
The person's dead, he's not bothered. I don't have a problem with leaving a body for an hour if the shift is near ending, although it's pretty daft they don't have a specific place for them.
I thought they did have a specific place for them?
Call me crazy if you want, but if you have a dead body would you want to leave it somewhere clean, and in a place where people would be walking? You would want to leave it somewhere out of the way, surely? It's a dead body, so isn't close to the bins (that's if it's even true) kind of a logical place to leave it?
And besides - why has no one stated the obvious, that by doing this the ambulance would then be free to be used by the next shift for genuine emergencies, surely?
Call me crazy if you want, but if you have a dead body would you want to leave it somewhere clean, and in a place where people would be walking? You would want to leave it somewhere out of the way, surely? It's a dead body, so isn't close to the bins (that's if it's even true) kind of a logical place to leave it?
And besides - why has no one stated the obvious, that by doing this the ambulance would then be free to be used by the next shift for genuine emergencies, surely?
If the ambulance crew were not prepared to take the body directly to the mortuary, the obvious is to refuse to take it, because it is not really their role, although they do help with such things at times.
If there was a problem with a direct journey, it is so simple to just get an undertaker out. There are firms on call in all areas for this specific task.
Comments
I imagine it would have been in a body bag, not literally dumped in a pile on the floor.
Bare in mind we don't know the ins and outs of this case, it may have been perfectly acceptable.
or at the very least have handed it over to another crew immediately.
Your first paragraph, I know that. I was making the point that this round trip could have been disallowed for all we know due to the number of hours someone might have done.
The change of shift wouldnt have prevented him being taken to the mortuary, albeit with a slight delay. I would be happier if this hadnt happened but in reality, I would want to know more details of how the body was left before condemning anyone.
I didn't make up the title.
They did.
They didn't know the cause of death, and the Police were investigating, therefore it could be suspicious, or certainly a case for a Coroners Inquest.
In such cases, continuity of identification, and evidence is important. Leaving a body in an ambulance station compromises that, as well as it being simply wrong.
Handing it straight to another crew would have been acceptable, but just leaving it is not.
So they went off shift and the new shift comes on, how was it left, presumably there was a handover?
Totally unacceptable in my view. Sounds like a training issue.
Have you read the article? The body was left unattended for over an hour.
It was left over one hour. Shouldn't have happened.
If they were not prepared to do it properly, they should have declined to remove the deceased. it is not actually their job, but they will help out at times if a body is in a public place. If they were not going straight to the mortuary, and undertaker could be called.
Im not sure I believe that timeline. Normally in services like that, there is a hand over.
Yes that's what makes me suspicious as well. Are we to believe the area was without paramedic cover for an hour? I think more likely it was an hour before the next crew took it to the mortuary, rather than being literally unattended for a whole hour, probably more likely it was left unattended to, but with full awareness of, for an hour.
Nobody is saying the area was without paramedic cover are they? Of course there is a handover, however prior to this the time at the end of the shift is usually spent cleaning the ambulance, restocking it, doing checks etc ready for the next shift. Emergencies of course will take priority. The trip to was 22 miles away however, so if they'd have gone straight there, booked the body in to the mortuary then came straight back you're still looking at between one hour to one hour and a half, meaning they'd have been off late and handed over an ambulance that wasn't ready.
The article is all we have to go on as to whether the body was left unattended, so it's fair to assume that it was. If it wasn't then that makes thing somewhat better in terms of chain of custody evidentially, but it's still not particularly dignified.
But it wasnt unattended in that no one knew about it or unauthorised people could have got at the body was it? (Im asking as I dont know)
Secondly then, what would have happend if whilst just about to take the body to the mortuary, they got an emergency call in? Do they go to that and take the body with them so its not 'unattended'?
The point is, for evidential integrity there has to be a record of who has custody of the body and when. Leaving it unattended, even if in a secure building such as an ambulance station, where only certain people have access is simply not good enough.
If they were taking the body to the mortuary they would be showing as unavailable and wouldn't be sent to an emergency call. The same applies to police officers on scene guards for example.
Not at all. At that time the body was a piece of evidence in the investigation of a sudden or unexpected death.
I said if they were just about to leave for the mortuary, not on their way, so if they were still in the building?
I dont know how ambulance stations work but I would have thought that the ambulance station has custody whilst its there, or does it have to be a named person. What is the difference to it being a secure building such as a mortuary with only authorised people having access to that building, to the same circumstances in the ambulance station?
A specific person has custody of the body. If that person is part of an ambulance crew, then that crew is unavailable, as they'd still be booked on to the incident in which they took custody of the body.
A mortuary is accepted as being an acceptable place for bodies to be stored without being in a specific persons presence. An ambulance station isn't.
That's the way Angela eagle would put it , surely.
In a hospital near me a few years ago a body went missing for 2 days, it turned up in a cleaning cupboard, no one was ever found responsible.
A lot of ambulance stations are empty, especially out of office hours, when crews are not there.
Such a building is not a place to leave bodies in any event. They are taken from the scene of death to a mortuary, and continuity of evidence is secure. The moral side of it is a different issue. I'm sure none of us would like this to happen to our friends or family.
The ambulance crew did not have to remove the body at all if they were not going to deal with it properly. They could have asked for an undertaker, and should have if that was their plan.
If they were on a run to the mortuary, they were unavailable. This is one reason why ambulances don't generally remove bodies. It takes up too much of their time, and they may be needed for something else.
However, if they agree to take a body, they should do it properly.
I thought they did have a specific place for them?
Called the mortuary.
And besides - why has no one stated the obvious, that by doing this the ambulance would then be free to be used by the next shift for genuine emergencies, surely?
If the ambulance crew were not prepared to take the body directly to the mortuary, the obvious is to refuse to take it, because it is not really their role, although they do help with such things at times.
If there was a problem with a direct journey, it is so simple to just get an undertaker out. There are firms on call in all areas for this specific task.