The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care has released the report of its investigation into a mis-handled 9-1-1 call that led to the death, from heart attack, of a gay man in the centre of Toronto gay village during Pride Week and a civic workers strike that involved the ambulance service.
"Ambulance parked around the corner for more than half an hour while 59-year-old died of a heart attack"
link: 38 minutes, missteps and miscues by Toronto EMS, and a man lay dead - The Globe and Mail
While the ministry investigator appears to have been tough, at first glance, the report leaves a lot of questions unasked and unanswered. The Globe and Mail report fails to mention the investigator never talked to the deceased partner or men present during the time he lay dying in a ground floor hallway of his apartment building. Would the investigator behaved this way with the wife of a caucasian business man in North Toronto? Even if an interview would have been unlikely to yield valuable information, it would have been a simple courtesy, the decent thing to do.
To someone who has worked with EMS personnel it bears the stench of homophobia which pervades the sector. Did homophobia influence the ambulance crew to park around the corner with lights off for more than half an hour rather than enter a building that is known to be home to hundreds of gay men? Was the crew really "afraid" of the crowds of gay man and women milling about the village celebrating Pride Week?
Or was it a fear of drug sector violence? Illegal drug use is all too common, and tolerated, in the gay village. The apartment complex at issue, like most others in the area, employs private security services, dog patrols of the grounds and garages, etc. to counter the crime that goes with illegal drugs. Yet there was little to fear in this case. The dying man was in a ground floor corridor; the crew did not have to take an elevator to a high floor where they would might conceivably been in more danger. The 9-1-1 dispatcher was taking a call from a security guard; did this not reassure the crew?
The other unmentionable factor was strike ongoing at the time. Under the terms of their contract, the number of ambulance workers on duty is reduced during a strike. While this crew was working – or not working – the night shift, their brothers and sisters were relaxing at home secure in the knowledge that the strike would have little or no impact on their incomes. Why bother putting out any effort – it had already been a tough shift – when their colleagues were enjoying an extended weekend break? Where did they spend in the half-hour; in the ambulance with the lights off or picking up coffee or a burger? We do know they weren't checking in with their supervisor or dispatch as required by their training and EMS policy. In Toronto, no one who values his or her job in management dares to raise questions that touch on union behaviour or misbehaviour. Senior city power brokers from the mayor on down will punish such behaviour mercilessly.
In my opinion, it was a combination of all three factors. An ambulance crew was all pumped-up by union rhetoric to be tough and deliver nothing more than absolutely essential services. Attending to an apparently (but not) drunk, gay man in a building where there have no doubt been countless drug related calls, never registered with these people as an essential service. It was so much easier to park the ambulance, turn off the lights and take a break.
The "punishment" meted out to the EMS personnel found to be at fault is an insult to the deceased, his family and his friends. Indeed it's an insult to anyone living in or visiting Toronto. For these highly paid workers, secure in their union jobs, it is a couple of weeks extra vacation followed by light (education) duty when they return. It's not as if, at their income levels, a few days without pay constitutes a hardship. That all five should be "retired" from the emergency service as unfit for their jobs, as suggested by the deceased's partner, would be a more fitting response. That, until the Coroner concludes his investigation and determines if further action is warranted.
