SCDF ambulance (Photo: Terry Xu)

A tragic accident took place near Lucky Plaza whereby two people tragically lost their lives while four were injured.
All life is precious and it is therefore disappointing that The New Paper felt it necessary to emblazon in their headlines that “Two Filipino maids” were killed. Is it really relevant to mention the occupation of the victims? Seems like a cheap way to sell papers if you ask me. But I digress.
The main point of concern I wish to raise is in relation to the medical care that was provided to the victims of the accident.
The victims were conveyed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) via Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) ambulances.
Given that the accident took place in the vicinity of Lucky Plaza, one does not need to be an expert in Geography to know that TTSH is by far not the nearest hospital.

In emergencies such as these, shouldn’t victims have been transported to the nearest hospital (in this case Mount Elizabeth Hospital)? Did the delay in transporting the victims contribute to the deaths?
Mount Elizabeth has since clarified that they would most definitely have treated the victims had they been activated.  The issue would appear therefore not to be one of costs as speculated by some but an issue with standard operating procedures of the SCDF.
According to government websites, SCDF emergency ambulances will convey patients to the closest designated restructured hospitals, to receive immediate medical attention. Ambulance personnel will not consider requests to redirect patients to alternative hospitals, even if patients have existing relationships with those facilities. 
As Mount Elizabeth is apparently not on the list of SCDF hospitals, the victims were not sent there despite it being pretty much beside the scene of the accident. Is this a case where blind adherence to standard operating procedures has trumped common sense?
Not to mention TTSH does not have a burns unit or cardiac surgery while Mount Elizabeth has far more cardiac surgeons and orthopedic surgeons than TTSH.
Secondly, shouldn’t our various ambulance services be more joined up? I would have thought that the standard operating procedure for any ambulance service would be to take patients to the nearest hospital in cases of emergency (which this clearly was) as opposed to some arbitrary “list”?
It would be a waste of life if lives that could have been potentially be saved, were lost because of this seemingly senseless delay.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Jack's Place at Paya Lebar suspended for two weeks for cockroach infestation

The National Environment Agency (NEA) has announced that it will be suspending…

教育界前高官涉非礼女下属 遭判监六周仍要上诉

一名67岁的教育界前高官,因强抱女下属,涉嫌滥用职权,非礼罪名成立。本月18日法官判他监禁六周! 不过,这位前高官仍不满判决,打算提出上诉。他被指控于2016年3至9月期间,五次非礼一名43岁女下属;以及在同年2月至12月间,曾四次非礼一名55岁女下属。 早前在审讯后,法官判他非礼43岁女下属的五项控状不成立。但是,非礼55岁女下属控状罪成。控方也打算针对前面五项控状上诉。 在本月4日,控方针对刑罚陈词时,曾指出被告毫无悔意,反诬告受害者先主动;且专挑午餐时间办公室四下无人时下手,以顺利续约为由,伺机紧抱受害者。 受害者之后出现健康问题,包括心悸、持续性咳嗽、呼吸困难等,曾在办公室晕倒,甚至有自杀倾向。 被告也违背信任,滥用职权,占受害者便宜,其刑罚必须达到阻遏作用,以示警戒。 然而,辩护律师则称,被告罪行不至于坐牢。律师求情时表示,被告是紧抱受害者一二秒钟,非常短暂且无肌肤接触。被告也没用手触摸受害者的敏感部位。此外,并无证据显示,受害者心里受到伤害。 律师辩称,案发时被告也不知其他同事在不在办公室,若要滥用职权,大可把被告叫到隐秘房间。 法官下判时指出,由于无法证明受害者健康问题,是因为案件造成,加上被告仅短暂拥抱受害者,未直接肌肤接触,性剥削程度较低。 但是,法官对涉及上下属职场非礼的案件零容忍,判被告监禁六周。 目前,被告仍有三项控状搁置,直至下月8日进行审前会议。

PM Lee Hsien Loong visits Mongolia, first visit by Singapore PM since 1970

SINGAPORE – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong visits Mongolia today (July 13)…

Pulling Singapore out of the slums ?!?

By Narayana Narayana – The September 23 2012 (pg 46) Sunday Times…