Not at all. I think air ambulances are invaluable. At my last job, working on a local paper in Lancashire, the air ambulance saved countless lives. True, they perhaps do work better in rural areas (more fields to land in) than heavily-populated urban ones, but so long as there's a playing field or something nearby and a helipad at the hospital (which most have) they can react a lot quicker than earthbound paramedics.
And while paramedics on motorcycles are probably almost as responsive as helicopters, they're not much use if a patient needs getting to hospital immediately.
The cost is awfully expensive, mind, which is why you very often get several ambulance services sharing one - for example, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester (I think) used the services of the Lancashire-based one, which is a very big patch to cover.
The cost also means that very often they are sponsorship-funded, which often rankles when you see a supposedly public service with the AA logo stamped on the side. However, in this case it's often the difference between having the facility and not, rather than sponsorship for profit's sake.
So, on balance, yeah, I think they're a great idea and should be retained, and probably funded by the Government. Most of them are run as charities. |
