>>Clearly, they are still up to it (the right providing talking points):
>>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html>>
>>Although, I'm not sure how they can refuse an ambulance. Here, the ambulance must go if called by a patient. The patient may have to pay for the ambulance ride if it was deemed 'rivolous' but in most states they must be dispatched. That story is a little confusing. Does the distance to the hospital have anything to do with it? Is there some standard of distance required for non life-threatening situations?
>
>A Brit that I know responded to this elsewhere (private, so I can't link it or quote it). He explained that hospitals don't send ambulances for emergencies in the UK; there's a separate service for that, for which you call 999 (the equivalent of our 911).
>
>Tamar
So, the patient should have called 999, not the hospital? or should the hospital have called 999 on her behalf (after she called them)? Is the patient a foreign national do you think (and unaware of the procedure)?
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"