>>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)?