Now, to address the evolving debate of the appropriate level of protection needed for TEMS units and RTFs. Honestly, this concept is really very simple in my mind. Would you knowingly go into the most dangerous situation anywhere in your city without the maximum level of protection? I know, after 15 years of operational support as a TEMS provider, I personally would never dream of going on an active-shooter event, SWAT call-out, or high-risk warrant service without the maximum level of protection for that mission. Admittedly, I am biased after the above scenario that occurred on my team years ago. However, I believe it remains the standard to provide adequate protection to TEMS providers and RTF personnel.

Is it fair for anyone to say that providers should not be offered the highest level of protection for the job they are performing? Simply because the data show a lack of events occurring in which TEMS providers or RTF personnel are actually hurt or fired upon during their mission does not mean that the risk is nonexistent, and it certainly does not mean the lives of TEMS providers are worth less than the protective equipment, which would be purchased.

To compare ideology in services, how many firefighters are seriously hurt in vehicle extrications every year? Thankfully, very few.³ Yet despite the thankfully low incidence, the National Fire Protection Association clearly mandates bunker gear, personal protective equipment, in all extrications. One can, and should, argue that this is due to the fact that responders are required to wear appropriate protective equipment and that it is, in fact, doing its job protecting from serious injury or death.⁴ Likewise, how many planes crash at airports every year, yet would anyone even dream of arguing that air-rescue units are too expensive and unneeded statistically and, therefore, we should remove all fire apparatus from commercial airports in order to cut costs?

With a growing number of threats and increasing violence against law enforcement and public safety providers, is this really the time to discuss decreasing the preparedness and protection of our personnel? We certainly cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend the threat is not increasing and thus it is justifiable to decrease expenditures on appropriate protective equipment for our frontline providers. The simple fact remains that TEMS providers and RTF personnel are entering into dangerous situations when they respond to these events. To look only at data and attempt to justify cost savings by cutting protective equipment is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, reckless when compared to a clearly established national standard as recommended by the newly released document published by the Department of Homeland Security with clearly defined position statements regarding personal protective equipment.⁵ At the end of the day, we need to protect those who are protecting us.