32k+ signatures on the petition. $83 million for rescue helicopters in the budget. Still no facts from the Ministry of Health... Keep following the campaign at NZ Rescue Helicopters (https://www.facebook.com/groups/393625254440038/). Please don't be shy about joining the conversations... My Cousin Vinnie (20th Century Fox 1992) is one of my more favourite movies - I don't normally admit that in public and I think it would be even better if it didn't drop the f-bomb all over the place...but, if it has one enduring must watch scene, it is where Vinnie describes how a prosecutor presents a case.... "...building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right? [puts his hand on the wall] "...let me show you something..." [holds up a playing card] "...he's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you..." [turns the card] "...when you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion..." The NASO proposal for the rescue helicopters is as two dimensional as that playing card. It has no substance, no structure, no depth...it is not based on a foundation of data, facts and science. It plays on our fears "we need safer helicopters", "the current fleet is old" when it should know that's not true. It promises to improve the current system but can't state what needs fixing (the coordination of helicopter resources - which probably does need work - will be a separate tender). Its leader, Dr Ian Civil, (listen to the linked interview) thinks it's OK for a few to suffer from a change so long as it's good for the majority: "... where an individual might suffer if a system is changed and if that individual suffering is associated with a benefit for a larger group of people it's hard to disagree with that..." NASO, the Ministry of Health, ACC, and the Major Trauma Network have not offered one single fact to support this multi-million dollar project...the $83 million in last night's budget is just the tip of this iceberg. If this project was based on facts and science, don't you think that the Minister of Health would be trundling out those facts again and again? Instead he can only be tongue-tied and flustered when questioned in Parliament by MPs concerned for their electorates. Our concern is not who gets the tender. Our concern is not what sort of aircraft are flown. Our concern is the discontinuation of the rescue helicopter bases in Taupo, Rotorua, Whitianga and Te Anau. Our concern is that the NASO proposal can not maintain the levels of rescue helicopter service currently delivered by the trusts to our more isolated rural and alpine communities. Our concern is that the Ministry of Health is introducing a rescue helicopter capability that will only truly improve clinical outcomes for the small percentage of patients that require life-saving in-flight interventions. It will do this at the expense of those who live in and visit our more isolated rural and alpine areas, places like Coromandel, Tongariro and Fiordland: very popular tourist destinations that will have to wait for a helicopter to come from somewhere else, if one is available... Ian Civil, in the linked interview, says that time is only one of the factors that affect patient outcomes, the others being the equipment, the crew and the destination hospital. But there is no (I dare the Ministry to prove this wrong) study or report or manual that rates equipment, crew or destination as higher factors than time. The UK Ministry of Defence manual, JSP 950 ed2, based on its Iraqi and Afghan experiences, states "...Whilst primarily expressed as time for the trauma patient the principles apply to the non-trauma patient. The benchmark in civilian practice is rapid access within 8 minutes and hospital based surgery within one hour of injury..." Is it not more important to get a response, any response, to a seriously-ill or injured person than the ideal response - too late? And our current helicopters aren't just 'any response'; most if not all come with one Intensive Care Paramedic (ICP - the highest level of paramedic care in NZ), often two, or a PRIME doctor. If the Ministry's new scheme can do better, wonderful, but it's difficult, in the absence of any facts, to see just how helicopters flying from much further away, even with crews on base 24/7/365, will better current response times...gentlemen of the Ministry, some facts please... So we need to keep on fighting this, certainly until tongue-tied Minister David Clark can serve up the data and science behind the proposal and set our fears at rest...