IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/johsem/v22y2025i1p1-25n1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety First or Saving Lives? How Medical Responders Would Decide when Facing an Active Violent Incident. Results from an Explorative Cross-National Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Ellebrecht Nils

    (Centre for Security and Society, 9174 University of Freiburg , Werthmannstr. 15, 79098 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany)

  • Joval Anna

    ((Security Management), Norwegian Red Cross, Oslo, Norway)

  • Kaplan Tomer

    (251222 Magen David Adom , Or-Yehuda, Israel)

  • Wacht Oren

    (Department of Emergency Medicine, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, Israel)

  • Weinstein Eric S.

    (Center for Research and Training in Disaster Medicine, Humanitarian Aid and Global Health, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy)

Abstract

In recent years, public authorities and rescue services have been discussing how Medical First Responders (MFRs) should behave in an Active Violent Incident (AVI) where it is necessary to weigh up self-protection and the rescuing of others. The aim of this exploratory study is to generate a preliminary picture of how European MFRs position themselves on this and related questions. With the help of a network of experts, an AVI scenario and accompanying questionnaire were developed and pretested. A refined version was then distributed among MFRs in eight European countries and Israel. We performed descriptive statistics and tested for significant differences among the participating countries. 1164 MFRs completed the survey. In the absence of police protection, a majority of respondents opted against providing immediate casualty care (56.6 %). Under certain circumstances, however, the rest decided in favour. More than 65.5 % did not fear disciplinary or legal consequences for not providing assistance immediately. Even with police protection, one in ten respondents would still not enter a “yellow zone”, one in four would leave this to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) units specifically trained for such operations. While there are very few strong contrasts between MFRs with different work experience, roles (supervisor/instructor) or additional qualifications (e.g., firefighting, military service), there are significant differences between MFRs from participating countries. Most notably, (1) only Norwegian participants identified, on average, a clear paradigm shift from “safety first” to “controlled risk taking”; (2) while 69.8 % of the Austrian cohort were unwilling to enter without being escorted by the police, among Norwegians MFRs the figure was 42.7 %; (3) the question whether “weapons” are “useful” equipment in such a scenario is particularly divisive (ranging from 14.3 % of German to 58.9 % of Israeli respondents). Although most of the questions were answered in the same way by a large majority, significant differences can be observed, especially between countries. We offer various explanations for these and discuss whether MFRs can actually remain passive given the situational normative forces inherent to an AVI.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellebrecht Nils & Joval Anna & Kaplan Tomer & Wacht Oren & Weinstein Eric S., 2025. "Safety First or Saving Lives? How Medical Responders Would Decide when Facing an Active Violent Incident. Results from an Explorative Cross-National Survey," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:1-25:n:1001
    DOI: 10.1515/jhsem-2022-0051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2022-0051
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jhsem-2022-0051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:1-25:n:1001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.