Rethinking the Guardian Angels

Back on October 9, I posted an entry describing an encounter with the neighborhood watch group known as the Guardian Angels. While I did not say anything derogatory about this organization, I did question their decision to call 911 for a man who was reported to be unconscious. In fact, he was sitting up and talking when we arrived, and wanted only to be brought to a homeless shelter.

During the past couple of days, I've received e-mails from three Guardian Angels who were on the scene that night. Understandably, they did not appreciate the way I depicted them. Instead of responding with a bunch of angry name-calling, however, they did something that shocked me, in a good way: They sent me a series of unusually civilized e-mails, explaining their points of view, expressing a hope that we can establish a better working relationship.

This approach impressed me greatly. It also caused me to rethink my opinion of who these people are, and what they do. Now, it's important to note that I've never "bashed" the Guardian Angels in this 'blog. To the contrary, I wrote in response to a reader's comment that "this was my first encounter with them...so I have to admit that they don't seem to be causing us any real problem." Readers have expressed strong opinions about them in their comments, but I've never given much thought to them one way or the other.

Still, the Angels felt they'd been unfairly characterized. In his message, the leader of the Boston Chapter provided more details about the reason they'd called 911. He asked me not to print his exact words, but the story goes something like this:

While on patrol, the Angels came across a man on the ground. They asked someone nearby how long the man had been there, and they were told it had been about five hours. One member of the group, who has been trained as an EMT, woke the man up, although apparently it took a while to do so.

The Guardian Angels' EMT picks up the story from there. In an e-mail of her own, she says she noticed a hospital ID tag and a tag identifying the man as a diabetic. She took his pulse and thought it was fast. Since she didn't have access to a glucometer (a computer that measures blood sugar), and since the man appeared to be intoxicated and possibly malnourished, she called 911.

What was said during the 911 call remains unclear. Perhaps she described the man as unconscious. Perhaps there was miscommunication between the EMT and the calltaker, or between the calltaker and the EMS dispatcher. In any event, while sending us to the call, the dispatcher described the patient as "unconscious"--something that automatically triggers a response by one of the city's five paramedic units, and not just one of the more numerous EMT units.

Human behavior is shaped by experience. How we respond to a given situation is determined in part by past events. In my case, I have been shaped by twenty years of people calling me regularly for situations that no reasonable person would construe as an emergency. Many times I've nearly been killed responding to these non-emergency calls. As a result, I can't possibly view such calls objectively.

So, put yourself in my position, responding to a scene where you've been told the patient is unconscious. You arrive to find him sitting up, talking. His pulse is not fast, but instead is 92, which is well within the "normal" range. Given that the patient's condition was different than the way it had been described, and having been fooled thousands of times by inaccurate reports, was it unreasonable of me to question the reliability of the information provided by the Guardian Angel who had called? Or even to question her abilities?

For that matter, was it wrong of me to resent them for having called at all, since the man had never asked for assistance? Once again, this comes down to a matter of resource allocation. We only have so many ambulances in this city, and even fewer paramedic units. I did not resent the Guardian Angels because I was too lazy to respond to the call. I resented them because their call struck me as unnecessary, tying up vital resources and preventing them from being utilized elsewhere.

Whether my reaction was reasonable or not, I definitely did one thing wrong on this call. Arriving at the scene with a feeling of resentment, and believing that I could not trust the opinion of the people who had called, I made no attempt to elicit information from them. Instead I ignored them, speaking directly to the patient. Resentful or not, there's no excuse for this kind of rudeness, and I regret it now, especially in light of the calm, reasonable manner in which the Angels have handled this situation subsequently. Already I've apologized to them, but I'll do it again here.

Through this incident, I have learned some things about the Guardian Angels. First, they are not simply a bunch of high-school dropouts who like to run around in uniforms scaring people, as some observers would have you believe. One is an EMT who took a training course with our own Boston EMS personnel. Another, apparently, is an active member of the United States Coast Guard. A third is a businessman and retired member of the Army Reserve. I must confess that based on what I'd heard about the Guardian Angels, I was surprised to learn about their varied and somewhat impressive backgrounds. Lesson Number One: It's dangerous to stereotype based on gossip and what you read in the newspapers.

Something else I learned: People may disagree over the value of Guardian Angel patrols, but they certainly deserve credit for believing in what they do. According to their e-mails, they do not view themselves as activists or extremists. They do not view themselves as vigilantes, no matter what the police department and news media say about them. They honestly believe that they are making Boston and other cities better, safer cities simply by deterring crime through their presence. They volunteer three nights a week, in addition to time spent training. That's a sizable time commitment. I'm not saying that they are succeeding in fighting crime, necessarily, but three nights a week, as volunteers? Certainly they deserve some credit for that.

So, here's my revised stand on the Guardian Angels. They don't seem to be the zealots some people suggest they are. I commend them for trying to help people who actually want help. As they go about their patrols, however, I would ask them to remember that several thousand people live on the streets of Boston, and that many of them are there by choice. For a variety of reasons, some of these people reject homeless shelters and offers of assistance, remaining on the street of their own volition. As long as the Angels don't go around trying to solicit business for us, and instead call 911 only when the patient actually wants 911 called, I think we'll get along just fine.

But those are just my opinions. Go back and read the comments posted by some of the Angels themselves under the October 9 entry (Guardian Angels), and tell us what you think.