What if...

I have several problems with this article. Overall, it does appear that the "scoop and run" approach is superior in such situations of traumatic injury. Yet the tone of the writing really discredited the argument being made. As was already stated, there are many grammatical errors and the author admits not being a doctor. The author also implies pretty blatantly that the American system is superior, as this is the "gold standard" against which the French approach is being compared and the attitude is clearly US-centric. US doctors are made to seem more authoritative and credible with long descriptions of how highly esteemed they were. (It also reminded me of how US doctors "diagnose" celebrities despite never having treated them.) Diana's case is merely one tragic anecdotal story but where is the statistical evidence? There is not much empirical data used to support the claim that the French emergency response is faulty...maybe it's necessary to read the book? Also, I doubt the author would've spent any time investigating the emergency treatment of an average French citizen. And I wonder how many lives could potentially be saved in US emergency rooms? In sum, while it is surely wise to learn from past mistakes, this article (and probably the book) mainly consists of "what if?" speculations.