A FORMER paramedic who suggested that a drunk patient should be placed in the back of a police van, when he was in no fit state to be refused medical treatment, has been struck off.

A fellow paramedic and a police officer were appalled at the attitude of Deborah Iveson who asked whether a man, who was found collapsed in Manchester Road, Nelson, should be detained for being drunk and disorderly, as part of an incident in July 2011.

MORE TOP STORIES:

Iveson, who was also a special constable with Lancashire police, was originally suspended from working as a paramedic by the Health & Care Professions Council in October 2013 after a misconduct case was found proved. She was dismissed by NWAS in June 2012.

But the ex-medic, who is now employed in the retail sector, wanted to return to work with a private medical company as an emergency ambulance technician, and applied to the HCPC for restoration to the medical register. Jackie Carson, for the HCPC, said Iveson’s fitness to practise was still impaired and no conditions could be formulated that would protect the public from her failings.

Her original suspension hearing was told that rapid-response paramedic Jacqueline Carney was already at the scene, with the collapsed patient in Nelson, when Iveson arrived, alongside emergency technician Stephen Turner.

Iveson was said to have twice asked Ms Carney whether the patient should not be placed in the back of a police van on the grounds he was drunk and disorderly.

The rapid-response paramedic found Iveson’s approach incomprehensible. And PC Sarah Etherden, who had also been called to the scene, was appalled at Iveson’s attitude and later confirmed in a statement that the patient was not behaving in a disorderly manner.

Though Iveson had emailed the council, to apply to be reinstated, she had provided no evidence of any insight into her issues, or taken any remedial steps to address her shortcomings.

Panel chairman Nicola Bastin said: “Miss Iveson has not sought to engage with this review process and has not submitted any of the material suggested by the panel that reviewed the case in October 2014.

“In all the circumstances of this case the panel has concluded that no purpose would be served by a further period of suspension, and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction that would adequately address the issues identified in this case is one of striking off.”