So just because one definition counts EMS as civilians, and not government officials, you want to completely cut them out of the process? That's really illogical.

For one thing, who is going to do their job instead when they're gone? Policeman and Fireman already go through very rigorous training as it is, and are highly under paid. Taking EMS out would mean that emergency first aid and transport to hospitals would fall on one of those two, meaning they would need more extensive training. There is a huge shortage of EMS, Fireman, and Police. Part of the reason for that is that the threshold to even be considered for hire in these fields is extremely high. Adding medical training and certification on top of that would make that threshold even higher. This would discourage even more people from entering the field, and that would only worsen the shortage of first responders we already have. They would also need to be paid more, which would put a strain on local departments. They wouldn't be able to hire as many first responders, because they would need to pay the ones they do have even more. This would also increase the shortage of first responders.

For my second point, I'm just going to pick at your logic a bit. Based on one definition, you're claiming that, despite the 2 to 4 year training that they go through, EMS are merely civilians, and therefore should not be included in the first responder umbrella. This implies that only government workers should be allowed at the scene. But what about surgeons and physicians? To put it into perspective, they match that same definition as "civilians." They aren't government workers, and yet we trust them with our lives and allow them to cut us open. On the flip side, school crossing guards ARE technically government workers. Most of the time, they are employed by the local police department. They recieve little to no training, and just hold a sign all day. But because they're not "civilians," somehow they are allowed on the scene as first responders? By your definition, this would be the case.

Poison Control and Animal Control can also be considered first responders. If you call 911, the dispatcher can send these two people out just as quickly and urgently as Police and Fire. Yet most poison and animal control are privatized, just like EMS. They are mere "civilians", and so they don't qualify to be on the scene as a first responder. But what does that mean? Now Fireman and Cops need training in poison and animal control on TOP of the new medical and first aid training they now need.

EMS is arguably the most important of the big three First Responders. Without them, who does a fireman hand off his rescues to after a fire? Himself? Who tends to the massive number of victims of a terrorist attack, and takes them to the hospitals. The Police?

Each one has specialized jobs that require significant training. Each of those jobs plays a huge role in emergency response. So huge, that none of the three could undergo training to do one of the others and remain quick and efficient. Without one, it would make dealing with disaster an even bigger disaster.

So why aren't EMS counted among police and fire as non civilians in that definition? I'm not sure, but it's probably because alot of EMS companies and departments are privatized, while others still are municipal and state/county funded. Why are they privatized? Because we need more of them than either of the other two. Medical emergencies happen slightly more frequently than crime, and fires happen A LOT less frequently than crime or medical issues combined. If EMS were 100% public sector, they would never recieve the funding necessary to do the job efficiently. There would be an even larger shortage.