Yes, but the idea isn’t for a city-wide blackout, but for a very small area immediately around the emergency vehicle in question. So only if the doctor in question happened to live very close to the site of the accident would it likely be an issue at all.
Also, don’t most hosptial emergency rooms have enough staff on to deal with minor emergencies? I mean, when a city bus rolls over and there are dozens of casualties, sure you call in extra doctors, but aren’t they usually prepared for a single heart attack victim? Because if they really need to call in extra staff for every ambulance visit, I think we need to fit doctors’ cars with sirens.
Good point; it’s about cost-vs-benefits, specifically weighing the relatively routine benefits accrued when everything goes well against the potential of absolutely catastrophic failure caused by the plan. Also, think about small towns, where the blackout could indeed be effectively city-wide.
Yes, most hospitals can deal with the average emergency without calling anyone in. Again, however, this plan would create the potential for catastrophic failures in the event of a serious emergency.
Humans are bad at judging this kind of risk. It’s a known failure mode of human cognition. My post was pointing out the potential for kinds of failures that weren’t being addressed in the thread thus far, which can help in determining the plan’s overall value.