I criticize the unrealistic UK Rules and those who hit us with a "Father knows best" attitude about them.
The CAA run a tight ship but that's the law of the land. There's no point in arguing so I don't, nothing "Father knows best" about that.
There's many a time when there is no IFR option that I could have launched in poor weather and easily have got to my destination under our military regulations. But despite flying a more capable aircraft, these days I fly under stricter civvie rules. Frustrating at times, to be honest.
Way too many forget they are in the medical transport business and not the life saving business.
I agree totally with you on that. Even where the mission is a life saving one (and we've both been there many times), common sense should indicate that the job ought to be done in such a way that the big picture / overall risk to all concerned is kept in mind. If common sense fails, (perhaps due to commercial pressures) legislation could do something about it. In UK we don't have a situation where perceived "medal missions" get mixed up with making a profit.
But I can't completely follow your underlying rationale. Do you want safer night EMS ops in USA, or not? It appears that you do, but appear to strongly oppose any suggestion that the stricter rules already applying elsewhere just might help make it safer. When legislation levels the playing field, the only difference once the dust settles is that the price of the job goes up. So how much are the lives of an EMS crew worth? You appear to be saying there is a difference from one side of the Atlantic to the other.