Yes

by Sophia Tesch

Created on: August 21, 2010   Last Updated: August 22, 2010

Civil defense sirens blaring, warnings on TV and radio saying danger is imminent evacuate immediately! So why doesn’t everybody leave? Should the government be obligated to rescue people who ignore evacuation warnings in natural disasters?

When discussing this question as a matter of public policy there are several things to take into consideration. It would be easy to say they knew about the warning, didn’t evacuate and therefore deserve what happens to them for not seeking shelter elsewhere. It is interesting how punitive the public can get about things they deem a lack of personal responsibility especially if taxpayer dollars are footing the bill.

One important question that must be asked is why didn’t these people leave? For some it is a miscalculation about the threat.  In the example of the infamous hurricane Katrina, many residents of the Gulf Coast had already survived hurricanes and at first Katrina with her strength was still survivable. What many didn’t count on was the concrete levies giving way which flooded the town. It was a miscalculation by many that put them in harms way and for many it became a fatal mistake.

There are the elderly and sick for which mobilization under any circumstances is very difficult and may cause more harm.  In these cases it is decided to take ones chances and hope for the best. Others leave things in God’s hands which may work to a certain extent because they do indeed survive the initial incident and then find themselves in need of rescuing.

Many times those left behind are people with very few resources. Depending on public transportation and having insufficient income to get them out of town. For these folks even if they were able to get out of town where would they stay once they get there? Many times these people are left with very few options in the face of disaster. Does this inability to flee deserve the potential capital punishment of being left with no government assistance after a disaster?

Of course there is a moral issue about being humane to others, however let’s lay that aside for a moment and talk about this from a fiscally conservative viewpoint for the benefit of those responsible folks who work hard for their money. The fact of the matter is that even if these folks who stay behind are “taught a lesson” for what other citizens decide is irresponsible behavior, what will happen? Those who are able bodied will go into survival mode. That will in most cases mean additional property damage and violence as people attempt to secure food, water, shelter and medical supplies.  Who knows how much of that could be spared by relocating them and filling those needs for a short period of time in a structured and cost effective manner?

Those who are not able to assist themselves could potentially meet circumstances which are no longer supportive of life and they expire in their homes. This can lead to a host of public health issues. Disease can potentially spread, how quickly may depend on the type of disaster being faced. Clean up of this potential bio-hazard can become quite costly or the area is abandoned altogether and who knows the loss of potential income that would cause?

Now let’s go back to the human issue. Who knows the plethora of reasons why someone doesn’t leave in the wake of a natural disaster? If as a nation we have the resources to help out a fellow American isn’t that part of the American culture to do so? At one time in the past there was no question, however I fear it has come to a point in our culture where some would pick and choose who to save. They would leave someone with the ability to survive with some assistance behind to stay and perish based on their own egocentric criteria. I would hope that such people are never made leaders and creators of public policy.

Policy makers need to have a larger vision when making decisions not merely the considerations of what some with limited life experience may deem right or wrong from their narrow personal perspective.  There is still fallout about the residual sentiment that remains about the inadequate response to the hurricane Katrina disaster and how that made Americans feel about their country to see Americans in desperate need seemingly abandoned by their government. Places in the 9th Ward continue to experience that abandonment. This reality is damaging to the branding of America and what it means. America is rightfully held to a higher standard of social justice.  There is something inherently wrong with having the money and resources to help another human being and not using that method because it is deemed more important to save money. Especially when in that process fellow Americans are punished for circumstances that may very well be out of that person’s control.  How much would anyone pay to get a loved one back? How much is lost in job experience? Who will watch the children of a parent who is lost? What potential may a lost child have had on her community? These are questions that must be taken into consideration before deciding whether someone is to be left behind to fend for themselves.

Should the government be obligated to rescue people who ignore evacuation warnings in natural disasters?  From a feasible economic, public health, social and humanitarian perspective, the answer is indubitably yes!

Learn more about this author, Sophia Tesch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.