Here’s a topic that I actually think we’ve never discussed before (didn’t think we’d find any more, didja?).
I was reading an article in today’s paper about a local woman whose son was in Europe (Switzerland, I think), took a hike up a mountain, and got stuck in a several-day snowstorm. The rescuers looked for him for days before finding him (they had about given him up for dead), but they did, and he’s pretty much ok. Anyway, the article mentioned that she is waiting for the bill, because in much of Europe, rescuers are professionals who charge for their services.
I was wondering what anybody else thought about this. On the one hand, it has bothered me at times when stupid people do stupid things and taxpayer dollars go to rescue them (for example, people who try to balloon around the world and crash). On the other hand, should it be something that the taxpayers want to have around at their disposal? On the third hand (good thing there are lots of hands around here), if an individual is footing the bill, she can encourage them to keep searching even when the rescuers think it’s pointless (as happened here – they had pretty much given up hope of finding him alive, but she asked them to keep going).
I don’t really know which way I’m leaning right now – what does anybody else think?
I have no problem with a negligent victim being charged for their rescue, as long as it’s AFTER THE FACT. Money should not be a factor in the actual rescue or in how long it lasts. The charge should technically be regarded as a fine, and levied by the courts.
Definitely a good point. We can’t have people saying, “I’m sorry, we’ve checked your bank account and you’re poor, so too bad, we’re not gonna look for him.” This may be one reason it’s handled by government units in many countries (including the U.S.) – to make sure that sort of thing doesn’t happen.
Your first line brings up another question – how do we determine when it’s a “negligent” case? If somebody goes out boating and their boat sinks, I’m sure the units in Europe that I mentioned still charge for the rescue, even if it was something unforeseen.
An interesting thread David. For my nickel, culpability has a bearing here. Sometimes people get into jams that are no direct fault of their own. Renters whose domicile burns down would be one if the fire was due to wiring or other responsibility that was the landlords’.
In large cities the fire department fines you if you are to blame for a fire in your apartment if it was your fault. I have no problem with that.
I think the matter keys off of personal responsibility. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s screw ups, if they are in trouble of their own accord they should pay for their actions, perhaps even monetarily.
I think this is like the tobacco company thing. If I get cancer because I smoke, I can’t blame the tobacco company because I was warned. If I get cancer from willingly going to restaurants where there is smoke. I don’t think I have the right to sue either.
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue except to say that as long as money isn’t a factor in terms of the quality of the rescue services provided, I don’t mind the rescuer’s charging a fee.
The practice is not confined to Europe. I believe all the rescue services in Nepal(though there may be exceptions I’m unaware of) charge for their service.
“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal
I don’t know if this is still in effect, but I know that a few years ago the US Coast Guard began charging for ‘unnecessary’ rescues. I’m not sure what their criteria is, but a good example might be needing a tow because you ran out of fuel or got drunk and ran aground. (Unless lives are in danger they will take their own sweet time in getting to you, too!)
However, around the oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico the oil field boats do most of the rescueing, often in conjuction with and at the request of the Coast Guard.
Carpe diem - Seize the day
Carpe noctem - Seize the night
Carpe cerevisi - Seize the beer
I don’t think any responsible government should rely on private enterprise for rescuing people in danger of dying, no more than it should rely on private ambulance services to operate as paramedics. Rescue, like any other emergency service (police, fire dept., military) needs to stay under the umberella of public services.
If a victim’s family feels that a private service is needed to supliment the government effort, or to continue the effort after the official rescue has been called off, so be it. The rescuer can name his price per service (X$ a day + expenses) in a contract, signed before they deploy. There are laws in the USA against profiteering in some circumstances, though. A private company could not say, halfway into a rescue, “Pay this exorbinant amount or your loved one dies”, without facing a lot of legal unpleasantness. Unfortunately, in some countries, like Mexico, even the public agencies work this way.
I’d agree with what Ursa said, but I have a question. In those countries where rescues are paid for by the rescued and their families, is the fee still charged when the rescue attempt is unsuccessful? In other words are the rescued and family charged for the service or for the result? Wouldn’t change my opinion, I’m just wondering.
Excuse me? By what ethical principle, other than one invoking slavery, do you force a man against his will to do work for no pay? And if you say you will pay him with money seized by force from peaceful honest people against their will, then by what ethical principle, other than theft, do you do that?
Ursa:
Why should governments be in the business of forcing Mr. Jones, who is minding his own business, to do something for Mr. Smith? Why not let the people support their own charitable as well as profitable rescue services?
If you say they don’t have the good sense to see to the needs of their neighbors, then please explain how they can have the good sense to elect governors who will. And if you say they might not have the means to see to the needs of their neighbors, then please explain how you can justify taking their “contributions” by forceful initiative?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Silly me! You’re right. It’s much more ethical to just let poor people die.
Who said anything about that? You charge what you charge. If they can’t pay right away, you set up a payment schedule of some sort. Or the person can ask for charity. Or whatever.
Tell me, what happens at hospitals when a poor person is treated and can’t pay? Should they just be left to die as well?
You left the questions unanswered. For the record, they were: “By what ethical principle, other than one invoking slavery, do you force a man against his will to do work for no pay? And if you say you will pay him with money seized by force from peaceful honest people against their will, then by what ethical principle, other than theft, do you do that?”
You are assuming the consequent and raising a strawman. I am not asking about the users of the service; I am asking about the providers of it.
All I ask is that admit that in your view, an arbitrary set of needs for one man ethically obligates the corresponding services of another. You are a professional book reader. Is there any reason why you should not be forced to read books to blind people or people who cannot afford books?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
In Europe, there is a fundamental difference in their philosophy of personal responsibility vs. ours in the US.
Want to drive on the Autobahn? Fine. Run out of gas while doing so? Fine ~a thousand DM for creating a hazard, and reimbursing the people who will bring you gas. Want to drive over the recommended max 130 km/h (88mph). Fine. Get into an accident? You will be deemed at a minimum to have contributed to the accident solely on the basis of your speed.
Want to ride a motorcycle? Fine. Want to do so without helmet and full-body leather suit? Fine. Get hurt doing so? Fine - another big one.
Want to go up on a gondola to a mountaintop? Fine. With your 2 year old? Fine. Just don’t look for restraining fences/walls to keep your 2 year old on top of the mountain. That’s YOUR job.
As I understand their search-and-rescue SOPs over there, they are partially government funded, but expected to earn some of their own keep as well. In event of a missing hiker, the search takes place regardless of financial considerations. The family is billed, and I believe they are billed regardless of the results. The searchers may work overtime fully at the family’s expense once the search would ordinarily have been called up for futility.
In a search in the Alps, what you don’t want is a loosely organized search by a bunch of amateur volunteers - you’ll spend more time looking for them than for the original missing party. I douby that major ski resorts here operate much differently. Get hurt skiing on designated trails (with a paid lift ticket)? The Ski Patrol will come for you at no charge. Get hurt skiing or get lost hiking off the trails? The Ski Patrol is probably the people who should go after you, but why should they do it for free?
Note: My examples above are from my experiences in Germany - they may not be valid in all European countries, they may not be valid today, and they may be affected by faulty recall. But I was truly struck by the shifted emphasis towards personal responsibility that was the norm there.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
Lib: There was nothing evasive at all about my answer. I’m sorry you didn’t like it, but I try to deal with reality instead of political philosophies (one of the things where I differ from the Libertarian party).
Nobody is forcing him to do anything. If he signs up for the job, he knows what the job is. If the job says he will rescue people and be paid later, that’s the job. If they can’t pay, they work something out. This is the way it’s done in the real world, Lib. If I hire a plumber and he comes in and re-does all my pipes, he gives me a bill. I am expected to pay that bill. If I can’t and I default, he can sue me. If I declare bankruptcy, he loses out (one reason I think it’s way too easy to declare bankruptcy in this country, but that’s another issue). This situation with rescuers, if it were handled that way, would be no different.
And you claim I brought up a straw man, which I didn’t, but then you toss one in there yourself for good measure:
This has nothing at all to do with anything. If somebody is a professional member of a rescue squad, they are expected to rescue people. Nobody is forcing them to rescue people – it’s what they signed up to do. Nobody is forcing me to read books or review them (which, by the way, is more of a side thing). And if I wanted to read books to the blind, it would be a completely different job that I would sign up to do.
But speaking of being evasive, I note you didn’t address my rather sarcastic statement about letting poor people die. So, tell me, how would you set up a rescue system like this? I’d like to know.
In the US most rescue operations are mainly staffed by volunteers. (I am talking about lost in the woods type rescues, not rescues of mountain climbers or skiiers where untrained people would be more of a liability than a help.) The Police or Sherriffs department coordinate and plan the operation, but usually most of the people slogging through the woods are every day Joes that volunteer to help out. If the rescue is near a military base, a unit from that base may be tasked to help, this is considered training for those troops. If it is a high profile thing, National Guard troops may be called up, again this is written off as training. If a private airplane disappears, the aerial search (if there is one at all0 is usually done by volunteers from the Civil Air Patrol. Again this is usually done at the expense of the members, who do it for their own reasons.
The Coast Guard, according to my nephew who was in it as a grunt, I don’t doubt what he says but do not claim he is an expert, will charge for frivolous rescues as Coosa said. So if your boat catches fire, rescue is good training, if you run out of gas pay up.
We lived in a village (small town) in Germany (Schwarzach am Main.) If your house caught fire, the fire brigade would come and put out the fire, then send you a bill. Insurance covered that as part of the cost. It’s not that different from ambulance service in the places I have lived in the states. You call 911, the ambulance comes, the EMT’s do what is necessary and you are transported to the hospital if needed. Then they send you a bill. If you have insurance that will usually be covered. If you don’t have insurance and can’t afford the bill, a payment plan is set up. From my experience with hospitals about 20 years ago, most of the people that are put on payment plans make about 1 or 2 payments and then drop out of sight. At that time, it was usually just written off. That could well have changed today as the amounts are so much greater now.
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
Cars are required to be insured based on the potential expense of accidents.
Require insurance of climbers and other high risk adventurers. If you can afford the gear you can buy the insurance. I hate to say it, but it’s a free market to the rescue here.
I take it you mean forcing Mr. Jones to pay (through taxation) for the rescue of Mr. Jones.
To answer your question:
Because that is the wish of the majority of the citizens. Institutionalized compassion (supported by taxes)for fellow citizens is the norm in most of the civilized world. If Lib’s philosophy ever prevails in this country, I’m moving.
Ursa, I don’t know what your opinions are on health care, but it would seem by analogy that you would be against prvate hospitals.
After all, a man in an emergency room after having a heart attack is in as life-threatening a situation as a man lost in the wilderness.
While I feel the the police and military need to be a government service because of the issue of using force, I don’t see a comparable need for strictly rescue services like fire fighting, search and rescue, and traumatic medical care. I feel in these cases the issue is the quality and availability of the service rather than its origin.
Several years ago, when I lived in San Antonio, the fire department got tired of rescuing people who had gone around the barriers erected on flooded streets. So, they did indeed start charging. Not only that, but by the time they pulled you out, there was usually a police officer writing up a citation for ignoring the barriers and creating a public danger.
More power to them, I say.
I pay for rescue services out of my taxes. I prefer it that way. That means that they’ll be there for me if I ever need it, and I don’t begrudge it to my close and not-so-close neighbors when they need it. However, when someone goes to the length of effort necessary to evade a legitimate warning and obstacle and ends up in the drink because of it, I also prefer that they be held financially (and if necessary, legally) responsible for their actions.
Nemo - I believe that emergency rooms and trauma centers are required by law to treat victims regardless of their ability to pay. When they can not pay, the government subsidizes that care (called indigent patient status, or something like that.)