<p>The fishing boat people are at risk at their everyday job, sure. But they had to take time out of earning an income fishing, to rescue this girl. And the rescue was tricky (read reports) and in a storm and the captain did fall out of the boat trying to rescue Abby whereas he may not fall out by simply fishing and doing his regular job. They signed on to be fishermen, not rescue personnel. </p>
<p>If you read some of the laws and articles I have quoted, even government agencies agree that a person who needs to be searched and rescued even by government agencies may have to pay for it if the person engaged in what is considered reckless acts that have great danger that the person knew of ahead of time.</p>
<p>By the way, those who share such an opinion as I express are no more “arm chair” than you are in your opinions.</p>
<p>Yeah, I saw that. Insurance would pay a bill that was submitted AFTER the fact, just like health insurance. You purchase health insurance, you have your heart attack, the EMT’s and ambulance arrives, takes you to the hospital where you are treated. You are billed afterwards and insurance picks up what it will. No one is saying Abby should have had to write a check for her rescue to the responders else she would be left to die.</p>
<p>I believe Richard Heene has to pay for the search and rescue efforts for the Balloon Boy incident, is that correct? I think the judge ordered he pay restitution. I believe this is due to it being determined that it was a reckless act.</p>
<p>Well, I actually took the trouble of finding a French newpaper online with the report and an actual photo of the Ile de La Reunion and the Wild Eyes. The French seamen were employees of a large ocean fishing company not some independent fishermen. It is unlikely that they missed a days pay or went off in the company’s vessel without permission and attempted the rescue without the employer’s direction to do so.</p>
<p>And you don’t think it cost the company money to take their fishing boat out of commission for however many days it took to rescue the kid and bring her to safety?</p>
<p>^^^exactly my point! Who cares if they were independent fishermen or employees of a large ocean fishing company? Even if each individual worker did not lose pay, the company lost potential revenue from the days they had to stop fishing to go rescue this girl! </p>
<p>But my other point is that these folks who did the rescue were neither rescue personnel or volunteer rescuers. They did not sign on for that sort of duty for pay or to volunteer. These were folks doing their ordinary job who missed their job and also did take risks in the rescue attempt which was said to be tricky in the rough seas and the different size of the two boats and it is fact that the captain fell overboard trying to rescue Abby. Now, this can happen with rescue crews but these folks were not rescue professionals or volunteers for rescue operations.</p>
<p>Yes, and I also think that if it hadn’t been willing to do so it wouldn’t have done so. The point is the apparant outrage that the US Park Sevice (their rescues cost 1.5 cents of each park admission), the US military (who uses the opportunity for practice), other nations (for example Australia who says we would want you to do the same for our citizen in the same circumstance), the premier US volunteer rescue group and apparantly the owners of the Ile de La Reunion don’t see charging for SAR’s and that gets some folk’s goat.</p>
<p>I think this comes down to a old “law” of the sea, you come to the aid of any boat in distress. The thinking is, that could be me the next time and I’d want the nearest boat to come to my aid without first weighing all the costs involved. </p>
<p>I’ve been out sports fishing and have heard a few calls for aid. Someone nearby always volunteers to help and it’s almost always a private vessel. I couple of years ago, a cruise ship hit a reef and a state ferry and private fishing boats took on the passengers. I also think you’d hear as much or more outrage if a ship refused to come to her aid.</p>
<p>07Dad: I get that. But with regard to the private fishing employees…there are no funds put toward search and rescue for them. While they were willing to help out since there were no other options for Abby that were closer…it doesn’t mean that they didn’t do so at great risk (they never signed on for search and rescue operations) and that the company did not lose time/money. Many would feel that for such a situation where the rescue crews were not government organizations or volunteer rescue services, that such folks should be compensated. What would your opinion have been if when the captain fell in that he had drowned? It’s bad enough if that happens to a rescuer like a Coast Guard person but worse, in my view, if simply a private citizen. This boat and its workers were willing to go for the rescue but really had no option that was moral to not do so because Abby was over 24 hours from anyone else and so this boat was basically put on the spot to help out. It was the right thing to do, after all. It would seem that Abby’s family or her sponsors would feel a moral obligation to compensate private citizens for helping, who were not emergency rescue crews.</p>
<p>As you can see from some of my prior posts quoting articles and laws, in many places where citizens embark on reckless activities with a known extreme danger, they do have to pay for search and rescue. I quoted many examples.</p>
<p>07Dad – I’ve got news for you. If you are ever hit by a bus and and ambulance and paramedics arrive on the scene to take you to the hospital… down the line you will get a bill for the service. If you are insured, then your insurance company will probably pick up the tab – if not, it will be your responsibility.</p>
<p>Whether or not you think it was appropriate for this family to allow their 16 year old to try to cross the Indian Ocean by herself in a slimmed-down racing craft during storm season – the issue of costs for rescue are a different matter. Like others here, when my d was traveling abroad at various times in Europe & Asia, I always purchased insurance to pay costs of medical treatment and evacuation if necessary – I assumed that I would have to pay for those services if needed, and insurance was a sensible way to make sure the costs would be covered. It was simply the responsible thing to do. </p>
<p>And I don’t think that means that I wouldn’t have had to pay anything if we had not had insurance.</p>
<p>However, the issue of the legal obligation is different from the issue of who pays. (For example, a public hospital is legally obliged by law to render treatment to anyone who arrives at the emergency room in need of urgent care – that doesn’t mean that they have to refrain from billing for the treatment down the line.)</p>
<p>With respect to the problem of refugees, such as the Vietnamese boat people:</p>
<p>I guess it comes down to the person you are. As I posted days ago on this thread, I was on a river when unexpected high water hit that flipped all the rafts except ours. When we saw the man who ultimately died float past we took out to try and rescue him because he clearly was in acute distress at that time. </p>
<p>I helped because I felt it was the right thing to do, although I wasnt a paid or volunteer rescue person. Could our raft have flipped trying to drag the guy in while fighting the water? Would it have been safer for us to head directly to shore? Yes, but there was a person in need of help and we helped (unsuccessfully).</p>
<p>Did I ever think that the dead man or his family owed me anything for trying to help him because I didnt sign up for rescue work, his need interrupted my trip and trying to save him entailed risk to me and my son? No. Did it matter to me that he was 72 and on a stretch of the river that was known to, on occasion, go to Level 4++. No. He was someone in need of help.</p>
<p>Do I understand that if your child was in need of rescue, those who might be able to assist should not try to help if why your daughter needed help appeared stupid to them or because it was not in their job description or because there might be risk involved?</p>
<p>Once in Peru (1989), a buddy and I were in a restaurant bar/disco with a 23 year old American girl whose friends left her there when she got party drunk and wouldnt leave. Several local males in their mid to late 20s were trying to attempt to force her to leave with them when we saw what was happening. My buddy and I, who were 38 married professionals, stepped in and got into a fight but got her out of there and to her hotel. </p>
<p>Do I understand that you folks would tell your sons not to get involved to help her or want me and my buddy to do nothing if that was your daughter? </p>
<p>Should I have submitted a bill for services rendered? My view is I’d rather think that your kid would try to help my child (of whatever age) and visa versa. I would suggest to my son to refuse payment if offerred.</p>
<p>you make a point 07dad, we hopefully sometimes simply jump in and help because we are there and it is the right thing to do, however the other side of that is why wouldn’t Abby’s parents WANT to demonstrate their heartfelt gratitude that their child was rescued by individuals who did in fact jump in and do the right thing?</p>
<p>If you would take the time to actually read the article that I posted, you would see that in the 1970’s that refugees were dying on the sea in droves because 70-80% of their distress calls went unanswered --there were too many and the ships were reluctant to pick them up until arrangements were made for compensation. </p>
<p>As a parent, I would consider it totally irresponsible for me to fail to insure for both the ordinary and extraordinary risks my kids might encounter. I would not let them drive my car without being insured – and I made sure that they had health insurance at home and appropriate travel insurance whenever traveling abroad --and with my daughter that extended well into adulthood. (In fact, at the moment she is still covered by a policy that I am paying for, though as of July 1st that responsibility will shift to her employer).</p>
<p>07Dad, as I already wrote in my very recent posts above, of course anyone should step in to help because it is INDEED the RIGHT thing to do! I said that about the fishing crew in the Sunderland case! I would expect them to help. </p>
<p>Likewise, it is the RIGHT thing to do for the Sunderland family and/or her sponsors to offer to compensate at least the private citizens who helped and lost revenue (fishing days) in doing so.</p>
<p>It is one thing to need rescue because of unforeseen circumstances and another to fail to plan so that you greatly heighten the risk of danger and harm to yourself and others who may likely need to rescue you. Many others who have done ocean voyages or other feats have taken more extensive precautions, including having a boat leading or trailing to assist in times of distress rather than just winging it and hoping for good people to do the right thing.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m glad there are a lot of good people like you, 07dad, but it’s unfair and ill-advised to expect that they will happen to be there conveniently when you need it and when it costs a great deal to extricate you from a predicament that should never had happened in the 1st place.</p>
<p>As I wrote in other posts with quoted articles/laws…in my neck of the woods, you opt to ski out of bounds…you pay for the search and rescue if you are in distress. That is not the case when you ski on the posted and open trails.</p>
<p>Some of the laws I quoted today in posts made a distinction between needing rescue due to unforeseen circumstances and needing to be rescued due to reckless or negligent behavior when one knowingly knew of the grave risks and danger involved in an intentional activity.</p>
<p>07DAD’s actions are commendable, and I hope that anyone would behave similarly. However, he was helping because he was right there and able to help. He didn’t send out multiple planes to find the person in distress, or take a three-day journey to be able to help. And he might feel differently if it turned out that the person he tried to help was filming a TV show where he jumped out of his raft into the river to see whether anyone would help.</p>
<p>I am completely in favor of people helping other people when they are in trouble. I am also in favor of the helped people covering any costs their helpers incur when they do that. And I think that’s more or less what the law of Good Samaritan rescues is, both formally and informally.</p>
<p>Has ANYONE on this thread stated that because Abby was doing something many consider ill advised that they now take the position that anyone in the area with the capacity to help should have just left her to die? If not, why the need for the above statement?</p>