I was going to post this in the Hawaiian volcano thread, but the point that I wanted to make went beyond volcano evacuations, so I thought I'd do it here rather than possibly take that thread off on a tangent. How do the rest of you feel about mandatory self protection directives? In Texas, in anticipation of a hurricane, there would be a series of warnings and evacuation advisories but, as the path of the hurricane became clearer, there would then be mandatory evacuation directives, where they might physically move people from their homes, against their will. There was one guy who lived in Port Mansfield, a small coastal town in Willacy County, Texas. I taught EMT classes there from time to time, and fell in love with that town. Port Mansfield is prone to flooding in regular storms, which is why most of the houses are on stilts. Anyhow, whenever there was a hurricane, there was this guy, who was single and in his sixties, I think, who would refuse to evacuate. Not only did he not evacuate, but he would sit on the dock and take pictures while the storm was coming in. He was a good photographer and probably made some money from these photos, but I really think that he felt that he had lived his life and, while he didn't necessarily want to die, neither did he view the threat of death to be great enough to keep him from doing what he wanted to do, which was to face down the storm. He enjoyed a degree of fame that he wouldn't have otherwise, and it obviously worked for him. Well, the Sheriff's Department forcibly removed him when Hurricane Gilbert was coming in, and I felt that was wrong. It didn't seem that he was crazy, and he wasn't endangering anyone else's life. He simply made a decision about his own life that wasn't so much different than that made by people who engage in extreme sports. Perhaps he was too old to snowboard off of the top of a mountain but he wasn't too old to sit on a dock taking pictures. I can understand it when government gets involved with people who are endangering their children, although I think that this goes too far sometimes, too. But I think that adults ought to be able to decide for themselves whether they want to evacuate their home that is in the path of a hurricane, a volcano eruption, a forest fire, or whatever else might be coming their way. Constantly, we are told that the earth is overpopulated, so why do we feel the need to save the lives of people who have made an educated decision to face a threat. Throughout the history of mankind, reasonable people have chosen to face threats. You may disagree, but I feel similarly about helmet and seat belt laws. I would not ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, nor would I drive without a seatbelt. As a paramedic, I know that seat belts save lives, but shouldn't people be able to make that decision for themselves?
I agree with you on this @Ken Anderson ...if it's only my life and doesn't involve my family...if I don't mind dying then let me die if that happens. It's my body, my life. Although I would probably hurt my loved ones if I died on purpose so that would enter into my decision but if I had no one....who cares!!
Someone who wants to die may be mentally ill, although not necessarily so, but that's another matter. Someone who is simply willing to take a chance should be allowed to do so. As in the volcano evacuation, it makes sense to announce that, at some point, no one is going to be coming to save you if you choose to remain, as that would put someone else's life at risk.
Perhaps there might be a way of compromise involving insurance coverage. If someone willingly places themselves in harms way after being informed of an upcoming "Act of God" then their life and or accident policy would become null and void if they should become injured or die because of that refusal to find a safer place. Physically taking someone out of harms way against their will may seem like a merciful thing to do but in actuality it is pretty much acting like a bully and is self serving at best.
That's the usual argument for helmet and seat belt laws, that those who don't use them are incurring costs that the insurance companies have to bear, and which are passed on to others, but there would be nothing to suggest that insurance companies couldn't mandate the use of seat belts or helmets, and then either deny coverage or charge a higher rate for those who choose to go without. I just don't think government should be involved.
Those with high risk occupations such as motocross or being a stunt person for example do have to pay a higher cost for their insurance policy. Now, if someone is known to have a propensity for sitting out a hurricane then they should either pay the price or find themselves without any insurance at all. Certainly, those who live in Florida and experience flooding have to take on a special government issued insurance in order for water damage to be covered. Whether that type of insurance should be privatized or exist as it is with the assistance of the government is anyone's guess.
Right now there are complaints spiraling around Jacksonville about drainage in certain areas. Yesterday afternoon we had a downpour of rain. Coming down so hard, I couldn't even see across the driveway. We don't get any of the flooding like other parts of Jacksonville do. Boy, when the outter bands of Mathew hit us in 2017 and then Irma hit last year, all kind of places were flooded. Boats even broke away from the private docks they were tied to and floated down the river here. We live in a No Evac area, so we stayed and were fine, except for the electric going out for some 48 hours. There are folks that refuse to evacuate due to an oncoming hurricane and they live in an Evac Zone.
If you are on your own and not holding your family there with you against their will...then I think you have the right to make up your own mind whether you want to evacuate or not. But I think you should have to sign a legal paper saying you did this of your own free will and that none of your family (if you have any) will be able to sue the City, State, etc. if you die because you did not evacuate. And also as @Bobby Cole discussed any insurance monies would not be able to be collected if your death was from this disaster that you would not evacuate from. This World has become "sue crazy" so if a person decides to ignore the warning to evacuate...that person's family, etc. will have no legal standing to sue if their loved one does die in the disaster. Nor should anyone be able to collect from Insurance because what that person has done basically is "commit suicide" of their own free will.
Well, not wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet is potentially going to be not only the cause of your own death but others too. When rear seatbelts were first introduced here as Mandatory many people still didn't wear one, so they brought out a TV ad to show how a back seat passenger is not only putting their own lives at risk but others... warning to anyone who is sensitive, this is not pleasant... ...and I'm sure you've all seen this one about texting...
We see plenty of young and older folks here riding motorcycles and wearing no helmet. The Coast Guard Auxiliary is always telling boaters to wear a Life Vest, but only the young kids do. We have them in our boat and handy, but never wear them. Of course, it's a must to wear one when water skiing or on a Wave Runner or in a tube. Many adult folks relate wearing a Life Vest to inexperienced boaters.
I'm big on safety. Seat belts, helmets, etc. Yes, sometimes seatbelts trapped a person but most of the time it saved their life.
It's mandatory for everyone to wear crash helmets here too, but I shudder when I see the young wearing them not fitted on their heads but just plonked on top unstrapped ....apart from it not going to protect them if they're in an accident , it's totally illegal.. I've had 2 motorbikes, one was a 50cc moped the other was a 250cc Honda CB , even with the moped I always wore a full face helmet never open faced..
Taking a risk is not the equivalent of committing suicide. Many of our heroes are people who were willing to take risks, and that is the thing that legends are made of. Maine repealed its helmet law through a citizen initiative then, ironically, passed a mandatory seatbelt law. Most people who are thrown free of a car during a collision are hit and killed by their own car on the way out, which makes sense given that the car is moving too. I have been to dozens of accidents where the people who were wearing seatbelts lived and those who were not didn't. On the other hand, I once went to a pick-up truck rollover in which we transported thirteen patients, two adults in the cab and eleven kids in the bed of the truck, and everyone lived. As for motorcycle accidents, my experiences are probably not representative, given that not very many people had motorcycles in the Rio Grande Valley, but I have never been called to a motorcycle accident in which the motorcyclist lived, and helmets were mandatory. It seemed that either the accident was too minor to require an ambulance or so serious that a hearse might have served them just as well. I can remember only one in which I had a live patient on the scene, and he died sometime later in the hospital. I have personally been in motorcycle accidents in which I lived, obviously, but neither did I need an ambulance.
Somewhat off topic, but ask Ken, as well as myself, about the motorcycle accidents we've been to during our EMS days of those not wearing a helmet. One accident, the guy who was driving the motorcycle let his girlfriend use his helmet. She was seriously hurt, but recovered, he died at the scene of the accident. Holly, is there a law in the UK concerning life vests and boating? Here, it's only the young kids that have to wear a vest, not the adults. Do you folks also require vests when water skiing or using a tube or wave runner?
You're right ken, anyone wishing to make a decision about their own life as in your example OP.. should be permitted to do it without question if it's not harming anyone else or causing untold potential harm to anyone else . My mother committed suicide, that caused a lot of harm... but of course I realise that's not what your OP is about. yes I agree there should be no law stating that an adult cannot make an informed decision to take a risk which will only affect themselves..