Should people who have been rescued pay back some of the cost?

[Miss Alpinestarhero]

I was watching The One show tonight and they were discussing whether people who have been rescued should pay back some of the costs to the rescue service.

For example, one particular bloke stole a boat and ended up being trapped in mud. The cost of his rescue came to £20,000 and he decided to walk around the coast of britain in order to raise money and pay back some of the costs. He raised £30,000 and gave it all back.

Another example was when someone was trapped at sea for five days (or so). He ended up being trapped in an air pocket and the cost of his rescue came to around £7,000,000.

The Rescue Services themselves (featured in this programme, I do not know what other services think) say no. They say that it is their job & if people think they have to pay the services back they may end up delaying their call for help which could result in a more dangerous situation for both the person in distress and the rescue services.

Some people who had been rescued said that a "thank you" was enough whereas others said that they felt a form of 'debt' where they needed to do more than say "thanks"

What do you all think?

Discuss :D

[simesb]

Nope - same as paying for the fire brigade or NHS.

Edit - but right-minded people would probably do some fundraising

[zsv650]

nope that's what national insurance is for.

[Speedy Claire]

Personally I think that maybe some "token" gesture should be given ie. some kind of fundraising?

What instantly springs to my mind is the RNLI. The RNLI depends entirely on charitable donations and the crews are volunteers who give up their time and comfort to provide a 24 hour lifesaving service in what are quite often dangerous conditions.

2 years ago a very good friend of mine drowned in the English Channel together with his 2 year old son. It was 2 full days before my friends body was found. The RNLI worked tirelessly and when they were told to give up the search for the night they carried on until the small hours of the morning... they were then back out there at daylight.

You could argue that Alan and his son weren`t "rescued" as their lives weren`t saved but how many others are each year? My friends family work tirelessly to raise money for the RNLI and I`ve supported them when I can though I did draw the line at a recent abseil!

[zsv650]

i alway's donate too rnli and air ambulance when i see them about.

[Luckypants]

I have been involved in rescues and with the rescue services, my son is still involved with them, so I have some knowledge on this.

First of all, no one should have to pay to be rescued or saved in some way. Cost should not be a factor in an emergency situation. Second, a lot of rescue services (Fire, Ambulance and Coastguard for instance) are state funded, so are paid for from taxes. Thirdly, the voluntary services are run by people who passionately believe in what they do and that saving someone is an act they are willing to do regardless of reward. So therefore none of those services expect to paid for a rescue.

Now when you are rescued because of your own stupidity, then making a financial gesture to the services involved should be morally imperative to you, so that others can benefit from the work of the rescue services. Unfortunately this is often not the case and the increase in this type of rescue from stupidity is often what gives rise to the debate about paying to be rescued. The kind of person who goes up Snowdon in a light jacket and trainers, but with a mobile, who then calls out mountain rescue because the weather changed would not think about payment "cos it's my rights init". OK generalisation but you get the drift. It is often those rescued when a situation goes bad, even if they are prepared for the worst, that will give something back to those who rescued them.

You will never square this and those that treat the rescue services responsibly will always pay for them in some way. Others will just be users.

My view is that I give what I can as often as I can to the services I believe in and hope that others do the same so that those services will be there should I ever need them again.

[Luckypants]

nope that's what national insurance is for.

That was never intended to pay for the rescue services, only the ambulance service is part of NHS (notianally paid for by NI). The statutory rescue services are funded from general taxation. Most rescue services are voluntary (RNLI, mountain rescue teams, cave rescue, swift water rescue etc)

[zsv650]

That was never intended to pay for the rescue services, only the ambulance service is part of NHS (notianally paid for by NI). The statutory rescue services are funded from general taxation. Most rescue services are voluntary (RNLI, mountain rescue teams, cave rescue, swift water rescue etc)
alright mr pedant still paid for though :D

[Swin]

The problem is this story concerns paying back the Australians for their efforts to find the young lad who wandered off into the outback with no phone, adequate food or navigation aids and didn't inform anyone where he's going.

I feel he should make a payment towards these guys efforts as apparently he stands to make a lot of money selling the rights to his negligence to a film company.

Normal accident/incident I agree, shouldn't have to pay - but if you're proven to have been negligent to this sort of degree I feel you should at least offer to help recover the outlay, but I'd hate to see it made legal.

[edit]
alright mr pedant still paid for though :D

It was in Australia, so not covered by NI anyway

[Luckypants]

alright mr pedant still paid for though :D

The vast majority of rescue services are voluntary, so no, they are not paid for. That was my point.

[Bri w]

Normal accident/incident I agree, shouldn't have to pay - but if you're proven to have been negligent to this sort of degree I feel you should at least offer to help recover the outlay, but I'd hate to see it made legal.[/QUOTE]

I'd hate to see it made legal too. Once laws are drafted, and someone breaks them the courts become involved. Which leads to more laws, and more expense to enforce them. And then you've got greater Gov involvement in the running of the rescue orgs. and does that organisation have the skills sets to perform the rescue, which could lead to Gov 'policing' of the org.

I prefer to see what some extreme sports people do, i.e. insure themselves for the participation in the sport, which can include rescue.

[wizurd]

If your rescued and it was due to your own negligence then i'd like to think the person involved would try to pay some money back just out of kindness, but it would never work actually charging people for it. Donations are up to the individual

[CoolGirl]

isn't this almost the same question as the binge drinking one? i.e. if it's your own silly fault then you're not entitled to services; if it was plain accidental then you can have what you need.

[fenjer]

I think that you shouldn't need to pay to be rescued, but you should donate to the organisation that rescued you.

People dont realise what they have until they see it slip away, and that should be enough to inspire someone to donate to the charity or organisation that saved their life.

[SV-net]

IMO if you required a rescue for being a prat or theiving git then yes they should pay.

[Ed]

No. Deffo not. As others have said, if you've contributed to the problem by stupidity then yes I think it appropriate to help pay towards the cost, but no obligation.

[gruntygiggles]

I think making it compulsory is nothing more than sheer stupidity. As has already been said by Luckpants, cost should not come into play in an emergency or rescue situation.

If it is proven that the necessity for rescue arose because of negligence, then there could be something brought in that would have that person have to volunteer or give something back to society. Not for financial purposes, but because going on a rescue mission, these organisations and volunteers have to put their lives at risk and those irresponsible enough to have to rely on that selflessness should not be allowed to just get away with it.

As for the bloke who raised £30,000 to cover the cost of his rescue (and more).....from what I remember, this was a teenage boy. He was interviewed last year and said that he was so ashamed of what he'd done and that he'd risked the lives of others, he felt he had to do something to pay for it. Fair play to the lad I say!

[BanannaMan]

First of all, no one should have to pay to be rescued or saved in some way. Cost should not be a factor in an emergency situation.





+1
Cost should not be a factor.

However this has recently changed where I live.
You now have to pay for ambulance/rescue service.
How many people will have to die because they couldn't afford to be rescued??? :rolleyes:




And they call this "the land of the free"...
But that doesn't include any type of health care coverage.

[Red Herring]

As I recall there was a lot of discussion on this subject following the rescue of Tony Bullimore (he was the bloke rescued at vast expense by the Australians, or was it New Zealand, after he lost his keel during a round the world race). The argument was that those engaging in such activity should take out some kind of insurance policy that would cover any potential rescue costs on the grounds that what they were doing was extraordinarily dangerous and therefore outside the normal expectations of what a reasonable person, or society, should expect. The home nation argued that by spending so much on that particular rescue they in fact crippled their service and potentially reduced the remaining service available for their own countrymen. A case of perhaps letting one person go for the benefit of the others?

[Luckypants]

You now have to pay for ambulance/rescue service.
How many people will have to die because they couldn't afford to be rescued??? :rolleyes:

When I was rescued on Canada, I received a bill weeks later for the Ambulance and hospital treatment. This was covered by the medical cover part of my travel insurance. If you were required to pay for such things, then of course insuring yourself against that before venturing into the situation that may require rescue is only prudent. I might add that the rescue team and helicopter evac were FoC. My group made a contribution to the rescue squad by way of thanks.

As bikers we are vulnerable to needing the rescue and medical services. Therefore when venturing away from the UK where these services are free, we should always take out insurance to cover any bills that crop up. The additional vulnerability of the motorcyclist is reflected in the premiums for such cover, as to ride a bike over 125cc has to be specified and an additional premium paid.

None of the above means that I agree with charging for these services, just that where this is the norm make sure you are covered in case you need them.

[yorkie_chris]

It shouldn't be law, not at all, but it would be damned rude not to...

[anna]

I have never understood how it is that boats are the only vehicle that you can buy and yet not have to have a licence for. I have always thought that this fact alone must increase the amount of unnecessary rescues performed.

Air ambulance is something I have always given money to, they operate on a charity basis. Sadly I have been in the unfortunate position to see their finest work first hand, and they do an AMAZING job.

I agree that it shouldn’t be made compulsory however; I do feel it is a moral obligation to pay back what is owed if abused.

[Biker Biggles]

I have never understood how it is that boats are the only vehicle that you can buy and yet not have to have a licence for. I have always thought that this fact alone must increase the amount of unnecessary rescues performed.

Air ambulance is something I have always given money to, they operate on a charity basis. Sadly I have been in the unfortunate position to see their finest work first hand, and they do an AMAZING job.

I agree that it shouldn’t be made compulsory however; I do feel it is a moral obligation to pay back what is owed if abused.

Prams pushchairs rollerblades/skates invalid buggy bicycles.Theres loads of things you dont need a licence for which can cause some nasty accidents.
I think boats do get regulated now,but its to prevent them getting up to terrorism of course.

As for the OP,I believe that all public services should be subject to a nominal charge to the user possibly on a sliding scale according to income,but everyone who uses should pay something.This mainly to instill a sense of value in the users for the services they consume and to dissuade trivial usage.
So if you got rescued by the RNLI you would get a bill for say £50.Nothing like the cost of the rescue,but just a contribution towards the service.
Similarly if parents were charged say £50 a term towards their kids education perhaps they would take more interest in the school and value its efforts more than some do now.
Just one of my slightly off the wall ideas???

[Miss Alpinestarhero]

Some interesting issues raised here



First of all, no one should have to pay to be rescued or saved in some way. Cost should not be a factor in an emergency situation...

I agree with this but I also agree with what Speedy Claire said:

Personally I think that maybe some "token" gesture should be given

What instantly springs to my mind is the RNLI. The RNLI depends entirely on charitable donations and the crews are volunteers who give up their time and comfort to provide a 24 hour lifesaving service in what are quite often dangerous conditions.

Those organisations which do rely wholly on donations should certainly be rewarded. Now I use the term “reward” lightly here – I do not mean reward as in “good job mate, here is some cash”, I mean reward as in something which will contribute towards helping the service continue to run at its existing capacity (or expanding its capacity). It would be awful to think that the RNLI (for example) would have to reduce the work it does due to lack of funds in running the lifeboats etc.

Id like to think that someone who has been rescued due their own negligence would feel morally bound to give a donation. But then, not everyone has the same moral obligations and rules.

Donations are up to the individual

They are. But what if there came a point where services were at their maximum and couldn’t afford to cover their costs in order to run? I guess this could be resolved by what red herring said:

The argument was that those engaging in such activity should take out some kind of insurance policy that would cover any potential rescue costs on the grounds that what they were doing was extraordinarily dangerous and therefore outside the normal expectations of what a reasonable person, or society, should expect

If this insurance type policy was adopted, I guess it would mean that those who were negligent are the only one who would ‘have’ to contribute some cost.

I believe that all public services should be subject to a nominal charge to the user possibly on a sliding scale according to income...

So if you got rescued by the RNLI you would get a bill for say £50.Nothing like the cost of the rescue, but just a contribution towards the service.
One could argue that’s what National Insurance is for. I pay around £200 (or something) a month. One could say that money will pay for my rescue if I ever needed rescuing..!

Obviously there is an infinite amount of issues and arguments and all sorts to cover, but I thought this was an interesting topic to bring up and debate about. I guess the key point here is whether donations/payment should be made to voluntary services such as the RNIL because the police and fire services are state funded by the government and our national insurance contributions.

[Owenski]

If they saved your life, then your obviously going to feel a debt of gratitude towards them and if someone was to fund raise in order raise awareness/money then brilliant what a bonus. But doing it because you have to then no, most people would prob try to swim to shore or jump from a buring building etc.

[keith_d]

I'm a diver, so when I pass an RNLI box I usually make a donation because one day it might be me or my mates that need their help.

As a general point, I'd rather avoid the American model where every thing has to be paid for, and consequently everyone has to take out insurance. As far as I can see the only ones that really benefit from this arrangement are the insurance companies.

However, if I'd done something stupid and put other peoples lives at risk to rescue me I'd be pretty keen to provide them with some recompense, either by sending them a huge pile of beer or doing some fund raising as appropriate.

Keith.

[Bluewolf]

.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Making people pay to be rescued - this is less about the actual money, more about trying to change peoples behavior. In that case, it's a bad idea. Social engineering projects always have unforeseen consequences, usually some bad ones, occasionally worse than the problem you were trying to solve in the first place.

[ThEGr33k]

No. But as said it would be rude not to I think. :(

[TEC]

.... if people think they have to pay the services back they may end up delaying their call for help which could result in a more dangerous situation for both the person in distress and the rescue services.
The very reason why a payment shouldn't be forced. Have been in situations that shouldn't have happened when people hought they would have to pay for the help (foreign shores) so they waited till the last minute to shout for help, sailing into tornado's is not much fun for some people :smt085



I on the other hand was thought to be a complete nutter :lol: