Update June 12: Sunderland is ending her voyage, according to media reports. The Australians will not be asking for compensation to rescue Sunderland, the French have not said if they will or not.
An interesting tweet by Ottawa-based journalist Allison Cross caught my eye Friday morning:
Question: Should the 16-year-old sailor rescued today have to pay for the rescue efforts? Why or why not? #abbysunderland
Sunderland is the 16-year-old American teen attempting to create a world record by being the youngest person to sail around the world on her own. She ran into trouble Thursday somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean when she set off her emergency beacon locating device, Pete Thomas reported first on his blog.
The teen was found by an Australian search and rescue team Thursday night. According to the L.A. Times, her boat was upright, but the mast was gone. She was apparently unharmed.
Her parents are posting updates on her blog here.
Back to Cross’ question though: Should the Sunderlands pay for the “rescue” of their daughter?
The answer to that question might depend on what you consider to be a “rescue” operation. Sunderland’s parents report that the last contact they had with their daughter before Thursday night, the sea was rough. Winds were roaring up to 60 knots, and the sea was swelling 20-25 feet.
She was found unharmed, yes, but her boat was missing its mast (a vital part needed to sail around the world). There is no doubt that Sunderland pressed her button because she feared death. The fact that she was found unharmed is a miracle in and of itself. Thus, she should not be made to pay. She used her emergency beacon locator as she should have.
But, you might argue, that she was found to be fine. A little hungry, her parents report, but fine. The boat may have been missing a mast, but it was rightside up. She was on the boat waiting for a fishing vessel. She wasn’t stuck in the sea on a floating device, as one would imagine a true emergency on the sea to be.
On top of that, Sunderland is a 16-year-old girl trying to sail around the world — alone! That in itself shows recklessness. No child should have been allowed to do this in the first place. Therefore, she should have to pay the costs of emergency search and rescue.
The thing is, the case of Abby Sunderland’s emergency rescue is not black and white. Should her family have to pay for the costs of rescuing their daughter from the seas? Likely not. While she wasn’t floating in the middle of the ocean, there still is a much stronger argument that Sunderland used her beacon in what was, for her anyway, an emergency. Who are we to argue with that?
After all, we still treat people at emergency rooms who come in with a cough or a stomach ache that really aren’t emergencies at all. And they’re not charged (in Canada anyway).
Yes, people can argue that what Sunderland is doing is reckless and dangerous in itself, but that doesn’t mean she should not be allowed the same help and assistance any other person would be afforded in her situation.
If this were a 45-year-old man instead of a 16-year-old girl we were talking about, I’m willing to wager we would not even be asking the question of whether he should have to pay the costs of the rescue operation.
We have emergency services for a reason. And what I consider to be an emergency, you likely will not. The Sunderlands should not have to pay for the rescue of their daughter. Instead, we should be thankful we’re having this debate and not mourning the loss of a 16-year-old girl who decided she wanted to be the youngest person to sail around the world.
What do you think? Should the Sunderlands have to pay for their daughter’s rescue? Why or why not?
Who pays for the rescue?
Update June 12: Sunderland is ending her voyage, according to media reports. The Australians will not be asking for compensation to rescue Sunderland, the French have not said if they will or not.
An interesting tweet by Ottawa-based journalist Allison Cross caught my eye Friday morning:
Sunderland is the 16-year-old American teen attempting to create a world record by being the youngest person to sail around the world on her own. She ran into trouble Thursday somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean when she set off her emergency beacon locating device, Pete Thomas reported first on his blog.
The teen was found by an Australian search and rescue team Thursday night. According to the L.A. Times, her boat was upright, but the mast was gone. She was apparently unharmed.
Her parents are posting updates on her blog here.
Back to Cross’ question though: Should the Sunderlands pay for the “rescue” of their daughter?
The answer to that question might depend on what you consider to be a “rescue” operation. Sunderland’s parents report that the last contact they had with their daughter before Thursday night, the sea was rough. Winds were roaring up to 60 knots, and the sea was swelling 20-25 feet.
She was found unharmed, yes, but her boat was missing its mast (a vital part needed to sail around the world). There is no doubt that Sunderland pressed her button because she feared death. The fact that she was found unharmed is a miracle in and of itself. Thus, she should not be made to pay. She used her emergency beacon locator as she should have.
But, you might argue, that she was found to be fine. A little hungry, her parents report, but fine. The boat may have been missing a mast, but it was rightside up. She was on the boat waiting for a fishing vessel. She wasn’t stuck in the sea on a floating device, as one would imagine a true emergency on the sea to be.
On top of that, Sunderland is a 16-year-old girl trying to sail around the world — alone! That in itself shows recklessness. No child should have been allowed to do this in the first place. Therefore, she should have to pay the costs of emergency search and rescue.
The thing is, the case of Abby Sunderland’s emergency rescue is not black and white. Should her family have to pay for the costs of rescuing their daughter from the seas? Likely not. While she wasn’t floating in the middle of the ocean, there still is a much stronger argument that Sunderland used her beacon in what was, for her anyway, an emergency. Who are we to argue with that?
After all, we still treat people at emergency rooms who come in with a cough or a stomach ache that really aren’t emergencies at all. And they’re not charged (in Canada anyway).
Yes, people can argue that what Sunderland is doing is reckless and dangerous in itself, but that doesn’t mean she should not be allowed the same help and assistance any other person would be afforded in her situation.
If this were a 45-year-old man instead of a 16-year-old girl we were talking about, I’m willing to wager we would not even be asking the question of whether he should have to pay the costs of the rescue operation.
We have emergency services for a reason. And what I consider to be an emergency, you likely will not. The Sunderlands should not have to pay for the rescue of their daughter. Instead, we should be thankful we’re having this debate and not mourning the loss of a 16-year-old girl who decided she wanted to be the youngest person to sail around the world.
What do you think? Should the Sunderlands have to pay for their daughter’s rescue? Why or why not?