With regard to the recent bombardment of media coverage about what would turn out to be the fatal implosion of the billionaire-funded, swashbuckling adventure to explore the remains of a ship that sank over a hundred years ago, the question we must ask ourselves as a society is whether or not it is acceptable to place a price tag on efforts to save a human life.
“Five people have just lost their lives and to start talking about insurance, all the rescue efforts and the cost can seem pretty heartless—but the thing is, at the end of the day, there are costs,” said Arun Upneja, dean of Boston University’s School of Hospitality Administration and a tourism researcher.
The U.S. Coast Guard refused to disclose the cost involved in rescue efforts, saying that it does not put a monetary value to Search and Rescue cases intended to preserve human life. The five people lost included a billionaire British businessman, along with a father and son from one of Pakistan’s wealthiest families. The operator of the submersible had charged passengers $250,000 each to participate in the voyage.
PBS News Hour, a U.S.-based public broadcasting outlet, reports that while the Coast Guard’s cost for the mission is likely to run into the millions of dollars, it is typically prohibited by law from collecting reimbursement related to search and rescue efforts.
This is hardly the first occasion in which uber-rich and famous adrenaline junkies have engaged in thrill-seeking adventures which would ultimately have led to their demise had rescue teams not intervened. Steve Fossett’s hot air balloon’s attempt to circle the globe in 1998 ended with a plunge into the ocean off the coast of Australia in 1998, while he was at it again with similar antics in 2007 when his plane went missing in Nevada (U.S.).
Fossett would run into deadly trouble twice more, rejecting calls from critics to foot the bill. Richard Branson suffered a similar fate, but offered to pay for the rescue out of his own pocket. The Coast Guard did not accept his offer, however.
PBS News Hour speculates that the recent pandemic drew a rise in participation of outdoor activity in a resounding rejection of the cooped-up feeling necessitated by quarantines. That, along with the availability of cell phones, has resulted in a kind of free-for-all gravitation to this type of self-gratifying splurge.
Most officials and volunteers who run search and rescue efforts oppose charging for assistance, arguing that if those in danger know that these attempts to save lives will result in inevitable personal bankruptcy, the imminent victims will be deterred from calling for help.
Posing that thought immediately begs another question: whether or not the valuation of one human life should override that of another based on his / her personal wealth.
Based on both the news coverage and the efforts spent trying to rescue a handful of obscenely wealthy, hedonistic “adventurers”–in comparison to that of the untold hundreds of migrants presumed dead subsequent to the capsizing of their fishing vessel destined for a life of greener pastures–it certainly appears that society’s answer to that question is a resounding, “Yes!”
Should taxpayers–or even insurance companies, who inevitably pass on the burden of accident payouts to their overall client base eventually anyhow through higher premiums–fund the rescue efforts of those who choose to engage in extremely risky behavior? Should it matter that the victims were morbidly wealthy?
And if the answer is affirmative, is it due to the fact that among many, excessive wealth inevitably causes jealousy, resentment, and even hatred for those who do not share their financial status?
Likewise, with respect to the fishing boat victims, did the fact that the victims were apparently engaging in efforts to circumvent legal immigration procedures enter into the equation in determining whether to conduct rescue efforts in the first place?”
Furthermore–and even more alarmingly–did the fact that these victims were from areas of the world which are often subject to condescension from more affluent Caucasians enter into the equation?
Getting back to the disparity of media coverage between the two maritime disasters, former U.S. President Barack Obama, in USA Today, provided an interesting take on the double standard. He argued that one of the most pressing threats to democracy is exemplified by this “obscene inequality.” He added, “It’s very hard to sustain a democracy when you have such massive concentrations of wealth.”
Obviously, this post poses more questions than answers because it is an attempt to get us to reflect upon our inner biases, to get them out in the open, and to reach some sort of consensus for directives for when these catastrophes occur in the future–as they most assuredly will–so that we as a society may work toward appropriate, consistent, humanitarian, and ethical behavioral norms.
As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.