Having worked for the American Red Cross, I would like to say that this is actually a wise decision.
ARC volunteers are NOT trained in search & rescue work. They can give CPR and some really minimal medical wound treatment, and they know how to put someone with a potential spinal injury onto a stretcher, but that's pretty much it. (AFAIK)
The function of the Red Cross is provide comfort and shelter to those who have survived a disaster. They are there to distribute blankets and water and a very generous amount of hugs. Red Cross volunteers are the human side of rescue, when the professionals can't stick around because they have to dive back into the hell that was their city.
It is the job of those qualified, professionial personnel to go into the remains of the city and search for survivors. That's what they are there to do.
Red Cross volunteers are everyday people like you and me. I think they've taken a two-day course (if there's been time), but that's the only special training they have. (It's very likely I'm wrong, though. I haven't worked for the ARC for several years.)
The Red Cross does a great job caring for the victims of disaster. I think their volunteers are the salt of the earth. They give so much of themselves.
And this is unneeded in, say, the Superdome or the Convention Centre? It's not like they're actually evacuating the people either. But the reason given isn't even that they're unnecessary. It's that if they were allowed in, then all *those* people would choose to stay in the city. You know what *those* people are like, always waiting for free handouts.
There is/was not enough food and water for the evacuees at the Superdome or the Convention Center. Many were close to starving to death, and I'm sure a fair number of them did.
Red Cross volunteers require food and water too. The resources they consume outweigh the small measure of benefit or comfort they can provide. You don't want to starve your volunteers in order to keep your evacuees alive, but eventually it would come down to that. More people = more mouths to feed.
It's not a matter of *THOSE* people, and if you think it is, then you are the one who needs to rearrange your thinking in a big way.
This is a matter of practicality, a rationing of resources, of keeping the greatest number of people ALIVE and as healthy as possible until they can be moved to a safer location. Every single person who has been rescued receives the same level of care: the best care possible under the circumstances.
Yes, and that's what the linked site says as well:
"The Red Cross does not conduct search and rescue operations. We are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access."
It's not the volunteers or ARC that should be criticised for this at the moment; also see what Jasper said in reply.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A wise decision
Date: 2005-09-03 10:26 pm (UTC)ARC volunteers are NOT trained in search & rescue work. They can give CPR and some really minimal medical wound treatment, and they know how to put someone with a potential spinal injury onto a stretcher, but that's pretty much it. (AFAIK)
The function of the Red Cross is provide comfort and shelter to those who have survived a disaster. They are there to distribute blankets and water and a very generous amount of hugs. Red Cross volunteers are the human side of rescue, when the professionals can't stick around because they have to dive back into the hell that was their city.
It is the job of those qualified, professionial personnel to go into the remains of the city and search for survivors. That's what they are there to do.
Red Cross volunteers are everyday people like you and me. I think they've taken a two-day course (if there's been time), but that's the only special training they have. (It's very likely I'm wrong, though. I haven't worked for the ARC for several years.)
The Red Cross does a great job caring for the victims of disaster. I think their volunteers are the salt of the earth. They give so much of themselves.
Re: A wise decision
Date: 2005-09-03 11:30 pm (UTC)Re: A wise decision
Date: 2005-09-05 08:37 pm (UTC)Red Cross volunteers require food and water too. The resources they consume outweigh the small measure of benefit or comfort they can provide. You don't want to starve your volunteers in order to keep your evacuees alive, but eventually it would come down to that. More people = more mouths to feed.
It's not a matter of *THOSE* people, and if you think it is, then you are the one who needs to rearrange your thinking in a big way.
This is a matter of practicality, a rationing of resources, of keeping the greatest number of people ALIVE and as healthy as possible until they can be moved to a safer location. Every single person who has been rescued receives the same level of care: the best care possible under the circumstances.
Re: A wise decision
Date: 2005-09-04 06:34 pm (UTC)"The Red Cross does not conduct search and rescue operations. We are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access."
It's not the volunteers or ARC that should be criticised for this at the moment; also see what Jasper said in reply.