I fully agree with Diane Wendell that a full-blown rescue (Beacon, April 19 edition) of a stumbling drunk involving a helicopter is beyond absurd when a bottle of water and a blanket would have sufficed. But with exception of the helicopter, aren’t those rescue people all paid the same whether they are in the garage polishing the rig, turned in for the night or out rescuing? Therefore, cost recovery doesn’t apply. And the fire department spokesman’s statement, “We’re not sending the parents the bill “¦ that’s why we pay taxes,”: they are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, prepared and waiting for the next tragedy. Not to mention that it’s not the kid’s fault the rescuers were overzealous. Bill them. Not the kid’s parents. Consider it as a drill for a real rescue.
On the other hand, what if it was your kid, and he had alcohol poisoning and needed medical attention immediately or he’d die? In defense of the spokesman’s response, I don’t think they have a way of knowing one way or the other whether a passed-out person will make it or not.
As it appears in hindsight, perhaps they did the wrong thing and it was rescue overkill. But from the rescuers’ perspective in the heat of the moment they played it safe, saving a young man’s life as their goal. (So they actually did the right thing?) And that’s worth every penny, is it not? And if it”s not, then we may as well disband all rescue teams and put our taxes to a better use.