Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Rescuing Those Who Ignore Mandatory Evacuations
    Haylen_WebMD_Staff posted:
    As hurricanes and other strong storms approach metropolitan areas, officials often call for mandatory evacuations like this one: Mayor Bloomberg orders mandatory evacuation for 375,000 New York City residents .

    In addition to saving lives of those in the storm path, the evacuations also protect first responders who put themselves in danger for rescue operations.

    Should the city/county have to provide rescue services to people who refuse to evacuate? Share your thoughts here!

    rohvannyn responded:
    To me, if you don't want to evacuate you shouldn't have to, but you do waive your right to help if it puts others in danger. You as a human being have the absolute right to self determination, or you should anyway. Folks should have the right to make their own decisions, even if they turn out badly. You shouldn't expect rescue if you are wrong, however.
    Anon_11518 responded:
    Yes, they should. While my gut reaction is that they shouldn't for the safety of the first resonders and because they were dully warned, the reality is people are often de-sensitized to these things because of past media hype that falls flat, or because they think they're invinsible and it couldn't happen to them. Others are ignorant or don't want to be told what to do, while still, some have no where to go. Sadly, someone has to look out for the welfare of these folks, and first responders know they are dealing with these kinds.
    We'd be outraged to see a repeat of the Katrina response, no?
    butterflygarden responded:
    I think there has to be rescue available, but perhaps they should be fined for utilizing services that wouldn't have had to be used if they had just followed the evacuation notification?

    In a situation like a hurricane, emergency services are already very taxed, and top that with putting those men and women in grave danger to save YOU because YOU chose to make a poor choice? Doesn't seem quite fair.

    brunosbud responded:
    If there was prior forewarning, as Gov. Christie (New Jersey) is alluding to, then, I say, "Yes. Rescue should be made available to those who choose to ignore instructions to evacuate...provided, a close family member or relative is working shoulder-to-shoulder with first responders, risking their lives, too."

    Its OK if people choose risky behavior so long as they can live (or die) with the consequences. You can't ask others to respect your decisions, then, turn around and not respect your own.
    timvasi responded:
    I was a firefighter in New York for 25 years. When an evacuation order is issued, normally its done with a great deal of thought and consideration to the facts, as well as the forecast of the future conditions. These orders are not issued lightly, and they really should be followed for everyone's safety.

    When you choose to ignore an evacuation order, you impact many more people than you think. Obviously there is your personal safety... but in addition you now impact the safety of the emergency personnel, anyone they have to cross paths with to get to you, as well as potentially other people they could be rescuing outside of the evacuation area, that now have to wait in possibly life threatening situations while emergency staff tends to your needs.

    Should the city/county have to provide rescue services if you refuse to evacuate? Yes absolutely, but if you were ordered to evacuate and refused, you should also receive a citation, a fine, and bear the cost of the rescue. A disaster like this is hard on everyone, but put yourself in the shoes of the people tasked with providing emergency services to you, even while their own family's property and safety is probably at the same risk.
    worn1 responded:
    No. If they refuse to leave then their survival is in their hands not rescue survice. It is one thing to help some one who is in a dangerous situation through no fault of their own and for someone to put some one else's life in danger due to their refusal to evacuate causing thier life to be in danger. You do not have the right to expect rescue.
    I would not help some one who refused to evacuate. I would put my life on the line for those caught up in a situation beyond their control.
    Jo H
    1nt3rnalc0mbu5t1on replied to timvasi's response:

    First off thank you for your years of service. I would have to agree with you, especially about the part of them being fined or paying part of the cost.

    The people that ignore the evacs, assume that they will be helped, in a dire situation. But if they knew there would be some sort of consequence for their ignorance, they might be more inclined to listen.
    lystra responded:
    Sometimes there's no way to help, most people think that help will come when the storm is over, but the danger is still there, and it takes a long time to help people. Most people don't understand that. then the get upset.
    fcl replied to lystra's response:
    "Most people don't understand that"

    I think it's simpler than that - I think a lot of people don't understand that if they don't evacuate they might DIE.

    WebMD Talk Show

    Feel like a friendly debate? Take the gloves off and defend your viewpoint.

    Learn More

    Expert Blog

    Diagnosis: Reality Check

    Putting perspective on health news and names in the spotlight.Read More