Comments:Haiti rescue effort abandoned

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


No, its wrong we're helping them so much and they give up.

No Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!Edit

This is terribly wrong. Bad idea.--Purz15 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they're going to stop all relief efforts. They're just giving up looking for still-living victims trapped in the rubble. At this point, their efforts are better put towards helping the victims we know are still alive. 206.74.5.136 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes.


They should keep looking. Lives are worth more than re-building(s). —82.22.244.135 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty much standard operating procedure. It's sad, but it's time to move from looking for living people trapped in the rubble to helping those who have already been rescued. There is a limit to how long you can survive trapped under rubble, you know. While a few people were rescued yesterday, we're reaching that limit. If we don't start rebuilding, then more people will die - from famine, disease, exposure to the elements, etc. (One thing that is especially worrying me is access to potable water.) The article should probably make it more clear that this doesn't mean that the *relief* effort is being abandoned. 173.26.236.137 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine its better to save 10 000 people from starvation/etc then to save a single person trapped in rubble. (Those numbers are completely random, but the point is more people are helped by helping the living instead of looking for the dead). Bawolff 18:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Any protests?Edit

I would gladly sign a petition or something against stopping the efforts... there may be still living people there. How can we let them die? -Erina (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Finite resources. You reach a point where, if all effort is put into finding more trapped victims, for every one you pull out two neglected survivors die because there isn't even a basic emergency infrastructure for food, water, and sanitation. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sadly enough that is true. I'm no Bethamite, but the utilitarian phase "greater good for the greater number of people" applies here. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Brian McNeil is right. After 11 days if you are hoping that you can find someone alive from crashed building wreckage then certainly you are asking for more. The primary needs are changed now. One has to make sure that the rebuilding of infrastructure and lives should be start now else survivors will have to suffer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livjon09 (talkcontribs)