Can A Refusal To Evacuate Be Similar To An RMA?

[x635 4,066]

I understand the concerns of people not wanting to leave their homes to evacuate, for a variety of reasons. I also understand the challenge it places on emergency responders, and the risk.

However, if someone refuses to evacuate, could something similar to an EMS "refusal" be obtained? Meaning the person was made aware and accepts the risks of staying put.

Or would something like that place too much liability on already overburdened responders?

[FireMedic049 597]

I understand the concerns of people not wanting to leave their homes to evacuate, for a variety of reasons. I also understand the challenge it places on emergency responders, and the risk.

However, if someone refuses to evacuate, could something similar to an EMS "refusal" be obtained? Meaning the person was made aware and accepts the risks of staying put.

Or would something like that place too much liability on already overburdened responders?

Typically the EMS refusal is about addressing potential future liability related to the patient's medical condition when the patient is not being passed off to another healthcare provider. Usually the patient has a medical issue/injury that should receive additional attention at the hospital, but the patient under specific conditions has the right to refuse transport. The purpose of the "refusal" form is to document that the patient was advised of potential risks associated with not going to the hospital via EMS, to document competency and understanding of that risk and to relieve the EMS provider/service of liability should the patient suffer any adverse impact from not going to the hospital and future legal action is initiated. Regardless, if the patient later calls 911 for the same issue, an EMS unit is sent and the patient can get the same services as if there hadn't been a prior encounter.

What exactly would this "refusal" address? If the evacuation is "mandatory", then I would imaging the refusal to leave would be a matter for law enforcement to address. If the evacuation is voluntary/encouraged/recommended, would the person refusing to evacuate be signing away their right to have public safety units respond to assist them for the duration of the storm or whatever the evac is for? Unless that's the situation, I really don't see any benefit from doing something like a "refusal". However, do we really want to find ourselves in a situation where we're not responding to a request for assistance that we are capable of responding to? Just look at the backlash from the "pay to spray" subscription fire protection situations when the FD doesn't put out the non-subscriber's fire.

Besides, our whole business is pretty much based on saving people from themselves and their bad decisions, actions and/or inactions even though doing so can often impose risk to ourselves. So, should we treat that situation any differently?

Edited October 30, 2012 by FireMedic049

[WAS967 97]

I'm a firm believer that if someone ignores a mandatory evacuation order, and then comes to need emergency assistance, that responders should not be forced to risk their lives/safety to save them.

[IzzyEng4 427]

A few shoreline towns in CT have been rumored they are having residents sign a waiver if they decide not to evacuate stating the town is not liable an the warning was given.

(*)

[sueg 77]

From what I heard earlier this afternoon, at some point there were at least two multiple story buildings with about 60 people in the upper floors (I think someplace in CT) on the shoreline who were told multiple times to evacuate, did not, and were trapped by the rising waters. Last I heard they still were trapped due to the dangerous conditions. Dispatchers had to tell them the conditions meant no responders, PD or FD, could come and get them, and advised them to go to the higher floors, and to the roof if necessary. Due to their refusal to evacuate, the authorities were at least aware there were residents there, but were also handcuffed because to make attempts to rescue the fools* in those conditions would have possibly led to fatalities of both responders and "I-will-tough-it-outers". Anyone hear any updates? In some rare instances like this, I have heard of the people being charged for the resources/people hours/etc. utilized to get them out of where they were told not to be, but not sure if the monetary collection amount ever was enforced after courts got through with it.

(*change of heart - fools a little harsh - they really may have nowhere else to go, or do not trust people enough to leave their valuables unprotected, may not have enough money to go elsewhere, or may not feel comfortable in a shelter. Can sympathize with that, I guess...)

Also, when we are told to finish our last job and to return to and stay in FD quarters like we were this storm when the sustained winds went above 50 mph, that's usually when the "civilian" populace least understands why we cannot come out unless it is absolutely a life safety issue, and only if we safely can do the job. Those poor Queens and Yonkers FD, EMS and PD - had to be extremely frustrating watching those houses burn and not being able to do anything. Not totally sure, but from the articles I read it sounds like they were advised to evacuate due to the rising water potential, and most decided to ride it out, which made the already over-whelmed emergency personnel more determined to help in whatever way they could, but should not make anyone other than the people living in those houses liable if they were hurt or killed. And the Easton Firefighter was killed at the same time all of us were being told to return to quarters, and he and his brothers were probably just finishing up their job to do just that. My condolences to his family and brothers.

All that worked their hearts out this storm could only do so much, but you all need to know that, even if it did not seem like a lot, it WAS. You have my sincere appreciation and pride that you went in when others shut themselves in their houses and hoped it would end. Very nice job, everyone.

Edited November 2, 2012 by sueg

[SSweet88MonteSS 0]

Not if it's a lawful order. In NYC (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/eo/eo_163.pdf) those who refused to evacuate flood Zone A were guilty of a class B Misdemeanor.