What could happen in your group’s scenario “community” cannot be reestablished?
During times of disasters, plans do not usually go according to plans. The unpredictability of disasters proves to be a huge challenge for leaders who have to bring together teams to deal with the disasters. In my group, a plan to reestablish community had been conceived and was made up of five priorities, which were rated according to their supposed impact. According to the recovery plan, the staff would be spread out to help the people in need who were scattered in different locations. This program would continue in anticipation of aid coming from external sources.
The recovery plan was run by a group of staff made up of a total of 8 doctors and 16 nurses. Given the number of casualties that was witnessed in the area, it would be expected that the staff would not be enough to deal with numbers. The implication, therefore, is that rations would need to be reduced for every person in need, whether adult patients or children. Besides, the focus will need to be moved to people in critical need, as opposed to the general survivors who required limited attention. The children would be the most affected in this case since staff meant to take care of them would be withdrawn to take care of critically ill patients.
This is the same situation or state of affairs, highlighted by Fink in Five Days at Memorial. Here, the situation got worse since evacuation was not as efficient and speedy as expected. The implication was that patients who required intensive care were left to lie in the hospital awaiting the helicopters. A good example of the breakdown regarding the evacuation program is seen where two daughters, Angela McManus, and Kathryn Nelson have to personally take care of their mothers who were awaiting evacuation. They had to engage in activity that would under normal circumstances be the work of nurses (Fink 187).
When the situation gets worse, it is advisable for the leaders to make tough executive decisions that can lead to better outcomes. Some of the decisions made may be unpopular with the majority, but ultimately lead to better results of the whole process. At the memorial hospital, for instance, Fink narrates that the doctor in charge Anna Pou had to order for close guarding of the pharmacy. The goal here was not just ensuring better medical outcomes for the patients, but also keep at check staff who had a history of substance abuse (Fink 190). The implication here is that a leader, during the time of chaos gets the extra responsibility of observing the staff he or she is working with.
Decisions previously agreed upon by a majority of the team members may ultimately prove to be unattainable when the situation deteriorates. The leaders, here have the responsibility to bring together team members and re-think the strategy. In the group’s case, for example, all the decisions made would be guided by the five priorities set. In this case, responding to rescue calls and trying to establish communication with the outside world was the biggest priority. Given the worsening conditions and especially breakdown in communication lines, however, this priority may no longer be the biggest. Staff may need to be re-deployed to tend to other priorities such an increase in the number of causalities. A rethinking of the strategy is, therefore, a common occurrence in times of disaster and is seen in Fink’s narration where the doctors admit that they can do nothing for the survivors.
Would this process establish a new normal you could live with?
Dr. Pou during a meeting with other doctors and other staff notes that the initial plan was to take care of every patient. This meant offering medicine that was entitled to every patient. Given the deteriorating condition, however, this was not feasible. The supply of medicine and serving them to needy patients had to be stopped. Even the sight of patients who were crying for pain relieving medicine was not enough to convince the nurses and doctors to offer those pills. The staff agreed that they could do nothing for the patients (Fink 195).
When the situation further deteriorates, especially when it comes to the availability of supplies, some controversial and tough choices need to be made by the leader. In the group’s case, for example, the decision to give less attention to children who are vulnerable may be unpopular but ultimately necessary. In New Orleans, for example, Dr. Pou, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Deichmann grapple with the idea of euthanasia. There was some form of agreement that the situation was too dire and patients could be termed as “Chronically death bound” (Fink 206). In this instance, the leaders had to be bold enough to admit euthanasia, which was already being conducted on dogs was the way to go. Despite initial resistance, the staff ultimately agreed with the idea, and this boiled down to the leaders who were bold enough to think of the idea of killing for mercy (Fink 205).
The new processes mentioned above would lead to the establishment of a norm. Given that they are processes that would ultimately prove to be successful, it is a normal that I could live with. This notion is also informed by the qualities that make an ethical leader. One quality of an ethical leader is respect given to others. All the changes proposed before would first be presented to the team before they are actualized.
Another quality is that leaders have, to be honest. Honesty, here applies in presenting the reality of the situation, even when the proposals being made are not popular. In this case, it will be important to establish a balance between being honest and authentic with the needs other people have.
In conclusion, disaster situations are very dynamic, and plans pre-set to arrest the situations may not always work. The implication, therefore, is that it becomes necessary for leaders to restructure and often act in non-conventional manners.
Works Cited
Fink, Sheri. Five Days at Memorial: Life and Death in a Storm-Ravaged Hospital. Crown, 2013.
