I believe the decision to prosecute me depends on the circumstances under which I made the decision. In an emergency situation, there is little time to make detailed plans and revise the plan. This is because the lives of people are at stake. The team has to act fast. Therefore, a plan has to be formulated as hastily as possible. In such situations, there are bound to be erroneous decisions that may have been made due to the haste and the pressure at that moment. Besides, past plans may not work since no two emergencies are alike. The causes are different; the geography is different and the people involved are different. Therefore, past plans may not work. Therefore, in that case, the team leader is not to blame. As long as the team leader made the decision in good faith using a utilitarian approach. A utilitarian approach is one that seeks to maximize the welfare of everyone. Therefore, if the intention of the team leader was to rescue as many people as possible and save as many lives as possible then he should not be prosecuted. The adverse actions of his decisions were not deliberate or premeditated.
There is also a possibility that the team leader planned properly based on the available information. However, changes in circumstances after the plan was formulated rendered the plan inappropriate for the situation resulting in the loss of lives. In this case, it is indicated that several more tornados hit the region as the plan was being executed. Therefore, the plan was bound to fail because this situation was not foreseen. For instance, if the temporary structures were built to accommodate let say 500 people based on estimated number of victims. However, the tornado results in an additional 500 causalities; the structures will be overcrowded and difficult to manage. The overstretching of resources in itself may result in death. It may also be difficult to attend to everyone given the limited number of health personnel and volunteers.
The team leader can also not be blamed for elements of nature. The tornados that hit the region may have destroyed the structures that were built to accommodate the victims. Therefore, everyone was exposed to the weather elements. There is a possibility that some of them died as a result of exposure to the harsh weather conditions. It must particularly affect children, the elderly and sick people.
In an emergency situation, it may not be possible to save everyone. There is limited time for the team to act. There are resource limitations in terms of medicine, health workers, volunteers and physical resources such as beds. Therefore, there is a need to prioritize. The team should save those lives that to their best of their professional judgement have a high probability of being saved. There are others that have little probability of staying alive. Those persons should be attended to last because they are most likely to die than survive. Attending to them is a waste of resources that would have been used to save someone else. It is a matter of priority. Therefore, the persons who died could have been those who the team leader assessed and believed could not be saved. Therefore, treatment was withheld from them, and they subsequently died. The chances that they would have lived even with treatment was little. Therefore, the team leader cannot be blamed for such an eventuality.
Works Cited
Fink, Sheri Lee. Five Days at Memorial: Life and Death in a Storm-ravaged Hospital. London: Atlantic Books Ltd, 2013. Print.
