The Hurricane Katrina Case

The Hurricane Katrina Case

As depicted in the Hurricane Katrina case study, disaster management and response yield ethical challenges. During a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, the main objective is to ensure that victims are safe and have access to necessities. Preservation of life is necessary during such periods. As simple as this may sound, it grows complex when victims and relief providers have to interact. Under normal circumstances, respect for privacy and rights that are spelled out in the Fourth Amendment assumes priority in most situations. Failure to prioritize these personal rights often results in tort claims due to violation. However, it is impossible to uphold the same rights during a disaster. The risk involved with upholding the Fourth Amendment rights includes possible loss of life, injuries, and interactions with looters that may even lead to an individual’s death. It is important to acknowledge the sentimental attachment that people have towards their material property (Newton, 2013). However, the same materials that individuals are reluctant to abandon during a disaster serve as an attraction to looters. Thus, failure to abandon material wealth can lead to harm to an individual and their family members. According to the Human Rights Act of 2019, all individuals have a right to life, and any action that deprives anyone of life is a breach of the act (QHRC, 2019). Thus, the government and its agencies are obligated to preserve life during disasters.

Since preservation of life assumes the highest priority during a disaster, the rescuers and relief providers, such as the National Guard, are allowed to use the necessary force to ensure that victims leave their homes. In cases where victims claim that they would like to stay to protect their property from looters, they should be informed that the current situation does not allow for such actions due to a disruption of security systems. For instance, if looters visited a victim’s home, they may be outnumbered or subdued using the weapons in their possession. At the same time, the homeowner cannot raise the alarm and receive assistance because roads are impassable, communication lines are disrupted, and resources are spread thin. Therefore, receiving assistance during a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina is impossible. This situation reduces the safety of an individual and their family members. In such cases, the Guardsmen are allowed to direct the victims to board the boats at gunpoint. This measure may appear too harsh, but it is necessary for preserving the lives of the victims.

In a different situation where victims may refuse to leave due to the health conditions of their loved ones, they should be assisted respectfully. As already emphasized, life preservation is the priority. Thus, it is not right or ethical to leave some individuals in harm’s way, especially when sick. One may cite Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which highlights that the strong species survives in its environment (Newton, 2013). However, in this case, the goal is to mitigate the effects of the hurricane and protect the lives of citizens. Failure to do so may be considered a breach. Thus, the Guardsmen should find a way to access more boats to carry the aged and the sick into safety. During such a time, emotions are high, and people tend to display more irritability. However, the power of guardsmen during such a disaster endows them the liberty to make such decisions without going against the law. At such a time, respecting an individual’s autonomy to make decisions, personal rights, and privacy are not prioritized. Failure to respect these rights does not amount to a violation of the law.

The decision to force the victims to board the boats at gunpoint when they resist is aligned to moral assumptions. Normally, people rarely think about the preservation of life as a top priority. Unless their professions, such as doctors, enlist life preservation as a duty, it rarely crosses the minds of individuals. The only time that life preservation becomes a conscious priority is if there is imminent danger that could lead to the arbitrary loss of life. Therefore, the presence of life in the present continuously occurs because of moral assumptions that guide daily activities. It does not demand conscious consideration. During such times, most of the moral responsibilities are already fulfilled (Newton, 2013). However, the assumption assumes top priority during disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, conscious consideration is required of all the options that can lead to this end or deviate the rescuers from the goal. This explains the need to make an unusual decision and use force to save the lives of the victims.

Since the situation that has caught everyone’s attention is a hurricane, which can lead to extensive damage to property and loss of life, the immediate demand is to make decisions that suit the eventuality. There may be policies and procedures that the National Guard follows when conducting such rescue operations. However, these policies and procedures may be insufficient in this case due to the extent of the emergency. The policies and procedures consider the ethical aspects that are associated with relief service provision. Making a decision that will require the use of force, which is rather unconventional, does not necessarily negate the ethical policies. Instead, it prioritizes the overall objective of the rescue operations, which is life preservation and protection.

Based on the beneficence principle of ethics, it is clear that human beings are matter and are subject to the laws of physics. Thus, they are not exempted from physical suffering that may be exerted by external factors. Human beings feel pain and experience hunger and deprivation. To care about human beings is to relieve the suffering that may be caused by external elements or the deprivation of basic needs. The vulnerability of the hurricane’s victims leads to compassion, avoidance of harm, and optimization of the interests of human beings. This principle affirms the decision to herd the victims at gunpoint as right because it considers their vulnerability during the disaster and promotes beneficence through avoidance of harm (Newton, 2013). This option presents as the only decision that can lead to the prevention of harm and enables the Guardsmen to carry out their stewardship role effectively.

Morality and ethics are dependent on the prevailing situation. Moral reasoning and ethical philosophies emphasize the need to do what is right. A decision that leads to this outcome may be unconventional, as it appears in the case study. The decision to herd out victims at gunpoint presents as the only option towards the preservation of life, which is a requirement or duty of the National Guard. Thus, this confirms the rightness of the action due to the eventuality and the results that are expected.

References

Newton, L. (2013). Ethical Decision Making: Introduction to Cases and Concepts in Ethics. Springer.

QHRC. (2019). Right to life. Retrieved from https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/human-rights-law/right-to-life

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Review 1.3.1 “The Hurricane Katrina Case” on page 7. Put yourself in the Guardsman’s shoes. Answer the general question, “What would you do and why”?

The Hurricane Katrina Case

Apply any information from your last seven assignments and write a four-page (double-spaced) paper of your choice while describing the ethics of this case. You may use any information that you previously used in your assignments to create this paper. The goal of this assignment is to assess the total knowledge of course material.