Sick toddler rescued by navy warship........??

[CathyA]

http://www.wthr.com/story/25174243/2014/04/06/navy-warship-reaches-sailboat-carrying-ill-toddler

I don't understand this. This couple was taking a round-the-word cruise on their sailboat, with 2 very young children.....I think they were something like 2 and 4. The youngest child became sick and they sent out a distress call. Some reports say their boat was not working.......others only said the child was sick.

I, personally, don't see the need to send a navy warship to take care of this.
Secondly.......what the heck were the parents thinking, taking their very young children on an around-the-world cruise in a small sailboat??

[razz]

A number of parents do these trips as did many parents decades ago when they travelled. I spoke to someone who sailed a boat to
the Canary Islands and the preparation that is undertaken is amazing. Don't be too quick to judge them as they would have been well prepared for many possibilities but sometimes, situations that would be difficult on land arise on the sea as well.

[Dhiana]

There isn't a whole lot for a warship to do when it's not at war...each contact is a good opportunity for service members to utilize their skills and break the monotony of drills.

The alternative would be to just sail on by and let the kid probably die?

[bae]

SOLAS and SAR create a duty to render aid:


The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the

“master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so…”3

The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) obliges State Parties to:


“…ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea… regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found”… and to “provide for their initial medical or other needs , and deliver them to a place of safety.”4

[Spartana]

As Bae stated - any ship in the vicinity (including civilian as well as naval ships of any country) are both duty and legally bound to help rescue another mariner in distress. - and can even be diverted from their course to render aid. So if the Navy Frigate was the closest vessel to their sailboat, then that's who'll they'll send. Also, they sent a plane with people (US National Guard members) to parachute to help before the ship arrived.

As to "why" parents with infants or young children would choose this life where their kids could be in dangerous situations and unable to protect or help themselves at that age and are so far from help? Well I don't know. I've read about all sorts of people doing this - long distance sailing with kids - and most have been successful (although there have been quite a few tragedies as well). I have friends who do similar adventure things with their young kids to remote areas of the world and they also have no problems. Usually they are people who have done that kind of thing themselves for many years (this couple with the sailboat had lived like that for 7 years before they had kids) so maybe they think they are prepared for anything. Or maybe it's just an odds game. They figure that there is risk to their kids in everything you do even in a urban setting, that they are willing to take those risks. I personally wouldn't do it but I can understand why other's would. Someone's kids may be more likely to die in a car accident while driving around on a freeway in LA then out at sea on a boat. That's probably true. The difference is that they are close to hospitals and aid in LA, not so on a small boat far out to sea. And they weren't all that far out either - so it was easier to reach them swiftly. If they were further out or in a remote part of the ocean, the rescue may have taken much longer and had a bad outcome. Here's an article with link with their blog and some info about why they did it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/07/sailboat-family-defends-taking-infant-to-sea-following-rescue-by-navy-task-force/

[CathyA]

Of course I don't think they should have been left to sink and die!

I'm questioning these kinds of activities.........like doing potentially very dangerous/costly-to-the-taxpayer-to-rescue-type choices. (Like climbing a mountain/hiking in a huge forest during bad weather/using a kayak on a swollen river while not knowing how to swim and not wearing a life jacket, etc., etc.)

From the news, it looks like there are alot of people who question this.
I'm just thinking about how some people do dangerous things here in the U.S. and just assume someone out there will rescue them if it doesn't turn out well......at a huge price to the taxpayers.

[peggy]

Oh I understand what you are saying. These folks were probably prepared but stuff happens.
The ones who really get to me are the ones who are warned in advance of some impending issues. Fire, flood, volcano, hurricane, etc...who insist on 'staying to protect my home' or some other such nonsense (how exactly are you going to PROTECT your home from one of these?), then the rescue folks have to risk THEIR lives saving these sorry a--holes. Seriously, I don't know how the rescue folks don't just save these people then slap them silly for being so stupid!

[JaneV2.0]

Interestingly, we have a double standard for BASE jumpers, hikers in avalanche season, rafters in Spring runoff, parents who take their children on risky adult adventures, and marathon runners, as opposed to some poor middle-aged schlub who works himself half to death, then has a heart attack. We lionize the former, and demonize the latter. After all, he should have taken better care of himself. The careless risk-takers are beyond reproach.

[CathyA]

I think some of these risk-takers do some of what they do because of cell phones. They probably figure they can always call for help.
That family of 4 in the sailboat was lucky because I guess their phone died right after they made the distress call.
We're all so spoiled in this country.

[Spartana]

Of course I don't think they should have been left to sink and die!

I'm questioning these kinds of activities.........like doing potentially very dangerous/costly-to-the-taxpayer-to-rescue-type choices. (Like climbing a mountain/hiking in a huge forest during bad weather/using a kayak on a swollen river while not knowing how to swim and not wearing a life jacket, etc., etc.)

From the news, it looks like there are alot of people who question this.
I'm just thinking about how some people do dangerous things here in the U.S. and just assume someone out there will rescue them if it doesn't turn out well......at a huge price to the taxpayers.The Coast Guard and Navy (or any other military service) never charges for rescues (we just slapped them silly like Peggy suggested :-)!) and it IS a huge cost to taxpayers too. But I know some other agencies do. Our local sheriffs dept changed a couple for a search and rescue operation recently because they became lost in the mountains because they were high. Not sure what the cost was but in the hundred of thousands. Couple of 20 year olds so doubt they will actually ever pay it though. I do know that in places where people climb, like here in Calif and in Alaska, local rescue groups will often charge to rescue someone. So it's not that uncommon.