mconnell wrote:surgent wrote:They just don't "give up" a subject, especially one who is injured, just because they demand it
So, they hold people against their will while forcing unwanted treatment on them? The reality is if someone doesn't want to be rescued, SAR goes home.
No, the reality is that once the rescue is in action, the final decision becomes that of the op commander.
I was on a number of missions where we reached the subject, they were fine (if scratched up and embarrassed) and after a quickie check, walked them out and let them go home. But that final decision is still the op commander's (who usually will defer to any on-site medics on these "easy" cases).
Once the SAR team reaches the subject, the subject is their legal responsibility until they are handed off to (usually) the medics. This is the law in all states. The subject just cannot summarily decide they want out of the litter. Some are not in their right minds (e.g. out for a number of days, injured, dehydrated, you name it), some are moaners by genetics. Whatever the case, the subject is the op commander's responsibility until as stated above.
It's not unlike some paramedics responding to a call, taking some guy into the ambulance, then halfway to the hospital, he decides he doesn't like this and wants out. No way would the medics allow the subject to simply leave... he gets hurt or in some other trouble, he is still the responder's responsibility, and by extension, the tax-payers. That's where the lawsuits would occur.
I wouldn't say the subjects are held against their will. Some will put up a fight, or complain, or be obstinate. You'd be surprised what state of mind an otherwise rational person can slip into when in a rescue scenario.
In regards to this woman, I know no more than you do. My bat sense tells me something else is being left out of the story. Suppose her personal helo crashes. She is still the state or county's responsibility, so I am surprised she was simply "let go". The taxpayers would surely be on the hook should her family sue.
Stories like this are inflammatory to SAR in general because it propogates the perception that it is a costly waste of time and resources, when in fact, most SAR cases are successful, run by the book, cost-effective, and so boring that no news coverage will be given. This one case has a lot of good "story" to it, but the tone of the article is unflattering, not only to the woman (that she is from Texas is irrelevant), but also to the apparent laissez-faire attitude of the SAR people. Thus, to me at least, there is far more to this story than what is printed in that article.