Being on shaky moral grounds at the South Pole.

While it is not exactly clear in the article, it appears this person is a scientist working for the National Science Foundation. In other words a person giving up a lot of personal comforts to further knowledge for the United States. If this was a military pilot shot down behind enemy lines how would the answer be different? You could say that this scientist volunteered for the job. Same for the pilot. You could say the scientist took the position to further her career. Once again, same for the pilot. I think you could make all the same arguements for the scientist and the pilot: love of the job, excitement, unique opportunity, etc. but we all know the answer for the pilot: Send out a rescue team into hostile fire and money is no cost. Why is it different here?

I don't think the answer is necessarily to send in the rescue team, but I think the effort deserves the same level of consideration and planning as rescuing a pilot behind enemy lines. If after all of that the answer is still "too dangerous" then I accept that but I'd like to know that all the options were reviewed first.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

While it is not exactly clear in the article, it appears this person is a scientist working for the National Science Foundation. In other words a person giving up a lot of personal comforts to further knowledge for the United States. If this was a military pilot shot down behind enemy lines how would the answer be different? You could say that this scientist volunteered for the job. Same for the pilot. You could say the scientist took the position to further her career. Once again, same for the pilot. I think you could make all the same arguements for the scientist and the pilot: love of the job, excitement, unique opportunity, etc. but we all know the answer for the pilot: Send out a rescue team into hostile fire and money is no cost. Why is it different here?

Quite!

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

If it was an even 25% chance that she needed surgery to avoid severe impairment or death, then Raytheon is acting immorally if they are dragging their feet and not getting her out there as quickly as they realistically can.

Sorry I can not see how it is moral for her to try to over rule the experts opinions of the risk factors for the crew of mounting an early rescue mission by placing public pressure on the politicians.

Is the high risk of having four or five dead men or women worth whatever benefits she might get by forcing an early mission?

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think you could make all the same arguements for the scientist and the pilot: love of the job, excitement, unique opportunity, etc. but we all know the answer for the pilot: Send out a rescue team into hostile fire and money is no cost. Why is it different here?

Good point. Then again, maybe we should cast aside this sentimental commitment that the Army never leave one of her own behind?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Sorry but the military does not often consider the welfare of a small group over it missions.

See the history of rear guard actions for an example of that.

My father in fact faced a death sentence by his own officers if there was any large chances that he would fall into Japanese hands due to secrets he then carry in his head.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Now that u bring it up,
I remember seeing the true story of some South Pole explorers,
in the early 2Oth Century. Thay were said to have hated one another.

1ce one of them got lost on his South Polar exploration
under hazzardous circumstances; he was missing for a while.

The other explorer went to rescue the fellow whom he hated.
Eventually, the missing explorer turned up safely.

The rescuer was forever lost; simultaneously, he was never found. He did not hate him enuf.

My memory is a little vague on the names & details.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

My problem with this lady and my only problem is that it appear she is trying to bypass/over rule the judgments of the expert decisions makers by creating public support for an early mission and therefore getting the politicians to over rule the experts.

When you do things like that you likely will end up with outcomes as in the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger of nice fireworks in the sky where men and women had die.

No you should not launch it is too cold got over rule in the above case by the politicians and damn it I see no more justification in over rulings the experts on when you can launch a mission to the south pole.

1 Reply

Just because she volunteered for this position does not mean she volunteered to die. Had she known she was going to have a stroke, likely she wouldn't have gone out. Surely her life is more important to her than the risk. And Hawk's stupid position that she's 'claiming to be a victim' is just that - stupid. She's not claiming anything from what I've read. She's asking that they get ready.

And I ask you two twits - if it were you (or your wife or your child) out there, wouldn't you want to come home and be treated? It doesn't matter what the other researcher did (operate on herself) - in fact, I think that's highly risky and probably not too many would do that. And it doesn't matter what you think the odds are of her surviving or whatever - this is not your life. She's also not trying to over-rule anything. How you two manage to read so much more into the same words is beyond me.

1 Reply

@Mame,

So four or five others humans beings should if need be die for her benefit?

She assume the risk that if she would would get into a medical problem that the resources of the base could not deal with she would still need to wait until it was safe to get her out.

If any member of my family would end up dying because she gotten the experts opinions overrule you would had no idea how mad I would be!!!!!!!!

Footnote I live in a hurricane prone area and the government will tell people living in select areas to leave and if they do not they are told that no repeat no calls for help will be answer until the storm had pass.

No Rescue crews lives will be put at risk due to people assuming the risk of not getting out of harm way.

The lady assume the risk of serving at the south pole and no others lives should be put at high risk for her benefits.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Claiming to be a victim when she got into her situation by way of informed consent is not a morally pure path.

You really are a one trick a-hole misogynist hawkeye.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Claiming to be a victim when she got into her situation by way of informed consent is not a morally pure path.

You really are a one trick a-hole misogynist hawkeye.

Strange, I was under the impression that a misogynist hates women, I never knew that a misogynist hates those who leap at playing the victim card. Are you claiming that women = victims?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye I wonder if the thinking here is that one woman scientist life is more valuable then a train crew of four or five that would be flying a rescue mission?

I love how would you feel if she was a member of your family question with no seeming understandings that the crew is likely to had wives and husbands and children for that matter who would had a few unhappy emotions if their loves one die because the lady manage to get the judgments of the experts overrule.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

If " the lady manage to get the judgments of the experts overruled", it's their decision and responsibility, not hers. All she's doing is ASKING.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Being a woman does not matter morally or factually, but I bet it does emotionally. Women are the favored gender so when a woman claims to be a victim, in this case of her employer, our ears are trained to perk up. She signed up knowing that this situation was a posible outcome, and then when it happens that she has health issues and is not taken out right away because a rescue is not safe to do so she goes on a public relations campaign claiming to be the victim of her employers negligence. In life you make your choices, there are no guarenties that what you choose is going to work out for you. This woman took a chance and she lost, other people should not be made to take unreasonable chances with their lives, especially since when she get out is unlikely to matter to her medical outcome, now that she has changed her mind.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

If " the lady manage to get the judgments of the experts overruled", it's their decision and responsibility, not hers. All she's doing is ASKING.

Bullshit she, even those she is a woman, as an adult she is responsible for her own actions and if she manage to get the judgment of experts overrule it is as must her fault for attempting to do so as it is for any damn politicians for allowing it.

She is not just asking she is running a PR campaign to get her way.

Announcing to the world by so doing that she consider her well being far more important then the welfare and lives of a rescue crew.

Off hand she seems to had the moral standards of a three years old.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Do you know for a fact that she's demanding that they get her IMMEDIATELY?

What I've seen quoted is much more towards "Get your butts in gear so you can come get me as soon as you possibly can."

Which is typically (weather-wise) about October 17th. (Past that, the hyperbole about 4-5 people dying to get her etc. doesn't apply anymore.)

edit: found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/south-pole-stroke-victim-renee-nicole-douceur-waits/story?id=14711852

Looks like she'll be out pretty soon. Could be as soon as tomorrow, but that's in a non-pressurized plane so could cause more problems. Monday seems likely.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

This situation highlights an arguement that has long been used in the position that women should not be allowed on the military front lines. A man in this situation can almost always be counted on to suck it up and deal, he knows he rolled the dice and lost but he refuses to snivel about it. Women are more apt to expect to be saved, to look at a bad roll as injustice, and they start freaking out. It is just this sort of thing that over the centuries has given women the reputation of being weak.

4 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Yep, that woman with breast cancer who operated on herself -- total wimpy weakling.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Sorry but the weather gods are not lock into a human calendar and it still come to the judgment of the experts as the date this year when a rescue mission is doable with a reasonable degree of safety.

Now as far as just pressuring them not to unnecessary dragging their feet because they are just uncaring you got to be kidding me.

In past similar situations they did not show any foot dragging so I would need some solid proof that the people in charge are unfeeling monsters as only unfeeling monsters would delay a rescue mission of this nature just for the hell of so doing.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye I too would like to point out the fine example of the woman doctor that this scientist is not following and in fact shaming.

0 Replies

Being on shaky moral grounds at the South Pole.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know