Firefighters are those noble professionals responsible for saving your life and property in the case of a fire. Is this really so? A recent story puts the theory under question because of the shocking manner in which firefighters handled a recent crisis.
According to msnbc.com, firefighters simply stood there and observed the manner in which a house burned to the ground. The incident happened in South Fulton area, Tennessee because the owners of the house failed to make a payment for fire service subscription.
What happens to be more troublesome is the fact that firefighter inactivity takes place for the second time during a fire. Firefighters in the same area let the house of Gene Cranick burn down because the annual fee remained unpaid.
According to local arrangements, the residents of South Fulton get fire services but everybody living in the surrounding areas will have to pay 75 dollars to benefit from fire protection. This sum is needed for the maintenance of equipment in good quality and for the overall funding of the fire department in the area.
Many people fail to make the payment… simply because of the belief that their property cannot be endangered by a fire. Bad things usually happen to other people or this is what the majority of individuals believe.
This annual subscription policy has come under harsh criticism. Yet city officials have refused to introduce changes.
As each story, this one involves two sides. On one hand, firefighters have the noble mission to protect people in the case of dangerous situations. Many people will panic, lacking an idea what to do and will thus jeopardize their well-being and the life of their dearest individuals.
Should people be offered on-the-spot payment option, which will give both parties to benefit from the situation. Firefighting services need to be available to everyone, exactly because of their specific nature.
At the same time, firefighting equipment is expensive. Firefighters are risking their life on a daily basis to benefit society. They should be receiving a payment corresponding to the dangerous nature of their job.
Both the city officials and the house owners are to blame. It is a personal responsibility of everyone to ensure that access to firefighting services is guaranteed. At the same time, the policy could have been modified after it received harsh criticism.
Is it ethical for firefighters to simply stand on the side, without getting involved? Their decision is questionable, to put it in mild terms. House owners, however, cannot follow the strategy of believing that bad things happen to others, while expecting to receive immediate assistance in the case of a large-scale tragedy.
What do you believe of the Tennessee situation? Which party involved in the questionable incident appears to be right? Will you ever refrain from making a firefighting service subscription payment, knowing that it is the single thing guaranteeing your security in the case of a disaster?
