Responding to public opinion, even if resistance is futile

I try not to be fazed by public opinion. Much of the time, the voices that are heard the most are uneducated about whatever they are discussing. I see no solution, however. It takes too much effort to take the time to educate, effort which, frankly, I would prefer to put elsewhere.

Something has riled me about public reaction to Haiti, however.

CNN has posted a story headlined Security concerns cause doctors to leave hospital, quake victims. It is an uninformed sensationalist piece of journalism.

If the link is removed in the future, in essence the story is doctors withdraw from a field hospital overnight leaving the CNN medical reporter and his staff the only ones to look after the patients. The story is not clear about the origin of the order to pull out overnight, but it makes it clear that it is for security reasons.

There were many things wrong with the article (not least that when it was first posted, the pullquote used was from a retired Lt General saying their behaviour was unacceptable and that the right thing to do would have been to 'man-up and stay'), but despite that and despite the tone of the article itself, I remain surprised by the ignorance displayed in the most vocal of commenters. The arguments are many, but they all boil down to it being unfeeling for medical staff to withdraw overnight, with their equipment, unacceptable and unbelievable.

It is none of these. I can assure you that everyone I have met in this line of work regrets such decisions utterly. If the order comes, hypothetically, to pull out of Haiti altogether temporarily, all the staff of the UN, the NGOs, the RC/RC Movement will up sticks and go to the Dominican Republic. They will cross the board and camp just outside, itching to get back in, to do the role that needs to be done, that they have spent their lives doing.

And that's just why security has to be so important. It is not just a short term operation for these people. If there are any major security incidents, it becomes a news story briefly, and everyone mourns for the aid worker and his or her family. But what about the people that would have benefitted had he or she lived? If there's a beyond-the-grave to look back from, that's what they'll be thinking.

Haiti will be lost from the news in a few weeks, drowned out in Obama's next revolutionary healthcare plan, the UK election, or how Mrs Biggins from down the road was caught smoking weed. The aid community will still be in Haiti, however. The staff will get replaced, often. New staff will fly out, old staff return and take a break. Days later, they'll be off to southern Sudan, or Afghanistan. Security, for these people, is the main concern.

They did what was required to make sure they could come back the next day, and continue working the next day. I don't know the details of the situation, and I'm no security expert, but I believe they made the right decision.

There are lots of problems in aid work at the moment. The community is acutely aware of them. But work is being done continuously to improve response. It doesn't help when all you hear from the public is 'why isn't it happening faster? why can't you get aid to these people?' and 'what the hell are you doing leaving a hospital just because you were concerned about being killed?' The second comment I think I've answered. The first one, and this is what every organisation is saying but the media don't seem to be repeating it, is: the airport was damaged. It's lucky to be able to land 4 planes an hour. The port was damaged. The road into the Dominican Republic was bad anyway, and now its further damaged. The amount of food and equipment needed to help is phenomenal. It is not an easy operation. It could be better, but now isn't the time to ask.