Introduction
If the federal authority is tasked to respond to disasters, actions taken at all governmental levels or other resources are directed by the national response framework (NRF) (Binder-Aviles, 2012; Brookes, 2017). The latter provides coordination of how support is delivered and augments efforts of state or local authorities involved. The NRF was signed as an agreement between the federal agencies, the national voluntary organizations active in disaster (NVOAD), and the American Red Cross. Like other plans, NRF consists of various components with particular administrative purposes. Under the NRF are the emergency support function annexes, which outline how support is organized, and the group resources and capabilities needed in the national response (FEMA, 2020a). In this assignment, the appropriate NRF annex for the American Red Cross and functions related to an effective ERP are identified (DHS, 2021). The paper aims to address the functions of the Red Cross as per the ideal emergency response plan.
Annex Functions for the American Red Cross
The first function relating the American Red Cross (ARC) to an effective ERP is the Emergency support function (ESF) number six, about mass care, emergency assistance, temporary housing, and human services. ESF#6 is coordinated by the department of homeland security of the federal emergency and management agency (FEMA) (FEMA, 2020b). As the primary agency in this function, the ARC is responsible for availing sustenance resources, and essential services and offering statutory programs during a disaster. Under this function, the ARC works hand in hand with FEMA to ensure mass care, including feeding, distributing emergency supplies, and re-unifying children with parents or legal guardians and families. The Red Cross and FEMA’s role for ESF#6 is well outlined in the NRF, and ARC serves as the co-primary agency for mass care. Additionally, the agency is engaging in leading the national mass care council to work with other support groups in developing pubic care approaches. The primary goal of working jointly with other organizations is to design common terminologies, expand mass capacities or capabilities and improve nationwide service delivery.
The second function from the NRF annex is the emergency support function (ESF) number 8, which entails public health and medical services. Typically, the primary coordinator and agency of ESF#8 is the department of health and human services (Department of Health and Human Services Disaster Behavioral Health Concept of Operations, 2016). The American Red Cross is involved in this function as an ideal ERP to offer support to the major controller. ESF#8 is a mechanism of federal aid, and agencies involved in this function are charged with supplementing local, tribal, state, or territorial areas’ resources in a time of natural events and emergencies (MRSC, 2021; Ziskin & Harris, 2007). ARC plays a crucial role in this support to detect and group health incidents, avail medical care to community members, offer human services to people affected, and enhance resiliency to respond to a situation. Such actions are informed by integrating bio-surveillance capabilities to assess people’s needs while maintaining the security of medical items.
To effectively carry out the function of public health and medical services, the red cross-agency must carry out specific actions that integrate into an effective emergency response plan (“U.S. Department of Justice,” 2010). For instance, the organization provides health behavior seeds by offering direct services or referrals where necessary. During a disaster, information retrieval and sharing with relevant parties are crucial to informing better practices and recovery processes. As part of carrying out medical services operations, the ARC provides mortality and morbidity data to requesting organizations (“United States Government interagency domestic terrorism concept of operations plan,” 2001). Staff availability is critical during emergencies, and the red cross-agency ensures there is a supply of adequate personnel to help in temporary immunization clinics, morgues, nursing homes, or hospitals. The Red Cross team’s type of assistance involves but is not limited to administrative, logistics, and health service support within outline boundaries. As requested by the health and human service department, the Red Cross coordinates with the American association of blood bank (AABB) task force to ensure there are donation services in regional centers.
NGOs and Ethical Decision-Making
Individuals today are confronted by severe crises, some of which raise ethical questions. The challenging events may arise from economic, social, or environmental situations, but the most devastating ones occur from security scenarios that end up with conflicts, displacements, and killings. Some of these difficult circumstances can be avoided if the involved parties agree to embrace wisdom and put common interests ahead of personal desires. Today’s events unfold new hardships to address, and available theoretical frameworks might not be adequate to contain them. As such, managers and respondents are compelled to make moral decisions during crisis intervention.
Ethical decisions could be derived from different sources, including cultures, laws, and religion (Schwab & Beatley, 2020). The latter is considered one of the oldest foundations of moral standards and yields varying influences. Religiously, it is believed that ethics are divine manifestations, drawing a line between what is good or bad in a society. People hold that behavior patterns are passed from one generation to another and are considered ideal in certain agreeable limits from a cultural aspect. In that way, a culture predominantly informs what is right or wrong.
On the other hand, laws are codes of conduct or procedures laid down by regulation systems to guide people’s behavior in various social fabrics (“United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” 2020). A significant challenge with the law is that rules can cover not all ethical expectations. For instance, in organizational environments, complying with specific procedures and policies is considered ethical, but businesses break the rules through tax ovation or compromising quality. Along with the sources of ethics, ethical decisions in real-life situations ate made from different perspectives. Examples of ethical approaches include the right process, fairness or justice, utilitarianism, common good, and virtue.
Utilitarian Approach
The primary ethical approach is utilitarianism, which coins the best laws to determine what is morally okay. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill conceived utilitarianism theory in the 19th century to help legislators determine the effectiveness of regulations (Meeler, n.d). The two theorists suggested that moral actions strike a balance between what is good and evil. To differentiate what is right from wrong, one must focus on the outcomes- the basis of consequentialism. The most ethical decision is said to be that which would yield the most significant goods for many people. In military force or war, this model is very much applicable to determine the course of action.
Some principles serve as the axioms of the utilitarian approach, and they include happiness has intrinsic value and actions are right as long as they promote happiness. Also, the theory holds that the happiness of every person should count equally. In the past decades, it was known that some lives were more crucial than others, such that enslavers were more highly regarded than enslaved while the well-being of a king was [paramount compared to that of peasants. The code of equal happiness laid the grounds for policies that fostered equality.
A significant challenge with the utilitarian theory is that it is not easy to predict the future hence contrast to perceived outcomes. A person cannot tell whether their action will result in good or bad results, limiting the utilitarian approach. Also, the model has a problem in accounting for the values such as people’s rights. In that case, it is agreed that although utilitarian action is the best reason-based approach to inform the right or wrong, the framework has limitations.
In disaster or emergency response, the utilitarian approach is applicable to accomplish the stated goals of saving as many people as possible. During disaster ethics, utilitarianism theory suggests that some people should be sacrificed so that others and the majority could live, which would increase the social utility of saved individuals. Amid difficult situations, emergency responders are required to consider what and who will be impacted, the consequences of specific actions, maximized utility, and minimized anti-utility. Usually, many social programs are based on utilitarian perspectives where some harm is incurred to benefit. For example, in times of natural crises, there might be scarce resource supplies such that the response team would be forced to sacrifice some victims and save others.
Conclusion
To conclude, emergency management is about planning, preventing, preparing, or responding to situations for people and the country’s common good. An effective response plan is incomplete without integrating crucial support at the local, state, or national level. Private and governmental agencies work collaboratively following the laid guidelines to contain disasters and prevent the escalation of problems. In this process, encountering challenging situations is likely, and the appropriate standards must guide individuals.
References
Binder-Aviles, H. (2012). The NGO handbook: Bureau of International Information Programs United States Department of State. Web.
Brookes, P. (2017). 64th Islamist terrorist plot since 9/11 shows the U.S. must combat radical Islamist threat.Heritage Foundation. Web.
Department of Health and Human Services Disaster Behavioral Health Concept of Operations. (2016). Web.
DHS. (2021). Emergency response plan. DHS.gov. Web.
FEMA. (2020a). Emergency support function annexes. Web.
FEMA. (2020b). How a disaster gets declared. Web.
Meeler, D. (n.d.). Five basic approaches to ethical decision-making. Web.
MRSC. (2021). Emergency planning at the local government level. Web.
Schwab, A. & Beatley. T. (2020). Session 4: Ethics. Web.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Review of the department’s preparation to respond to a WMD incident. Web.
United States Government interagency domestic terrorism concept of operations plan. (2001). Web.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2020).Emergency preparedness in response to terrorism. Web.
Ziskin, L. and Harris, D. (2007). State health policy for terrorism preparedness. American Journal of Public Health, 97(9), 1583-8. Retrieved from Trident Online Library.