The flooding

One of our volunteers has developed a close attachment to one of our neighbours. She is a young mother with four children who lost a leg during the earthquake. He has organized a prosthetic leg for her which will be fitted imminently. It is hoped that this will improve somehow her situation. Immediately following the hurricane, one of our number visited her home, a small corrugated iron dwelling of about six foot by six with a table in the centre. With her four children she was lying on the table for protection from the waters that had penetrated into her home.

Her immediate response was to ask for food as she was starving. This is not an uncommon response to the sight of a ‘blanc’ but, following a flood on the scale that hit Leogane, it is hard not to feel that her case merited special attention. As I have argued in previous posts, the philosophy of the organization is one designed against created dependency. Does this case, however, even for us deserve a different response.

There are three issues here: security, compassion, dependency. On the one hand, our security in the community is threatened if we do act and, on the other, if we do not act. If we agree to give food to one amongst many then we risk having to face the demand from the entire area for food if word gets out. If we do not act, there is the risk that the community will turn against us if it is felt that blame can be laid at our door for all of Haiti’s troubles.

Second, in an act of human compassion, a feeling individual’s response to the disaster is to do all that is necessary to provide food and shelter. However, the case of the young mother is certainly not the only one in need of aid, nor should our personal attachment to her afford her special attention.
Third, if the organization has been constructed to breed self-sufficiency, and we are untrained in how to coordinate emergency and disaster response, it may be foolish to begin training in the midst of this event.

My friend decided that in the face of her suffering, he was unable to turn away. For two days he brought rice and beans for her and her young family. The third day, he sourced cans of meat, enough to feed her and her family for three days, and brought that to her too. He visited a fourth time to see how she was. Her response when questioned about how she was, “the meat was great but could I have more rice to go with it.”