Do we? Every few years or so there is a mining disaster in this country. The MOMENT that happens, EVERY necessary resource is made available by federal, state and local governments to save the trapped miners. Millions of dollars are spent to save a handful of people. Sometimes it is successful, but some generally die. Should we, as a society, decide to stop doing this? If the mine owner doesn't have the resources or money should we just say, "too bad"?
This is the United States of America, if ANY nation in the history of the world has anything approaching infinite resourses, we do. This is not some third-world, despot-ridden hellhole, why should we act as if it is? Demand for medical care DOES NOT exceed supply, nor has it ever.
But again, the point is that YOU are making this into a public policy debate when there has been no evidence that any public funds ever have or ever will be necessary.
Mine accidents are actually illustrate my point rather well: such efforts almost never rescue miners who do not make it out in the immediate aftermath of an explosion of fire, but they do stand a good chance of injuring or killing would-be rescuers. (1)
This fact is forgotten from disaster to disaster, only to be relearned when rescue efforts result in additional deaths and injuries... at which point those responsible for directing the rescue almost always abandon such efforts as too dangerous. (The risk, of course, is likely very similar to the risk before the additional loss: too high in relation to the very low probability of a successful rescue). (2)
It’s useful to contrast this with the SOP of a typical fire department, which faces these risks and makes these decisions on a daily basis, and thus would be more frequently reminded of the wasteful futility of such efforts were they frequently undertaken.
Such SOP’s will invariably apply a more realistic standard, a typical example reads: “A higher level of risk is acceptable only in situations where there is a realistic potential to save known endangered lives. This elevated risk must be limited to operations that are specifically directed toward rescue and where there is a realistic potential to save the person(s) known to be in danger.”
FDs devote considerable effort to cultivate a culture where violating such standards is seen not as heroic, but rather as unnecessarily risking not only the safety of the firefighter violating the SOP but potentially the lives of other emergency responders at the scene. (3)
Thus dramatic rescue efforts mounted in the glare of national publicity after mine explosion and fires are generally irrational and often counter-productive, as is demonstrated by the fact that they violate the standards set by organizations which because they must make such decisions on a daily basis have to create rational policies or face the consequences frequently enough to learn the necessary lessons.
(1) MINE RESCUE AND RECOVERY: WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK, Mine Safety and Health Administration , http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TECHRPT/MEO/MINERESC.pdf
(2) The most recent example was the loss of 3 men at the Herrington , UT mine, after which “Utah Gov. John Huntsman, who hurried to the scene… urged federal mine officials to make sure that safety of rescuers is "a paramount concern" in any resumption of rescue efforts. “Let us ensure that we have no more injuries. We have suffered enough.." “http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-16-utah-mine_N.htm”
(3) See for example the discussion in section 307.00 here: http://www.jonesboro.org/Fire/JFDStandardOperatingProcedures.pdf