I would have to say i would stay and take care of the person hurt. regardless of who that person was. wife ,husband,child,friend or stranger. i couldn't imagine leaving someone behind that was hurt to save myself andmy kids.the chances that someone would be injured or get injured in a bugout situation is pretty high.
if that person dies, they're in Gods hands. "dead is dead" i wouldn't stay with the body.

You don't specify why you can't do both. I've rigged up a passable bike trailer that could have carried a person, and I'm sure I could do it again. There's a lot of criteria missing here. I'd say on the face of the discussion, I'm bringing everyone with me. If the question is more like "one person is injured and can not be moved", then that changes things. Only a selfish parent would ask you to stay if there were kids involved.

I would say this... if one parent is down and can't be moved due to injury or they are "stuck", then I'm leaving them with enough resources to survive for a while before I just walk away with the kids. And I would fully intend to come back or at the very least send help with as much information about location as possible. If the kids are old enough to fend for themselves (16-18?) and they have a good Bug Out location, I send them ahead by themselves.

Also, since the criteria also imply that there is devestating weather/fallout or other natural or unnatural event that means staying behind presumes death for that person, it would be heartbreaking, but the best option is to say your goodbyes and go if nothing can be done.

But I'm with Sue on this. If you have things so badly planned that you are stuck in this situation.... Granted, I suppose someone could get hurt while making an exodus from a danger zone, despite their planning...

Kids are the deal breaker.

No one gets left behind.... Things change, however, if the person is already dead.. A family that bugs out together, stays together <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ..

I think the even more difficult decision is: if torrential floods take hold of your spouse and child, and you can only try to save one, which one? For me and my wife, the answer is clear.. Save the child. My wife may be my soul mate, but I brought my child into this world. MY child is MY responsibility. Whatever it takes.

That is the exact reason why I would tell them to leave me. I understand that their love for me would make them want to stay. But if staying with me means their deaths then I would commit suicide. Right there. Right then.
My life for my childrens. There is no other choice.

Not that I'm that much into conjecture, but what if it is between your wife and someone else's child? I'm thinking that the better criteria to base a decision like that on shouldn't be based on relations. Either the kid is important to this world, or they're not. Being related to them ought not be a decision making criteria.

Conversely, I would be inclined to put my effort towards saving the one most likely to survive. If it's my child, so much the better, but if it is the neighbor's kid, then that has to be the one to invest the effort in. Sometimes impartiality is a real burden.

Maybe I'm callous, but if it was my wife versus some kid... I would be saving my wife. I have no problems taking a bullet for my child or my wife, but for a someone I don't know.. Not me.. I ain't no hero.. If it was just the kid, and my wife or child is not invoved, by all means, I will try my best.

Yep, it ain't easy being practical. In a crisis situation such as this scenario entails, you are faced with some tough decisions. First is the objective conclusion of whether the threat to the victim warrants the risk to yourself and others, then to have to choose between who to try and save based on the likelihood of success. It is easy to prejudice such decisions based on subjective criteria, such as relationships. Some sacrifices are never easy. Letting someone perish that you could save while attempting to save someone else who is beyond hope because for personal reasons will accomplish nothing. Facing the prospect of watching my loved ones perish is the basis of my worst nightmares, but if we are to be practical about our survival, then we must face the inevitability that there are limits to what we can do, and be willing to function within those limits to the maximum extent possible.

Just to clarify my position I will provide an example: Were I unfortunate to be caught in a flood situation such that I were in a secure location, yet my wife were being swept away in an overwhelming current while someone else were hanging on for dear life nearby, I would be compelled to attempt rescue of the other person while there's still the chance they can be saved, knowing that my wife goes to her doom. Much as I would prefer to attempt to jump in after the Mrs., I would be forced to concede that it is likely all I would accomplish in doing so would be three deaths instead of one. Hers, mine, and the person that I could otherwise have aided. By throwing in with the wife, I've sacrificed any chance I have of making a dfference for anyone else, including other loved ones.

Thems is just the cold, hard facts. Were the odds more even between the wife and someone less personally significant, then of course the wife gets the nod.

> Either the kid is important to this world, or they're not. Being related to them
> ought not be a decision making criteria.

I disagree. It should be a factor. Each person should look after their own backyard before they go looking after someone else's.