The Old and Fire Alarms

Christie Blatchford had an interesting article in today's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/verdict-in-seniors-home-fire-a-call-to-action-but-will-anyone-listen/article1739107/

It seems silly to have to commend a reporter and fire chief for writing about the obvious, but it is also silly to have to write fire protection protocols in senior housing or retirement homes are almost non-existent in homes older that 1997. People who live in houses, like me, are recommended to have fire alarms; why would the institutionalized be treated differently? Why would companies who run these homes argue against fire protection for the old and infirm? They argue it is too expensive to update their buildings? Why? Are these homes somehow different from the places in which the owners live?

And, as bad as the owners are, do family members not check to see if there are protections around for their elderly relative? Of course, I am being harsh. But society is judged by how it treats its very old and very young (and the infirm). To leave an elderly person without the most basic of protection, sprinklers in an old aged home, is a form of abuse; every family should at least check to see what the protocols are for fire. How do the old get out of a burning building? Who helps them in the case of an emergency? Why is it we think it doesn't matter in a seniors' building? Of course, it does; why wouldn't it?