Do Hotels Have A Duty To Communicate Tragedies?

I have 2 views on this. 1. For a situation which involves the untimely death of someone, the hotel in question is under no obligation to communicate with any other guest as to what happened. The privacy and memory of the deceased should be respected. Eg, having worked at the Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, we had a 76 year old lady drop dead in the F&B corridor of a heart attack. When people asked what happened, we just said that a lady was taken ill. 2. If the situation is a terrorist attack, eg 26/11 in Mumbai when the Taj was under seige, communication is critical. My colleagues (I wasnt on shift at the time) were in constant contact with guests to ensure that they dont lose their lives

@Steve how do you know the room was broken into? Maybe the stuff was stolen by a new "friend" she met in town that she had taken back to her room. Happens a lot to men that bring strangers back to their room.

Hestiant to weigh in here, becuase emotions are running high, but... First, hopefully the child recovered...the reader's question doesn't say that the child died, so I'm going to hope he didn't. Second, though I'm not familiar with the laws of Vietnam or hotel chain, in some situations the hotel would probably be legally constrained from sharing much information -- information related to the medical treatment of an individual, for example, often can't be publicly shared without the permission of the patient or his parents. Finally, we are humans and it is natural for us to care about those around us. If I had witnessed this, I would want to know if the child was ok, though I'm not sure if there would be a practical way of finding out. And if I were a guest who hadn't witnessed the event, would there be any benefit to telling me that it happened? I don't know...

@David C has a very interesting point. Also, arguments like « we have to limit the negative impact on other guests », don’t « ruin their vacation » or let them « enjoy their stay » are just a way to relapse into a culturally accepted macho reaction that constrains to « suck it up ». By completely dismissing the emotion and suggesting that the witness’ trauma is his fault, we choose to minimize his response to the event (without taking into consideration any of his psychological background or past experiences) and shame on him for actually *feeling* something. Protecting the family’s privacy and assuring its well being is obviously the main priority. But to a wider degree, the hotel disorganization and lack of response is just part of this culture which assumes that if we don’t talk about it, it just didn’t happen.

We were on a cruise this spring in which the captain announced that a passenger was seriously ill and we would make best possible speed to Kefalonia rather than trying hard to take lots of time and arrive in the morning. Thus, we arrived at about 10PM and lots of people were watching the dock. Emergency workers rushed onboard, then walked off with an empty stretcher, stood around for a while and then departed. Lots of people wished there had been more information, because it seemed clear that the passenger had lost his battle. Perhaps an announcement should have been made, but the family's privacy was important, especially if next of kin had yet to be notified. Also, there might have been passengers who were not keen on knowing that the passenger was likely in the fridge on board. (Probably.) So, a dilemma for the ship, as they'd clearly brought the other pax into the situation by announcing and then hurrying so. But...