Dying Everest Climber - What would you have done?

[silentC]

Sir Edmund Hillary has questioned the actions of New Zealand climber Mark Inglis, who left another climber to die on his way to conquering Mt Everest.

Inglis, a double-amputee, was one of many climbers who passed British climber David Sharp, 34, on his way to the top of the world's highest mountain a week ago.

Sharp, a 34-year-old engineer, later died on the mountain.
If you were in that position, what would you have done? Would you continue on your way and leave someone to die like that, or would you have turned around and tried to get him back down?

[Wood Butcher]

I would of helped huim in any way I could. I never would've been able to forgive myself.
Years ago I was driving up Cunninghams Gap in SE QLD at night and there was a car that had lost control and ended up on the concrete barrier. I drove past then turned around 5 minutes later to help. It was amazing how cars drove up, put their lights on high beam to have a gawk then drove past. Call me old fashioned but I will stop to help someone change a tyre if I can.
"What goes around comes around!!"

[CameronPotter]

I am not familiar with the story so I can't judge, but was it clear that this other climber was in trouble? Maybe he just looked tired? If it was clear/implied that he REALLY did not need/want help, then who are you to tell him what to do?

Mind you, I thought that basic safety procedures for climbing stated that you did it with someone else - minimum. So where was this David Sharp's team/friend/guide?

All that aside, if you saw a guy there is obvious trouble - you help him. It doesn't matter if you are trying to climb to the top yourself. Simple question, simple answer.

Look at the disasterous Sydney to Hobart race where quite a few people died. The racers stopped and saved other contestants rather than continuing the race - and that was a race, not just an expedition...

[Wongo]

Leaving someone dying behind? no way, no way.

Stuff Mt Everest and do what is more important or what is right.

[silentC]

I am not familiar with the story so I can't judge, but was it clear that this other climber was in trouble? Maybe he just looked tired? If it was clear/implied that he REALLY did not need/want help, then who are you to tell him what to do?
He was obviously in trouble. They stopped to see if they could help but decided that he was going to die anyway, so they pressed on. Apparently something like 40 other climbers walked passed him without even stopping.

The rest of the story is here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/attitude-to-everest-horrifying/2006/05/24/1148150286180.html

[TassieKiwi]

A tough call. What price a human life? Roger Hall stayed on the mountain to 'help' his dying client. He could've got down alone, but chose to say goodby to his wife and young children from near the summit via satphone, and then they both died. Who gained from this?

I gather that the world at 28,000 ft is another place - they do things differently there. That said, I reckon Sir Ed would've chucked him over his shoulder and taken him back. 1953 a different world too, I guess. I would like to think that I would have halped, but I would never have the intestinal fortitide to be anywhere near that rock, on that mountain.

[Tikki]

Unlike a lot of people I've encountered in my life, I could never live with my conscience if I knowingly neglected someone who needed help in any way. If I were unable to provide assistance myself I would certainly abandon my own pursuits to find someone who could.

Cheers
Tikki :)

[Daddles]

Based on the news story and what I know about climbing Everest (a fair bit though I'm not a climber myself), it's a flaming disgrace. These pricks, all 40 of them, were going UP the hill. Sure, they were trying to get to the summit and had paid a lot of money and might not get another chance, but SO WHAT! The man was obviously in trouble and needed help. He died. Maybe they couldn't have changed that but to not even try is a disgrace.

Had they been climbing down and were suffering themselves, I would have a different opinion of their actions. There are times, especially on that mountain, when personal survival is threatened by trying to help others and men have died on Everest attempting to help others. But these selfish gits were on the way up - they could have helped but personal glory and money was more important than a man's life.

Sorry, no excuses.

Richard

[CameronPotter]

Well, if he was clearly in trouble. I would have done my darndest to carry him back and I also would have harangued passing climbers to lend a hand if necessary... :mad:

[silentC]

Maybe they couldn't have changed that but to not even try is a disgrace
I think this is what it's all about. The very least you can do is try. It's a cold hearted person who makes a calculation like that when the only thing at stake is the conquest of a mountain. If it was life or death for you to make that choice, it's understandable that you would weigh up the pros and cons. But if it simply means turning around and failing in your arbitrary goal, I don't think there's any excuse.

[Zed]

1 in 6 people who attempt to climb everest die.

$70K american approx for an attempt = price of one life.

to not help means you deserve to be pushed off a precipice yourself. @rseholes...

[Ianab]

What could they have done anyway?

The altitude there is such that you just cant survive without extra oxygen and it's tough on the body even with extra.

From what I read the guy had been up there all night without O2 and was pretty far gone. I think they checked on him but there was just no practical help they could give by that stage. :( It's not like they could stretcher him off or carry him down even.

Ian

[silentC]

Were any of them doctors? How would they know if anything could be done or not? I'm certainly no expert but Hillary is and he reckons they should have/could have done something. So did the scientist they quoted in the article.

[DanP]

Even if he was drawing his last breaths when they found him, to do nothing to assist is a dogs act and I hope they find themselves in a similar position in the very near future.

To neglect a person in need, especially in a life or death situation, and that person MAY have survived with assistance, as far as I'm concerned, YOU are responsible (in part) for the death of that person. I hope their testicles explode. :mad:

Dan:mad:

[Cliff Rogers]

I would not have put myself in the situation in the first place.

I wouldn't have been up there.

[Ianab]

I'm guessing the only thing that would have saved him would be to get him off the mountain.. and fast. Hypothermia + O2 deprivation, no way they were going to revive him up there. :(

If they had tried and got themselves killed (most likely outcome) we could at least say they died heros and the Mt would have racked up a couple more kills.

The fact that there were 40 people up there, and they all knew there was nothing they could do. It food for thought alright.

It's just not a sane place to be

Ian

[Wongo]

Richard has a very good point. Those bastards are on the way up so they must be well resourced. They have the courage and endurance to climb the mountain but don’t have the same to try to carry a 100kg down, 40 of them work as a team.:mad: What is the big deal climbing up the damn hill anyway?

To me it is not about “What can be done”. It is about what a normal human being should do. I am sure the “C’mon nothing can be done to save him, lets keep going” was a big incentive to them. They put their personal agenda before another human being and I don’t like it.:mad:

[Iain]

I hope they find themselves in a similar position in the very near future.
And knowing their past attitude would you leave them or assist??????
Another hypothetical can of worms.

[Wongo]

Hey silentC, 2 miners are lost 1 km underground for a few days now. I don’t think they will survivor. I am going home, do you want to go down there? :cool:

[CameronPotter]

And knowing their past attitude would you leave them or assist??????
Another hypothetical can of worms.

Iain,

Again, I would say that saving them would be the only decent thing to do. No way would I stop and judge someone in that situation. So far as I am concerned, not helping would be aiding in their deaths and I am not willing to aid in anyone's death, thanks very much.

[Metal Head]

Hi,

I assume none of the contributors on this thread (or belong to this site) were the ones (30+) who passed me last year when my car had broken down on a side road in country Victoria?. If people aren't prepared to aid someone in sunny conditions how could you expect them to stop in those cold conditions. This guy in question (Mark Inglis) who passed him had lost his legs due to frostbite in 1982.

Please click on this link below to read about his life:-

http://www.markinglis.co.nz/default2.asp

As he stated he was hoping to be the first double amputee to do this - he had spent 100's of hours training and spent thousands of $$$$$'s to do this. If he didn't do it this time then he may not get the opportunity to get his 15 minutes of fame!!. We can all sit here behind the computer in the warmth of our house and ostracize this guy and say we would have done the opposite. How could this guy throw him over his back (without proper legs & on uneven ground)?. Would you put your life in danger to save someone who had put his own life at risk because he didn't carry the correct equipment?.

What about the woman who was left to die in Sydney a few weeks ago and it was said afterwards that many people had seen her but chose to ignore her.

I was in the British forces for 6 years - and saw action to know that we were taught to get to the target and not to worry about injured colleagues (which was against my nature) as they would be taken care of by the follow up services. The motto was "YOU HAVE TO LOOK AFTER NUMBER ONE!!".

Regards
David

[silentC]

Mark Inglis wasn't on his own.


As he stated he was hoping to be the first double amputee to do this
Oh, well that's different then. Maybe all the people who passed you were trying to be the first ones to do something too.

BTW, people seem to assume that they would have been putting their lives at risk to help this guy. Not so. All they had to do was give him some of their oxygen and turn back.


he may not get the opportunity to get his 15 minutes of fame
Says it all, doesn't it?

[Wongo]

I assume none of the contributors on this thread (or belong to this site) were the ones (30+) who passed me last year when my car had broken down on a side road in country Victoria?.


Was your life at risk? Did you call NRMA?

If you were a helpless 60 yr old lady I will stop to help for sure, no sweat. Mind you if you wave to my car and you dont look like a murderer then I will stop too.


What about the woman who was left to die in Sydney a few weeks ago and it was said afterwards that many people had seen her but chose to ignore her.

And your point is?



he had spent 100's of hours training and spent thousands of $$$$$'s to do this. If he didn't do it this time then he may not get the opportunity to get his 15 minutes of fame

Fantastic :cool:




Bingo, this is my 2345th post. :D

[Iain]

Iain,

Again, I would say that saving them would be the only decent thing to do. No way would I stop and judge someone in that situation. So far as I am concerned, not helping would be aiding in their deaths and I am not willing to aid in anyone's death, thanks very much.
Read carefully grasshopper, that was not the question, I was merely raising someone elses point not quoting what I would do.

[Groggy]

Not enough information is available so it would make sense to rely on the judgement of 40 experienced climbers and guides.

Climbing Everest is not about climbing, it is about logistics, planning, endurance and practice. Practice because the environment is so extreme that everything a person does needs to be a reflex.

Most climbers die because relatively simple rules have been broken - failure to notify injuries or health problems earlier. Rushing out of camps to try to beat the weather before they have correctly acclimated to the altitude. Carrying insufficient oxygen, or failing to recognise excessive usage, takes out a few more. Mostly though, poorly prepared expeditions probably account for the majority.

What the report undoubtedly failed to mention is how many climbers die trying to improvise a rescue of a doomed climber.

Tough call, but the climbers all go up knowing the risks.

[Iain]

I was in the British forces for 6 years - and saw action to know that we were taught to get to the target and not to worry about injured colleagues (which was against my nature) as they would be taken care of by the follow up services. The motto was "YOU HAVE TO LOOK AFTER NUMBER ONE!!".

Regards
David
The point being?
This was not a combat area and the enemy are known to pick off anyone who stops to assist and rely upon the emotions of the colleagues of the fallen, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with a military or combat environment or exercise.

[silentC]

it would make sense to rely on the judgement of 40 experienced climbers and guides
How do you know they were experienced? They all paid their $75,000 to climb. Something tells me this issue has more to do with money than morals:


Mountain climbers are a significant source of tourist revenue for Nepal; they range from experienced mountaineers to relative novices who count on their paid guides to get them to the top. The Nepalese government also requires a permit from all prospective climbers; this carries a heavy fee.

Again, I'll rely on the assessments of Hillary and the scientist quoted in the paper. They could've saved him but for the desire to 'summit'.

[CameronPotter]

Read carefully grasshopper, that was not the question, I was merely raising someone elses point not quoting what I would do.

Don't worry,
I wasn't assuming that you were saying that you would let them die - I was simply answering your question.

You said:

And knowing their past attitude would you leave them or assist??????


I said:

I would say that saving them would be the only decent thing to do.




As for all of the other comments aboout not being resourced to save them...

If they were resourced well enough to get up and get back down again, surely they were well resourced enough to turn around and save one person... If there were 100 people all stuck up there, then you wouldn't have had the necessary oxygen/equipment etc to help them, but you could have saved one person.

I am with Silent, if the experts say it could have been done, then I probably agree. Out of interest, I don't know HEAPS about climbing, but I do know a little...

I reckon that it came down to money/fame/achievement. Shame that they didn't see saving someone's life as a bigger achievement. :(

Cam

[Iain]

I know nothing of climbing except on the roof on occassion, although I have climbed the Matterhorn in my younger days
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
about 200 metres from the Rhine, more like a stroll through a paddock really:rolleyes:

[CameronPotter]

about 200 metres from the Rhine, more like a stroll through a paddock really:rolleyes:

Ahhh... But was it a steep paddock? :D

[silentC]

The highest I have ever been (except in an aeroplane) was Chamonix in the French Alps at the base of Mont Blanc. I decided to go for a walk up to the snow line one day. Got about two thirds the way up and decided to come back. I know it's only 1,500m or so up but it felt like my lungs would burst, so I can only imagine what 8,000m would feel like.

[Groggy]

How do you know they were experienced? They all paid their $75,000 to climb. Something tells me this issue has more to do with money than morals:
Again, I'll rely on the assessments of Hillary and the scientist quoted in the paper. They could've saved him but for the desire to 'summit'.You have a point Silent, the experience levels are not known. It is however, safe to assume they were of varying experience levels, some of whom would have been very experienced and have climbed at least one or two of the big seven, but NONE would be first time climbers.

The article states the climbers contacted their base camp and received direction from people with clearer heads than they had. I usually support the decisions made by those on the spot rather than newsworthy (read saleable) comments provided with hindsight. Unless a detailed examination of the circumstances by an experienced authority can point out poor decisions, so far they seem to have thought it out reasonably well, given the information to hand.

Just because the decision is not popular does not mean it was incorrect. I note that the scientist mentioned it 'might' have been possible to revive him with oxygen, "and even get him down to safety". He did not state this categorically. There was similar controversy over a Japanese woman being left on the mountain a few years ago.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hillary-questions-Inglis-for-leaving-man/2006/05/24/1148150287767.html

[Wongo]

The highest I have been is the peak (Victoria Park) in Hong Kong. A 15minutes ride on a cable car. It is pretty steep though but Jasmin loved it.

[silentC]

The article states the climbers contacted their base camp and received direction from people with clearer heads than they had.
This is true, none of use were there and the people who were there made the decision based on whatever information they had at their disposal.

However, as I'm at pains to point out, the decision was not based on assessment of risk to Inglis and his party, it was based on "this guy is as good as dead anyway, so why turn back now? We only get one chance." At least, this is the way it seems to me.

I saw a doco on the Japanese woman who was left behind. I don't remember the details but I think it was a life or death situation for the people involved and I think there was a storm in there somewhere too.

[Groggy]

However, as I'm at pains to point out, the decision was not based on assessment of risk to Inglis and his party, it was based on "this guy is as good as dead anyway, so why turn back now? We only get one chance." At least, this is the way it seems to me.There is a view that it is pointless to retrieve what will be a body well before they get down. Should an expedition retrieve a person who is already dead? Should they retrieve someone they know will be dead soon? Performing the rescue is more dangerous than climbing the mountain due to the extra exertion and oxygen consumption, plus the additional risk of carrying a body. I respect their right to make a very difficult decision. I also respect their acceptance that others will make the same decision about them if necessary.


I saw a doco on the Japanese woman who was left behind. I don't remember the details but I think it was a life or death situation for the people involved and I think there was a storm in there somewhere too.That sounds like the one, though I wasn't comparing the decisions or circumstances, I said there was similar controversy. ie, others questioned their decisions after the fact.

[silentC]

There is a view that it is pointless to retrieve what will be a body well before they get down.
That's the very view Hillary is speaking out against!! ;)

[bitingmidge]

Again, I'll rely on the assessments of Hillary and the scientist quoted in the paper.

Flaw #1, we only have information reported in a paper to go on. Of course it's going to be shocking.

So if 40 climbers passed this bloke, and knew he was dying, why didn't they dong him on the head with a rock, like they would have if he had been a dying animal?

Err no, that would be inhumane.

So if they couldn't help, why didn't they stay with him???

I hope they all took photos of them to show their grandkids: "This is me with my foot on a dying weak prick....."

Remind me never to shake a mountaineer's hand again.

A sailor would've stopped.


P
:( :( :(

[Lignum]

The highest I have been is the peak (Victoria Park) in Hong Kong. A 15minutes ride on a cable car. It is pretty steep though but Jasmin loved it.

The highest ive been was at the summit of Mount Bunningyong:)

[CameronPotter]

Remind me never to shake a mountaineer's hand again.


Most moutaineers I know would have done everything in their power to help him. Actually, I know someone who did almost die saving someone - but they both came out alive.

Cam

[Rocker]

SilentC,

I think the ethical dilemma of the climbers was a difficult one. If realistically the chances of the man's survival were low, should these people really have made a futile effort simply in order to be able to say they did what they could?

I remember a similar dilemma happened to me when I was working on a geological expedition in the far south of Ethiopia. We were driving through a village when some villagers stopped us and showed us a baby which had been very badly burnt through falling into a fire. Possibly we could have saved its life, if we had driven some 500 miles to take it to hospital in Addis Abbaba. On the other hand it might well have died on the journey and we would then have been in all sorts of strife. As it was, I am afraid I just left some items from our medical kit, and I doubt if it survived. Am I a monster?

Rocker

[echnidna]

Reading between the lines it really sounds like the expedition leader made the decision to carry on so I conclude he possibly instructed his group to proceed.

Being in a hostile environment were any members of the group experienced enough to disregard his instructions?

So if that's what happened,
are individual members of the group responsible.

Probably not as they were subject to their group leaders instructions.

As to reponsibility of the leader - thats another subject altogether.
And that may even come back to the Mountains protocols.

However I am not accustomed to blind obedience and probably would have stayed with him at least.

[Metal Head]

Quote:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style=" 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #ecdeae; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">Originally Posted by Metal Head<o:p></o:p>
I assume none of the contributors on this thread (or belong to this site) were the ones (30+) who passed me last year when my car had broken down on a side road in country <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><st1:place>Victoria</st1:place></st1:State>?.<o:p></o:p>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Was your life at risk? - No but those people who passed me didn't know either!!

Did you call NRMA? - No because I am not a member of their organization - Instead I contacted the RACV with whom I am a member and they arrived 2 hours after breaking down.

If you were a helpless 60 yr old lady I will stop to help for sure, no sweat. Mind you if you wave to my car and you dont look like a murderer then I will stop too.

Should it matter what age or sex you are, I am a fellow human being in need of help but those people who passed me didn't care if I had died. What you said suggests double standards!!.
<o:p></o:p>
Quote:<o:p></o:p>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style=" 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #ecdeae; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">Originally Posted by Metal Head<o:p></o:p>
What about the woman who was left to die in <st1:City><st1:place>Sydney</st1:place></st1:City> a few weeks ago and it was said afterwards that many people had seen her but chose to ignore her.<o:p></o:p>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And your point is? - You have people here critizing a non Australian in another country for his actions (or lack of them). Yet most of those people passing that lady were AUSTRALIANS which suggests to people in other countries that Australians are less compassionate towards their own people than those overseas!!.
Quote:<o:p></o:p>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style=" 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #ecdeae; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">Originally Posted by Metal Head<o:p></o:p>
he had spent 100's of hours training and spent thousands of $$$$$'s to do this. If he didn't do it this time then he may not get the opportunity to get his 15 minutes of fame<o:p></o:p>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Fantastic - everyone to their own he who casts the first stone...........
<o:p> </o:p>
Quote:<o:p></o:p>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style=" 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #ecdeae; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER- #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING- 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">Originally Posted by Metal Head<o:p></o:p>
I was in the British forces for 6 years - and saw action to know that we were taught to get to the target and not to worry about injured colleagues (which was against my nature) as they would be taken care of by the follow up services. The motto was "YOU HAVE TO LOOK AFTER NUMBER ONE!!".

Regards
David<o:p></o:p>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The point being? - This was not a combat area and the enemy are known to pick off anyone who stops to assist and rely upon the emotions of the colleagues of the fallen, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with a military or combat environment or exercise. I would say indirectly it is a combat area in that it is a battle of the individual against the elements. Who are you to determine someone else's decision especially when you were not there to know the whole story?. After all sometimes the media will only give you one side (their side) of the story. I know this given the action I saw was contary to the media reporting at the time;).
<o:p> </o:p>
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[E. maculata]

Treat others as you wish to be treated, simple philosphy I hold close.
Metalhead,
cynicism is contagious and akin to being blind I'd reckon:( ,
Once We (royal we of course as SWMBO was involved) were rearended by a vehicle travelling at 100 kph, now being on a motorcycle it wasn't a pretty picture, wife flying through the air, me caught under bike sliding down the highway, pretty dramatic one would think:o........ the car following the vehicle that hit us witnessed the entire incident, at least he thoughtfully:rolleyes: swerved around me whilst I was lying in the middle of the road trapped under a large motorcycle, never stopped though:mad: .
I however do not believe everyone is of the same ilk as this person, I honestly believe most people are genuinely decent, and it is proven in countless ways every day, it just isn't newsworthy:D

[Wongo]

If you were a helpless 60 yr old lady I will stop to help for sure, no sweat. Mind you if you wave to my car and you dont look like a murderer then I will stop too.


Metal Head, read the second half of this comment. I said I would. Do you look like a murderer?

If choosing to help a 60 yrs old lady rather then a strong young mate stranger for a minor incident is called double standards then so be it.

If you were in serious trouble and I knew it then it is different. By the way did you die?

[kiwigeo]

I would not have put myself in the situation in the first place.

I wouldn't have been up there.

Cliff has a point. From what I've read, the guy 1. made his run to the peak late in the day leaving himself little lee way for a safe return trip. He took a gamble and lost out. 2. the guy was generally poorly equipped and the climb was poorly planned.....eg. he wasnt carrying enough oxygen to safely carry out the climb.

Would I have stopped and risked my life to help the guy even if he was obviously not going to make it? Yes, _I_ would but I would not expect the rest of my climbing party to also risk their lives by doing so.

[silentC]

If realistically the chances of the man's survival were low, should these people really have made a futile effort simply in order to be able to say they did what they could?
I say yes because the alternative (for me at least) would be to spend the rest of my life wondering if I could have done something, no matter how many people told me it was OK, I made the right decision.

There is a short section of an interview with a bloke called Alf Razzell on the Roger Waters CD Amused to Death. He was a British soldier during WWI. His job was to collect the paybooks from the soldiers killed in action. One day he was picked up by the Germans and instructed to take a wounded solidier back:


"Two things that have haunted me most are the days when I had to collect the paybooks; and when I left Bill Hubbard in no-man's-land." "I was picked up and taken into their trench. And I'd no sooner taken two or three steps down the trench when I heard a call, 'Hello Razz, I'm glad to see you. This is my second night here,' and he said 'I'm feeling bad,' and it was Bill Hubbard, one of the men we'd trained in England, one of the original battalion. I had a look at his wound, rolled him over; I could see it was probably a fatal wound. You could imagine what pain he was in, he was dripping with sweat; and after I'd gone about three shellholes, traversed that, had it been...had there been a path or a road I could have done better. He pummeled me, 'Put me down, put me down, I'd rather die, I'd rather die, put me down.' I was hoping he would faint. He said 'I can't go any further, let me die.' I said 'If I leave you here Bill you won't be found, let's have another go.' He said 'All right then.' And the same thing happened; he couldn't stand it any more, and I had to leave him there, in no-man's-land."

I guess we are all different and we all have to make our decisions and live with them.

[namtrak]

This is the sort of question I ask myself a lot. If I was passing a dying mountaineer would I ........

Seriously, everytime I hear of a situation which involves some sort of bravery or selflessness I wonder what I would do in that position. And whilst, I suspect like most people I would like to think that I would do the right thing, you know - dive into the water to drag the people from the car, run into the burning house to drag the cat out, stay by the side of the dying mountaineer etc etc. I reckon I wouldn't know exactly what I would do until I was in situation. So for the time being the best I could offer is to say that, yes of course I would stop and help, but the reality may be different.

I think pyschologists may refer to a couple of scenarios, fight or flight - the act of reacting to any given situation either front on or by hiding - a survival technique. Or the bystander effect - people choose not to help because no-one else is - you know where you hear of people dying on the street and no-one stopping to help.

[CameronPotter]

Well,

Having been at the site of two accidents (in which I wasn't involved) both times I stopped and tried to lend a hand.

Out of interest, both were motorbikes that got skittled.

One time the guy just jumped back up, on his bike and off he went. I tried to stop him, but he wasn't interested...

The other time was far more serious and I ended up spending quite a bit of time there making sure that he was OK and waiting for the ambos and cops to come. In the end there wasn't much else I could do, but I know that I did what I could.

I also know other people who have been in situations of stop and help or drive by and one example was that my mum was first to the scene of a horrible crash a few years ago. Someone died in her arms. It messed her up a bit and she is still ultra-paranoid about road safety, but she knows that she did the right thing by stopping and even though the person didn't survive, there was someone there to make them as comfortable as possible.

As I said before, for me it is a simple answer.

Mind you, to be fair, none of these situations put any "rescuer" in any danger... :o

Cam

[Bob38S]

Even if he was drawing his last breaths when they found him, to do nothing to assist is a dogs act and I hope they find themselves in a similar position in the very near future.

To neglect a person in need, especially in a life or death situation, and that person MAY have survived with assistance, as far as I'm concerned, YOU are responsible (in part) for the death of that person. I hope their testicles explode. :mad:

Dan:mad:

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Bob

[Daddles]

The thing that makes this case different is not that it happened on a killer mountain, but that they continued past him to achieve their own goals. In otherwords, every one of those 40 climbers placed getting to the top of that mountain ABOVE helping a dying man.

Sorry, those are ##### morals. I don't care how you try to justify it, those bastards left him to die just so they could get their money's worth. :mad:

A human life is more important than any aim or goal or desire or product that you've paid for.

Richard

And yes, I have stopped at quite a few accidents, had a woman die in my arms and spent a couple of hours comforting her husband.

[Zed]

I have been in a couple of situations where I have saved lives but could have looked the other way, I saved a 8 year old kid from drowning in a public pool, administered CPR to a HA victim on a train station, stopped three (2) people from walking out in front of cars, moved a passed out stupified drunk off a road and helped a car strike victim (whilst I was drunk I might add).

I could have walked away in every case but chose not to and helped out where I could. I could take the high road and say that 4 people are alive because of me. the others could be crippled or worse. I have never once seen my victims since our crossed paths of fate.

I think this comes down to what sort of person you are and what motivators are driving you at the time - $75k and a once in a lifetime opp changes perceptions.

in the paper today the rebuttal bu the amputee is published - read it and perhaps we can change our perceptions of what really happened, I suspect the middle path between opposing views is the right one. the deader in the story was, I beleive, climbing alone, and already almost dead when seen, and I might add in the "death zone" 300 m below the summit, the way the amputee tells it he was already dead but didnt know it yet, heating him up would have killed kim anyway and some of his party did spend time with the deader.

I;'ve already said one i 6 die on the mountain, they know the risks when they commence - I beleive you have to qualify before you are granted permission to climb everest anyway - I think you have to get to the top of at least 2 or three other of the 10 summits world wide over 8000m before you can qualify. this bloke was no amateur...

However, I'll conclude by concurring with DanP (?): to not help where you can or have the ability is a dogs act.

[Shedhand]

An interesting diversity of opinion on this matter.
I've seen enough people near death to be able to tell when someone is essentially dun fer.
If I was an adventurer (which these types are) and inured to the risk of death in the pursuit of excitement (as these types are) I think I would have checked the guy over to see if he was a lost cause (an experienced climber would be able to tell) and if so I would have taken the time to build or dig him a snow cave facing east or in the lee of bad weather. I would have made him as comfortable as possible shared a bit of food and drink and then shook his hand and said goodbye offering to deliver any message to his loved ones. I'd feel good knowing I'd made him comfortable and able to see his last sunrise or sunset. If he wasn't a lost cause then another course of action would be necessary but who's to say what that might be.
Its very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and pontificate about the issue but unless you're johnny on the spot you just can't say what the circumstances dictated at the time.
The poor guy couldn't be interviewed himself obviously so the Heard it Said (Herald Sun) ran the story based on an interview with someone who was angry that the guy wasn't helped. WHo says that view was valid? The Herald Sun? Give me a break guys! The legless Kiwi said it all when he was quoted as saying its hard enough to breath up there as it is without the added burden of trying to bring someone near death down. Why risk another life.

My ten penneth worth.
Cheers (back to the shed). :)

[silentC]

There was a good letter in the SMH (not the Sun Herald). It concluded "Who assisted Mark Inglis when he needed rescuing in 1982?"

[Studley 2436]

a bit over 20 years ago my old man was working in Antarctica at Casey Station when a man was lost outside in a storm. When it was safe to search they did but weren't able to find him for some time. When they found him his core tempreture was below what they call the point of no return but they still tried to warm him up.

I think Hillary is right that you should just stop to do something even if it is just to make sure the poor bloke doesn't die alone. I suppose it says something about the times we live in because Hillary's generation would just say it is just a bloody mountain but todays generation the mountain is all that matters. Might be a bit Zen in this way of thinking but just to be on that mountain that far up is a huge accomplishment. Do people believe that it means nothing if you don't make the summit? Don't you come down a bigger person were you to attempt to help a fellow human being? I can't help feeling that there was a time when were someone there dying no one would go past because you just don't climb further when someone could die.

Mind you I also think it has become a bit of a tourist run thesedays so many people put in so much so that they can climb it and to them making the summit is the only thing it is their conquest. Was this man who died up there under resourced and a risk to himself and others? Does this show man at his most stupid, most selfish, when it could have shown him at his greatest? Were they all there hypnotised by the tip of that mountain? The man who went when it was risky the others who marched past him?

Studley

[Ianab]

Todays news mentions rescues that were actually carried out that same day. One guy was helped from the summit, but he was still able to walk, with help, and then a team of 18 Sherpas carried him the rest of the way. Another guy was helped down from the last camp (he however died before they got him down.)

Your life is in danger just from being up there, and I'm sure 99% of climbers would help - if there was something that could be done. Body recovery is just not done up there. Another article mentioned the 12 bodies that climbers still walk past to get to the summit. :eek: It's just not humanly possible to get the off the Mt.

Climbing it by yourself or without oxygen is just russian roulette with only 1 chamber empty.


And yes I would ALLWAYS stop at an accident (and have several times). I've hauled people out of the surf and been called out as a search and rescue volunteer. That doesn't mean I'd run into a burning building to recover a body though.

Cheers

Ian

[CameronPotter]

...but while there is still life in that body I wouldn't just leave them.

[Studley 2436]

That is the first thing I was taught about first aid that you never put yourself in a dangerous situation. The last thing worth having is two victims in need of rescue. The example given was if someone is unconscience in a pool of water on the floor make sure there is no electricty flowing. All these things have to be assesed

[dazzler]

SilentC,

I think the ethical dilemma of the climbers was a difficult one. If realistically the chances of the man's survival were low, should these people really have made a futile effort simply in order to be able to say they did what they could?

I remember a similar dilemma happened to me when I was working on a geological expedition in the far south of Ethiopia. We were driving through a village when some villagers stopped us and showed us a baby which had been very badly burnt through falling into a fire. Possibly we could have saved its life, if we had driven some 500 miles to take it to hospital in Addis Abbaba. On the other hand it might well have died on the journey and we would then have been in all sorts of strife. As it was, I am afraid I just left some items from our medical kit, and I doubt if it survived. Am I a monster?

Rocker

No, youre not a monster.

Wrong decision if viewed from a humanitarian angle.
Right decision if viewed from a corporate angle.

I would hope that i would have made the right decision if in the same place.:o

cheers

dazzler

[dazzler]

I also remember an article about one of the big storms that killed a few on everest. there was a guy sitting on the ground up near the top connected to empty oxgen bottles and saying they were full.

A couple argued with him for ten minutes that they were empty and he was dying but wouldnt budge.

They left him to die.:(

Big boys games...whose to judge:o

dazzler

[Rocker]

Dazzler,

I think that it is difficult to invoke absolute standards of morality when you find yourself in extreme circumstances, such as pertain when you are in places like the upper slopes of Everest, or very remote areas hundreds of miles from the nearest vestiges of civilisation. It is a no-brainer that, if you come across a road accident in Australia, that you should stop and help; you may be inconvenienced by doing so, but you are not putting your own life at risk. On Everest. however, you have to be hard-nosed; if attempting to help a badly injured injured climber who will almost certainly die anyway has a high risk that you may lose your own life in the attempt, then I think it is wrong to take that risk.

I have another story of a moral dilemma that happened in to me in the bush in Tanzania. One day on a geological survey, my field party and I came across an old Masai woman in the middle of nowhere in the bush. We asked her if she needed a lift to get home, but she said no - she had gone out into the bush to die, because she was too old to be of any use to anyone any more. So we left her where she was; she was probably eaten by lions a few hours later. If the same thing happened in Australia, I would obviously have acted differently, since facilities exist for helping suicidal or demented people.

The fact is that in third-world countries there is so much poverty and misery, that, if you decided to help everyone you came across who was in difficulty, you could never get anything else done.

Rocker

[Two-Words]

Quote:
"Everest deals with trespassers harshly: the dead vanish beneath the snows. While the living struggle to explain what happened. And why. A survivor of the mountain's worst disaster examines the business of Mount Everest and the steep price of ambition."



read this.......

http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_into_thin_air_1.html

[dazzler]

Hey.

The climbers that passed him by they are just filth. No matter what 20, or so people could have got him down, even if he didnt make it. Need to remember that this lot passed him on the way up:mad: .

It was interesting to see the legless kiwi try to divert any criticism against his party and blame everyone else.

What did they say "sorry mate....gotta reach the summit, paid a lotta cash for this...bad luck buddy"

Lovely way to die, laying under a rock waiting to die as wormless gits trot past.

Humanity starts with each of us. :)

When I was in East Timor I had the pleasure of having a beer with one of the UNAMET guys who told the story of another aussie who dived on top of his ET interpreter so that he wouldnt get machetted to death:o by the malitia. Was prepared to die for his new friend.

Would love to know that I had that kind of guts:confused:

Something to aspire to I think.

cheers

dazzler

[Ianab]

I agree Daz.. jumping in front a machette is brave, but he looked at the odds and figured he had a good chance. Sure there was a risk, thats what made him brave, but he figured it was worth the risk. Firemen, surf lifeavers, rescue copter pilots acess the risks every time, but if the odds get too long they pull back.

I wasn't up that Mt, but the guy that died was there overnight in the 'DEAD' zone. If he was part of a party his team could have helped him the previous day, when extra o2 and a shoulder to lean on would have helped. Instead they found a human icicle that they detected some eye movement in...

OK.. if it was me I would have turned round and said 'stuff this I'm going home', but then I'm never going to climb Everest either. Man is just is not supposed to be there.

Cheers

Ian

[Two-Words]

Hey.

The climbers that passed him by they are just filth. No matter what 20, or so people could have got him down, even if he didnt make it. Need to remember that this lot passed him on the way up:mad: .

It was interesting to see the legless kiwi try to divert any criticism against his party and blame everyone else.

What did they say "sorry mate....gotta reach the summit, paid a lotta cash for this...bad luck buddy"

Lovely way to die, laying under a rock waiting to die as wormless gits trot past.

Humanity starts with each of us. :)

When I was in East Timor I had the pleasure of having a beer with one of the UNAMET guys who told the story of another aussie who dived on top of his ET interpreter so that he wouldnt get machetted to death:o by the malitia. Was prepared to die for his new friend.

Would love to know that I had that kind of guts:confused:

Something to aspire to I think.

cheers

dazzler

sanctimonious crap

[boban]

Quote:
"Everest deals with trespassers harshly: the dead vanish beneath the snows. While the living struggle to explain what happened. And why. A survivor of the mountain's worst disaster examines the business of Mount Everest and the steep price of ambition."



read this.......

http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_into_thin_air_1.html

I just spent the last hour or so reading that article. It certainly gives you a different perspective. They are crazy bastards.

[Groggy]

There may be some here who have gone through a baro chamber run. They would confirm that at 20,000 feet most guys are giggling loons and not able to coordinate or think straight. Everest at the peak is over 29,000' (IIRC).

Those who get up there are barely able to move and pushing themselves at their limits with practically zero reserve. 99.9% do so on oxygen that is carefully calculated in quantity to enable them to get there and back - just. To perform extra exertion such as carrying a body (live or dead) would burn through their oxygen at a tremendous rate, putting all of the rescuers at risk.

These guys are at nearly 29000 feet (8800 metres), compare the effects to the table here (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/superhuman/tests/survival/hypoxia_effects.html).

I think that an expectation for people at that altitude to act and think in the same way we do at sea level is overly optimistic. To those who think they would "behave better" in the same circumstances, I can only hope you never find out; as I suspect you will be either disappointed or find yourself in a position that may well kill you.

It is hard to describe how debilitating oxygen deprivation is under heavy exertion. I can say that in a chamber under careful supervision, in peak health, I could not perform simple arithmetic or screw the cap off a bottle. Others in the same test were unable to get their masks back on and had to be assisted by instructors.

[journeyman Mick]

Groggy,
slightly off-topic, but is it similar to nitrogen narcosis? If that's the case then I doubt anyone could say what they would do in the same situation as you are not yourself at all.

Mick
(PS I'd like to think I would stop and comfort the fellow, but then again, like Cliff, I wouldn't be up there. I do stop for accident victims etc but I won't go into a burning building - without breathing apparatus you will die, even if you don't get burnt.)

[Groggy]

Groggy,
slightly off-topic, but is it similar to nitrogen narcosis? If that's the case then I doubt anyone could say what they would do in the same situation as you are not yourself at all.Mick, there are similarities although NN (I think) puts the person in a euphoric state and they can imagine things. Hypoxia has different effects at different altitudes and durations of exposure, also rates of physical effort and personal resistance. In a nutshell, I'd say they both alter the mind dangerously. NN may perform foolish stunts and hypoxic people may make fatal mistakes easily, such as forgetting to attach a rope.


Mick
(PS I'd like to think I would stop and comfort the fellow, but then again, like Cliff, I wouldn't be up there. I do stop for accident victims etc but I won't go into a burning building - without breathing apparatus you will die, even if you don't get burnt.)I agree, at sea level there is no question how all of us would behave.

[Ianab]

I think if most of us got placed up near the summit of Everest we would just curl up and die on the spot.. rescuing others would be a moot point as you suffered respiratory collapse :eek:

From Groggy's link

<TABLE class=cnav cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2> 8000m</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD width="39%">Faculty</TD><TD width="61%">Effect</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="39%">Visual Skills</TD><TD width="61%">Loss of consciousness in approx 4 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="39%">Memory</TD><TD width="61%">Loss of consciousness in approx 4 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="39%">Reaction / Motor
Skills</TD><TD width="61%">Considerable confusion in approx 2.5 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="39%">Personality Change</TD><TD width="61%">Loss of consciousness in approx 4 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.channel4.com/media/generic/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="39%">Perception</TD><TD width="61%">Often none until consciousness lost. Otherwise as above</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




Scarey stuff

[silentC]

Do Sherpas carry oxygen for themselves?

[Metal Head]

Do Sherpas carry oxygen for themselves?



The Sherpas

Lakhpa, Dorjee, Tensing, Nawang, Tashi - you will soon get familiar with these common sherpa names. Often they simply mean the days of the week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and so on. The guys are conveniently enough named by the day of the week when they were born!.

Some people really glorify the Sherpas as pure, natural and mystical gods of the nature. Others view them as low-cast inhabitants of the third world. The truth is of course that the Sherpas are just like the rest of us; some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between.

Sherpas are the inhabitants of the Khumbu-valley, the national park surrounding Everest. Living at altitude for generations, they have developed a genetic natural allowance for it. If you are well trained yourself, you might find in Kathmandu that the Sherpas do substantially fewer push-ups than you do. Don’t get too excited. Once you go above 3000 meters/10000 ft most of them will easily outrun you. Their natural advantage is strongest up to 8000-meters/23000 ft, there after they too will face problems. Most sherpas will consequently require oxygen above camp 4 in order to perform at their best.

The sherpas are usually happy and easy going. They take great pride in their mountaineering heritage, just as another famous people of Nepal, the Gurkhas, who take pride in their warrior skills.

Since Sherpas are stronger than us at altitude, they are very well suited for alpine style expeditions in the Himalayas. You will need them to carry the oxygen, the gear and as a safety on the summit push. Many "solo" climbers actually bring sherpas with them all the way up. Sherpas are a valuable aid to us, as the climb will be hard enough for you anyway, in not being genetically adapted to that kind of altitude by birth.

To work with Sherpas will require good management on your part and to find the good people to begin with. The trekking agency will recommend Sherpas connected to them. Check if the Sherpa has made the summit and when so (we asked for and were assigned 2 summit Sherpas once, but it was never made clear that they last summited in 1978 and 1982).

It’s also wise to check if the Sherpa is motivated to go for the summit again. Young non-summiteers could be hungry to summit, but lack experience. Summiteers might be content with the higher rank and salary that their summit has already entitled them and not really be motivated to summit again.

Talk to other climbers about the sherpas they liked and try to hire those people. Should you still have to work with Sherpas that you are not familiar with - the most common procedure - remember that the more self sufficient and skilled you are, the less dependent will you be on them. In the end though, if the weather is good and they trust your abilities, they will usually go for the summit, or close enough, with you.
Remember a simple fact: you get what you pay for. Sherpas that are known to perform well (this meaning being responsible and hard working) will require higher salaries than their counterparts.

As you should be careful to save money on the wrong things, you might think this over before you end up with people turning on you when you need them most.
Again, have specified on paper with the trekking agency what you will ask from your staff. Meet with the sherpas in Kathmandu about the very same thing, so that you are all clear on what’s expected. Still though, don’t get surprised if what’s agreed on in Kathmandu will turn different once on the mountain. It comes with the neighborhood and you will simply have to deal with it there and then.
Finally, remember; the sherpas are not your servants. Use them for the important tasks. They speak broken English and are usually not so schooled, but they can think very well for themselves. They will need respect. And - as any staff - motivation along with clear leadership.

Have meetings about the gear, climbing decisions and problem solving. Make sure that you at all times know what’s going on in the expedition; which tents are to be used and where, exactly how much fuel, food and gear is at each camp.
Check the oxygen, regulators and masks together beforehand. Mark everything with each person's name and so on. Don’t leave it all to your Sirdar (Sherpa leader): You are the expedition leader! Only then will you get respect and your decisions will be trusted.

[MurrayD99]

Extensive well-informed comment in The Press (Christchurch) here this morning. Sounds like it might have been an impossible situation. I'm with Cliff - I would not have been there.

[silentC]

Another two have keeled over on the way back - 15 so far this season. Hope it's all worth it.

[Studley 2436]

I have seen a documentary about the climb and thought it would be magnificent to go there one day and photograph in that range. Mind you I have never thought of going to the top. That is a commitment for serious climbers only. I think to make it to the base camp at the foot of the mountain is itself a huge achievement and not to be sneezed at and would present so many great photographic opportunities.

Studley

[dazzler]

sanctimonious crap

A well thought out, balanced view. Congratulations:D

[Shedhand]

I've actually seen the top of everest....from 6000ft (I was in a BA Jumbo). :D

[boban]

As is usually the case, we are fed ACA or Today Tonight type information that relies on a "source" that rarely provides/represents an accurate or complete view.

I read an article in the Australian today where one of the climbers said that the stories told so far are basically crap. When they passed the solo climber they thought it was a dead Polish guy from a prior season. He had no jacket or gloves on and most of his body was frozen. The climbers noticed signs of life on their way down and one of the party spent 90mins with the guy. Apparently that guy was deeply disturbed by it all.

I encourage you guys to read that article with the link posted by Two Words and get some idea of the extremes of nature we are discussing. I doubt that any of us would give up our lives to comfort someone who was going to die. Conversely Im sure most of us would do what we could to help someone in need.

I, like Bruce believe that most people are decent human beings.

[bitingmidge]

I encourage you guys to read that article with the link posted by Two Words and get some idea of the extremes of nature we are discussing. I doubt that any of us would give up our lives to comfort someone who was going to die. Conversely Im sure most of us would do what we could to help someone in need.

but most of those guys actually did work together when the chips were down.. Hall died as a direct result of waiting/helping.

Coincidentally the Imax movie chaps were shooting that year and it's all documented in a spectacular by very sobreing tale "Everest".

Cheers,

P

[ian]

In respect to this incident and high altitude climbers in general they IMO are a breed apart.

I'm told that if you want to climb Mt McKinley (the highest mtn in North America, located in Alaska) the compulsory briefing from the National Park Ranger includes "Everyone is entitled to die on this mountain, if you get into trouble don't expect to be rescued"

Although Mt McKinley is not as high as Everest, the thinning of the atmosphere towards at the poles means that the oxygen available at the top is not that much more than that on Everest.

I don't think any of us have any idea of the extremes involved or the ethos of high altitude mountaineers. Go see "Into the Void" for what you have to do in some extreme circumstances just to save your own life.

If you're a commercial high mountain guide like Hall, I think that it's only proper that if the client gets into trouble you stay with them and hold their hand while you both die.

However, if you're a private high altitude climber, I'm less sure. Afterall as the McKinley Ranger says "everyone has a right to die" on the mountain.



ian

[Two-Words]

A well thought out, balanced view. Congratulations:D

thank you :)

[dazzler]

thank you :)

Your Welcome :D

[boban]

but most of those guys actually did work together when the chips were down.. Hall died as a direct result of waiting/helping.

Coincidentally the Imax movie chaps were shooting that year and it's all documented in a spectacular by very sobreing tale "Everest".

Cheers,

P

My understanding of the Hall death was that he and a climber he had encouraged to come back (because they missed the peak the year before by 300 ft as they had to stick to their turn around time) actually went 2 hours beyond the 1pm turnaround time that was set by Hall himself.

[Two-Words]

My understanding of the Hall death was that he and a climber he had encouraged to come back (because they missed the peak the year before by 300 ft as they had to stick to their turn around time) actually went 2 hours beyond the 1pm turnaround time that was set by Hall himself.

That's correct



Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer - a must read

[TEEJAY]

Did I just hear on the radio news the Ozzie guy given up for dead a few days ago, (who was with his 2 sherpas and out of oxygen), has just managed to walk himself to the base camp of Everest and awaiting rescue from there.

Wonderful news for him and his family.

Time to open another can of worms.

[Groggy]

You did, look here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/asia/28everest.html).

I hope he isn't brain damaged.

[TEEJAY]

I've read about him and Tim McCartney-Snape for years in wilderness magazines - amazing people and an awesome life - not for me. He (Hall) has a wife and 2 teenage sons.

I remember reading about some lady that was guided by two guys to climb most of the worlds significant mountains - not long after all this she suffered depression and suicided. Couldn't top any of all this and felt nothing more to live for - she was attractive, fit and photographed heaps, the magazines loved her. A glamorous part of the mountaineering profile - tragic in the end.

[kiwigeo]

Did I just hear on the radio news the Ozzie guy given up for dead a few days ago, (who was with his 2 sherpas and out of oxygen), has just managed to walk himself to the base camp of Everest and awaiting rescue from there.

Wonderful news for him and his family.

Time to open another can of worms.

Teejay,

I dont think the guy exactly walked himself back to base camp. He had assistance from his rescuers and in most of the daily rags there are pics of him riding at least part of the way to base camp on a yak.

[Ianab]

Yeah.. the last guy was a miracle.
He had passed out from altitude effects, there is no way you can carry someone down unconsious, so they were forced to leave him. If you stay with him, you run out of O2 and die as well. That must be a bad choice to have to make :(
Next day he had partly come around (that was the miracle) and another party came across him. They were able to give him oxygen and water and got him coherent enough that he was able to stagger down with their help. The rescuers gave up their own summit attempt to help him, but the difference this time was that they thought they could actually do something usefull to help him.

Bottom line, if you cant walk down to the top base camp, even with assistance, you aren't comming down. :(

Ian - staying down here where there is air to breath!

[Two-Words]

What a tosser

Thanks Al :p:D

[ozwinner]

Thanks Al :p:D

Hmmm..
Ive checked this thread 3 times to see where I said " what a tosser", and nowhere can it be found, there are no deleted posts either.

While I dont deny I use the term " what a tosser", nowhere in this thread have I said it.

I dont like to be "quoted" out of context.

Al :confused:

[Two-Words]

Hmmm..
Ive checked this thread 3 times to see where I said " what a tosser", and nowhere can it be found, there are no deleted posts either.

While I dont deny I use the term " what a tosser", nowhere in this thread have I said it.

I dont like to be "quoted" out of context.

Al :confused:

reputation comment :p

[silkwood]

So far all I've seen on this post is "I've read" or "I'd heard" or "someone told me".
There is a lot of very judgemental comment from a number of individuals who have absolutely no bloody idea what they are talking about.

What has been reported has predominantly been by non-climbers who have an interest in stirring up controversy. Much of what I've read here is best summed up by "sanctimonious crap"!

I've climbed for many years (nowhere near this level) and count a number of very good mountaineers as friends. One lost his life on Everest a few years ago.

We have no idea of the situation, the conditions or the mental state of the participants. Much of the comment about how these people are scum I actually find most offensive. YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!

You can't put yourself in their shoes because you simply can't imagine how it was. There may have been an argument for attempting a rescue (although, from an informed perspective I doubt it) but I don't see how we can reasonably judge this with the information available (and I've had a lot more information than has been generally available). I certainly don't see how such vindictive and malicious comments can be justified.

Can't we discuss how ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT it is that Lincoln Hall got down?!

Sorry to sound so forthright but this self-righteous commentary coming from all (uninformed) angles this week has pi##ed me off! I'm not trying to say I know more than you, I simply don't know. I AM questioning the visciousness of the comments.

Cheers,

[Studley 2436]

So far all I've seen on this post is "I've read" or "I'd heard" or "someone told me".
Cheers,
I think I said that myself. However how many have been to the Himilayas to climb? Really people are just saying this is what I am basing my opinion on.

Reading I did last night about this was that some climbers undersupply themselves trusting that they can relie on help from more conservative climbers.

It is truly amazing that Hall got down. The thing is he was helped by people who were on the way up and abandoned their own summit to help him. Now what happened up there with Hall is something we down here can never understand. Up there on the roof of the world is a desolate place where your own personal survival can be your only objective. So I think Hall's party did the right thing leaving him based on the situation that they had. The rescuers obviously made the right decision too because he came out alive. Up there I doubt anyone is able to think that well. It is too cold and windblown and you can't even breathe.

I think the thing that upset people earlier was that the reports said that people on their way up chose not to help. Edmund Hillary, now there is someone who really does know what is and isn't Kosher for a climber, damned them for not helping.

I still don't think I would ever want to climb it though. Too many people going up and down, I'd rather go somewhere I can experience nature without the crowd rushing by. That's my opinion and I am welcome to it.

Studley

[silentC]

I've had a lot more information than has been generally available
Enlighten us...

[silkwood]

Firstly, sorry for sounding so aggressive in my last post, this topic has really got under my skin. I will add some comment but I would like to point out I don't subscribe to the view that if we have all the available information we'll understand, or be in a position to make valid comment. I think there is way too much such comment from people who have read all the data but in reality have little understanding of a situation. To be honest I think there is more than a little in this forum, where some (only a few) have a comment to make about everything. I get the feeling some of the comments are based upon what's been read, not upon experience. I'm not convinced this is a good thing.

Well, after that rant...

Most commentary from those on the mountain suggests David Sharp was found without any ability to move, apart from his head. He was conscious, though barely, at one point (it has been reported). The consensus APPEARS to be that there was no way he could have assisted his own passage and in all likelihood would not survive the movement.

Now to those who say it doesn't matter, if there was even the remotest chance, they should have tried: have any of you ever taken part in a search & rescue? The amount of physical effort for even eight people to carry someone over rough ground for any significant distance is incredible. It's not like the movies where two guys carry their mate over kilometers of wilderness to the hospital (complete with gorgeous female doctor who falls in love with one of them). If someone cannot assist at all it is bloody hard work. Now consider being up above ABC on Everest. Limited oxygen, hard work just to place one foot in front of the other, your life depends upon your focus.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to effect such a rescue in such conditions. It also puts every participant's life at risk (please, don't say "they had the energy to keep climbing", you have no idea, really). In short it is SOMETIMES a good decision to leave someone in such a situation.

Now this is not to suggest there is no debate in mountaineering circles, there is. Not everybody agrees David Sharp should have been left. The thing is, in this culture everyone is aware of the nuances of such situations and you will rarely hear comments such as "these people are scum". Such comments are ill-informed offensive pulp and have no place in a debate which, in reality, is understood by very few (this few does NOT include me). I have great respect for Ed Hillary and not just for his climbing (which in reality has been a small part of his life) but for his work since. However he hasn't climbed seriously for years, he has a limited persective on current climbing and it's not hard to forget the time when you thought if you didn't place one foot in front you'd die. Hillary commands much respect but doesn't speak for a majority of the climbing community.

Some left and then passed Lincoln Hall at some point and from what I've heard this was probably good judgement. The bloody brilliant thing is that somehow he revived enough to convince others to rescue him (that is, his condition convinced them). It is not a case of this group being more morally responsible.

I know I've raved, please allow me one final comment..

For those who said they wouldn't follow their own goals at the expense of someone else's life consider this: If you mortgage your house to the hilt, commit your life to paying as much as you can to charity, sell all your woodwork tools (yes including the Domino, it is a hobby after all) and live simply you could help to save (literally) hundreds of lives in third world countries. The money you have just been given by Little Johnny in tax cuts could be put to providing real (non-judgemental) answers for our indigenous population. Instead of heading out to the shed in your spare time you could be out helping those less fortunate, donating your time and spare money to charity. I'm in the same boat as most of you. Hands up those who consider themselves SCUM!

Cheers (and thanks for listening),

[silentC]

First thing I'd say in people's defence is that it is human nature to have an opinion and wouldn't it be a boring forum if everyone kept their's to themselves?

Second, it's also human nature to judge other people's actions, often without all of the information. We have all been guilty of that and I suspect many of us have also been victims of it, I know I have.

Still, that's what makes us what we are.

With regard to this issue, yes we do probably put too much stock in what we read in the papers but when it is the only source of information at hand, we have no choice (assuming we wish to stay in touch). When someone who is world famous for his involvement with Everest tells us that it was the wrong thing to do, we believe him.

Perhaps people in climbing circles are too close to the situation to judge objectively. Like any clique, they tend to close circles in the face of outside criticism. That's human nature number 3: "you don't know what you are talking about, I have special inside information not available to you, so your opinion is invalid. You don't know what you are talking about unless you have been where we have been."

It is probably unfortunate for the people who left David Sharp up there that Lincoln Hall was rescued a few days later.

[silkwood]

Good comment SilentC and if I didn't get so heated up prior to this I probably wouldn't have been quite so agitated in my comments. Of course we need to make judgements based upon the information we have. I'm not sure that means we have to make judgements though (at least not all the time). Can't this lead us to prematurely making up our minds and thus setting up a fixed mindset which helps nobody?

I guess I got most annoyed at the vehemence of the responses. For the record, I'm not sure I agree with leaving Sharp, but it's just that..I'm not sure.

Once again, well commented.

Cheers,

[silentC]

I suppose the important thing to remember is that it makes little difference what judgement we make because it's all academic - we have no influence to change the situation one way or the other. In that sense we're just like a herd of cows chewing our cuds at the water trough.

There are other situations in which uninformed opinions ARE dangerous though, particularly when we have a PM as good as Johnnie is at manipulating and using public opinion.

[TassieKiwi]

There are other situations in which uninformed opinions ARE dangerous though, particularly when we have a PM as good as Johnnie is at manipulating and using public opinion.

Indeed.

I agree that everyone should be able to air their opinions. I also think that everyone should read the compelling and gut-wrenching first-hand account (link posted earlier) "Into Thin Air") of an Everest trip that went badly wrong, complete with a miracle story - when Rob Hall and others died in May '96. It is very enlightening on what the 'Death Zone' is like in a storm. -100degC windchill, for crissakes! What is truly telling is that the writer was in such a zombie state that he barely registered that he 'summited', and daily thinks of the good friends/fathers/mothers/husbands and wives that died - some of them directly related to decisions that he made in a stupified state.

Read it. You might think differently afterwards, you might not.

[rrich]

I'm not a climber. I'm too much of an old methane gas cloud to even consider becoming a climber.

Within the last couple of years, our PBS network broadcast a documentry about climbing Everest. Each individual has a finite period of time that they can surrive in the death zone. Each individual has a finite store of energy that they can withdraw for use in the death zone. Unfortunately the amount of time and energy available are unknown until they are depleted. Death then follows.

According to the documentry, once a climber enters the death zone, only that climber can, themself, retreat from the death zone. The reason is that no one else has a sufficient enough energy store to extract themself and another climber from the death zone. It is one of the most brutal facts about extreme mountain climbing.

Another problem is the human lungs. The sacs in the lungs that exchange oxygen and CO2 fill with fluid at that altitude making them less efficient in an atmosphere severely depleted of oxygen. The longer the climber spends at extreme altitude, the more the sacs fill with fluid. Obviously a very grave situation.

The facts, as presented by the documentry, indicate that once a climber's health deteriorates beyond a certain point, the only certainty is death. It is the climber's mind that does the most damage. The climber has this 'I think I can, I think I can...' mentality. The climbers that refuse to acknowlege the the signs of altitude sickness and retreat immediately are usually the ones that fall victim to the death zone.

The climbers that walked past the distressed climber were accepting the grim reality of the environment. The distressed climber probably died the previous day but didn't realize it and just moved into a position where his death became more obvious and still dealing with the 'I think I can' mentality.

There are many cadavers in the death zone and they will probably stay there for all eternty. There is just no realistic way go bring them down. The same is true for the climber that has passed their point of endurance, there is just no realistic way to bring them down.

Sorry mates but the environment on Everest is a killer. Once a climber remains past the limits of their physical endurance, it's all over. Please don't think harshly of the climbers that passed by the distressed climber, there just was nothing that they could do. It's not like passing a disabled vehicle on the side of the road but rather like passing a burned out hulk of a vehicle on the side of the road. There is nothing that could be done.