Would you leave your fellow human dying?

[ethics]

Mark Inglis and his friends have been subjected to "harsh criticism" of late, and that "could be psychologically harmful to Inglis and his team," reports the New Zealand Herald.
What did Inglis & Co. do? Nothing! Which was the problem. They were climbing Mount Everest, and they came upon another climber, who was dying from exposure and lack of oxygen. They decided there was nothing they could do, and went on their way. Reports the Herald:
Australian mountaineer Adam Darragh, who teaches at the Australian School of Mountaineering and instructs guides, said Inglis would inevitably feel remorse for not doing more for 34-year-old David Sharp but that did not mean he had failed in his duty.


"The fact that someone died that day and they had walked past him does not mean they were negligent in their care," Mr Darragh said. . . .


Mr Darragh said criticising the climbers for not going to assist and support could harm their ability to get over their remorse.
"No one likes to see people dying up there."

The heart bleeds. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10383425)


H/T BoW


I believe it's against the law here in the city to drive by a victim of an accident. Not sure if it includes mountain climbing but why rely on laws? I would never leave a fellow human being dying.

[Frodo Lives]

IMHO they deserve a very harsh punishment. They may not have been able to save the other climber but damn it they should have done something. Even if all they could have done was give him something for comfort as he passed away. I hope that the family of the deceased never let the guilty off. I know for a fact that had it been a member of my family they had left to die without helping in someway I would have made their lives a living hell for the rest of their very short days. :friggin:

[Arc]

It's even worse as several other teams of different nationalities passed him by also.

Sadly there have been other instances of this in the past although they are of course the exception and not the rule.

The first man to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary has been very harsh and detailed in his condemnation of what took place and added how his teams would have responded.

[Domh]

They decided there was nothing they could do, and went on their way.
Yeah, thats definitely the crux of the problem here... that and the fact that each of them, upon approaching the body, had to have gone through a mental process comparing the cost both fiscal and in time and preparation they had undergone to summit the famous Everest... and their morality.

The expense involved in an attempt on Everest is high, averaging about 50 grand per person as part of an expedition. Everest isnt attempted solo. It takes months to prepare physically, years for some. Its a huge undertaking.

So, I guess this helps us move a little bit closer to answering that age old question regarding the value in dollars of a human life.

What these men did was wrong, and we all know that. Its a damn shame that they happened to be unlucky enough to come upon a dying, not dead, but dying, fellow climber.

They should have stayed with him, done everything and anything to help, turned back with him... anything. The last thing they should have done was keep on climbing, leaving him to slowly die, alone and terrified.

So, in addition to helping us put a number on the value of a life, this lovely little incident also helps to remind us that the human species is just not as grand, enlightened and wonderful as we like to say we are.

We are a brutally selfish animal, and the evidence is all around us every day... everywhere.

:thumdown:

[ditch]

Why do I think this, leaving the climber to die, wouldn't have happened a few decades ago. Probably because the fiscal concerns nowadays are more paramount to the climbers. Lots of cash involved in getting to the top, about $100k per person I hear. Sir Edmund would not have went on, I'm sure. It's simply not the behaviour that was acceptable in his day.

Another climber "died" yesterday. An Aussie had made it to the top, phoned friends and was perfectly lucid but never made the first 300 metres back down. Altitude sickness got to him. Two sherpers stayed for a period of time trying to help, but were instructed by the other team members to leave him in order to save themselves. He was found by another party on their way up who fed him tea and gave him oxygen, who then sent word back back to others to come up and get him. I haven't caught up on the outcome of this.

Lincoln Hall is his name. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/everest-climber-confirmed-alive/2006/05/26/1148524892222.html)

Not far from the summit, he was unable to proceed. Sherpas reported he sat down and refused to go on. They coaxed him further down the mountain, but two sherpas became so ill with altitude sickness that Abramov ordered them to descend to save themselves.

[cmhbob]

Seems like I read that they would have imperiled themselves had they stopped, since they weren't carrying enough oxygen to help someone else. They basically had their own supplies, but not enough to share, or to do any good for him.

[Arc]

I wonder if the countries of Nepal and Tibet have ever seriously considered just banning or prohibiting the climbing of the mountain?

It is not like many have not climbed it. Into the thousand(s). On the other hand nearly two hundred have died trying.

At this point given the odds, outcome, and certain other factors what is the point?

[John R. Beanham]

Archangel,


"what is the point?'


I think it was Mallory that gave the original answer to that question.

"because it is THERE"


JB<!-- / message -->

[jfcjrus]

I wonder if the countries of Nepal and Tibet have ever seriously considered just banning or prohibiting the climbing of the mountain?

It is not like many have not climbed it. Into the thousand(s). On the other hand nearly two hundred have died trying.

At this point given the odds, outcome, and certain other factors what is the point?
On the other hand, there are many ways death will overtake each and every one of us.

If someone wishes to tempt death in attempting to climb a hostile mountain, exactly who are any of us to stop them?
One surely must recognize that he's tempting death in trying to get to the top of that damn mountain.
To each his own, and individual responsibility, no?
Yet, we ponder and judge why others don't risk their own death by helping those ill equipped to do so.

I'd like to think I'd stop everything, forfeit my quest, to help out my fellow man.
But, I really don't know what it's like at 20,000 feet, fighting to breathe, let alone move, let alone assume the work load of two, where neither of us might survive.
I've never experienced that high altitude neatherworld.

It doesn't seem right not to help, but, it also doesn't seem right to expect others to risk death to help your dumb ass. ;)
So, I don't really know what I'd do under such conditions.
An interesting topic to ponder though.

Regards,

[ethics]

You know something? I came in to the thread thinking one thing, but after some wonderful posts and this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060526/ap_on_re_as/alone_on_everest_lh1;_ylt=AgmpHB7TQK3oJ5GI2JbaABcDW7oF;_ylu= X3oDMTBhZDhxNDFzBHNlYwNtZW5ld3M-) made me realize that it's not so black and white. While I STILL would stop and help, I can understand more why others wouldn't.

[Arc]

You know something? I came in to the thread thinking one thing, but after some wonderful posts and this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060526/ap_on_re_as/alone_on_everest_lh1;_ylt=AgmpHB7TQK3oJ5GI2JbaABcDW7oF;_ylu= X3oDMTBhZDhxNDFzBHNlYwNtZW5ld3M-) made me realize that it's not so black and white. While I STILL would stop and help, I can understand more why others wouldn't.

It is because of some of the reasons mentioned in the very well written article (Good link!) that makes me question whether or not Nepal and Tibet should continue to grant permits for climbing expeditions.

And no, regarding helping the man, the main issue, and the secondary issue of just permitting climbing is not black and white. But you know, very few things are! An important fact to consider in all things.

[ditch]

It is because of some of the reasons mentioned in the very well written article (Good link!) that makes me question whether or not Nepal and Tibet should continue to grant permits for climbing expeditions.

And no, regarding helping the man, the main issue, and the secondary issue of just permitting climbing is not black and white. But you know. Very few things are! An important fact to consider in all things.

There is a significant amount of foreign money that comes into Nepal, and Tibet perhaps, I need to check that as China controls Tibet now, as a result of the Everest expeditions. At least its significant for a poor country like Nepal. Reason enough, at least as far as the beneficiaries are concerned, to continue to allow the climbers in every spring and summer.

The stories I've read about base camp at Everest make the place sounnd like a circus. Climbing Everest is becoming an adventure for the well off who employ numerous Sherpas and have every modern convenience possible to make the trip bearable. As the Yahoo article said, it is no longer the haunt of experienced climbers only, but those who have spent lots to make sure they get to the top, and back again, many of them relatively inexperienced. I'm not surprised that 40 people passed the young man who died. The case of the second climber discussed here being found alive after being left for dead by his team illustrates the attitude of the current crews who climb here as well as perhaps the inaccuracies of the assessments made of those in trouble.

Of course those who past the dying climbers will say they were beyond hope. They're not going to admit that they were more interested in making the top than helping a dying fellow climber. But that is what happened, and when the joy of making the summit subsides somewhat they ought to take a long hard think about what they didn't do on the way up there.

Admittedly there are bound to be tragedies every climbing season. It's a risky and often dangerous pastime. But that doesn't mean anyone should be hiding their morals in their rucksacks as soon as they spot Everest and head for the summit. Would that attitude be acceptable in other circumstances? I don't think so.

[ditch]

You know something? I came in to the thread thinking one thing, but after some wonderful posts and this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060526/ap_on_re_as/alone_on_everest_lh1;_ylt=AgmpHB7TQK3oJ5GI2JbaABcDW7oF;_ylu= X3oDMTBhZDhxNDFzBHNlYwNtZW5ld3M-) made me realize that it's not so black and white. While I STILL would stop and help, I can understand more why others wouldn't.

I think I can understand also, and after hearing a long interview on the radio with the amputee who made it to the summit but kept going after stopping with David Sharp, I have no doubts that the concerns that he and others expressed for David were genuine. That and the extreme difficulties associated with helping someone in trouble in the climatic conditions up that high explained a great deal about why Sharp died the way he did.

I still believe though that there needs to be a very clear distinction made between the motives of the experienced climbers and the rich tourists looking for thrills and how they both react under these circumstances.

For the record, the worst day on Everest in terms of human tragedy was May 10, 1996 when 8 climbers died. From a group of 6 who reached the summit only 2 returned. A further 4 "just disappeared" in a storm, hence the name of the book written about the tragedy "Into Thin Air". (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-4865723-6583223?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=stripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=into%20thin%20air)The guide on that occasion, Michael Groom, who made heroic efforts to save his team members, was not keen to pass judgement on what happened in the past few days saying "I wasn't there; I don't know enough. It's something they will have to live with".

[ethics]

Ditch, great reference to a good book, which is how I judged the whole thing initially. To me, it was inherent that one should save humans.

I love his answer though. Once the high of the climb comes off--and it will--how will they be able to live with that type of guilt?

[ditch]

Ditch, great reference to a good book, which is how I judged the whole thing initially. To me, it was inherent that one should save humans.

I love his answer though. Once the high of the climb comes off--and it will--how will they be able to live with that type of guilt?

A few more words by the the guide in 1996, Michael Groom who incidentally has made it the Everest summit twice and also climbed the next five highest peaks. One of the women in his '96 group, a Japanese, Yasuko Namba, too weak to continue when the tragedy was unfolding, had to be left while Groom went for help. She and three others died before help arrived. When commenting on the current incidents he ended by saying "I feel bad about not saving Yasuko".

[Domh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000326.html

"KATMANDU, Nepal -- An Australian climber who was left for dead on the slopes of Mount Everest but later survived has been rescued from the mountain and is in "amazing shape," his spokesman said Tuesday.

Lincoln Hall, 50, was driven to the Nepalese capital of Katmandu on Tuesday from the base camp in Tibet, China, and is being treated at a clinic, his spokesman Simon Balderstone said.


Hall had been left by members of his team near the summit who thought he had died but was later found alive by another team of climbers and helped down the mountain."

Ah, well... theres the rub. He survived long enough for some human beings to arrive.

Also a good article at:

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Nepal/10043374.html

:thumbsup:

[Piobaireachd]

I'm proud to say that the other team that helped him is from Seattle.

They gave up their shot at the summit to save a life. Pretty cool, huh...

[ethics]

I'm proud to say that the other team that helped him is from Seattle.

They gave up their shot at the summit to save a life. Pretty cool, huh...

Yes it is.

Not sure about some of you, but I'd rather, while dying on my deathbed, look back and be happy that I saved a human life vs. being happy that I didn't save a life but hey, I got to climb a hill!

[jfcjrus]

Not sure about some of you, but I'd rather, while dying on my deathbed, look back and be happy that I saved a human life vs. being happy that I didn't save a life but hey, I got to climb a hill!
I totally agree with that sentiment, assuming you or I would have had our wits and morality about us while simply trying to <i>breathe</i> at 20,000+ feet above sea level.

As I mentioned before, I've never been there; and am thus reluctant to apply my moral sensibilities into a situation I know nothing about, other than my imagination or what I've read.
Hell, for all I know, a lack of O2 would cause me not to recognize, and be quite disgusted with, myself.

So, while I (sitting here in comfort) can't understand why any mountain climber wouldn't do everything they could to help out a person in trouble, I don't think all this is as black or white as we'd like it to be.

Again, I agree with you; but I'm not sure it's that simple.

Regards,

[ditch]

Yes, what a great result with that rescue. Ironically and sadly, a friend of Lincoln Halls', Sue Fear, with whom he co-wrote a book on mountaineering, has fallen into a crevase while climbing Manaslu in the Himalayas, the eighth highest peak in the world, and has not been found.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rolling-the-dice/2006/05/30/1148956347031.html

[Swamp Fox]

There's no duty to rescue, at least in the English common-law world. They were free to walk by and let him die - whether that's right or not is, of course, a different matter.

[ditch]

There's no duty to rescue, at least in the English common-law world. They were free to walk by and let him die - whether that's right or not is, of course, a different matter.

No there is no law to stop and help. The duty is a moral one.

[jfcjrus]

There's no duty to rescue, at least in the English common-law world. They were free to walk by and let him die - whether that's right or not is, of course, a different matter.
No there is no law to stop and help. The duty is a moral one.
Are you guys sure of that?

I seem to recall some folks getting into legal trouble by NOT helping; when they thought they should just move along and mind their own business.

Do you not recall something like that?

Regards,

[Swamp Fox]

I'm pretty sure of that - I was taught that in law school way back when. Of course, that was before the internet and the WWW, so things may have changed, but I doubt it.

[Steve]

Many states in the U.S. have "good Samaritan" laws that not only require witnesses to accidents and such to render assistance if it can be done safely, call for emergency reponse, etc. but also release such persons from legal liability. It's not a federal law, as far as I know and I have no idea what the law would be in Tibet.

[ditch]

Are you guys sure of that?

I seem to recall some folks getting into legal trouble by NOT helping; when they thought they should just move along and mind their own business.

Do you not recall something like that?

Regards,

I can't say that I know for sure and certain. I'm basing my answer more on an ignorance of local Nepalese law and the extreme difficulty of enforcement of a law of that type, atleast in the area we are discussing, and assessment of the condition of the one needing help. Certainly my opinion may not be applicable in other similar circumstances.

I remember reading about the Kitty Genovese (http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/database/archives/000719.html) case where a girl was raped and murdered while people looked on and refused to help. The case was of interest not because of any legalities being broken but because there can be an abrogation of resonsibilty in situations such as this and Everest recently.

[cmhbob]

I know when I was stationed in Germany (US Army 87-89), you had a duty to stop and render aid in a traffic crash (edit) even if you weren't involved in the crash).

I don't think the Good Sam laws in the US require you to stop. I know they protect you if you try to help, and make the situation worse, as long as you don't knowingly go beyond your skills.

[Brazbit]

A follow up article on MSNBC was put up today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13272568/

Mazur, who scaled Everest once before, said shortly after the rescue that "I was shocked to see a guy without gloves, hat, oxygen bottles or sleeping bag at sunrise at 28,200 feet height, just sitting up there."
Mazur said Hall's first words to him were: "I imagine you are surprised to see me here."
"At first I didn't realize it was a person, I just saw the color of his jacket ... I thought it might be a tent," Mazur said Monday. "The last thing on my mind is to think that there might be a person sitting on top of this ridge, it was kind of like a knife-edge ridge, with a small, two-by-two foot space.
"Lincoln was kind of perched on that," Mazur added. "He could have fallen off one side about 8,000 feet, or off the other side about 6,000 feet. He wasn't tied to any rope, he was just sitting up there holding his hands up in the air, he didn't have any gloves on, no hat, his jacket was off."
Mazur, a guide based in Olympia, Wash., said he asked Hall how he had gotten there, to which Hall replied: "I don't know."

This is crazy though:

While Mazur's team was busy assisting Hall, two Italian climbers walked past them toward the summit. When asked to help, they claimed they did not understand English. On his return to base camp, Mazur discovered they did.

This sums the whole topic up for me:
"Oh yeah, it was worth it," he said shortly after the rescue. "You can always go back to the summit but you only have one life to live. If we had left the man to die, that would have always been on my mind. ... How could you live with yourself?"

I would hope I would react more like Mazur and not like all the other people that week in a situation like this. It would be heartbreaking to not make it but nothing compared to leaving a man for dead. That one thought alone would make it a no brainer I think.

[ShinyTop]

What I would really like to see is a mountain climbing publication or a standards group (if there is one) publish a list of all who passed this man by and then all mountain climbing groups could ban them from climbing in their countries. Bastards who place their feat above the life of another human being should have that information shared world wide. No rebuttals allowed, no explanation. You made no attempt to determine if he was alive or to save him, you are through, banned, shamed and hopefully shunned.

[Copzilla]

There is no greater accomplishment than saving another person's life. That is something one could feel proud of, over all other things.

[Domh]

"Italian climbers walked past them toward the summit. When asked to help, they claimed they did not understand English. On his return to base camp, Mazur discovered they did."

Italy learned nothing from WW2.