On Everest it has come down to survival of the lowest.

<<<<"I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating"......"Inglis called for help. Base camp said, "You can't help him." (And they were right, and Inglis probably already knew that, but it helps to hear it from others.)"
Dave Rishar

As does my earlier response:


"It used to be NO ONE climbed that mountain but the very very very few who were specially trained. There was no belief or perception that it was possible for most of us to reach the summit. Look at how that changed over our lifetimes; now we have hundreds of people who've made it. By the same token, no one believes that rescue is possible. I mean, sure, it happens, but the standard rule is it's suicidal, hopless, and pointless to even try. This is taken for granted by nearly all the climbers, as well as us average Joe's.

Rescue needs to be recognized as possible before many of the climbers will even consider it. In some conditions, X, Y, and Z, you CAN rescue a person on Everest."

Dave, your post is exactly what I'm talking about; they ask Base for decision making; Base says no. (You're off the hook) no rescue.

Climbing Everest was once impossible. Now it is not. Rescue is impossible; that doesn't have to be true. Some day rescue under certain circumstances, like those for the 40 will be can-do.


munk
 
TomFetter said:
Quite simply, I'd have tried to get him down, or have stayed with him as he died. Then walked back down the mountain 'till the next day, or the next week.

What I wouldn't have done, is try for the summit, just leaving him there.
Click to expand...

That does sound like the humane thing for them to have done, but...................

Knowing very little about the types of conditions that mountain climbing in those mountains offer, I would ask the following questions:

Would trying to save this man almost have guaranteed that many, if not all of those attempting it, would have died themselves?

Did the man appear to have enough life in him where he would have had a good chance of surviving a rescue attempt "if" it even had a slim chance of being successful?

In other words, what were the realistic chances of this rescue mission working, and would such a rescue mission be placing the other men on a suicidal mission? This is where rational thinking is also compassion for your entire party.

This would be a hard choice to make. Compassion is one thing, and should have been administered no matter what their final decision, but stupidity would have been another matter altogether. It would take just a few moments of rational thinking for those up there to have answered those questions to themselves (that is if rational thinking was possible in their situation). If the rescue attempt would have been suicidal for the crew, then their decision may have been a tough one, but defendable.

If the decision was made more because it would have put a stop to their goals, then that would be heartless/downright cruel (IMO).

When one does not know all of the details, and only those up there really know what those details were, then all one can do is try and see it from both sides of the issue.

One can play devil's advocate, as I often do, but on this one, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they simply would have been on a suicidal mission if they would have tried to have saved him. To believe anything less would mean that they were just plain old cruel, and I pray that was not the case.

Of course,............. only they know the full truth, leaving us in the dark on many of the factors. We can only speculate.
 
Without being there, you're right, one can't know. But better to err on one side than the other ...

t.
 
Maybe we'd all feel better if there were a warning label attached to the power chord of that mountain. LOL.
 
I think in all but our wildest dreams we underestimate how extreme a climate this occurred in. Even with gear that will keep you warm enough to live, there is not enough oxygen to breathe. Combine that with the landscape which requires you to exert much more energy and oxygen than anywhere else, and its basically unimaginable. I did a winter traverse in the whites of NH and it was 20 below with 70 mph winds, and even that was the most humbling experience of my life. I have no doubt if i had twisted my ankle, i would have been dead in less than a few hours once I stopped. In places like these hikers were, those hours becomd minutes. From descripions I am now reading, this guy was in the process of death, not a guy who was just tired sitting next to a rock.
 
They can pass him on their way to the summit, but the weather is too much for them to skip the summit and take him to safety?

As for being in the throws of death; you'd be surprised how quickly he'd recover if he could breath again. The air cannisters you'd have used for the summit would help.


munk
 
As for technology: how about a bubble? An inflatable protective cushion around the victim in the fetal position. Fills up with a couple air tanks. Rated to keep safe the occupant in 100 mph stops. Roll the sucker down the mountain....Can't you see him bouncing along?
Probably wouldn't get any volunteers for my idea, would I? We can try it out on chimps, dogs and cats. Might as well get PETA mad at us.

Oh alright...enough silliness.


munk
 
munk said:
They can pass him on their way to the summit, but the weather is too much for them to skip the summit and take him to safety?

As for being in the throws of death; you'd be surprised how quickly he'd recover if he could breath again. The air cannisters you'd have used for the summit would help.


munk
Click to expand...

Step 1, would have been to get him down as far as camp IV. The air and pressure would have still been a problem, but he would have had shelter, perhaps a sleeping bag, or food. Things that could have helped to maintain his core body temperature. Camp IV is also a staging area for summit assaults. Parties would have been coming up to camp IV with extra O2 for their summit attempts.

Perhaps, the practical question, is what sort of duty do we owe to someone like David Sharp. It may have taken scores of people, millions of dollars, and the sacrifice of many personal goals just to attempt to keep him alive; all because he failed to make adequate preparations for his climb.

sbrr2.jpg


There is a nice summary of the camps here:
http://www.everestnews.com/everest2006/sharpeverest05172006.htm


n2s
 
not2sharp said:
Perhaps, the practical question, is what sort of duty do we owe to someone like David Sharp. It may have taken scores of people, millions of dollars, and the sacrifice of many personal goals just to attempt to keep him alive; all because he failed to make adequate preparations for his climb.
Click to expand...

Let's just say for a moment here that your "practical question" above was the actual one used to determine whether or not they should try to save this one individual. If so,....... even if the climber was a totally dumb jerk for not being prepared, it would sure be cruel, inhumane, and extremely selfish to have let him die for those reasons (IMO).

Again, if the reason to leave him were strictly based on the fact that trying to save him would have in all likelyhood caused the deaths of many, if not most of the party, then the decision could be a defendable one (IMO).
 
I suspect that the forumite with the best idea of "what's it all about" would be cave-diver Steve Poll and I would like to hear his thoughts on this.

Until we hear from Steve, I have to give a lot of respect to Satori's comments.
 
As many here, I have no idea about the circumstances. I am not a climber. I might have to ask a friend who has been climbing in Nepal/Himalaya.

All I know is, without knowing the circumstances it's quite easy to say a lot of brave words, but acting is quite different.

.....

munk, yes, it used to be NO ONE climbed that mountain but the very very very few who were specially trained. these days more people *try*. take a look at the numbers, how many succeed? how many out of those, who even dare to try such a thing? i think these days more people try not because their perceptions changed, but because possiblities changed. getting there is easier than it used to be, our gear is better et cetera. still, 1 out of 3 dies.
i consider myself pretty fit and well, tough maybe. no way i would try to climb that rock. out of those who even dare, many still die. do you really think things changed that much?

maybe they could've gotten him done to the next lower camp. question is, would he have survived? aparently the odds are against him.

if you have someone with 90% third degree burns, they will still scream at you, they're still alive. for a while, and then they die. cant help 'em, not even a specialized clinic has much chances.

i have no idea if that is an appropriate example, but maybe it's a similar situation up on that mountain. he's still alive, but dying either way, wheather you help him or not.

Keno
 
Hi All-

Attempting to rescue a nearly unconscious man in the "Death Zone" near 28,000 feet would be as futile as attempting to rescue someone who fell ill traveling solo to the moon on his privately-funded rocketship. He was literally that far out of reach.

There are far too many scenarios and situations to even consider:
  • it is 100* below zero with high winds and low visibility
  • oxygen consumption for which you haven't budgeted
  • heart rate at rest approaches one's maximum at sea level
  • fit athletes stop to take a rest every three to four steps
  • delay could allow worsening weather to arrive
  • the man could have been suicidal and we're blocking his final wish
  • insufficient rescue ropes, harnesses, sleds, sleeping bags, etc.
  • what of the injuries he already suffered, including brain damage
Death is with Mount Everest climbers at every step and that mountain will be as cold, bleak, and ominous tonight as it was two million years ago. The simple fact-of-the-matter is that there are far too many unqualified people attempting to conquer that icy peak. That man was dead the moment he departed the Capamento Base camp, he just didn't realize it yet.

~ Blue Jays ~
 
We can wait for Steve Poll, we can wait for an Eskimo, we can wait for the Snowman, the truth is the Premier, Grand Old Expert of this topic has already weighed in and is ashamed the man was left to die- Edmund Hillary. He knows a bit more about this than all of us.


munk
 
munk said:
We can wait for Steve Poll, we can wait for an Eskimo, we can wait for the Snowman, the truth is the Premier, Grand Old Expert of this topic has already weighed in and is ashamed the man was left to die- Edmund Hillary. He knows a bit more about this than all of us.


munk
Click to expand...

Well,............... I believe that to be yes "and" no.

"Yes", an opinion coming from a true expert has got a lot of weight to it.

But, "no" in the sense that oftentimes one will have many highly qualified experts weigh in and take different positions on any given matter.

It was surely a tough decision to make, (at least I hope it was), and I surely hope that their decision was based on serious safety considerations of the party, rather than for the reason of reaching some personal adventure goals.
 
JimmyJimenez said:
Let's just say for a moment here that your "practical question" above was the actual one used to determine whether or not they should try to save this one individual. If so,....... even if the climber was a totally dumb jerk for not being prepared, it would sure be cruel, inhumane, and extremely selfish to have let him die for those reasons (IMO).
Click to expand...

Would it be inhumane to discourage the inept and unprepared from climbing the big peaks? What if we all attempted Everest with the presumption that every climber on the mountain would run to our aid if we messed up? That would certainly lead to more deaths on these mountains.

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
Would it be inhumane to discourage the inept and unprepared from climbing the big peaks? What if we all attempted Everest with the presumption that every climber on the mountain would run to our aid if we messed up? That would certainly lead to more deaths on these mountains.

n2s
Click to expand...

I just can't see purposely making an example out of this guy by letting him die. In my own mind, I can't even relate to that kind of thinking. Sorry, that's just me.

But, if the guy could have been saved, and if he had recovered, I sure would have expected him to share his experience in a way that may possibly persuede others to not even attempt this useless goal.

Again, I'm one that feels that this particular thrill seeking is a useless venture for any rational human being,.............. but hey, that's just me ;)
 
I just can't see purposely making an example out of this guy by letting him die. In my own mind, I can't even relate to that kind of thinking. Sorry, that's just me.
Click to expand...

I am with you. I am just trying to look at this from different angles.

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
I am with you. I am just trying to look at this from different angles.

n2s
Click to expand...

I know what you mean.

As Munk had said earlier, this type of post truly makes you think real hard about things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top