So, you’re ascending Everest and at the start of the ‘Death Zone’, you encounter a stricken climber.
He or she is suffering frostbite, but would be mobile except for exhaustion and oxygen starvation.
If you abandon your attempt at the summit and share your oxygen and supplies there is (in this scenario) excellent probability that you can both make it back to the camp below, where further assistance can be rendered, and survival is very likely, but you’ll have to drop your plans to climb to the summit.
If you wish them well, and continue on your way, they will almost certainly perish, but you’ll have a good chance at climbing to the summit (well, subject to the normal risks, attrition, etc for this kind of venture)
You do not have sufficient supplies to give some away, and still continue upwards.
Even though the poll isn’t finished yet, I say give them assistance and try the summit again next time. It’s not worth someone dying over if you stand a reasonable chance of helping them just so you can say you made it to the top.
In the abstract situation where I could give up a personal goal to be guaranteed (or at least reasonably assured) that I would save someone’s life, that’s a no-brainer. The answer is obvious.
However, I am given to understand that attempting to rescue someone in the death zone is about as foolhardy as a single individual without any rescue equipment jumping into a freezing lake to save someone from drowning: that there is a very good probability that the rescuer and the person in distress will both die. If I were actually climbing Mt Everest, I would heed whatever caution the experts provide, and if I am recalling what I have read correctly, that would probably be to continue my ascent in order for me to survive.
ETA: so I’m answering continue on to the summit, because I believe the expectation of a rescue success as laid out by the OP is not realistic. I’m putting more stock into what I understand to be my own chances of survival of continuing on to the summit versus what I’ve frequently read would be a high chance of a suicide mission to save others.
Note that what you would do if you were rational differs greatly that what you are really going to do under the effects of high altitude. The old brain ain’t working quite right.
But yes, of course I’d like to think I’d render assistance.
While I virtually always agree with this sentiment, as has previously been mentioned, there’s a very good chance you will die trying to save someone up there. I was just reading about this the other day and it’s a very, very hard road.
Yes, in the case of a storm or something, where you might not get out either, I can see “it’s him or me, and if I try to rescue him, I am just reducing the chances of either of us getting out”. So, I can see if you are getting the fuck off the mountain, in fear for your own life- then sure, few are going to blame you for not risking your life. But that isn’t the case with the OP. He asks if would you continue your ASCENT, which means clearly you are in no danger, since if you were, you’d be descending.
Continuing your ascent is a horrible inhumane thing to do. At the very least, drop off what you can (without jeopardizing your own safety) , turn around and go back for help.
Again, I’m basing this on the fact that climbing Everest is a tremendously hazardous situation, and I have read in several places that attempting rescues in the death zone is extremely, extremely dangerous. I’m saying that I would prioritize my own life over attempting a rescue that would quite likely end up in all of us dying. I would take a similar approach to the question of whether I would run into a fusillade of bullets to attempt to rescue an innocent bystander, jump into raging flood waters to retrieve a drowning person, run unprepared into a flaming building in hopes of finding someone, etc.
I think the OP gives an unrealistic assumption about the ease of a rescue operation, so I am indeed fighting the hypothetical a bit. Between engaging in what would quite likely, in the real world, be a suicide rescue mission and continuing to the summit, I’m going to the summit.
As I said before, if the question was actually as simple as whether I’d trade off a personal achievement for the great likelihood of savings someone’s life, that decision doesn’t require a moment’s worth of thought. The answer is obvious.
If I were climbing Everest, I’d ignore the guy in distress and forge ahead. I think. Because in order to be climbing Everest in the first place I’d have to be an entirely different sort of person than I am.
This; you can’t bring him back to life. You can however have another crack at the summit.
I’d go so far as to call leaving a stricken climber when you can *easily *offer assistance (at the small cost of you reaching the summit) tantamount to manslaughter, if not outright murder.
Might we not muddy the waters by going on about how unlikely is the hypothetical?
For the purposes of this poll, let us assume that the details of the case are such that your chances of successfully aiding the other person are approximately the same as your own chances of survival if you continue to the summit and return.
Doesn’t matter how that is the case - maybe the climber only just this moment suffered some critical loss or failure of breathing equipment. Maybe the proximity to copious assistance is sufficient that rescue is feasible. Maybe whatever. There must be SOME scenario where the supplies you are carrying for your own descent are sufficient to attempt a rescue. This is that scenario.
Please dont ruin this thread by fighting the hypothetical
The summit is never guaranteed, nor is the return from it. But the summit isn’t going anywhere, it’ll be there for the rest or your or anyone else’s life. Save the other climber so that you can both live to try again.
I cannot imagine *any *scenario in which personal experience would outweigh callously walking away from someone who is in need of–and ostensibly within my power to grant–life-saving aid.
The notion that it’s Very Dangerous to help someone in the situation could temper that, but not in the OP’s scenario. You’re climbing Mt. Fucking Everest, so you’re starting with a pretty risky activity to begin with.
Hey Rhythm, if you stop and give this guy CPR, you’ll miss your chance to jam with Bob Weir, Greg Allman, David Gilmour and George Clinton!
*No, sorry, it will be very painful but CPR it is. *
Hey Rhythm, if you stop to put a tourniquet on that guy’s leg, you’re going to miss your chance to co-pilot the renewed space shuttle’s inaugural launch!
*Crap crap crap, I hope they’ll let me on as a passenger next time. *
Hey Rhythm, if you drive that guy to the hospital, the entire Swedish Women’s Volleyball team is going to get bored and leave your apartment. What hospital?
I picked “Render assistance” but should have chosen “Something else…”
Because my Something Else would have been: Why would I risk my life on such a macho stunt as climbing Everest? There’s Being The First–too late. And there’s Testing Myself–but a long hike on a civilized hill would make more sense to me–less chance of death, money expended & damage to the environment…
In that case there’s no question about my choice, it would be to render aid.
The reality is that this scenario is extremely rare. Doing anything except taking care of yourself is extremely difficult if you’re not a Sherpa or one of a few exceptional individuals. And that’s assuming your brain is working well enough to think the situation through.
Your scenario appears to be based on the controversial case of David Sharp, who died on Everest after numerous other climbers passed him by without offering substantial assistance to him. It must be noted that in Sharp’s case, the reality is that trying to help someone like him descend from the death zone likely would have been fatal for all involved.
In your hypothetical scenario - in which survival of all involved is likely if the summit attempt is forfeited and instead aid is rendered - the answer seems obvious. Anyone who would fail to render aid in this scenario is not acting out of a sense of self-preservation; they are behaving like a selfish narcissist, placing their need to reach the summit above the need for someone else to live.