As luck would have it, this time the climber was rescued - undoubtedly bad news for her “team”, who, it seems, would much have preferred a dead heroine to a living liability.
Fuckers. They left a 22-year old woman to die from exposure, because taking care of her would mean giving up their oh-so-freakin’-symbolic summit climb. Those weren’t tourist climbers at the edge of perishing in bad weather, either - one of them have been on the peak 14 times already, and at least one of them made it to the top, where he apparently took the opportunity to announce a book(!).
It was up to 3 sherpas and 4 western climbers with their resources depleted, coming down from the peak to get the rescue underway. But they acted like decent humans and did what had to be done - turns out she’ll be fine, apart from frostbit in two fingers and several toes.
Yeah, yeah - RO. But dammit - could someone please erase these bastards from the list of ascenders?
Is there any kind of argument, however nuanced or knowledgeable, that can reasonably be made in favour of abandoning someone in these particular circumstances? - That is, when there actually is something that could be done to save their life.
I don’t know this but my WAG is it’s a cultural thing. 25 years ago, a friend of mine described a trek through Nepal, where the same thing nearly happened. A native bearer was sick, the “professional” escorts (who were all natives) reactions was, “We leave him on the trail and go on. Maybe he makes it back, maybe not.” The westerners in the group made a fuss until they called in help.
I am of more ambiguous feelings about this. We are talking about a very harsh and poor landscape. These folks don’t have lots of resources to take care of people who can’t physically cut it.
And without seriously endangering the lives of the people in a position to have to make that decision. THAT is the heart of the problem Krakauer described. Even with oxygen and all that other great equipment, it’s still a major strain on your own body just to be there. And, even with oxygen, it’s hard work just to think up there.
Plus, there’s an understandable, albeit debatable, attitude of “They knew the risks when they came here. We all did. We all know we can die up here without being rescued or helped. This is just one of the unlucky ones.”
Plus a rescue in the Death Zone is nearly impossible under normal circumstances. It’s not like just walking someone back down a trail; there are apparently places where the climber just about has to be able to function on their own two feet to make it down the mountain.
The story says she was at 8400 meters, which is over 27,500 feet. That’s an altitude that, honestly, nobody can expect to be rescued from. I’ve done a lot of reading about it in the past couple of years, and that’s just a fact of life up on that mountain.
I’m glad she made it down, and I’m even more glad that none of her rescuers ended up putting themselves in serious trouble by helping her. Because a failed rescue attempt could have led to multiple deaths very, very easily.
Perhaps I misunderstand. I’m reading Rising Tide about the 1927 Mississippi River flood. Rescue from broken levees was dangerous. It would have been better to leave stranded people rather than risk a boat full of rescuers?
In some situations, yes. It seems awfully cold to be mathematical about it, but should 10 rescuers attempt something to rescue 1 person if it has a 25% chance of killing them all?
People who climb Everest know and assume the risks, one of which is a very real chance of death. Surely you see the difference between random people stranded behind failing levees and adventure seekers who take risks for their “sport.”
I think there’s more than a 25% chance of it killing all of them. These are incredibly harsh conditions, and at that altitude it’s about as much as anyone can do to hold themselves up, let alone another person.
Am I the only one to read two other (less) disturbing reports from Everest lately?
A guy turned back in his effort to be the first person to reach the summit. Wearing short pants. IS this what we are down to now? Around the world solo on a pogo stick? How depressing. No worlds left to conquer.
The Chinese just built a cell phone tower on their side. Now when you get to the top you can phone home. Freaking wonderful. Only a matter of time until Domino’s delivers up there.
If you read Into Thin Air you see the argument from both sides - they were almost incapable of rescuing themselves on the one hand, but on the other hand there was this one guy they left for dead twice who did make it off the mountain in the end with them, although he lost some fingers AIRC.
Okay, I have a question. Presumably, she started feeling ill before the party got into this Death Zone. And because it’s a taxing climb for everyone, would there have been a point at which climbers would be asked to decide if they wanted to go further, into an area where you either survived or didn’t, or turn back while they still could? Does anyone ever have the option of turning back?
you have the resources to attempt a rescue. And if you have the resources, you’re obligated to try.
Haven’t read Krakauer, but I’ve read plenty of other mountaineering/expedition literature. And I still can’t get behind the philosophy of leaving someone behind to continue up. If you have the resources to carry through with your summit attempt (at least one from her party did make the summit), you have an obligation to exhaust those resources on trying to save your team member. This is not a military mission where the fate of nations hang in the outcome. This is a freakin’ sport.
Leaving someone behind in bad weather when resources are low, you’re scrambling for safety and the team’s safety has to take priority is understandable. If anything, I pity whoever has to make a decision like that. However, that is demonstrably not what had happened here. These f*ckers had enough energy/resources/equipment to make the summit, but not to even attempt a rescue? Bugger that.
The rescuers, OTOH, were coming down from the peak - having expended more energy, more oxygen, more of their resources and more of their available time at high altitudes - and they still had the wherewithall and basic decency to at least give it a try. We’re spared the speculation as to rescue was feasible, because the woman was, in fact, rescued.
This was not a decision between team survival and a rescue attempt - that’s a hard decision. This was a decision between a rescue attempt and a summit attempt, and that shouldn’t be hard at all.
Everyone feels ill. The high altitude makes it almost impossible to eat without vomitting. You’re burning through water at a furious pace because of the dry air. It’s really fucking cold. Your body is consuming itself to keep going. If you can’t stand feeling miserable for weeks on end, high-altitude climbing is not for you.
The sort of people who climb Everest are very driven, more than most “normal” people can understand. They’re used to working through exhaustion and discomfort. So they’re going to tend to keep going when they really should stop, because they didn’t stop when they were doing this other thing and it turned out ok. I don’t think most climbers are asked if they want to go on, because the answer is an automatic “yes.”
People do have the option of turning around - even on Krakauer’s ascent, a couple of guys stayed at the high camp instead of going for the summit because it just didn’t feel right (one guy who was back for his third try). However, sometimes people don’t know when to stop. And if I read correctly, this woman was suffering from HACE (high-altitude cereberal edema) which means her decision making skills were severely impaired.
