There’s a word for people who’d sooner climb a mountain than help a fellow human being - “scum”. It’s got to the stage where there’s a story like this every few months. If conditions are so appalling at the top of Everest and similar peaks that a decision to leave a human being to die is even entertained, then a) additional supplies for such an eventuality should be packed as a matter of course, and if this means you aren’t strong enough to reach the peak, tough shit, and b) the decision to climb such a mountain in the first place should be cause for sectioning in a mental institute.
It’s not as if this is a universally accepted practice in the mountaineering community, either. The irony being Hilary had a lot more to lose than anyone climbing the mountain today.
One way to look at this is your first responsibility is your personal safety, you are not under any obligation to put yourself in a life and death situation way to rescue another. ANY rescue at that altitude and conditions IS putting yourself in such a situation.
As for having the resources for the summit attempt, why not, your there already, may as well go on.
I think I’ve pretty much beaten this to death, and I don’t follow racing, but since it’s the Indy 500 weekend…I don’t actually recall other drivers stopping to help when a fellow racer crashes. It seems to be considered part of the risk and the rest simply continue jockeying for position under a set of flag rules or something which has been previously agreed upon.
The rescue efforts are undertaken by outside agencies set up in advance, understood in advance, and specifically designed to minimize risk. If they were not in place, it’s entirely possible some drivers would choose not to race. All racers are part of a larger organization, and racing is undertaken in the context of that. It is not considered unkosher, as far as I know, to continue racing rather than stopping to help…
In the case of Everest climbers, individuals and teams are there to pit themselves against the mountain. Some choose to stop and help others; some choose to be responsible only for themselves. All have made the decision to risk their lives for the goal of summiting. They are under no obligation to have risked their life in pursuit of a goal only to have that opportunity discarded for the sake of someone else who did not solicit their prior agreement to be there. From what I have read of Everest in particular, there are many marginally competent climbers and it is a source of frustration for competent ones to have their expeditions risked by amateurs who don’t belong there.
I am not saying her own party should or should not have stopped. I am saying only that if there was a prior agreement not to sacrifice the team conquest of the summit for a failing individual, it is fine to stick to that agreement since she would have undertaken that risk willingly.
I understand the general argument that there is a “mountaineering community” operating under some sort of understood mutual aid standard. Very noble-sounding indeed. Members who agree to that code, wherever it is, should abide by it. There are many who climb Everest who are uninterested in such a code, would not have risked their lives to climb Everest if they had to abide by it, and are uninterested in helping others. They are free to live and die by their own personal code.
Put whatever label you want on this latter category, including “scum.” Others would label all Everest climbers (including Hillary) “glory-seeking risk-taking idiot daredevils.” The question of whether or not one is obligated to stop and help does not hinge on someone else’s opinion of a personal code or whether or not you should be doing it in the first place.
How big a deal is it really to even climb Mt. Everest anymore? It sounds like it’s pretty much Grand Central Station up there these days. Everey time I read it a story about it, it sounds like there’s a constant parade of teams climbing up and down the hill and occasionally abandoning team members by the wayside. The summit must be pretty badly littered as well with all the stupid flags and other “symbolic” crap that those idiots hump up there.
I wonder if the climbers that rescued this woman would have bothered if they hadn’t already summited and had their macho bragging rights wrapped up.
There are any number of social groups and organizations that have ethical standards markedly different from my own. That does not usually give them an automatic exemption from criticism for their actions, even if those actions are consistent with the group’s predefined ethical standard.
My opinion of whether someone is obligated to stop and help does not hinge in the least on the climber’s personal code. I couldn’t give a shit less about their [del]selfish, whiny excuses[/del] personal code. I am free to form moral opinions about them without any consideration whatever of their asinine "code.
It is extremely littered with all sorts of crap. Empty oxygen containers are just dumped and the base camp areas on the upper mountain are covered in all sorts of crap (the lower mountain is picked clean by yak drivers and has been tidied by the China Tibet Mountaineering Association because it was way out of hand). However, it is getting better in that respect because there is now a bounty for old oxygen cylinders.
Something like Everest is really not an adventure I’d want to undertake. Any inexperienced newbie with $20,000 can hire someone to practically drag them up there.
When someone’s life is in danger, and you can help them without putting your own life at risk, you help them. That’s part of the code for being a human being, which supercedes all other codes.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is.