I can’t think of a single scenario where reaching the summit would be more important than saving a life. Or even just helping someone in dire straits.
Edit…given the situation KNOWING there was nothing I could do to help, I’d do what I could to attract attention, radio in, etc., and at the least stay with them until they did die. THEN I’d carry on, and probably bring something of the dead climber’s to post on top. You know, just…'cause.
I mean, come on. It’s Everest. So freaking what? Not like it’s never been climbed before.
Edit again: On top of which, there is no victory I could gain by reaching the top that would outweigh the guilt I’d feel for for the rest of my LIFE for not at least trying to help. Can you imagine? No thanks. Do not want.
Millionth edit: Or hey, maybe I’d have a brain, and actually head BACK DOWN TO GET HELP if nothing else was feasible. What a concept.
Taomist, I don’t know if you’ve read or watched much about Everest or even read this thread but:
1/ they have radios. I think the brainy thing to do would be to radio, not walk down
2/ there is no rescue team standing by to give help and there is no easy way to get to where you are, up in the death zone. If you are there, you are probably in better shape to give help as anyone lower down.
I should add to my last post that I think that in the Lincoln Hall situation I would help. I think that’s what I would feel I had to do for reasons outlined by others. I’m just not sure it is entirely unjustifiable to feel (and perhaps even more, to think) otherwise.
How true.
I know the old adage about why people climb mountains is “because it is there”, but this is insane.
To spend $30,000-100,000 to climb a mountain, and not even be the first to do so, is ridiculous enough from a financial standpoint.
To risk your life doing so is certainly your perogative, but I think it is a safe bet to say most people will think you’re nuts.
But to knowingly saunter past others in the throws of death, or climb over littered bodies along the way - well, now you are a ruthless, callous, unethical, heartless human being. Just so you can brag to others you got to the top and took a picture of a rock tit covered with snow and surrounded by fog?
Yeah, that is worth stepping over dead bodies. You should feel real proud…
From everything I’ve read, Up above camp 4, stopping to stay with some is essentially choosing to die with them. You have to keep moving until you’re back in your sleeping bag in your tent.
But 99.999 percent of the time, there isn’t any help. The very few people that might be in your range to go and get are already on the edge of death themselves. Anyone that’s in camp either wasn’t in the shape to be able to go up in the first place, or is blown out having made it back.
The Lincoln Hall rescue was a best case scenario. He was an ambulatory victim below the technical climbing and it still took sixteen people going all out to get him down. Having that many people nearby with any energy to give is a once in approximately never situation.
Yeah, so this OP makes the thread rather terrible. We can’t be sure whether someone is answering the actual hypothetical (i.e., where there’s an “excellent probability” of both making it back to camp) or answering based on knowledge of how these scenarios tend to play out in the real world (i.e., there’s an excellent probability that helping the other person just increases the body count).
Yup, that was my impression as well. You have to keep moving to keep from freezing solid. You have to keep moving to keep your body from saying ‘I quit’. You’re on a time limit with oxygen and the weather. Imagine trying to complete a very technical climb while fighting off a migraine and wearing a space suit that doesn’t have enough oxygen on the day after completing an iron man triathlon, and you’re starting to get the picture.
It’s true to say that climbers passed David Sharp when he was dying and didn’t help him, and I agree that it’s morally reprehensible. It’s also a vast oversimplification.
From what I’m reading the practical situation was such that he was a dead man who just hadn’t stopped breathing yet. I understand that the idea of leaving someone to die in that situation just goes against the grain of all normal thinking but the situation in the death zone is so outside of our normal experience that I am not sure normal thinking applies. Logically how is it morally reprehensible to sacrifice yourself in order to offer no real help? The more so in a situation where the dying guy would have known damn well what the score was before he started climbing (he was experienced).
Sure, we might. Ignoring reality in favor of an unlikely hypothetical seems like a pretty silly academic execise, though. I’m sure you could think of a better one. Ravenman was the first to point it out, but the reality of the situation is that you are putting your life at great risk for very poor odds of rescuing a distressed climber at the upper elevations. Should we make mountain climbing rules?
“You’re not oblibated to risk your life, but you can’t ascend above a distressed climber until after they’ve died. You can wait it out or descend. You can do jumping jacks to keep warm, but you can’t pass them if they still have a pulse.”
The bottom line is that the distressed climber took on the risk of death when he got on the plane from his home town. Nobody climbs Everest on a whim. For all intents and purposes, by the time you reach them in the upper elevations, if they are significantly distressed, they are dead. If you don’t have anything to stick around for, feel free to die of attempted heroism. Me? I’m here to summit and even if I don’t, I’d prefer to go home alive. Sorry, brother.
From everything I’ve read - and I’ve read a lot of books about ascending Everest - this part of the hypothetical is highly unlikely. It’s not just you, it’s your entire team who are going put in jeopardy by going off-plan. And if you’re going to have to ignore the distressed climber anyway, it makes no difference whether you ascend or descend without them. Even though morally I can’t get my head round it, I think Rand Rover has nailed it.
I should clarify my statement to make sure we’re in agreement. The reason I said that I’m sure you could think of a better hypothetical is because I think the crux of your question is:
“Would you sacrifice the life of another person in favor of a world renowned physical achievement?”
I don’t think Everest is a fair scenario for your question, because of the inherent danger to one’s own life in a rescue attempt at altitude on Everest. You can make it a hypothetical condition that the helper’s survival is assured, but it’s not realistic. It’s just a bad hypothetical because it bears no resemblance to reality. It fails to resonate with most people as a possible hypothetical, if there is such a thing, because your premise is absurd.
If we’re going to evaluate it from that standpoint, a lot of endeavors aren’t worthwhile. I’m not sure why it would be worthwhile financially even if you were the first person to climb it. It’s a bunch of rocks and ice. What it represents doesn’t have much to do with money or whether you’re the 100th or 10,00th person to do it.
If we’re talking about people who are already long dead (which is what you see in the photos), it says nothing about the ethics of anybody climbing the mountain. That’s absurd. If you climbed Everest tomorrow, you wouldn’t be responsible for someone who died there 50 years ago. And unfortunately there’s little realistic possibility of getting those bodies down - people have died trying, and most us would agree that sacrificing live people to recover a corpse actually is unethical.