Today's ethical dilemma brought to by Mt. Everest and a man with no legs.

[glee]

I am not a climber.

But if I were climbing a mountain purely for personal glory, and I met a dying man, I would abandon my attempt.
If he’s too far gone to rescue, then simply stay with him as long as possible.

I would rather be a decent man who cared about my fellow humans than ‘someone who climbed Everest’.

[Waenara]

@Sailboat

It seems to me that the case of Beck Weathers, mentioned already in this thread, puts the lie to the claim that someone disabled on Everest is automatically irretrievable. Weathers was abandoned three times by his expedition and yet lived.

Beck Weathers could also walk, albeit needing assistance.

As mentioned earlier, a sherpa tried for an hour to get this man to stand, and he couldn’t do so, even leaning on someone.

[Waenara]

I found this excellent article about the risks mountaineers accept.

I make no claim to have the right answers to questions of risk and responsibility. I would argue no such answers exist. But I can offer you my understanding, born of close association with high risk and death in the mountains. I was on the South side of Everest in 1996. Eleven people died, including one of my team, Bruce. I was on the North side of Everest in 1998. Four people died, including one woman who we, together with an Uzbeck team, tried to save, and failed to.

There is no set line, dividing the acceptable from the suicidal. We each create a line for ourselves. To the average man walking his dog along the beachfront, clinging to vertical rockfaces by fingers and toes is a highly dubious activity, both pointless and dangerous. To the rockclimber, however, the situation is both challenging and enjoyable. It is not completely safe. Experienced South African rock climbers have been killed (Gill Graafland and Erwin Muller). But that small degree of risk is an acceptable price for that experience.

In the world’s remote corners there are no rescue teams, no helicopters, no telephones. A climber is dependent solely on him or herself and his or her team mates. And once he or she becomes immobile, by and large it’s over. Even the most horrifically injured in the great storm of 1996, Beck Weathers and Makalu Gau, had to walk themselves down from 8000 metres to 6000 metres, where a helicopter could reach them.

Whose choice is risk in the end? Is it not that of the person who goes out to do it? We live in a blame society, which demands explanations and accountability, finding scapegoats if necessary. If I walk on the narrow edges of life, I do it because I choose to. If that edge breaks under me, I accept that as a consequence of my choice. I cannot blame others for what happened. Nor do I expect that those who accompany me on that edge, if they do, should carry blame for my decisions. I make a choice and I live or die by it. Death is not the intention, but is accepted as being a possibility, given the risk of the activity. Don’t pillory my companions for my choices. I am simply glad they were there to accompany me as far as they could.

[Enginerd]

@Trunk

One gets the feeling that while it’s still extremely dangerous, you don’t need to be in amazing physical condition.

One could not be more wrong.

@King of Soup

[in response to Broomstick’s “…No, giving assistance would have GREATLY increased the risk to the other climbers at that altitude.”:

So, according to some posters who seem to know, would the decision to continue to the top, or pretty much any course of action other than turning back immediately, David Sharp or no David Sharp. The choice not to accept the risk for the sake of (if rescue was out of the question) not abandoning a dying man, but to cheerfully spin the wheel for the sake of self-aggrandizement, does not speak with the voice of a rational calculus designed to maximize safety: nothing in that place could. It merely proclaims a hierarchy of things for which one is willing to undergo extreme hardship and danger, with ego at the top and everything else somewhere down the list.

I don’t understand the insistence that the risks of rescue and continuing are equivalent. They simply aren’t. Continuing is something you’ve trained for for years, you’ve planned extensively for and you’re equipped for. It’s risky, yes, but it’s a risk you’ved carefully considered and already accepted. Statistically, you’ve got a 20% chance of fying on the mountain, but you’ve accepted that and done as much as you can to minimize it.

Attempting a rescue at 26,000 feet is a whole different animal. Keep in mind what Drachillix posted earlier - it’s a rescue that would be difficult and dangerous for well-equipped, well-trained rescue crews at sea level. You haven’t trained for it, you don’t have the right equipment, you’re exhausted, and the chance that you’ll be able to pull it off successfully is vanishingly small. If you try, you’re upping your chance of death from 20% to, say 75%. It’s absurd to expect somebody to do that.

So you’re left with the choice of turning back or continuing. I would turn around - seeing somebody die on a mountain I was attempting would ruin my day and shatter my confidence. But I understand why someone would choose to continue.

I’ll also echo Telemark’s comments on the differences between climbing in Hillary’s day and contemporary climbing. He (she?) is right in saying that Hillary wouldn’t have ever been in this situation. Climbers today approach the 8,000 meter peaks very differently. Like Telemark, I don’t think the approach is a good one, and I wouldn’t participate if if I were a strong enough climber. But it’s the nature of the sport today. I doubt any climber on Everest this season, Sharp included, has gotten as far as they have without losing at least one friend to the mountains. As heartless and mercenary as it sounds, they all know what they’re getting themselves into.

@glee

But if I were climbing a mountain purely for personal glory, and I met a dying man, I would abandon my attempt. If he’s too far gone to rescue, then simply stay with him as long as possible.

You can’t. If you don’t keep moving to keep yourself warm, you’ll die too.

[holmes]

Weathers walked on his own, after they left him to die. He didn’t. Now it may be that Weathers had that extra thing that few of us have and pushed back the reaper, but clearly his teammates didn’t know that. They left him…had they brought him back with them and treated him better, who knows how lesser his injuries may have been?

The wrongness of the choice is underlined by the fact that Beck Weathers came back to life and walked into camp by himself eight hours later. And then the party abandoned him again! He was bundled into sleeping bags, given hot water bottles—and left in a tent by himself.

Everyone assumed he would die in the night, but no-one attempted to keep him alive by sharing the tent with him. In fact, the group started to leave in the morning without even checking on Weathers, and by Krakauer’s account, he (bringing up the rear) looked into Weathers’ tent to pay his last respects. And found him still alive, though the tent had come open, and his sleeping bags had come off. “He’d been screaming for help for two or three hours, but the storm had smothered his cries.”

As it happens, Weathers survived, maimed by frostbite (he lost his right arm, left hand, and his nose). This remarkable man was able to walk down the mountain to a point where he could be evacuated by helicopter. In fact, he is the only surviving hero of a sorry expedition—the man who was abandoned not once but three times by his companions, and lived because he wanted to so badly.

Now maybe Sharp didn’t have what takes to will himself to live, but damn at least give the guy a fighting chance.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@holmes

Now maybe Sharp didn’t have what takes to will himself to live, but damn at least give the guy a fighting chance.

What do you propose they should have done?

[Enginerd]

@holmes

Now maybe Sharp didn’t have what takes to will himself to live, but damn at least give the guy a fighting chance.

Ok. How?

It’s been mentioned several times that, while Weathers could walk, Sharp was incapable of even standing on his own. What can you do to help someone at 26,000 feet who can’t help himself?

If you want to talk about Weathers’ group in '96, I’ll fully agree that they made some awful decisions and the their ethics were lacking. I just don’t see the parallels between Weathers and Sharp.

[holmes]

I don’t know, maybe instead of one guy trying to carry him on his shoulder, perhaps few could’ve taken turns. I don’t know.

I realize I’m arm-chairing here, but I look at the type of people Sir Edmund and his group were. I look at what Weathers had to endure, because his team walked away and I have to wonder…was a matter of, “If we help Sharp, we die” or “Sharp’s a fool, I don’t know him and I’m not risking my chance to climb for him; he’s gonna die anyway…”

And that’s something, that no armchair can answer…it just makes me sick to wonder that Sharp may have at least been given more of a chance if the men of old, had been there. It makes me wonder, what have we lost of ourselves over the past 50 years; I know our fathers and grandfathers make mistakes…but geez.

And that’s the stuff of another thread.

[even_sven]

@Broomstick

As I pointed out in an earlier post, those who tried to render assistance and comfort in 1996 to downed climbers all died - and they were some of the most able and experienced people on the mountain.

In a freak blizzard, after summitting, with nearly everyone injured, and well after all of them had been on the mountain far too long. 1996 was a perfect storm scenerio where nearly everything that can go wrong did, not the many fairly normal days on Everest where a parade of people summit with little difficulty. As has been mentioned before, Inglis was prepared physically and supply-wise to be on the mountain for at least twelve more hours.

Also note that the majority of deaths on the mountain happened before modern equpitment and routes. Plenty of people still die up there, but I’m pretty sure the 20% figure being batted around is averaging in deaths that happened in a much different era.

You can read the entire article that inspired the book here . It’s also worth noting the many critiques and additions.

There sherpas that tried to get the guy to stand should be given a medal or something. At least someone has some human decency (and no, we can’t act like the sherpas are just an extension of Inglis.)

[Enginerd]

@Siege

Other people in this thread have mentioned Into Thin Air by Jan Krakauer, and I’ll second this recommendation. Here’s the article which led to the book. It brings it home just how difficult it is climbing Mount Everest and what conditions are like. If I hadn’t read it, I’d be among those saying someone should have saved him. Since I have, I’m simply not sure.

There’s another book about that season as well - Climb, by Anatoli Boukreev. His account is at odds in places with Krakauer’s. If you’ve read Into Thin Air, this one’s worth reading too.

[holmes]

@Enginerd

Ok. How?

It’s been mentioned several times that, while Weathers could walk, Sharp was incapable of even standing on his own. What can you do to help someone at 26,000 feet who can’t help himself?.

“If it hadn’t have been for the efforts of Jamie McGuinness and two Sherpas who managed to walk the member all the way from the summit of Mount Everest, this person would not have survived,” said Parmenter, who has been running the Aspen Aerogels team.

I don’t know if these are comparable, but clearly it can be done.

Walking guy down mountain

[Enginerd]

@holmes

And that’s something, that no armchair can answer…it just makes me sick to wonder that Sharp may have at least been given more of a chance if the men of old, had been there. It makes me wonder, what have we lost of ourselves over the past 50 years; I know our fathers and grandfathers make mistakes…but geez.

As Telemark noted earlier, this kind of situation would never have happened with Hillary’s team. When they were on Everest, the idea of climbing the peak solo was unheard of. They went as a team; everyone looked out for each other, and everyone was concerned about their supplies and equipment. One person’s safety was everyone’s safety.

Still, what could they have done if they had run across an incapacitated climber at 26,000 feet? The expedition as a whole had more equipment than most contemporary climbing teams do, but they still pushed for the summit in two man teams. If Hillary and Tenzing Norgay had come across Sharp, would they have been any more capable (I don’t think wiling is the question) of helping him than Inglis was?

[lieu]

@holmes

…it just makes me sick to wonder that Sharp may have at least been given more of a chance if the men of old, had been there. It makes me wonder, what have we lost of ourselves over the past 50 years…

Thankfully for those “men of old”, the routes back then weren’t made more treacherous by significant numbers of inexperienced, unqualified climbers. I wonder if it’s no so much “what we have lost” than what we have gained.

If Sharp, unqualified as he was, had at least hired a guide, someone would have been there that could have prevented him from pushing too far and/or been there to assist him when such help would have still been usable, not the next day after he was beyond help and near death.

[Enginerd]

@even sven

In a freak blizzard, after summitting, with nearly everyone injured, and well after all of them had been on the mountain far too long. 1996 was a perfect storm scenerio where nearly everything that can go wrong did, not the many fairly normal days on Everest where a parade of people summit with little difficulty. As has been mentioned before, Inglis was prepared physically and supply-wise to be on the mountain for at least twelve more hours.

Nobody ever summits Everest with little difficulty.

[holmes]

I think that’s what’s bugging me, is it a matter of being capable or not caring? I can see Sir Edmund letting the mountain go and at least trying as the lone sherpa did to help Sharp and that’s enough…even if the guy’s going to die, he wasn’t dead yet.

They saw Sharp for two days. They walked pass the guy for two days, getting worse and worse…what if they tried the first time they saw him? I don’t know when in the timeline the sherpa trying to help…was it the first or second day? Brice tells them not to bother giving the guy O2, cause he’s already “dead”…like Weathers was “dead”.

Again, I don’t know…

In a separate report to ExplorersWeb, McGuinness also commented on the controversial death of Briton David Sharp, who apparently summitted on May 14, but ran out of oxygen on the way down, and over the next two days was seen in various states of confusion and distress.

This goes beyond Inglis.

[Diceman]

@The King of Soup

As I said, I’m not pointing at anyone shouting “J’accuse!” But I do think that the whole stupid game, requiring the willing sacrifice of a large percentage of its participants and prohibiting any exercise of humanity by the rest, is abhorrent. It’s entering a lottery wherein the outcome can be either brief notoriety or horrible death. The fact that some people will volunteer for it, knowing that the best outcome is to climb over the bodies of their fellows for the prize, doesn’t do much to redeem it.

I’m starting to agree with this opinion. Climbing Everest is like some sort of modern-day gladiator contest. The losers die, and the victors get a brief moment of glory before they go back out to see if they can cheat death again. And I’m standing back, wondering “Why?”

[Telemark]

@Diceman

I’m starting to agree with this opinion. Climbing Everest is like some sort of modern-day gladiator contest. The losers die, and the victors get a brief moment of glory before they go back out to see if they can cheat death again. And I’m standing back, wondering “Why?”

It’s what people do. There is the saying “There are old climbers, and there are bold climbers, but there are no old, bold climbers.” If you keep doing it, you will die, it’s simply a matter of the odds.

Which is why I have amazing respect for Ed Vesteurs who has summitted all 8,000 meter peaks without oxygen and managed to do so without taking risks beyond what was necessary. He turned around on many attempts before waiting until things were just right. He’s helped dozens of other climbers in trouble, and managed to survive it all. He chose this as his profession, and his calling.

Many folks get fixated on getting to the top (summit fever) and it causes problems at all elevations. It’s caused many deaths in the White Mountains of NH (top elevation 6,288’) where people push on in the face of 100 MPH winds and temps of -20. Any sane person would turn around and descend, but some folks push on. Most of them survive, some get frostbite and hypothermia, a few die. And even down in these lowly elevations it is sometimes necessary to abandon people who are no longer capable of moving on their own in order to save your own life. I’ve never heard of someone abandoning a partner (or stranger) and continuing to the summit down here, however.

As I said earlier, it’s not a game I choose to play, but I can respect those who do. My “game” is much tamer, but certainly not without risk. There is weather, avalanche, and injury to deal with at times but I accept that risk and wouldn’t want anyone telling me that I couldn’t keep hiking/skiing. It’s not for everyone, and that’s a good thing. It’d get too crowded up there for my tastes.

BTW, I’m a “he”.

[Trunk]

@Enginerd

One could not be more wrong.

Maybe our definitions of “amazing” differ because I wouldn’t use that word for anyone who is

1. Blind

or

2. A double amputee

or

3. At the age of 70

[drachillix]

@Enginerd

Attempting a rescue at 26,000 feet is a whole different animal. Keep in mind what Drachillix posted earlier - it’s a rescue that would be difficult and dangerous for well-equipped, well-trained rescue crews at sea level. You haven’t trained for it, you don’t have the right equipment, you’re exhausted, and the chance that you’ll be able to pull it off successfully is vanishingly small.

My training focused on things like car in a steep ravine or injured window washer hanging by his safety lines. Almost all of these scenarios also allow for safety lines and or rescuers to approach from above. I would be totally out of my league if it was much more than a mild spring rain let alone heavy snow, sub zero temperatures, and 40+mph winds.

Everest rescue scenarios are capable of being safely handled by probably only a handful of specialized teams in the world.

[wevets]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems like the other incredible tasks people take on in environments as inhospitable as Everest or more inhospitable include a code of straining human capability to the limit: the space program has never had astronauts in a situation where a rescue mission could be launched in sufficient time, but submariners have suffered a number of disasters where extreme rescues were required: the Kursk, the USS F4 both saw people working hard to save those on the bottom, despite low chances of success. In the F4 incident, Navy divers exceeded the depth records of the time, going where no one had gone before, aware of both the danger and difficulty of what they were doing and that no-one had ever successfully rescued submariners at the time.

I’m very impressed with the work astronauts and submariners do to limit their risk and take care of members of their professions regardless of nationality and whether they’re members of the same expedition or not. I’m not impressed with the work Everest climbers have done in the same arena.
I have yet to read the links Seige and Waenara posted, but I’m really confused about how one can get a double amputee up and down the mountain, but not get an incapacitated person down.