[Closed] Corpses on Everest

j_me - Yes. Are you suggesting it's acceptable to leave the South Col in such a mess?

Are you suggesting that other people put there own lives in very real and significant danger, to clean it up? We're not talking a leisurely litter-pick along the side of a bridleway here..

In what screwed up world is the right thing to do staying and dying yourself? Get real.

Stiff upper lip!!

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.

The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.

Of course, the headline writers would have you believe these people walk on by without a thought, 99.9% will never have been in such a situation, never will be and their greatest risk to life will be their commute to work. Those doing things like climbing everest know and accept the risks, those viewing from a distance will not understand.

Anyone seen the TV documentary about a disabled NZ climber who summited Everest - he apparently passed a dying climber and didn't stop to help (neither did many others) but for some reason he got blamed for being callous and selfish. Seems a bit harsh to pick on the disabled guy!

That's not the understanding people have when they go up there though, normal rules don't apply.

Agree. The right thing for the person in trouble to do is to assume nobody will help, and watch his arse accordingly.

Nevertheless the position remains that the right thing to do for the person not in trouble is to help the person in difficulties. I'm not saying it's what [i]I[/i] would do - I don't know - but some morals are universal. When your own life is at stake - that's when they're [i]most[/i] relevant. Even if you know there's nothing you can do, the right thing to do is to die trying. A bit of moral clarity is needed here! I don't think one should change the goalposts as to what "the right thing" itself is, just because death is involved. If you're saying "the right thing" doesn't matter - well that's different, and maybe sustainable.

NB I agree that it looks like it's been overtaken by City types, the ones who ski in Verbier but don't actually do any skiing.

A question. Has there ever been a punchup on Everest? I would've thought so with all the jumped up corporate types, inflated egos there. Just like punchups between the partners at the office christmas party you know?

Are you suggesting that other people put there own lives in very real and significant danger, to clean it up? We're not talking a leisurely litter-pick along the side of a bridleway here..

Even if you know there's nothing you can do, the right thing to do is to die trying.

Only if there is some chance of succeeding - if you are only going to cause your own death and fail to help another it's pretty stupid. You also might then put others in the situation where they feel they should try and rescue you, thus putting them in danger too.

Nervously awaiting news from the SDW Expeditionary Force... 😐

Thats why im asking Coffeking, i have visions of this Naar fella sitting in his tent, cup of brew in his hand all snug in his sleeping bag like when he made the comment. I fully appreciate that is far from the truth, but on the face of it the decision to just let the guy get on die with no attempt to offer comfort seems a bit callous.

Grum, that sounds like lemmings!

Wunundred!

Still no news. 😐

As for the cleaning up, yes maybe fine around base camp but in the death zone it's not viable.

A related moral debate, possibly worthy of a separate thread:

if you're on a ride with a mate, a ride you've prepared for, trained for, mapped carefully, saved for; and this is your only chance to do it ; and your mate's bike breaks (possibly because he hasn't put the necessary cash/time into maintaining it) - and you're somewhere remote, say the Lakes - are you obliged to shepherd the guy back to the car park? Does this terminate your own ride?

Or can you say "bummer man, well, cya!" and ride on - even if [i]he doesn't offer to make his way home alone[/i].

My view is that if the guy has food, a phone, knows the way, etc., it's fine to leave him, but if the guy doesn't (as is likely), your ride ends too.

EDIT - actually my sense is that you have to stick with him pretty much. Right thing to do...again...so pick your riding buddies carefully...

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.

Yeah wondered about that after I'd written it. Thought 25000ft was possible?

It's ok saying it's natural to die all over the world but when the temperatures are so low they will still be there in 100 years. Still togged up in funky coloured lycra.

Climbing over piles of bodies may add to the challenge in the future?

What if, right, you were up there and you lost/damaged yer jacket, but found a corpse with a nice jacket on.

Ok to take it? I mean, it's not like they're going to need it...

I know I know. Poor taste. Sorry. 😳

Yeah those green boots are pretty rad actually. I'd have em.

If I died on Everest, or any high mountain - I'd hope they put my head on a stick! Gnar!

I'd take it.

It's a brotherhood isn't it?

As for the cleaning up, yes maybe fine around base camp but in the death zone it's not viable.

never be in that situation and will never understand the mentality of those who go there.

I'm not saying that I do but I don't think it's fair to judge people in such extreme circumstances from the comfort of your desktop. As said above, no one climbs Everest without an understanding of the associated risks. I don't think "comfort" is a word used much there.

I'd pretty much agree with this. It's not an excuse or licence for people to act like twunts but as others have said normal rules don't apply. I think in general there can be a pretty big gap between what people like to think they'd do in a particular situation and what they'd actually do when it comes to it, and if you add in all the other factors present in climbing at high altitudes then there's no point getting judgemental about how people behave. It's not as simple as saying they're all selfish b@stards (although of course some of them might be).

Even poorer taste.....

What you lost your food on the way up, and your pass one of the fallen climbers. Your climbing buddy says to you "I saw this film once, called Alive....."

[i]I'd like to know a little bit more about the situations where people have heard other climbers calling out for out for help and just left them. Any one care to enlightem me? The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.[/i]

If you click on the link below, click on 'look inside' and 'first pages' you can read one.

[url] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Shadows-Falling-Joe-Simpson/dp/0099756110 [/url]

Even poorer taste.....
200 dead bodies.....does that give it an extra 400ft?

I reckon if you venture up into the Everest death zone, you shouldn't and have no right be expecting anyone to rescue you if you are in trouble, and if you don't know that, well i doubt you've researched the expedition very well.

A question. Has there ever been a punchup on Everest? I would've thought so with all the jumped up corporate types, inflated egos there. Just like punchups between the partners at the office christmas party you know?

I'm not judging anyone - what I'm saying is that the rules, "the right thing" remains the same whatever your elevation. It has to. It is never "the right thing" to leave a dude dying.

You can decline to judge Naar for not doing the right thing, as I'm doing - give him a pass, given the circumstances - but that is completely different from saying he actually did the right thing, which is tantamount to saying "2+2=5". It's like when the CPS see a crime was committed but decline to prosecute in view of public interest considerations.

'Not viable' is not the same as 'not doable' 😉

How successful was the expedition I wonder? The last bit is probably a smart move.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that in the slightest. Not much experience of mountaineering but the closest example I can think of is general first aid, whitewater kayak rescue or lifesaving (swimming) where you are told time and again that you should not put yourself in unnescessary danger and your priority is to yourself first.

I would like to think that I would stay with someone or abandon my attempt to the summit to help* but I wouldn't stay there till my own death.

*This is the part I struggle with. I can understand that if you are on your absolute limit then stopping to help someone will be suicide. But if you are still going up when you pass someone then perhaps you could use some of that energy/oxygen to help the injured person down or even not abandon them.

I'd like to know a little bit more about the situations where people have heard other climbers calling out for out for help and just left them. Any one care to enlightem me? The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.

you are told time and again that you should not put yourself in unnescessary danger and your priority is to yourself first.

You are told that for insurance reasons, or whatever - not for moral reasons.

Besides "do as you're told" doesn't apply in ethical dilemmas, Nuremberg defence and all that. It always hacks me off on planes that they tell you to put your own mask on first before your kid's. It's your call, surely.

You are told that for insurance reasons, or whatever - not for moral reasons.

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

It always hacks me off on planes that they tell you to put your own mask on first before your kid's

There's a very good reason for that. It's to do with the effects of hypoxia on the brain. You become a giddy fool long before you die, so as the person in charge you need to retain your faculties more than the kids.

You might think it would be our call but we might not have all the facts. Which is why it's a good idea to follow instructions in many cases...

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

I'm sure most Everest types would say 'I don't need your opinion, I have my own!'

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

There seems to be two trains of thought here, the 'live and let live (or die)' and the 'I want to protect you from yourselves' people.

Thread run it's course?

[i]If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.[/i]

Quite right, so lets leave the last words to someone who has -

All I can say is that in our expedition there was never any likelihood whatsoever if one member of the party was incapacitated that we would just leave him to die

[url] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383276 [/url]

This BBC news article from 2006 states "The death rate has remained at one death for every ten successful attempts to climb Everest for many years"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5281344.stm

If those stats are correct and you climb Everest, you know that there is a chance you won't come back.

At the end of last year, 219 people had died, whilst climbing Everest.

In that link - the guy who died, Sharp, did he not have a party of his own?

I think theres a big difference between passing someone in danger on your ascent compared to your descent.

Passing someone on an ascent and not trying your hardest to help is digusting - considering you are planning to put yourself in more danger by going higher anyway.

Surely at that point, the want to help a another human being should override self interest, the need for glory and that you dont want to waste your £50 grand on the chance of saving someone.

I agree with Tim.

Human life is infinitely more precious than being able to brag about your exploits at dinner parties.

Most people would be more impressed to hear you'd saved a man's life on Everest than to hear about your successful summit bid.

if you're on a ride with a mate, ... are you obliged to shepherd the guy back to the car park? Does this terminate your own ride?

If they are capable of a long walk back, they can walk back alone. Unless they ask me to go back with them, in which case I would comply without complaint.

If they are [u]not[/u] capable then it makes no difference if they are friend or stranger, you go with them. It's only time and ambition you've sacrificed - it's nothing.

The only limitation is in situations where one might sacrifice ones life and that is a personal choice that can only be made at the time - neither choice is wrong.

Naar's, and similar situations are concerning because it seems like they could have done more to help without risking further loss of life. But the situation is hard to imagine from one's living room.

One must rely on the judgement of people who've been there. Joe Simpson and Simon Yates have been there and Joe is very clear in his opinion.

[i]One must rely on the judgement of people who've been there. Joe Simpson and Simon Yates have been there and Joe is very clear in his opinion. [/i]

Not having read the full text, what is Simpsons opinion?

---

found a synopsis...

[i]"We have no need of codes by which to judge our ethical response to situations. We know intuitively what is the correct way to behave." Passing by a dying man without even stopping to hold his hand is a terrible violation of this universal standard of humane conduct, and undercuts the very foundation of society."[/i]

"Fair enough" I think sums it up

That said didn't Yates and Simpson pretty much end up going to war (after having been amicable) when they returned to Peru to film the movie?

That quote by Simpson is the one that stands out from reading quite a few of his books.