Forum menu
In that link - the guy who died, Sharp, did he not have a party of his own?
iirc he was trying to summit on his own. It was the fact over 40 climbers passed him (twice)
shotsaway - Member
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.
That's the same when climbing any decent mountain. The chance of not coming back may not always be that high, but it's often significant if you climb in a serious mountain environment/difficult routes. It's part of the attraction at some level.
[Titter] Glupton chucks in 6500m willy wave in context of 8800m discussion [/titter]
Difficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard... mountaineering is a selfish sport, commercial mountaineering just more so.
Reading up on some of the cretins who buy their way up there, why would you 'risk all' to help never mind risk a summit bid?
They accept the risks when they buy the ticket.
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.
The right thing to od is leave them to die [i]and not tell anybody[/i] how black the centre of your soul is...
Climbing over piles of bodies may add to the challenge in the future?
I don't really think you can say you've climbed it unless you've carried a corpse back down with you.
AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.
Now that sounds like a challenge...
Difficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard..
New round here are you?
Simpsons quote pretty much sums my feelings on the matter, going back to the Naar example, did he communicate with the dying man at all?
Not sure but i think the David Sharp fella was a from New forest area. Sure my hairdresser knew him.
avdave2 - MemberDifficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard..
New round here are you?
Nope, long before you sonny 🙂
"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."
Bullseye
They accept the risks when they buy the ticket.
Disagree. This debate is not about them. It's about YOU and your reaction when you pass them.
It's an interesting one though. Despite all my bleating, I would not jump on a live set of train tracks to grab a drunk who'd fallen onto it. So I agree that there IS a limit, i.e. here, where the person has WILLFULLY put themselves at risk and where death is pretty much CERTAIN. So maybe it's a bit more grey than I've been saying. On paper I guess this scenario looks similar to those described above but somehow it's different.
Nope, long before you sonny
Well your moralising must be much righter than mine then. 🙂
jhw - MemberThey accept the risks when they buy the ticket.
Disagree. This debate is not about them. It's about YOU and your reaction when you pass them.
You missed this then
[i]Reading up on some of the cretins who buy their way up there, why would you 'risk all' to help never mind risk a summit bid?[/i]
I'm a climber, I would (and have though not on Everest) gladly help other climbers if I could (and it didn't make matters worse i.e. risk more death...).
I wouldn't however risk my neck for a bunch of idiotic socialites out of their depth. They have their guides/sherpas for that. Risk goes with the territory for both the idiotic client and the guides who happily take their money.
It's commercial climbing. Normal rules of engagement don't apply.
On that basis I guess the answer (to avoid having to distinguish between the "climbers" and the "socialites", a distinction I don't fully understand...) is just to go places where there aren't muppets and avoid Everest full stop
Quite right, so lets leave the last words to someone who has -
This was the story I referred to earlier - why is that the guy with no legs got picked on for not helping?
Interesting thread, initially, then I came across this intellectual gem: "I do not have more respect for a nurse.
I don't think many choose that job out of altruism - it's just like any other job, and most are $hits."
So tell me, jhw, what research did you carry out in order to come to this conclusion? Did you meet, interview and get to know EVERY nurse in the UK in order to deduce that they are mostly, as you state, shits? I dont recall you asking me, but then again, I might have been on days off when you came to the unit I work on. Then again, you may just be a bit of a tit - who knows?
It's commercial climbing. Normal rules of engagement don't apply
Interesting!
What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality? Perhaps if they are foreigners, or a race you don't like, or it's a business competitor, or...
Explain why "climbing" is so special that it's excused the normal morality of assisting and comforting a fellow human in jeopardy?
Explain why "climbing" is so special that it's excused the normal morality of assisting and comforting a fellow human in jeopardy?
I think that's more of a "everyone's trying to survive, it's every man for himself" which applies in a few circumstances. Just because it's slow and not a danger that presents itself in a bus-coming-at-you sort of way, doesn't make it much different.
Plus I think we're confusing people who've been left despite being rescueable with those who've been left because there's nothing the others can do so no point trying.
Did you meet, interview and get to know EVERY nurse in the UK in order to deduce that they are mostly, as you state, shits?
I read it as the jobs, not the people, could be my reading though! Think his point was that most people do the job for the cash, not for the fun of doing the job.
Without wanting to be overly dramatic, climbing (like some other extreme sports) can literally be death defying and people have made the choice to, errr, do the defying. They've weighed up the pros and cons and paid their dues...
If someone sane but stupid willfully put themselves at risk (by running back and forth accross the M1 for instance), would you consider it your 'humane duty' to go into the live traffic and stop them?
The nurse comment was just silly and deserved ignoring.
What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality?
Pretty much any commercial enterprise, especally in less developed countries - Phillipino sweatshops, Tesco bullying it's way into new developments, Coca Cola "disappearing" union reps in Central America, Trump's golf course in Aberdeenshire. Wh should climbing be different? people with money want to do something, they're spending money fek anyone else. You'll need someone else to explain why it's right, I don't know, but it happens the world over.
BBSB, are you saying that's all OK?
This genuinely made me laugh 🙂
"Pretty much any commercial enterprise, especally in less developed countries"
Then
"Trump's golf course in Aberdeenshire"
What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality? Perhaps if they are foreigners, or a race you don't like, or it's a business competitor, or...
Neat. Disagree with someone's opinion, imply they are racist. I'll have to remember that one.
I don't have much climbing experience, but I have done the outdoor first aid course which focuses on situations similar (although not as severe) as ones being mentioned. First rule, if there is danger to yourself in any way, you don't go near the casualty.
If someone is on Everest and is in such trouble that there is a 100% chance of them dying, even if I could sit by them and chat about the good ol' times and ask if they want to send a message to their kids/partners/parents/friends/etc. with no risk at all to myself, the logical thing is not to. Because you will get attached to them. And then the next step is trying to help someone who can't be helped. And of course, the next step is you dying too.
Or you get attached to them, and then you have to leave them to die. It's much easier to leave someone who you can tell yourself was an idiot who shouldn't have come up then Andy, father of two, who studied the same subject as you at uni.
Ok, you may make their last 20 minutes on earth slightly less gut wrenchingly awful, but at the price of a hell of a lot of guilt and "what if I.." thoughts. Not worth it, that could haunt you forever.
The ones that dealt with my mum after her heart attack were $hits!
OK, I digress . I just find it difficult to accept that a nurse, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a charity administrator is [i]inherently[/i] a more virtuous person than a banker, a lawyer, or an accountant, by virtue of their career choice. It's an assumption I see a lot, and I don't buy it. They're all commercial professions, paid commercial salaries, and in the case of the former category, commercial (final salary, I think, in many cases?) pensions. With lovely big holidays, and good job security (that lawyers and bankers certainly don't get). It's voluntary stuff which gets you a halo.
OK, I digress . I just find it difficult to accept that a nurse, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a charity administrator is inherently a more virtuous person than a banker, a lawyer, or an accountant, by virtue of their career choice.
Careful now, this is straying dangerously close to that soldier thread wot isn't with us any more...
"imply they are racist."
Sorry that was a bit arsy of me. Not implying they are racist. But it sounded to me like the climber regards the lives of "socialites" of lower value than his own clique - an argument sometimes used to justify racism.
Apologies
If someone sane but stupid willfully put themselves at risk (by running back and forth accross the M1 for instance), would you consider it your 'humane duty' to go into the live traffic and stop them?
Possibly yes. Though I might try to warn traffic to stop, on the basis that it might be more successful than grappling a loon in traffic! That's a scenarios where you decide to acutely put your life at risk. There is not a right or wrong answer.
Back on topic - I refer again to Anatoli Boukreev's achievement in going out several times and saving the lives of several people that stormy night on the South Col. He had already expended much effort summitting Everest that day and was fair exhausted. Naar had just got up to the South Col, but confined himself to his tent. It seems quite plausible that the nearby dying person could have been dragged into the tent and comforted.
Buzz, I wasn't implying anything. I was stating people make informed choices to go on these trips and my slightly arsey reference to 'socialites' was in response to the growing numbers of chequebook climbers who buy themselves into situations and then get themselves in the sh1t. They then expect to be 'rescued' from their own idiocy/unpreparedness.
Socialites or not, they are the sort I would think twice about sticking my neck out for especially as the commercial trips they go on are heavy with very experienced guides and sherpas who are being paid to nanny their charges.
<edit>
That's a scenarios where you decide to acutely put your life at risk. There is not a right or wrong answer.
As is the one being debated. Nail + head.
It's not just on Everest where ambition gets in the way of saving people. My MTBing buddy and fellow ski mountaineer joined a party on Chamonix-Zermatt (he's a fit man and has teamed up with my wife on adventure races). I declined to join the group as I prefer up and down trips rather than multi-day slogs.
In a refuge at 3500m he felt unwell and unable to go on. The next morning his guide and group left him to get down on his own and continued their merry way to Zermatt. The guide hadn't diagnosed the classic symptoms of pulmonary oedema. Fortunately, a Swiss guide took an interest in my friend, realised what was up, and organised a rescue with his own party which included bodily hauling my mate up a climb on the escape route.
He's been slowly recovering and will hopefully be out mtbing tomorrow. Lucky to be alive and still spitting when I jokingly ask after the guys that left him.
Hmmmm split the party faux pas.... sounds like the Guide was a bit of a twit. Not sure if we're debating poor guiding or decisions made in extremis?
<bollox double post>
Real climbers and mountaineers look after their own (and that includes all sherpas and others in the party) a mate was mountaineering '96 when they came across two sherpas who had been left to die by their commercial party who had paid for an evacuation, but didn't want to pay the extra for the locals. They were seen as a disposable item and a hinderance to getting back to comforts of their hotel and the flights home.
grum - MemberQuite right, so lets leave the last words to someone who has -
This was the story I referred to earlier - why is that the guy with no legs got picked on for not helping?
I don't think he is personally, he is just the figurehead (because of his disability he is the most famous) for the groups that decided the summit was more important than a mans life
As said before, to me there is a distinct difference between stopping an ascent to help, and being [u]unable[/u] to help on a descent...seems some in the thread are purposefully blurring these lines.
However, i am not a climber...
I thought we were discussing the commercial objective getting in the way of humanist values; giving a sporting and commercial objective a higher value than someone's life. If 40 people walked past someone in difficulty on Mont Blanc they could all be prosecuted for "non assistance à personne en danger". It needs something like that to stop such callous behaviour on high mountains. If you'd offered those 40 people that walked past $200 000 each to participate in a rescue attempt the man would have been saved.
when they came across two sherpas who had been left to die by their commercial party who had paid for an evacuation, but didn't want to pay the extra for the locals.
That's extraordinary - did that really happen? Sounds like something the UN should be involved in
The UN policing Mount Everest? Whatever next? 😆
Well it needs something. Colonial style exploitation of the local population, leaving people to die when you have the means to save them, turning the place into a cross between a morgue and a rubbish tip. A zone in which the normal values of mountian lovers are in no way respected. No wonder Sir Edmund is not happy.
Given that the majority sit uncaring in centrally heated houses day in day out watching people dying on the news, vote for the party that will cut taxes the most and never mind the social cost to others, and not stop to help someone in the town centre, I think its unlikely that any other attitude will exist in the majority of climbers either.
How did this turn into a climbers are heartless bastards and nurses are not worthy' thread?
How did this turn into a climbers are heartless bastards and nurses are not worthy' thread?
Easy, it was posted on STW.
I guess the most important point that hasn't been covered is whether the nurses were wearing helmets and also if it's OK for one climber to pass another on the inside. I demand answers!!
It's like that on Helvellyn. Bodies of Red Socks everywhere 🙁
Has Sir Edmund Hilary made similar comments about climbers other than David Sharp?
It seems to me that David Sharps actions were so far into recklessness that I would not be surprised if others felt that they didn't want to risk their lives saving him.
Edukator - Member
Well it needs something. Colonial style exploitation of the local population, leaving people to die when you have the means to save them, turning the place into a cross between a morgue and a rubbish tip. A zone in which the normal values of mountian lovers are in no way respected. No wonder Sir Edmund is not happy.
Edukator, I've found some of your posts on this site high-handed and patronising, but in this case I absolutely 100% agree with you. No spare words, no flannel, no distracting bullshit.
Really? I thought I was just being arrogant, opinionated and self-righteous as usual.
Well, every now and then, it coincides with being right.
I've ski toured with a couple of British UIAGM guides based in Argentiere who were also involved in hauling people up Everest. We spent quite a bit of time with them on long tours and nothing they said ever convinced me that this was anything other than a money making scam. They recognise that to have climbed Everest is the ultimate boast for an egotist and they pander to this egotism. It is naked commercial greed and exploitation of the mountain. I've been climbing mountains, skiing through and off them and MTBing them for 47 years and I know there are mountaineering exploits far harder and requiring far more skill and strength of character than Everest but these are unknown to the public and not boast-worthy.
The same British guides are amongst the investors behind an hotel high up on the Chinese side, again as far as I could see this was nothing other than a means of getting more clients up the mountain and earning more revenue from it.
Last year I was invited to go on a cattle class Everest trip and declined. Pay $40k then someone points at the top and says off you go. I should have done it 25 years ago when I had a more interesting opportunity.
I can't see the value in reaching the summit now other than ego-****ing.
Edukator - MemberA zone in which the normal values of mountian lovers are in no way respected. No wonder Sir Edmund is not happy.
Edukator - MemberReally? I thought I was just being arrogant, opinionated and self-righteous as usual.
Who the **** are these "mountain lovers" whose values you automatically assume should have primacy ? Who the **** is Sir Edmund Hilary in the grand scheme of things ? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions that the rest of humanity should adhere to. In this regard, your self description seems highly accurate.