The recent article about the rescue of Lincoln Hall on Everest has raised again the issue of "leaving your fellow man for dead" on a mountain, with the mountaineers concerned usually using the rationale of high altitude difficulty to justify passing by as opposed to helping out. In my book this is an ethical issue not a practical issue and mountaineers are hiding behind altitude to disguise their drive for the summit. It has been said that you just don't think straight at this kind of altitude but I agree with Larry Rigsby here in that personal duty and your own ethical standards should override all else. I have personally assisted three people in difficulty on 20,000 ft climbs which cost me summit success but who gives a shit about that, not me! I posted on the UK Climb forum recently about this and made the comparison of say being in a hurry for work and passing someone who has been run over, or being on holiday on a beach and ignoring a drowning swimmer in each case using the rush to work or holiday enjoyment as justification. It just doesnt wash and it's time we started to see some so called mountaineers for what they are: elitist, arrogant, self-centred and selfish.
I do agree with some of your comments and views Doc......but and there is a big BUT. In the case of a casualty situation the first rule is to assess the potential danger of helping the casualty.
Now if a person was in difficulty like the LH and by stopping to assist that man you would put your own life and the lives of others at risk then I'm afraid it's self preservation.
During my last tour of duty in Iraq i was faced with a dilema in which I left a man for dead, because to have given first aid or even attempted rescue would have put me and several others at serious risk of DEATH of which i had no plans of joining the club.
I have no regrets about the desision I made nor will I, and for that matter nor does my family or the families of the other soldiers who were with me.
If the situation is and was workable and there is little or no danger, then rescue MUST be attempted even if it is not sucessful. better to have tried and lost than not tried at all so to speak.
With all respect Cruxster Man the situation you faced in Iraq bares no comparison to the ethical dilemma "The Doc" poses in his opening post. Without wanting to sound facetious High Altitude mountains such as Everest are not war zones and are therefore not subject to the same rules of engagement you follow in the army when at war in a foreign country. I don't think anyone here would have issue with what you did in that situation - its completely un-related.
As it happens Doc I was scrolling through that thread in UKC forum and randomly read posts as there were so many - I came across yours. The analogies you give are closer to something to which we can all relate. I think you make a good point about ambitious and obsessively goal-orientated mountaineers using the altitude factor to cover up or excuse their unethical behaviour. I would suggest it was highly improbable that if every one of the 40-odd climbers that passed Sharpe on their way up made individual assessments of his medical condition and of the surrounding environmental danger and risk to themselves that every one of them would have come to the same conclusion and concluded that his medical condition was irreversible and that rescue was out of the question. If they all did make individual assessments - which they clearly didn't - then there would have been at least one of them who assessed it as safe enough and feasible enough to attempt rescue, and at least one of them who thought there was hope that he could be medically saved, whether that judgement came about through their own inexperience and lack of medical knowledge or not. If one of them assessed it as a rescueable situation then an attempt would have been made to save Sharpe's life. Whether or not that attempt was successful or not is still not the ethical point - its the fact that an attempt would have been made. Knowing that resuce attempts were underway, or knowing that a bare minimum of assistance had been offered to Sharpe then all climbers not able to join in the rescue attempt would have been able to pass Sharpe and continue knowing their judgements were ethically sound. If any of them were unaware of what had been done for Sharpe then each climber should have offered what assistance they could and made it known to other climbers what was being done or had been done. I believe that they had an ethical duty as human beings to do at least this minimum.
Had any attempt whatsoever been made to assist Sharpe the family would not suffer the psychological trauma of knowing their beloved relative was left to die in a cold and calculated manner. Whatever was the bare minimum that could have been done to either save his life, rescue him, or offer aid in his dying moments should have been done by at least one of the climbers.
Mark Inglis has come in for criticism, partly because of his "celebrity" status as a climber in New Zealand and partly because he was the first to openly admit leaving him. I can at least apportion some ethical credit to his behaviour in that it appears he did make an assessment of Sharpe - however flawed that assessment may have been. However, he was the subject himself of some pretty heroic rescue operation in New Zealand once and you would think that this would have been uppermost in his thinking as he passed dying climbers on a mountain. I cannot rationalise what was occurring there, but neither can I rationlaise the other 40 climbers attitudes either.
This story still shocks me and leaves me feeling cold about high altitude mountaineering and mountaineers.
Before judging all high altitude mountaineers by the 40 that passed David Sharpe it's worth remembering that the heavilly-guided South Col route on Everest is far from a typical route, and that the (often inexperienced) climbers on it are not typical high altitude climbers...
The handful of serious big range climbers I know out here in Colorado have no desire to set foot on the 'circus' that is Everest.
Fair point Andrew, but neither can you judge all high altitude mountaineers by the ones you know out there in Colorado. When judging anything I think you can only judge an individual based on individual circumstances. I do not want to label the entire climbing fraternity with being a highly immoral and unethical group of people. Personally speaking, my judgements above do relate to the 40-odd on that mountain at that time.
When I say the story leaves me cold about high altitude mountaineers it's a simple matter of it leaving me cold. Some of my heroes are high altitude mountaineers, people I have read about such as Anatoli Boukreev, a Russian who saved many lives in the storm in 1996, and of course local man Alan Hinkes.
I feel this particular story is so shocking in its ethical and moral content that it is enough for me to appraise my entire feelings on a topic that I love to read about and talk about. I'm not a high altitude mountaineer no...
Conan (posting as Survivor) was actually there on Everest a fortnight ago, and made a very interesting post a day or so ago about the man who was left to die, and the conditions at the time. He said it would not have been difficult to have given assistance on the occasion in question, in the conditions that prevailed at the time.
Here's what he said on the 'Brit dies on Everest' thread.
"The more and more information I hear about what happened to David Sharpe, the more shocked I become.
Having seen the location of David's body on the ridge at about 8450m, the effort involved to get him down would not have put anyone at risk. He only needed to be taken 100 - 200m along the easiest and flattest section of the North East ridge before descending down snow gullies to high camp. His body was next to the body of the Polish climber I had to crawl over in 2003 and I found the section after this fairly straightforward to crawl along. The fixed lines were well anchored this year so lowering down to high camp would have been easy. In fact another climber who also died on his team had already been safely lowered down this section. He unfortunately died of HACE at high camp.
The fundamental problem is how commercial expeditions select their clients. Companies are now not looking enough at mountaineering experience and allowing ill prepared people on these trips. Something happens and they cannot cope with the situation. The American who knocked me off in 2003 was a prime example. Completely incompetant as he couldn't do the simple traverse to the 2nd step and had to ask his team what to do after he'd broken my leg. Asking someone at ABC for advice is stupid when they are not there so can't see exactly what is happening. The American descended and left me on the advice of his team leader!.
The same has happened all over again with David Sharpe. The team of Russell Brice's HIMEX weren't experienced enough to make the sensible decision of trying to help David and had to Radio down to ABC. As a result, they continued to the summit and David died. Surely all those climbers on the 15th May should be named and made accountable for their actions and Tigris should be made to release the video footage they have of David in trouble.
A very sad time for mountaineering and something needs to be done to ensure that it doesn't happen again. An example needs to be made of these dreadful people!."
Andrew the situations are differant I agree but the desicion is still the same, DO YOU HELP, OR DON'T YOU?
At the time I made my desicion we were in a peace keeping role and not at WAR.
Now I am not defending the passers by attitudes nor am I condoning the desicions they made by not assisting but when you are faced with a life/death situation and an option that could potentially cause your own death or that of others you have to protect yourself and the majority.
Each Climber as he passed was faced with a dilema and they obviously decided that by helping would put themselves at risk of death.
Now the flip side of the coin is that by helping would have destroyed any chance of summiting is a valid and strong argument and is one that maybe needs exploring in greater detail.
But man is selfish, self centered, cold hearted and unwilling to aid those in need, fact!!!
I also understand that as part of the briefings you get at base camp is that if you are injured on the massive you are to be under no illusions that you are more than likely going to be left in the place you fall/collapse etc and you body will not be recovered. Fact!!!!
All in all this is a tragic event and all our sympathies I'm sure are with the family.
And lets hope that the mistakes and actions that were made and taken on that day are taken on board and learnt from.
Each Climber as he passed was faced with a dilema and they obviously decided that by helping would put themselves at risk of death.
I'm not sure that's right, though, is it? The reason people are getting increasingly concerned about this sort of incident is that some people seem to walk past not because they think they'd be exposing themselves to risk in helping but because they've invested money in buying an opportunity to stand on the top of Everest. The concern is that some people place more value on succeeding in a summit attempt than on the life of a fellow human being.
Once again - Conan was there: I don't think any of the rest of us were. I can't help but take notice of his assessment of the situation.
By coincidence, I'm currently reading Joe Simpson's book 'Dark Shadows Falling', which is all about this issue.
I think everyone here has made some very valid points, mostly "anti" the unethical behaviour of so-called mountaineers. But I will always go back to my original point about ethics as opposed to practicalities: 1. If climbers are still going UP and into the unknown, how can this be "safer" than stopping at that point to help someone DOWN? 2. If these people are non-mountaineers and paying passengers who are, as regarded by many, incompetent, how are they capable of judging the situation and what should be done? Let's stop beating about the bush here, they took an unethical, immoral and inhuman decision to continue going UP which has possibly contributed to the death and certainly as Andrew says has caused undue grief to the deceased's family.
Okay then Cruxster Man, Mount Everest is not occupied by a foreign army and is not subject to random and planned resistance attacks. There is no risk of being shot or blown up on the mountain by resistance fighters. The situation and circumstances of the ethical dilemma discussed here is different entirely.
With regards to this specific ethical question you state that if helping someone would destroy any chance of summiting then it "is a valid and strong argument and is one that maybe needs exploring in greater detail". Never, ever, in a million years can it be a valid point. To have this viewpoint and then say you extend sympathy to the bereaved family are two attitudes that do not correlate with each other.
Really Cruxster, without wanting to have a go at you personally, you say that "man is selfish, self centered, cold hearted and unwilling to aid those in need, fact!!!" It may be a fact in the world of international politics and war but what we are analysing here is basic human ethics in a sport or pastime that the majority of posters on here ascribe to. This distinction and this difference must be made and judgements and opinions formed taking this difference into account.
Reading Conan's quoted post above it seems highly immoral and unethical that no-one offered aid, assitance or attempted the rescue of this man during that time on Mount Everest. It cannot be excused and this incident should expose fully the highly unethical and immoral practices occurring in the field of guided and non-guided high altitude mounatineering.
Again, Doc, point No. 1 you make in the lats post is absolutely excellent. The climbers assessed the risk to themselves for continuing up the mountain as acceptable. They knew the higher they went the more dangerous it became and the greater the risk of death was. But they were not prepared to accept a similar risk to themselves in the highly honourable and ethical option of attemtping to save a fellow climber's life. The conclusoin that can be drawn is: they were driven by their own ambition to summit that mountain, and this was their over-riding concern when passing the dying man. How can it possibly be an ethical stance? How can it be justifiable??
Those that might say Sharpe took his own risk and knew the consequences may have sme validity in that stance. However, Crxster mentions above the Base Camp briefings in which climbers are fully combatant with the rule that they will die and be left to die should they get into troule. I cannot believe that this actually happens. If it does then this too is an abhorrence. Surely, the briefings that occur should be making clear the ethical code that should govern what climbers do should they get into difficulty. In other words, climbers, groups of and individuals, and climbing guides, should have some contingency plans for rescue or abortion of summits should any party get into difficulties. And that should include hwat to do should a climber be found ind distress during a summit attempt.
By the way can you imagine going on an expedition with a group of people to climb a huge mountain knowing that each one of them would just leave you to die if you just happened to get sick when they were making their summit attempt?
Throughout our Christian history the answer to the fundamental question, "Am I my brother's keeper?", has been and should always be a resounding "Yes!".
A motive subject indeed. Everest has become the big prize, if you can afford it. Surely people who are not fully trained, prepared and experienced, should not even be allowed to set foot on the mountain. Unfortunately big money swoops hands and greedy companies take along inadequate day trekkers who are doomed to failure and are put at great risk. The answer here is simple, the governments in all countries should vet all applicants, and ensure personnel selected are fully prepared to attempt such a challenge. On ethics, the expedition leaders, and their associates involved should be held accountable for the duty and care of their party. Andrew, you seem to be getting personnal with Cruxster man, especially in his remarks to war zones. Unless you have been in such situations, how come you are an authority. He was only trying to make a judged assessment based on his own life experience. Hopefully, you shall never be in a situation where you may have to look yourself in the mirror, and live with the consequences. On that note, life is one big risk, so don't get to out of shape.. Life is too short...
Nice one Paul - I thought I made it clear in my post I wasn't being personal with Cruxster Man. Read again when I say no-one would have issue with what he did in his situtaion. I can't emphasise enough how I feel climbing a mountain cannot compare to being fighting a war... Nothing personal at all, so don't make it please...
Andy, Think I now know where your coming from. Know your limits and make sure you can trust someone if the sh-t hits the fan. Stay frosty...and keep safe.
