More fatalities on Everest

A snowHead

davidof, that is why I said "overall" as I agree that Boukreev may have been right in some respects. I must admit it is some years since I read both books and there is so much information in them both that I certainly don't remember it all.

Just looking at Boukreev's book quickly again I see that one of the climbing companies involved was called Mountain Madness. How prophetic was that?

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

a must see movie " touching the void " on the moral dilemna facing climbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/11/21/touching_the_void_2003_review.shtml

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

hibernia, very good movie and shows the choices that have to be made and also that drive to live can be very strong.

You'll need to Register first of course.

It's interesting to read this thread and its various links, in many ways mountaineering and ocean yacht racing are similar, both require a particular breed of person to go out and battle the elements, however there is one important difference, at sea the rescue of a person is always treated as being more important than the race, there are many recorded cases of even singlehanded sailors turning their yachts back into some terrible storms in order to render assistance to others in trouble.

Walking past a dying man and doing nothing (even if all they could have done was hold the persons hand) is despicable, those who do such things should be ashamed of their actions Crying or Very sad

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

100% agreement, and a very good point about ocean yacht racing.
I'm disgusted at their actions, shame on them, their achiement (presumably) of reaching the summit are forever devalued to the point of worthlessness in my opinion.

If they were prepared to ignore a dying man who could not have been saved (didn't bother to try though, there were enough of them that maybe, just maybe, they could have succeeded) why didn't they just take the logical next step and put him out of his misery with a wack on the head?

Well obviously that would have been inhumane at best, murder at worst.
Which is NO DIFFERENT to what they did!

After all it is free

I think it's worth making the point that 40 people didn't happen across this guy at once - they passed him in dribs and drabs over 2 days from what I understand. So it would have been 2s and 3s of people thinking (to the extent that you can think clearly at 8500m) what can we 2 or 3 people do for this guy? Not 40 people in a group ignoring him.

Having attempted to make an excuse for all of this, I'll say that the whole thing reminds me why I would never want to go high on Everest. Aside from the personal danger, I haven't any desire to be somewhere where an inherent part of the experience is being so out of it that you can't do anything to help a dying man. I enjoy a bit of Alpine mountaineering but this is a very different thing

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

D G Orf, In this line there are some very good books out there also, particularly 'The Proving Ground" and "Fastnet Force 10". Having done quite a bit of ocean racing myself I would have to agree that to leave a distressed yacht in favour of finishing the race is a major no no. Just think of Pete Goss's dramatic rescue in the south seas several years ago.

Its been a while since I've read either of the two books I mentioned, but I recall that there was a situation where a yacht passed a distressed boat and didnt assist. He came under quite phenomenally heavy criticism at the time, but having read his explanation of the circumstances and having personally experienced similar although thankfully far less severe conditions I have to say I reluctantly agree with what he was saying. I might add that by this point it was no longer about finishing the race, but about survival.

There are occasions where the conditions are so bad that to attempt a rescue would be litterally guaranteeing serious injury or death to your crew and potentially even loss of the yacht. Knowing nothing about the conditions of climbing, I can only reflect on this to colour my appreciation of the situation. Although the thought of leaving a man to die is personally abhorrent to me and my initial reaction when reading this in the paper was one of horror, there are cricumstances where you can do nothing, to attempt any type of help would literally be committing suicide.

To pass judgement on the situation from the comfort of one's living room is easily done, but having faith in human decency, I can only imagine how difficult the decision to continue on was, and trust that they deemed the situation to require it.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I think it was in last weekends papers that wrote about the previous British Army team on Everest. They didn't summit as they came upon an injured climber as they were on the final leg.
They turned back from the summit and brought him down.

Sorry Alex but even if you just stayed with the guy dying, doing no more than muttering a few words then you are NOT doing something "pretty crazy to stand around doing nothing up there. "

Doing the right thing often is just as simple as it seems.

snow reports

Every minute that you spend above a certain height, you are slowly dying. Standing around, even with the best of intentions, is a pretty good way of dying yourself

Fair comment, but the climbers have oxygen and they know how long they have got.
So the choice:
1) Use the oxygen/time to climb on, ignoring the dying fellow climber.
2) Stay with the guy as long as you can, offering whatever comfort you can, before having to say to him "sorry mate, I have to go now, I'm sure you understand, is there any message I can take home for you?".

Shame on those that chose option 1). 40 of them!

Also if one had stayed, maybe two, three, four...fourteen would have stayed and been able to have enough climbers to attempt a rescue.
Maybe it would have worked, probably it wouldn't.

You know it makes sense.

I can't help but feel that stepping over dead (or nearly dead) people is part of the scene if you go up the Everest normal route. This is why the whole thing is extremely unattractive to me.

And actually there are reports that some people did stop to see if there was anything they could do.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

rungsp, exactly, just because you are 90% certain that a person is going to die does not mean that you should not try to help, going back to the sailing comparrison the RNLI is made up of voulenteers who frequently risk their own lives in order to save others (you only have to look at how many RNLI people have died to see this is the case).

It seems to me that yachtsmen will genearally obey the law of the sea and go to anothers aid (save in the most extreme circumstances) because they feel they should, climbers on the other hand (and I've known many), are far more self centered and obssesed with reaching the peak at the expense of anything (or anyone) else.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

There does seem something different about climbers this year on Everest than on previous years. Strange that their have been many more deaths in 2006 and yet the weather (the usual cause for climbers to be caught out) has been much more stable. I have also noticed that climbers of the calibre of Edmund Hilary have this year spoken out against the lack of help given to climbers in distress. Have people been much more single minded and callous this year than in previous years? Looking at the two main websites for those climbing on Everest there are many more stories of food and oxygen equipment being looted and stolen from higher camps this year than before. This could kill returning climbers.
I am sure that over the next few months there will be alot of returning climbers revealing what has happened this year.
The parents of a British climber are involved in a court case brought against Henry Todd. (He is a provider of logistics for those who want to climb on Everest without personal guides or sherpas) They blame him for causing the death of their son who died on Everest last year. I believe it is coming to court towards the end of June.
I suppose most climbers are ready to measure themselves against the mountain, the altitude, and the weather and accept what they come up against. But to have your life put at risk by the selfishness and craziness of others is criminal. Judging from the internet reports of what is happening on Everest this year then there are more cowboys climbing this year than usual.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

This report appears to show that it is possible to rescue incapacitated climbers from the "death zone".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2199308,00.html

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

And a Times leader on the subject. Quite well-balanced I think, and IMO coming to the right conclusions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2198984,00.html

You'll need to Register first of course.

A very interesting thread this one. I am wondering... how many of the people who were involved in this scenario were climbers coming from a long background of mountaineering, and how many had a more limited level of experience and were having many of their decisions (not considering the actual passing the dying climber situation here) made for them as part of the guided process?

Again - read 'This Game of Ghosts' by Simpson... it raises a great many issues. For my own ha'penny worth - until you've been up at that height, or had experience of struggling whilst people are dying around you in a harsh environment... think deeply before making criticisms of the behaviour of others.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Scarpa, I agree: I guess a fair percentage of those who summit Everest pay "X" amount for the privilege of being guided up and are not necessarily 100% experienced enough for it. It would be inappropriate for an experienced guide to risk the lives of his less experieced clients in such a situation. 1996 is the obvious example.

After all it is free

I'd be less inclined to be critical if these climbers were on the way down and exhausted, the fact that many of them were fit enough to carry on past a dying man just in order to say they climbed to the top of everest is sickening.

Is it truly more impressive to say you have climbed to the top of Everest rather than that you helped a dying man on Everest. If so I pity all those who think it to be so, but I'm not surprised after all we now live in a society where the celebrity is king. Sad

Double-amputee Mark Inglis, and his perspective as one of the climbers who passed him by.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

this article from today's sunday times - here

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

then of course there is the story of the australian who was left for dead by 2 sherpas-they had dragged him part way after he succumbed to the altitude - in the end they were ordered to leave him and save their own lives.... he was considered dead and other sherpas had to assist the 2 into camp when they got down further....

the next day another climber found him still alive... fed him tea and oxygen and radioed he was alive...

15 sherpas and a stretcher climbed up to save him.... he is now recovering... after spending the night on everest with no oxygen being thought dead...

makes you wonder "what if" re the brit huh?

snow reports

Here is a link to an up to date report of the climber found alive on Everest. Interesting stuff.

http://www.everestnews.com/Summitclimb2005/everestdan06022006.htm

Intresting, nice to note that there are some good people who are willing to give up their chance to summit Everest in order to save a life.

You know it makes sense.

more info here

http://www.australianhimalayanfoundation.org.au/html/s01_home/home.asp?dsb=2

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

josh.dynevor, good article. If I were them I would be very proud to have saved a life, even if it had meant the end of my dreams. But as he says, Everest is always there, it won't go away - and you only have one chance to save someone from death. Interesting how he talks about the 'summit fever' that takes hold and makes gaining the summit the most important goal. Wonder what made them different to the two Italians, or the 40 climbers that went past David Sharp. Perhaps the fact that he seemed very much alive when they first saw him, so they stopped to talk to him - once actually engaged in contact with him, I would have thought it very difficult then to walk away.

A snowHead

To be honest I think that it's very easy to judge people's actions from the safety of sitting behind a computer screen. I've not had direct experience of being at altittude, but I have had experience of being in the position of having to make life and death decisions in acute situations, fortunately not so common now that I'm comfortably ensconsed in GP land.

Running a trauma team in A&E, you find plenty of people prepared to second guess your decision after the fact, when they've had time to stop and think things over in comfort and with plenty of time. Often you would find that the most vocal of these back seat drivers, would completely go to pot if they actually had to take the leadership responsibility themselves.

The point that I'm making is that noone can tell how they're going to react under extremes of physical and psychological stress, what their reserves may be, and what they may or may not be capable of. One of the attractions of Everest is pushing these boundaries, and an inevitable consequence of this will be people running into their limitations.

It seems to me, that if forty seperate people walked past this climber, then it may possible that the decision that a rescue would not be possible may have been the right one. Similarly although it seems harsh, if he was unconscious, the harshness of the environment would possibly dictate leaving him to die alone rather than risking an additional life for very little perceived benefit.

A snowHead

Second guessing is not attractive, but if public discussion puts people in the future in the mindset that society regards saving life as more important than the achievement of a personal goal, then that is no bad thing IMO.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

IMO Perhaps that purpose would be better served if the discussion took a less judgemental form.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

There are some interesting updates here

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=7947

If true the video footage seems to contradict Inglis statement about Sharp breathing his last when his team past. Doesn't mean anything could have been done but he was below the 1st step which would have been important for any rescue. He would certainly have lost his hands and part of his face if he had even survived.

David Sharp had come to Everest alone, and that is how he died.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Just caught up with this thread. Some questions have been raised here and all are valid and good and few have been answered conclusively. If I may make so bold... My credentials are: Mountaineering - Summitted Makalu in 1992 after spending 3 days over 8000m, spent 2 months on Tserko Ri regularly above 7400m, assistant to an expert witness over a manslaughter allegation on Everest due to lack of professionalism shown by a 'guide', and vicariously my sister summited (non-commercially) in 2000; Helicopters - ex military helo pilot; Decision-making in life threatening environments and adverse conditions - Army officer in Iraq, Nuclear Disaster and Emergency Management Consultant, Guide in Scotland, Alps and Himalayas.

Let me start at the end. making a decision under pressure of time is hard enough and this is as far as most of us have to go in our daily lives. Most of us find this hard enough to do and it is often the case that no decision at all will be made resulting in a lack of focused effort but without major consequence. Add to the decision-making a factor of incapacitation through cold, exposure to heights and altitude making you reliant on a weak stream of oxygen and an extremely honed sense of self-preservation and this process gets harder by a factor of thousands. As an aside, the oxygen supply does not make you feel like you are at sea level nor even base camp, it purely allows your brain to retain some of of its functionality. Your body is dying through altitude above 8000m very quickly. It is a confusing place, never quiet with constant wind and ice noise, the drops on either hand are staggering at the higher reaches and your perpsective has totally changed. There is little rationalisation and most peole remember little of the final day's climbing other than the physical hardship. The decision to assist another human being is a hard one to take, particularly if they are clearly (in a confused mind) beyond help. The Emergency Services mantra is "we may risk our lives a lot to save lives..." But we are already risking everything by just being there. There is no question that a climber on an Alpine route will do all in his gift to assist when required but the environment is competely different. Does the risk beget the reward?

Helo rescues on Everest are not possible at any areas above the South Col. Density altitude (affecting grip of the rotors on the air), weather, terrain, pay and fuel load all contribute. The Squirrel that landed at the summit and it probably did, could not have carried anything off the top.

Coming across a climber in dostress in this environment, you cannot give them of your oxygen or water, it is unlikely that you will have spare clothing and more to the point inactivity at these temperatures will kill you as quickly as lack of oxygen. The cold is staggering, there is little shelter because even in still air it is -lots degrees C. The moral question is not easily solved. Strapping an injured climber to yourself up here is not a recommended option - Why did Yatesy cut Simpson's rope? Because they were tied to each other - if he goes you go too. Realistically you need a huge team to recover him and with fast-changing weather systems and snow conditions you are endangering a disproportionate amount of people.

Climbing and mountaineering are extremely morally ethical sports and it is sad that the commercial aspect has tainted the purity of it. My step-father carried his climbing partner off the mountain in '76 when Boardman and Tasker summitted and gave up his chance at the summit. His oppo died on his back. Another mate conducted a rescue in '92 and was so knackered by it that he almost died himself and consequently gave up any chance of the summit. These examples are both guys who are lifetime mountaineers, Special Forces officers and understand more than most the delicacy of life on the hill.

We should not be censorious about the whys and wherefores, because if we do not understand the concpets or the tribulations we cannot accurately comment. Try explaining the morality of fox-hunting, bull-fighting, whaling or red deer culling to someone who has no experience of it and you will have an uphill struggle.

I hope that this may have looked at if not answered some of the questions raised!

snowHead

You'll need to Register first of course.

Powderhound, an excellent precis of some of the issues faced.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Well if anybody on Snowheads is qualified to comment...you certainly are!

Many thanks for your input.

If you are bored one day send me a PM and I'll do my best to justify two of my other hobbies: fox hunting and deer culling!

After all it is free

Excellent post Powderhound, thank you for the time you gave to such a reasoned and well-qualified response. The only high altitude I have experienced is 5,400 metres whilst trekking in the Himalayas - even at that 'low' altitude I can testify as to the extreme cold and lack of energy. Within about 20 mins of leaving the night's lodge the water had totally frozen in our water bottles - although we had left at some unearthly hour in the middle of the night as I recall in that day we had to ascend about 3,000 feet over the pass before descending 5,000 feet to the first habitation on the other side of the pass.

Powderhound, thanks for that. One of the best contributions I've seen on snowHeads. And without the slightest hint of condescension, really refreshing.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

More fatalities on Everest

snowHeads Forum Index >>> snowNews