Posted on 05/23/2006 8:42:02 AM PDT by Paddlefish
Mark Inglis, an amputee who conquered Mount Everest on artificial legs last week, yesterday defended his party's decision to carry on to the summit despite coming across a dying climber. As his team climbed through the "death zone," the area above 26,000 feet where the body begins to shut down, they passed David Sharp, 34, a stricken British climber who later died. His body remained on the mountain.
Mr. Inglis, 47, a New Zealander, said: "At 28,000 feet it's hard to stay alive yourself. He was in a very poor condition, near death. We talked about [what to do for him] for quite a lot at the time and it was a very hard decision. "About 40 people passed him that day, and no one else helped him apart from our expedition. Our Sherpas (guides) gave him oxygen. He wasn't a member of our expedition, he was a member of another, far less professional one." Mr. Sharp was among eight persons who have died on Everest this year, including another member of his group, a Brazilian. Dewa Sherpa, a manager at Asian Trekking, the Katmandu company that outfitted Mr. Sharp before his climb, said he had not taken enough oxygen and had no Sherpa guide.
*********
The company charges $6,000 to provide services as far as base camp -- far less than the $35,000 or more cost of guided trips to the summit. Other mountaineers have criticized the commercialism of climbing the 29,035-foot peak, with guides charging huge sums to climbers with minimal experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Un-believable.
If you really cared about the potential of widows and orphans you would not expect the other climbers to risk their lives to save his.
The group did have a discussion to determine if it was possible.
At what odds do you recommend they try it anyway?
If they have a 50 percent chance of getting him down the mountain without anyone else getting killed and he has a 70 percent chance of dying from altitude sickness along the way?
Or if they have only a 30 percent chance of getting him down the mountain without anyone else dying and he has a 90 percent chance of dying along the way?
And if you are such a Good Samaritan, sign up now for next season. It only takes $35,000 and one year of the hardest physical conditioning you have ever done. You will be in Napal for three months. If you are strong and skilled enought to make it past into the death zone of 25,000 feet, find the first climber that needs help and bring him down. Don't worry. Someone will be there who needs help. Six died so far this year.
Then you can tell us how easy it was and how worthwhile that year of preparation and the $35,000 investment was.
Sir Edmond Hillary was the idle rich. He was on "holiday" as you say.
"Sir Edmund Hillary, ... disagrees with your climbing conclusions and expertise.
I doubt it.
"I'll have to choose his opinion."
Hillary wasn't there. If Hillary carried a dead body back, then you have a point about what he would do, otherwise not.
The ones asking questions weren't there.
The ones that were there - more than 40 - all made the same decision.
Given the extreme life-threatening conditions, and the unanimous choice of those there, I'd have to give benefit of the doubt to those who were there.
Like I said, Hillary is the expert here, and his opinion on the topic carries more weight.
Who do you think carried the legless New Zealander down when he froze his legs? He's lucky someone was a better person than he is.
"Help" - in the form of a formal rescue crew - would not arrive in this situation. Ever.
"Exhausted" is the constant state of anyone in that location. Everyone there was technically dying. The risk in continuing as planned was bad enough (considering the number of bodies up there); the risk in trying to rescue someone was worse. Considering that the easier option already had a non-trivial fatality rate, that means a rescue attempt would likely result in more dead. Losing 2 to save 1 (instead of losing 1) is a romantic notion, but not realistic.
"Can no longer carry on" in that location means certain death - not to be confused with what you're thinking of, which is typically room temperature with plenty of oxygen in the vicinity of healthy passers-by with relatively easy access to communications and transportation.
The tort you refer to simply does not hold when the obligatory rescuer is himself at severe risk of death while attempting the rescue. If someone is trapped in a burning building, and you make one failed attempt to save them, you are not obligated to keep running into the flames.
I think brain damage started when they decided to climb that big dirt/rock pile with snow on it....
This guy had been laying out there exposed before this group came. They have no idea how fast one goes when they're down and exposed like this. Once you pass out, you're dying fast. There's no way to warm him, stop the freezing action and get him down fast enough to save him. These folks think this is like finding a guy in the park.
You gave nothing from Hillary. You made an empty statement.
"Who do you think carried the legless New Zealander down when he froze his legs?"
He was taken from a lower level and was also not as far gone. I gave you think link to a guy that does and did rescue folks. He does not rescue folks that are too far gone.
"He's lucky someone was a better person than he is."
It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. I would have said the same thing to the dead guy before he went up and I'd go up spending less than he did. You go up into this place on your own. He went up unable to handle the task, with a team unable to handle the task.
All you arguments do make logical sense.
Luckily, the police, firemen, and many others ignored just that kind of logic on 9-11. Many are alive today because they did.
Rescuing the folks from that disaster was not the same thing. First, the folks in the tower didn't set up the disaster. Second, it was not at all clear that the building would come down as it did. Third, the rescuers did not have the opportunity to know by observation and examination, that there was nothing they could do to save the victim.
Again, your logic prevails, and yet you miss the point.
That's just how it is. From your responses, I doubt you are able to grasp what many of us are try to say.
Thanks, that's actually nice to know to this flatlander. Is each climber in a group required to carry O, or just one member? I'd imagine all that survival equipment you guys have to lug up to those very high peaks get awfully heavy the farther up you go.
Wow. You're really in love with yourself.
I don't waste time talking to people I don't like. Bye.
You're exactly right.
If one doesn't "get it" on first blush, one probably won't get it.
Sir Hillary got it.
I grasp it perfectly. The arguments are emotional and stem from romanticism. They are not rational and based in reality.
God bless you Allen.
God bless everyone!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.