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 ...
Ditto.
Excellent point, Thank you.
Police and firemen are trained for rescue and are equipped with the rescue gear.
And I find it interesting that one of the first things they do at the scene of an emergency is to keep the untrained passerby from trying to perform some John Wayne rescue operation. Stunts like that are a good way to get more people killed.
If these people weren't trained and did not have the proper equipment, they probably made the correct decision.
Perhaps.
That's why a lot of emergency rescue personnel need to be a special breed. They are able to see right through all that smoke and haze and save lives in the process.
Again, your arguments are logical, rational, and practical. They reflect practical and real knowledge of what must go on in the "death zone" on Everest. I'm just left with these thoughts:
1) Could I live with myself if I left a person to die on a mountain (who's probably a goner anyway) so I could get to the top? Answer: No. You never know. I'd rather take the risk of saving him rather than make the insipid claim that I'd been on top of the world (thanks to the Sherpas, who probably did all the work).
2) Where did any of the interviewees say that they left him to die because it would have been too dangerous to try to save him? 40 people together (on their way up) couldn't save him????
You either know what you are doing, or you don't. The actions of any person attempting a rescue should be entirely rational, that includes the initial decision to go. It requires that man know his abilities and limitaitons and make a rational decision based on his observaiton and assessment of the situation.
There is no requirment that any man lose his life to attempt a rescue. That means if after observation and assessment, the conclusion is that the rescue will not succeed, the rescue attempt should not be made. If someone else decides otherwise, on a voluntary basis, he can do so. If that someone else basis their decision on the same rational platform as the other(s) did, that's fine. If they base their acitons on feelings thay will fail.
"They are able to see right through all that smoke and haze and save lives in the process."
Seeing is either blind observation, which results in en emotional state that drives action. Or else it's a rational process, as described above. Emotionally driven action is for the most part fruitless and has no purpose other than to act on feelings.
Here's a very large (thus the link) picture of the North Face at a time when most of the snow has blown off.
The rock formation at the far left of the picture is the "Second Step".
The more common Southern Route is the other side of the mountain (which is a three sided pyramid)
And maybe you could not live with yourself if, as a fireman, you had to leave a person to die in a burning building.
But if you were not able to make that decision, you probably would not have a long career fighting fires.
How can you expect that EVERY Everest climber must attempt to rescue EVERY injured climber at EVERY altitude in EVERY situation?
And where does it say that the 40 climbers were in the same party. Chances are they were in 4 to six different parties of 8-12 climbers, and that they passed him over a period of 8-10 hours.
Correct.
Mt. Cook, New Zealand's tallest mountain, is where he lost his legs.
It tops out at 12,000 ft....which is the height at the BASE of Everest.
No oxygen required.
Good Lord. How did you get that tripe out of what I said??? All I said was that I couldn't live with myself if I chose to get to the "top of the world" over trying to save a fellow human being. They chose to go UP! Is it wrong? I don't know, it's just not the decision I would have made.
I want to know why the person that was counting the people that passed him didn't get off their butt and take him down the mountain! ;-)
I just noticed how dark the sky is in that photograph.
I've read that excellent book and your brief summary is exactly the impression I was left with as well.
No article said that at all. I agree, it was several parties that passed the poor man by. And I have no idea how much contact these groups had together. But, I'm willing to guess, that had the first party stopped and undertaken to save that man, others may have helped. (Google Dave Hahn).
It was a joke, not a serious comment...
A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him.
The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, 'Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.'
Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers' victim?" He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 10:30-37
Even if what you say is true.....they could have tried.
I would have.
Thanks.
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.
