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 ...
That answers some of my questions.....
Appreciate it.....
FRegards,
Fair enough. If you're familiar with the 'Deadliest Catch' this might be more fitting:
It would be like those guys not stopping (in rough seas) to even try to pull in some guy whose been in the water for a minute or more just so they can keep pulling in crab.
If you've ever watched the show, you know those are men, who, as rough as they may appear, understand and practice compassion.
I think post number 2 or 3 identified these mountain climbers perfectly.
I think its time to close Everest
I agree . . .God, Family, and Country are worth dying for . . . but a frozen chunk of stone? No thanks.
Interesting. What's the longest amount of time you've had to acclimatize and at which mountain and elevation was it? Any problems with your ears, sinuses or chest at high altitudes or during acclimatization?
Yep, I often think of that Dirty Harry quote. Sound advice to anyone that wants to live a long life.
The point is that in the story Jesus told, the Good Samaritan would have stopped to help.
Do you believe in playing Russian Roulette?
The point that seems to be missing here is that the climbers who climbed on and who abandoned this man to die alone were not willing to sacrifice what they had invested in this day to save a man.
If I were a Calvinist I would say that the purpose of this man dying on the side of the road was to present a test of charity to those who were passing by that day. Would they be willing to give up their chance at reaching the summit of Everest for a chance to rescue a man from death?
But Jesus, when faced with the terror of scourging, crucifixion and the weight of the sins of all men, prayed in the Garden that if it were possible, this cup be taken from him . It wasn't and Jesus gave up everything to rescue us.
I do believe that the 40 climbers who passed this man on the road to Everest were all there by divine appointment. They were offered a chance at self sacrifice or self gratification. They all chose the latter. They had all put up too much money and too much time to bother with this poor soul who went there (as one man said) "on the cheap" and paid the ultimate price.
But Jesus paid the ultimate price for us. When we see a man dying on the side of the road, even the road to Everest, we need to ponder the sacrifice that was made for us and ask ourselves whether our goal of getting where we are going is more important than the life of a man for whom Jesus gave everything.
You and I agree 100%.
This was a test that 40 men failed, and the shame is upon a generation which has given us these sordid values.
It was a fore-ordained opportunity for them to do good, but they didn't.
Shhhhh!
We shall forever remain Calvinists in the tradition of Arminius.
N3
{!}
Tell me about it. A long line of Calvinists.
Even if we were to follow eastern philosophy, it says "in every problem there is a gift."
Jesus gave us the "wherever a man's treasure is ...." These men showed us where their treasure is. I'm sorry, but I don't consider reaching the summit of Everest any more significant than taking a ten minute online personality test.
:>)
{!}
A real dilemma. There is no easy answer.
Assume you have spent the last 5 yrs of your life preparing for the Olympics and on the day of your event, you are confronted with the choice of either trying to save a man who is 90% dead and giving up all you have worked for, or going on to compete. I don't believe anyone who says the answer is obvious.
I suppose you never saw Chariots of Fire?
There a man was willing to give up all that he had worked for because of religious principle. He could not run on a Sunday. I am certain that Eric Liddel would have gladly given up any olympic medal for the chance to save a dying man's life. Unfortunately Eric Liddels are a rare breed. There are boatloads of self absorbed dream chasers who would bypass a dying man on the road to self gratification. There are few who would give up their dreams for the opportunity to be a selfless hero.
It's not really a hard decision. The easy decision is to continue on your path to the peak. The hard decision is to give up something valuable for a stranger. Even if there were only a 10% chance that he could be brought down alive, the right decision would be to try. The wrong decision would be to leave him to die and continue on your merry way.
Forty men were given the opportunity to do the right thing. Forty men bypassed that opportunity. I believe that all those men were there by divine appointment. They were there on that day to be tested by God.
I'm reminded of the murder of a woman in NYC, Kitty Genovese, I want to say, from the early 1960s or so.
It was an outrage because people went about their way not to get involved.
Maybe I'll go look that up.
Life is not a game of survivor on reality TV. It is reality, and life is a team sport. We are here at the top of the animal kingdom because we're smart and we work together. Part of that is empathy for the less able.
the story:
During the 1960s, when there was no shortage of drama in the nation’s courtrooms, one murder case stood alone in its ability to shock the country. The crime was not as gruesome as some others, since many more were just as violent, and still more that easily surpassed it. The victim was an ordinary working girl, not at all wealthy and not a member of any elite class. Her name was Catherine Genovese, the 28-year-old daughter of Italian-American parents. But to millions of people who read her story when it first appeared in New York City’s press, she would forever be remembered as “Kitty” Genovese. What happened to her, what happened to all of society on that dreadful night in the spring of 1964, would reverberate across the country and generate a national soul-searching that is reserved for only the most catastrophic of events. And nearly 40 years later, her name has become synonymous with a dark side of an urban character that, for many people, represents a harsh and disturbing reality of big city life.
It is easy to make the wrong decision.
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.