The Case of the Dying Mountaineer

[elvum]

I can't find enough details to come to a moral decision on the subject of David Sharp, the man who died on Everest as "forty people" climbed up past him.

It seems to be the case that the dying climber was trying to make the ascent entirely unsupported and without the proper equipment, in which case he certainly shouldn't have relied on being bailed out by other climbers, at risk to their own lives. It's like living your life without home contents insurance on the assumption that your neighbours will give you furniture when your house burns down*. So I think that if the dying man was already and obviously doomed when he was found, the actions of the other climbers were justified (albeit somewhat callous, but the higher order brain functions pack up somewhere around 7,000m, and even the politest mountaineers stop raising their helmets to passing ladies). If his life could have been saved, there's criticism enough for all parties concerned, himself included.

The suggestion I've read in the press that someone could have sat around and held his hand while he died sounds very romantic and Florence Nightingale, but doesn't make sense in the extreme conditions near the summit of Everest. If you're not going up, you go down. Staying still just risks two (or more) corpses instead of one. If you want me to hold your hand as you die on a mountain, pick a safer mountain.

*note to self, get contents insurance...

Comments

[shuripentu.livejournal.com]

As with all such things, I don't think anyone who wasn't there could possibly say for sure. I must admit to being rather swayed by the argument that if you have the energy to make the summit, then you've got the energy to do a rescue, especially if you've got a team with you...

[elvum.livejournal.com]

A rescue wrecks all your plans. All of a sudden you have to find food, fuel, oxygen and room in your tents for someone who really needs a hospital. At best, those facilities were your safety net. At worst, there won't be enough food, water and sleeping bags to go round, and you endanger the whole party. Especially if the weather changes, which it can do with very little warning. Is it reasonable to risk the lives of you and your friends for the sake of someone who chose not to arrange adequate equipment and support for himself? Especially if that someone is, in your opinion, going to die whatever you do?

[johnckirk.livejournal.com]

Like you, I don't know enough to make a real decision. I'd like to think that I would have hung around, but it's hard to say without actually being there.

Most of what I know about this particular case comes from an article on the BBC website. According to that, the climbers wouldn't have been able to save him, but they wouldn't have put themselves at risk by staying either - the issue is that they probably wouldn't have been able to make it to the summit afterwards, due to lack of oxygen/whatever.

I think an everyday equivalent would be a situation where you're having to run for a train at a station and you see someone else struggling with heavy luggage on the stairs. You could stay to help them, which might be something you'd normally do, but if you do then you'll miss your train and you won't make it to the meeting/film/play that you want to get to. At the same time, there are plenty of other people around who could help just as well as you, so there's no specific guilt if you choose to hurry past.

What I do think is that good deeds tend to be habit forming, i.e. the more often you do things like that the more likely you are to do something similar in the future.

[elvum.livejournal.com]

See my response to shuripentu though - by attempting a rescue, you increase the risk to yourself and your party. It's like stopping to help someone with heavy luggage in the middle of a bombing raid or something. (Not a great analogy - you'd probably be better off shouting "drop the fucking luggage and follow me" as you ran for the nearest shelter...)

[terpsichore1980.livejournal.com]

The absolute first rule of rescues in extreme conditions are make sure you don't do anything to harm yourself. An analagous (although less extreme) situation might be if my buddy and I came across an unconcious diver on the sea bed. I have some options:

1) I could leave him,
2) I could do a normal speed, controlled ascent taking him with me, or
3) I could shoot up to the surface and start rescue breaths (you can't do them under water).

Now 1 does not seem like a good idea, he probably has family that will want to know where he is and I can't identify him underwater. With the currents etc, even if I mark the position the body is likely to have moved.

3 is also not really an option, it would get him to being resuscitated faster, but the danger to me and my buddy, for the sake of someone who is probably already dead anyway. It violates the rules for rescuers of not taking unnecessary risks.

2 is probably the best of a bad set of options, at least you can do stuff on the surface. Realistically though, the casualty is not going to survive in any recognisable form, for a start because chances are it will take you more than 3 minutes to get to them to the surface, by which time they are likely to have oxygen deprivation problems. It is likely to take even longer to get them onto a hard surface, depending on where the surface cover is, and you cannot give compressions in water. Essentially the only reason you would be bringing the unconcious casualty up at all was that you would mekt the rescuer feel better.

Essentially, the point I am trying to make is that normal rules do not apply when you have limited resources of something essential (like air). Sitting on the side of the mountain with him is just a waste of limited resources and is not going to do the casualty any good. I will take elvum's word for it that taking him down presents an unacceptable increase in the existing risk. That being the case, there is no point discontinuing your climb. Again, I don't know enough to make an informed decision, but that is my twopenneth.

[dynix.livejournal.com]

what about inflating their jacket and sending them up with a surface marker bouy and hoping that someone gets to them? at worst this means that when you do get up there yourself they will have floated off, but they will still have a bouy and the boat (if there is one) can get to them sharpish. It does rather rely on your buddy also having a bouy though.

[terpsichore1980.livejournal.com]

Na, the chances that the people on the boat are looking the wrong way are too great. Better chance of recovering their body if you keep it with you. Besides which they would end up tangled in the line from the buoy. Remember taking them up at all (assuming you just found them on the sea bed) is pretty much about making yourself feel better anyway, the chances of it doing them any good is fairly tiny. Thats my viewpoint anyway.

[johnckirk.livejournal.com]

I suppose this does come down to the details of that situation, which I don't know, so perhaps it's more useful to take the BBC version of events as a hypothetical situation. If the dying man did have his own equipment etc., and therefore there wouldn't be any risk to the people who'd wait with him, then I think it really comes down to a question of being selfish vs selfless.

That sounds a bit accusatory, but everyone has to find their own boundary for that. E.g. I could live like a monk and give all my spare money to charity, but instead I choose to spend money on pizzas and shiny things, because I like them. And I can imagine why it would be frustrating for someone to say "Well, I spent a year living off beans on toast so that I could save enough money to make the trip, then I spent three days climbing through blizzards, and I got within about 100m of the top, then I just turned around and came home."

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

As elvum says, higher brain functions cut out after 7000m or so, so I doubt anyone was thinking that clearly...