Dying Everest Climber - What would you have done?

[silentC]

Sir Edmund Hillary has questioned the actions of New Zealand climber Mark Inglis, who left another climber to die on his way to conquering Mt Everest.

Inglis, a double-amputee, was one of many climbers who passed British climber David Sharp, 34, on his way to the top of the world's highest mountain a week ago.

Sharp, a 34-year-old engineer, later died on the mountain.

If you were in that position, what would you have done? Would you continue on your way and leave someone to die like that, or would you have turned around and tried to get him back down?

[Wood Butcher]

I would of helped huim in any way I could. I never would've been able to forgive myself.
Years ago I was driving up Cunninghams Gap in SE QLD at night and there was a car that had lost control and ended up on the concrete barrier. I drove past then turned around 5 minutes later to help. It was amazing how cars drove up, put their lights on high beam to have a gawk then drove past. Call me old fashioned but I will stop to help someone change a tyre if I can.
"What goes around comes around!!"

[CameronPotter]

I am not familiar with the story so I can't judge, but was it clear that this other climber was in trouble? Maybe he just looked tired? If it was clear/implied that he REALLY did not need/want help, then who are you to tell him what to do?

Mind you, I thought that basic safety procedures for climbing stated that you did it with someone else - minimum. So where was this David Sharp's team/friend/guide?

All that aside, if you saw a guy there is obvious trouble - you help him. It doesn't matter if you are trying to climb to the top yourself. Simple question, simple answer.

Look at the disasterous Sydney to Hobart race where quite a few people died. The racers stopped and saved other contestants rather than continuing the race - and that was a race, not just an expedition...

[Wongo]

Leaving someone dying behind? no way, no way.

Stuff Mt Everest and do what is more important or what is right.

[silentC]

I am not familiar with the story so I can't judge, but was it clear that this other climber was in trouble? Maybe he just looked tired? If it was clear/implied that he REALLY did not need/want help, then who are you to tell him what to do?

He was obviously in trouble. They stopped to see if they could help but decided that he was going to die anyway, so they pressed on. Apparently something like 40 other climbers walked passed him without even stopping.

The rest of the story is here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/att...150286180.html

[TassieKiwi]

A tough call. What price a human life? Roger Hall stayed on the mountain to 'help' his dying client. He could've got down alone, but chose to say goodby to his wife and young children from near the summit via satphone, and then they both died. Who gained from this?

I gather that the world at 28,000 ft is another place - they do things differently there. That said, I reckon Sir Ed would've chucked him over his shoulder and taken him back. 1953 a different world too, I guess. I would like to think that I would have halped, but I would never have the intestinal fortitide to be anywhere near that rock, on that mountain.

[Tikki]

Unlike a lot of people I've encountered in my life, I could never live with my conscience if I knowingly neglected someone who needed help in any way. If I were unable to provide assistance myself I would certainly abandon my own pursuits to find someone who could.

Cheers
Tikki

[Daddles]

Based on the news story and what I know about climbing Everest (a fair bit though I'm not a climber myself), it's a flaming disgrace. These pricks, all 40 of them, were going UP the hill. Sure, they were trying to get to the summit and had paid a lot of money and might not get another chance, but SO WHAT! The man was obviously in trouble and needed help. He died. Maybe they couldn't have changed that but to not even try is a disgrace.

Had they been climbing down and were suffering themselves, I would have a different opinion of their actions. There are times, especially on that mountain, when personal survival is threatened by trying to help others and men have died on Everest attempting to help others. But these selfish gits were on the way up - they could have helped but personal glory and money was more important than a man's life.

Sorry, no excuses.

Richard

[CameronPotter]

Well, if he was clearly in trouble. I would have done my darndest to carry him back and I also would have harangued passing climbers to lend a hand if necessary... :mad:

[silentC]

Maybe they couldn't have changed that but to not even try is a disgrace

I think this is what it's all about. The very least you can do is try. It's a cold hearted person who makes a calculation like that when the only thing at stake is the conquest of a mountain. If it was life or death for you to make that choice, it's understandable that you would weigh up the pros and cons. But if it simply means turning around and failing in your arbitrary goal, I don't think there's any excuse.

[Zed]

1 in 6 people who attempt to climb everest die.

$70K american approx for an attempt = price of one life.

to not help means you deserve to be pushed off a precipice yourself. @rseholes...

[Ianab]

What could they have done anyway?

The altitude there is such that you just cant survive without extra oxygen and it's tough on the body even with extra.

From what I read the guy had been up there all night without O2 and was pretty far gone. I think they checked on him but there was just no practical help they could give by that stage. It's not like they could stretcher him off or carry him down even.

Ian

[silentC]

Were any of them doctors? How would they know if anything could be done or not? I'm certainly no expert but Hillary is and he reckons they should have/could have done something. So did the scientist they quoted in the article.

[DanP]

Even if he was drawing his last breaths when they found him, to do nothing to assist is a dogs act and I hope they find themselves in a similar position in the very near future.

To neglect a person in need, especially in a life or death situation, and that person MAY have survived with assistance, as far as I'm concerned, YOU are responsible (in part) for the death of that person. I hope their testicles explode. :mad:

Dan:mad:

[Cliff Rogers]

I would not have put myself in the situation in the first place.

I wouldn't have been up there.