Everest

Former Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5015640.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5016536.stm

Right or wrong to leave the dying climber? Even if they couldn't have saved him, should they at least have made the attempt (even at the risk of their own lives)?

Former Member

I think they should at least made an effort.

Well he's going to have a guilty conscience anyway so I don't mind.

Former Member

Why was the dying climber alone in the first place?

Former Member

Randomgirl wrote:

Why was the dying climber alone in the first place?

It is possible to climb mountains on your own ya know?

Sherpas where climbing up and down that mountain long before Everest ever got near it.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Even if they couldn't have saved him, should they at least have made the attempt (even at the risk of their own lives)?

In situations like that, the safety of the rescuer is always paramount.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

Sherpas where climbing up and down that mountain long before Everest ever got near it.

Hilary.

Leaving a man to die alone when you are passing is a shameful thing to do. But the point he was making was that getting to the summit has become more important than the skill and responsibility of climbing it.

Former Member

Personal ambition to climb to the top seems to outweigh our responsibility to a human being. Even if they couldn't have saved him someone should have stayed with him and held his hand.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Personal ambition to climb to the top seems to outweigh our responsibility to a human being. Even if they couldn't have saved him someone should have stayed with him and held his hand.

I would've thought so.

It's a bit like failing to stop after a car accident when someone's injured just because you've got somewhere to be.

Former Member

I wouldnt have even thought twice, i would have saved myself and left him to die...or offered to do him in if it saved any unneccessary suffering.

Former Member

\

Former Member

the samaritan story from the bible springs to mind here


if he found the man going up, and the man was dying he should of brought him back down or tried to help him as much as possible - if he went sod it he's gonna die, thats just evil and wrong

see on this occasion the army was wise, they abandoned their attempt on the grounds they were taking too many risks of avalanche in scaling it

Former Member

If I had the desire to do something like scale everest I would completely understand someone else's desire to make it to the top being stronger than the futile hand holding session that doing anything other than moving on from Mr Just-About-Dead would have been...

Former Member

katralla wrote:

If I had the desire to do something like scale everest I would completely understand someone else's desire to make it to the top being stronger than the futile hand holding session that doing anything other than moving on from Mr Just-About-Dead would have been...

That's the point Edmund Hilary made. People don't give a shit as long as they get to the top.

In sport, we might call it ungentlemanly conduct.

Former Member

How is it ungentlemanly??? If I were Mr Just-About-Dead, I wouldn't want to scupper someone else's chance of making it just so that they could hold my hand- what the hell's the point in that?

Former Member

katralla wrote:

How is it ungentlemanly??? If I were Mr Just-About-Dead, I wouldn't want to scupper someone else's chance of making it just so that they could hold my hand- what the hell's the point in that?

It's called HUMANITY.


He or they should have at least made it somehow easier for him or taken a message or whatever, it's the humane thing to do, whether it is right or wrong, doesn't matter.

Former Member

katralla wrote:

How is it ungentlemanly??? If I were Mr Just-About-Dead, I wouldn't want to scupper someone else's chance of making it just so that they could hold my hand- what the hell's the point in that?

You wouldn't know he was "just about dead" until you got to him. But to ignore a man in distress is pretty disgusting, especially if you are passing by.

Former Member

katralla wrote:

How is it ungentlemanly??? If I were Mr Just-About-Dead, I wouldn't want to scupper someone else's chance of making it just so that they could hold my hand- what the hell's the point in that?

Human decency? Even if you can't save their life, you can at least give them companionship as they die. Scaling Everest is nothing compared to that...

Former Member

Well, if I were in the dying position I wouldn't want someone to stop just so they could hold my already numb hand; if I were in the climber's position and saw there was nothing I could do by stopping but could reach my goal by continuing- I keep going, maybe stomping on his head or something to spare him pain but... er, nearly dead already...

Former Member

katralla wrote:

Well, if I were in the dying position I wouldn't want someone to stop just so they could hold my already numb hand; if I were in the climber's position and saw there was nothing I could do by stopping but could reach my goal by continuing- I keep going, maybe stomping on his head or something to spare him pain but... er, nearly dead already...

If you were dying, you wouldn't be thinking straight, for one.

Secondly, until anyone is dead, there is always a chance however slim it is. Maybe he can smoke a cigarette one last time or drink a hot drink one last time, whatever...

Former Member

smoke a cigarette with his barely moving eyes? and in the knowledge of stopping someone else from doing something that you can completely understand their strength of desire for because you were trying to do it yourself... Na, I wouldn't want the fag.

Former Member

katralla wrote:

Well, if I were in the dying position I wouldn't want someone to stop just so they could hold my already numb hand; if I were in the climber's position and saw there was nothing I could do by stopping but could reach my goal by continuing- I keep going, maybe stomping on his head or something to spare him pain but... er, nearly dead already...

Fuck, I thought I was ruthless.

Its the fact of someone being there that makes the difference. So you don't go into that 'long, dark night' alone.

Former Member

I think I'm compassionate. Dying alone seems less of a hardship than dying with someone at the expense of their dream that I could fully relate to...

Former Member

katralla wrote:

I think I'm compassionate. Dying alone seems less of a hardship than dying with someone at the expense of their dream that I could fully relate to...

That's not a definition of compassion that I recognise.

Former Member

I didn't realise there were 40 of them in the group. With that many people they should have done something.

Former Member

Well I don't think dying alone is a major hardship- it's not like you'd be taking hand-holder with you, whereas holding someback from their dream for the sake of having my hand held just seems like a waste to me.

Former Member

katralla wrote:

I think I'm compassionate. Dying alone seems less of a hardship than dying with someone at the expense of their dream that I could fully relate to...

I completely inderstand where you are coming from, Mrs Frost.

But it's not like it was the other guy's last chance to climb Everest.

Former Member

katralla wrote:

Well I don't think dying alone is a major hardship- it's not like you'd be taking hand-holder with you, whereas holding someback from their dream for the sake of having my hand held just seems like a waste to me.

Holding his hand is just a metaphor for helping someone in distress. Can you really justify your opinion if you were told that you stopping could have saved his life?

Former Member

If it were to save his life, then saving his life is the only justifyable thing to do- no mountain's worth leaving someone to die for. I meant the other stuff in the case of just-about-couldn't-warm-him-up-in-an-oven kinda way. If there were even a small chance to help someone survive, then try we must.

Former Member

\

Former Member

scarlettleeds wrote:

the point is you won't know whether you have a realistic chance of saving him or not, so you have to assume you do and try, even if it proves futile.

I don't think I could live with myself if I left someone to die on a mountain personally, even if it looked like he ws on his way out - think I'd always wonder whether I could have saved him.

Yes, quite!! :thumb:

Former Member

Well, you could be completely wrong or totally right but I think you do have to make a judgement and then accept it a the best judgement you could make with the information at hand. I've never had to judge whether I think someone has even the remotest chance of surviving but some people do it everyday in their jobs (like the peopl who decide when to stop shocking someon'e heart in hospitals etc), so a judgement can be made. In this case, from what I read, the bloke assumed he didn't have a hope- therefore leaving him was fine.