Everest

Former Member

\

Former Member

exactly- so they make a judgement as to whether there is no chance.

Former Member

Fresh perspective from the princess-ly one. I think some of you have been taking the accuracy of his judgement into account as well as the action based upon it. I had (previously) been basing my arguement completely on the action (of moving along, nothing to see here), assuming the judgement (that mr moving eyes had no chance) to have been honestly the one he made at the time (but you would say that when accused of being a morally-bankrupt-herpe-on-the-side-of-the-face-of-humanity). If we factor in the accuracy of his judgement, I come to a slightly different stance. His judgement as to whether the guy was definately a-gonner was probably a shit one because isn't one of the body's preservation techniques in hyperthermia to shut down everything except for vital functions in order to preserve energy? Therefore, the guy's appearance of only being able to move his eyes a bit would not be a good factor for deciding someone who's likely to be, er COLD having little chance of survival. Obviously we don't always have the cushty environment of home comforts, a coffee and a fag to hand when we make judgements so we can allow in a factor of environmental stress when guaging the correctness of climber's judgement. another thing though, wouldn't a climber on everest know that cold people act cold- with his own frostbitten hands assulting his nervous system, wouldn't the consequences of being on the side of everest be right there jibing away at his conciousness? I assume yes, therefore I think either climber has really really bad decision making skills or I smell a rat and he didn't really think he was completely unsavable. Therefore he is a bad man for walking away from someone who could have been saved, and a bad man for pulling the ole 'I couldn't have done anything to help anyway' card. Unless of course, there are other factors that we haven't heard- like maybe er, I dunno- what symptoms would make you think someone couldn't survive? Maybe climber had to weigh in the amount of time it would have taken to get Mr Nearly to a med professional. hmmmm I still smell a rat...

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

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

Why? What's wrong with being objective? if someone is going to die, i mean really they're Going To Die and there's nothing anything or anyone can do, what's evil and wrong about honesty?

Former Member

I think the bigger question here is that it was in no way certain he was going to die, but saving him would have disrupted the chance the reach the peak. That certainly seems to be the criticism running around the climbing community at the moment - saving someone or succeeding - which is most important.

Former Member

Well naturally saving someone is much more important. But for the sake of discussion, what if he was right, what if this poor guy genuinely was simply little more than actually dead?

Former Member

Then I think I agree with Hilary - you see a person in danger you do everything you possibly can to get them to a place of safety.

As to if you should stay with them if they can't be moved. If I was on the way out for a night on the piss and came across someone dying in the road, I wouldn't shrug my shoulders and piss off to the pub just because staying with them might mean a few less pints at the pub.

And to be honest compared to a person's life - climbing Everest or going to the pub have about the same level of importance - nothing at all.

Former Member

\

Former Member

As i said, if it is about self preservation id have left him, hell if it was self preservation and food ran out and he wasnt even injured, i woul dhave cracked his head open with the last packet of instant mash then eaten him to keep myself alive longer.

If it is just about getting to the top of a mountain and not self preservation, id give it my all to help him, i mean its not like i would be the first to climb it, they ahve all ben climbed before.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

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

And it's also a very selfish thing to do, putting your own life at risk if he was climbing alone. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but I suppose I am. It is sad what happened but at the end of the day if you want to take on Mother Nature alone, you risk death. I know a lot of climbers do go out alone, but let's face it... Without a buddy by your side if you fall you're fucked.

Also, the higher you climb, the more it affects your body, so by attempting a rescue both lives could have been put at risk. If somebody were to stay behind it would put them off schedule... There is also the risk of running out of food and so on...

I don't think anybody would say "fuck him, I'm going to get to the top of the mountain", it's just the media looking for a new folk devil.

And I admire Mr Inglis for his honesty in admitting what he saw, who by the way as it says is a double amputee and might find carrying a man down a mountain a bit harder compared to people who have their whole body in act.

Former Member

Who shouted "you bastard" at the screen when the guy cut the rope in Touching the Void?

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Who shouted "you bastard" at the screen when the guy cut the rope in Touching the Void?

what would you have done though? if i'm honest i would've cut the rope, the dude was hanging on for hours, it's a horrible decision to have to make and then live with, just lucky his friend survived i guess......

Former Member

I don't think I could leave someone to die alone. If it was me I'd want somebody with me, so I'd do the same the other way round. All life is precious in my opinion.

Former Member

In that touching the Void i would have cut the rope way sooner!