[Closed] Corpses on Everest

It's the Isle of Man TT debate all over again.

People should always have the liberty to risk their own life so long as there is no risk to other non-participants.

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

I see the attraction, I'll never do it but I'd 'fight' for others' right to.

Compassion is as powerful an instinct as self-interest, for normally-wired people, possibly more powerful in the right circumstances.

But then society will sit back and watch millions poison themselves with tobacco!

Hard cash is always the common theme, so pehaps the way forward is if you pay your own hard earned and it's risky or if you earn or gain from it and it's risky ..... don't run crying to anyone or expect anything when it goes tits up?

“PLEASE don’t leave me,” the dying woman cried.

****. Imagine having that in your head for the rest of your life.

It's one of those situations where you don't know what you'll do until you're there.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

The "cutting the rope"/Touching the Void question is harder. The "polite" thing to do was not to cut, and for the two of them politely to die together without any awkwardness. But cutting the rope, though brutal, was actually more likely to save the life of the guy dangling...

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

That's not the understanding people have when they go up there though, normal rules don't apply. Not saying it's right, mind. Doesn't appeal to me at all - I'd much rather climb something with a bit of technical challenge, that wasn't so commercialised. It's for people who are obsessed by stats and tick-lists and glory, not people who want a great experience in an amazing environment.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

In what screwed up world is the right thing to do staying and dying yourself? Get real.

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

They do pay a (fairly high) fee to climb it already, why would you clean up the mountain? It's just nature, things die in dangerous places.

I wonder if anyone's been left to die on the SDW yet. Once their on that wet chalk it'll be every man for himself.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

Err no that is just stupid. If your life is at risk then the "right thing to do" is to get out of there. There is no benfit in two people dying when only one has to.

The dilema in Touching the void is actually worse than leaving someone who is dying.

was actually more likely to save the life of the guy dangling...

No, you are wrong. By cutting the rope Simon Yeates was sending Joe Simpson to his death; they both knew that. They also both knew that it was "the right thing to do".

I wonder if anyone's been left to die on the SDW yet. Once their on that wet chalk it'll be every man for himself.

Conditions are looking favourable. Lettuce pray for their Safe Return.

I'd like to know a little bit more about the situations where people have heard other climbers calling out for out for help and just left them. Any one care to enlightem me? The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.

j_me - Yes. Are you suggesting it's acceptable to leave the South Col in such a mess?

Are you suggesting that other people put there own lives in very real and significant danger, to clean it up? We're not talking a leisurely litter-pick along the side of a bridleway here..

In what screwed up world is the right thing to do staying and dying yourself? Get real.

Stiff upper lip!!

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.

The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.

Of course, the headline writers would have you believe these people walk on by without a thought, 99.9% will never have been in such a situation, never will be and their greatest risk to life will be their commute to work. Those doing things like climbing everest know and accept the risks, those viewing from a distance will not understand.

Anyone seen the TV documentary about a disabled NZ climber who summited Everest - he apparently passed a dying climber and didn't stop to help (neither did many others) but for some reason he got blamed for being callous and selfish. Seems a bit harsh to pick on the disabled guy!

That's not the understanding people have when they go up there though, normal rules don't apply.

Agree. The right thing for the person in trouble to do is to assume nobody will help, and watch his arse accordingly.

Nevertheless the position remains that the right thing to do for the person not in trouble is to help the person in difficulties. I'm not saying it's what [i]I[/i] would do - I don't know - but some morals are universal. When your own life is at stake - that's when they're [i]most[/i] relevant. Even if you know there's nothing you can do, the right thing to do is to die trying. A bit of moral clarity is needed here! I don't think one should change the goalposts as to what "the right thing" itself is, just because death is involved. If you're saying "the right thing" doesn't matter - well that's different, and maybe sustainable.

NB I agree that it looks like it's been overtaken by City types, the ones who ski in Verbier but don't actually do any skiing.

A question. Has there ever been a punchup on Everest? I would've thought so with all the jumped up corporate types, inflated egos there. Just like punchups between the partners at the office christmas party you know?

Are you suggesting that other people put there own lives in very real and significant danger, to clean it up? We're not talking a leisurely litter-pick along the side of a bridleway here..

Even if you know there's nothing you can do, the right thing to do is to die trying.

Only if there is some chance of succeeding - if you are only going to cause your own death and fail to help another it's pretty stupid. You also might then put others in the situation where they feel they should try and rescue you, thus putting them in danger too.

Nervously awaiting news from the SDW Expeditionary Force... 😐

Thats why im asking Coffeking, i have visions of this Naar fella sitting in his tent, cup of brew in his hand all snug in his sleeping bag like when he made the comment. I fully appreciate that is far from the truth, but on the face of it the decision to just let the guy get on die with no attempt to offer comfort seems a bit callous.

Grum, that sounds like lemmings!

Wunundred!

Still no news. 😐

As for the cleaning up, yes maybe fine around base camp but in the death zone it's not viable.

A related moral debate, possibly worthy of a separate thread:

if you're on a ride with a mate, a ride you've prepared for, trained for, mapped carefully, saved for; and this is your only chance to do it ; and your mate's bike breaks (possibly because he hasn't put the necessary cash/time into maintaining it) - and you're somewhere remote, say the Lakes - are you obliged to shepherd the guy back to the car park? Does this terminate your own ride?

Or can you say "bummer man, well, cya!" and ride on - even if [i]he doesn't offer to make his way home alone[/i].

My view is that if the guy has food, a phone, knows the way, etc., it's fine to leave him, but if the guy doesn't (as is likely), your ride ends too.

EDIT - actually my sense is that you have to stick with him pretty much. Right thing to do...again...so pick your riding buddies carefully...

Maybe they could pay a fee to climb it and every now and then (as grim as it sounds) a 'clean up' team could be choppered up?

AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.

Yeah wondered about that after I'd written it. Thought 25000ft was possible?

It's ok saying it's natural to die all over the world but when the temperatures are so low they will still be there in 100 years. Still togged up in funky coloured lycra.

Climbing over piles of bodies may add to the challenge in the future?

What if, right, you were up there and you lost/damaged yer jacket, but found a corpse with a nice jacket on.

Ok to take it? I mean, it's not like they're going to need it...

I know I know. Poor taste. Sorry. 😳

Yeah those green boots are pretty rad actually. I'd have em.

If I died on Everest, or any high mountain - I'd hope they put my head on a stick! Gnar!

I'd take it.

It's a brotherhood isn't it?

As for the cleaning up, yes maybe fine around base camp but in the death zone it's not viable.

never be in that situation and will never understand the mentality of those who go there.

I'm not saying that I do but I don't think it's fair to judge people in such extreme circumstances from the comfort of your desktop. As said above, no one climbs Everest without an understanding of the associated risks. I don't think "comfort" is a word used much there.

I'd pretty much agree with this. It's not an excuse or licence for people to act like twunts but as others have said normal rules don't apply. I think in general there can be a pretty big gap between what people like to think they'd do in a particular situation and what they'd actually do when it comes to it, and if you add in all the other factors present in climbing at high altitudes then there's no point getting judgemental about how people behave. It's not as simple as saying they're all selfish b@stards (although of course some of them might be).

Even poorer taste.....

What you lost your food on the way up, and your pass one of the fallen climbers. Your climbing buddy says to you "I saw this film once, called Alive....."

[i]I'd like to know a little bit more about the situations where people have heard other climbers calling out for out for help and just left them. Any one care to enlightem me? The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.[/i]

If you click on the link below, click on 'look inside' and 'first pages' you can read one.

[url] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Shadows-Falling-Joe-Simpson/dp/0099756110 [/url]

Even poorer taste.....
200 dead bodies.....does that give it an extra 400ft?

I reckon if you venture up into the Everest death zone, you shouldn't and have no right be expecting anyone to rescue you if you are in trouble, and if you don't know that, well i doubt you've researched the expedition very well.

A question. Has there ever been a punchup on Everest? I would've thought so with all the jumped up corporate types, inflated egos there. Just like punchups between the partners at the office christmas party you know?

I'm not judging anyone - what I'm saying is that the rules, "the right thing" remains the same whatever your elevation. It has to. It is never "the right thing" to leave a dude dying.

You can decline to judge Naar for not doing the right thing, as I'm doing - give him a pass, given the circumstances - but that is completely different from saying he actually did the right thing, which is tantamount to saying "2+2=5". It's like when the CPS see a crime was committed but decline to prosecute in view of public interest considerations.

'Not viable' is not the same as 'not doable' 😉

How successful was the expedition I wonder? The last bit is probably a smart move.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that in the slightest. Not much experience of mountaineering but the closest example I can think of is general first aid, whitewater kayak rescue or lifesaving (swimming) where you are told time and again that you should not put yourself in unnescessary danger and your priority is to yourself first.

I would like to think that I would stay with someone or abandon my attempt to the summit to help* but I wouldn't stay there till my own death.

*This is the part I struggle with. I can understand that if you are on your absolute limit then stopping to help someone will be suicide. But if you are still going up when you pass someone then perhaps you could use some of that energy/oxygen to help the injured person down or even not abandon them.

I'd like to know a little bit more about the situations where people have heard other climbers calling out for out for help and just left them. Any one care to enlightem me? The situation must have been dire for them to leave, as had been said thats going to play with your head somewhat.

you are told time and again that you should not put yourself in unnescessary danger and your priority is to yourself first.

You are told that for insurance reasons, or whatever - not for moral reasons.

Besides "do as you're told" doesn't apply in ethical dilemmas, Nuremberg defence and all that. It always hacks me off on planes that they tell you to put your own mask on first before your kid's. It's your call, surely.

You are told that for insurance reasons, or whatever - not for moral reasons.

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

It always hacks me off on planes that they tell you to put your own mask on first before your kid's

There's a very good reason for that. It's to do with the effects of hypoxia on the brain. You become a giddy fool long before you die, so as the person in charge you need to retain your faculties more than the kids.

You might think it would be our call but we might not have all the facts. Which is why it's a good idea to follow instructions in many cases...

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

I'm sure most Everest types would say 'I don't need your opinion, I have my own!'

If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.

There seems to be two trains of thought here, the 'live and let live (or die)' and the 'I want to protect you from yourselves' people.

Thread run it's course?

[i]If you have not been up there you don't know. Might I suggest that it thus none of your business so don't say anything.[/i]

Quite right, so lets leave the last words to someone who has -

All I can say is that in our expedition there was never any likelihood whatsoever if one member of the party was incapacitated that we would just leave him to die

[url] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383276 [/url]

This BBC news article from 2006 states "The death rate has remained at one death for every ten successful attempts to climb Everest for many years"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5281344.stm

If those stats are correct and you climb Everest, you know that there is a chance you won't come back.

At the end of last year, 219 people had died, whilst climbing Everest.

In that link - the guy who died, Sharp, did he not have a party of his own?

I think theres a big difference between passing someone in danger on your ascent compared to your descent.

Passing someone on an ascent and not trying your hardest to help is digusting - considering you are planning to put yourself in more danger by going higher anyway.

Surely at that point, the want to help a another human being should override self interest, the need for glory and that you dont want to waste your £50 grand on the chance of saving someone.

I agree with Tim.

Human life is infinitely more precious than being able to brag about your exploits at dinner parties.

Most people would be more impressed to hear you'd saved a man's life on Everest than to hear about your successful summit bid.

if you're on a ride with a mate, ... are you obliged to shepherd the guy back to the car park? Does this terminate your own ride?

If they are capable of a long walk back, they can walk back alone. Unless they ask me to go back with them, in which case I would comply without complaint.

If they are [u]not[/u] capable then it makes no difference if they are friend or stranger, you go with them. It's only time and ambition you've sacrificed - it's nothing.

The only limitation is in situations where one might sacrifice ones life and that is a personal choice that can only be made at the time - neither choice is wrong.

Naar's, and similar situations are concerning because it seems like they could have done more to help without risking further loss of life. But the situation is hard to imagine from one's living room.

One must rely on the judgement of people who've been there. Joe Simpson and Simon Yates have been there and Joe is very clear in his opinion.

[i]One must rely on the judgement of people who've been there. Joe Simpson and Simon Yates have been there and Joe is very clear in his opinion. [/i]

Not having read the full text, what is Simpsons opinion?

---

found a synopsis...

[i]"We have no need of codes by which to judge our ethical response to situations. We know intuitively what is the correct way to behave." Passing by a dying man without even stopping to hold his hand is a terrible violation of this universal standard of humane conduct, and undercuts the very foundation of society."[/i]

"Fair enough" I think sums it up

That said didn't Yates and Simpson pretty much end up going to war (after having been amicable) when they returned to Peru to film the movie?

That quote by Simpson is the one that stands out from reading quite a few of his books.

In that link - the guy who died, Sharp, did he not have a party of his own?

shotsaway - Member
This BBC news article from 2006 states "The death rate has remained at one death for every ten successful attempts to climb Everest for many years"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5281344.stm

If those stats are correct and you climb Everest, you know that there is a chance you won't come back.

That's the same when climbing any decent mountain. The chance of not coming back may not always be that high, but it's often significant if you climb in a serious mountain environment/difficult routes. It's part of the attraction at some level.

[Titter] Glupton chucks in 6500m willy wave in context of 8800m discussion [/titter]

Difficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard... mountaineering is a selfish sport, commercial mountaineering just more so.

Reading up on some of the cretins who buy their way up there, why would you 'risk all' to help never mind risk a summit bid?

They accept the risks when they buy the ticket.

But there is undoubtedly a "right thing to do" here and that's to stay with the guy until he's dead and if you die doing so then tough luck. It is a black and white situation: no shades of grey.

The right thing to od is leave them to die [i]and not tell anybody[/i] how black the centre of your soul is...

Climbing over piles of bodies may add to the challenge in the future?

I don't really think you can say you've climbed it unless you've carried a corpse back down with you.

AFAIUI you can't fly a chopper to such altitudes.

Now that sounds like a challenge...

Difficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard..

New round here are you?

Simpsons quote pretty much sums my feelings on the matter, going back to the Naar example, did he communicate with the dying man at all?

Not sure but i think the David Sharp fella was a from New forest area. Sure my hairdresser knew him.

avdave2 - Member

Difficult moralising from the safety of a keyboard..

New round here are you?

Nope, long before you sonny 🙂

"We have no need of codes by which to judge our ethical response to situations. We know intuitively what is the correct way to behave." Passing by a dying man without even stopping to hold his hand is a terrible violation of this universal standard of humane conduct, and undercuts the very foundation of society."

Bullseye

They accept the risks when they buy the ticket.

Disagree. This debate is not about them. It's about YOU and your reaction when you pass them.

It's an interesting one though. Despite all my bleating, I would not jump on a live set of train tracks to grab a drunk who'd fallen onto it. So I agree that there IS a limit, i.e. here, where the person has WILLFULLY put themselves at risk and where death is pretty much CERTAIN. So maybe it's a bit more grey than I've been saying. On paper I guess this scenario looks similar to those described above but somehow it's different.

Nope, long before you sonny

Well your moralising must be much righter than mine then. 🙂

jhw - Member

They accept the risks when they buy the ticket.

Disagree. This debate is not about them. It's about YOU and your reaction when you pass them.

You missed this then

[i]Reading up on some of the cretins who buy their way up there, why would you 'risk all' to help never mind risk a summit bid?[/i]

I'm a climber, I would (and have though not on Everest) gladly help other climbers if I could (and it didn't make matters worse i.e. risk more death...).

I wouldn't however risk my neck for a bunch of idiotic socialites out of their depth. They have their guides/sherpas for that. Risk goes with the territory for both the idiotic client and the guides who happily take their money.

It's commercial climbing. Normal rules of engagement don't apply.

On that basis I guess the answer (to avoid having to distinguish between the "climbers" and the "socialites", a distinction I don't fully understand...) is just to go places where there aren't muppets and avoid Everest full stop

Quite right, so lets leave the last words to someone who has -

This was the story I referred to earlier - why is that the guy with no legs got picked on for not helping?

Interesting thread, initially, then I came across this intellectual gem: "I do not have more respect for a nurse.
I don't think many choose that job out of altruism - it's just like any other job, and most are $hits."
So tell me, jhw, what research did you carry out in order to come to this conclusion? Did you meet, interview and get to know EVERY nurse in the UK in order to deduce that they are mostly, as you state, shits? I dont recall you asking me, but then again, I might have been on days off when you came to the unit I work on. Then again, you may just be a bit of a tit - who knows?

It's commercial climbing. Normal rules of engagement don't apply

Interesting!

What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality? Perhaps if they are foreigners, or a race you don't like, or it's a business competitor, or...

Explain why "climbing" is so special that it's excused the normal morality of assisting and comforting a fellow human in jeopardy?

Explain why "climbing" is so special that it's excused the normal morality of assisting and comforting a fellow human in jeopardy?

I think that's more of a "everyone's trying to survive, it's every man for himself" which applies in a few circumstances. Just because it's slow and not a danger that presents itself in a bus-coming-at-you sort of way, doesn't make it much different.

Plus I think we're confusing people who've been left despite being rescueable with those who've been left because there's nothing the others can do so no point trying.

Did you meet, interview and get to know EVERY nurse in the UK in order to deduce that they are mostly, as you state, shits?

I read it as the jobs, not the people, could be my reading though! Think his point was that most people do the job for the cash, not for the fun of doing the job.

Without wanting to be overly dramatic, climbing (like some other extreme sports) can literally be death defying and people have made the choice to, errr, do the defying. They've weighed up the pros and cons and paid their dues...

If someone sane but stupid willfully put themselves at risk (by running back and forth accross the M1 for instance), would you consider it your 'humane duty' to go into the live traffic and stop them?

The nurse comment was just silly and deserved ignoring.

What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality?

Pretty much any commercial enterprise, especally in less developed countries - Phillipino sweatshops, Tesco bullying it's way into new developments, Coca Cola "disappearing" union reps in Central America, Trump's golf course in Aberdeenshire. Wh should climbing be different? people with money want to do something, they're spending money fek anyone else. You'll need someone else to explain why it's right, I don't know, but it happens the world over.

BBSB, are you saying that's all OK?

This genuinely made me laugh 🙂

"Pretty much any commercial enterprise, especally in less developed countries"

Then

"Trump's golf course in Aberdeenshire"

What other circumstances is it OK to jettison morality? Perhaps if they are foreigners, or a race you don't like, or it's a business competitor, or...

Neat. Disagree with someone's opinion, imply they are racist. I'll have to remember that one.

I don't have much climbing experience, but I have done the outdoor first aid course which focuses on situations similar (although not as severe) as ones being mentioned. First rule, if there is danger to yourself in any way, you don't go near the casualty.

If someone is on Everest and is in such trouble that there is a 100% chance of them dying, even if I could sit by them and chat about the good ol' times and ask if they want to send a message to their kids/partners/parents/friends/etc. with no risk at all to myself, the logical thing is not to. Because you will get attached to them. And then the next step is trying to help someone who can't be helped. And of course, the next step is you dying too.

Or you get attached to them, and then you have to leave them to die. It's much easier to leave someone who you can tell yourself was an idiot who shouldn't have come up then Andy, father of two, who studied the same subject as you at uni.

Ok, you may make their last 20 minutes on earth slightly less gut wrenchingly awful, but at the price of a hell of a lot of guilt and "what if I.." thoughts. Not worth it, that could haunt you forever.

The ones that dealt with my mum after her heart attack were $hits!

OK, I digress . I just find it difficult to accept that a nurse, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a charity administrator is [i]inherently[/i] a more virtuous person than a banker, a lawyer, or an accountant, by virtue of their career choice. It's an assumption I see a lot, and I don't buy it. They're all commercial professions, paid commercial salaries, and in the case of the former category, commercial (final salary, I think, in many cases?) pensions. With lovely big holidays, and good job security (that lawyers and bankers certainly don't get). It's voluntary stuff which gets you a halo.

OK, I digress . I just find it difficult to accept that a nurse, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a charity administrator is inherently a more virtuous person than a banker, a lawyer, or an accountant, by virtue of their career choice.

Careful now, this is straying dangerously close to that soldier thread wot isn't with us any more...

"imply they are racist."

Sorry that was a bit arsy of me. Not implying they are racist. But it sounded to me like the climber regards the lives of "socialites" of lower value than his own clique - an argument sometimes used to justify racism.

Apologies

If someone sane but stupid willfully put themselves at risk (by running back and forth accross the M1 for instance), would you consider it your 'humane duty' to go into the live traffic and stop them?

Possibly yes. Though I might try to warn traffic to stop, on the basis that it might be more successful than grappling a loon in traffic! That's a scenarios where you decide to acutely put your life at risk. There is not a right or wrong answer.

Back on topic - I refer again to Anatoli Boukreev's achievement in going out several times and saving the lives of several people that stormy night on the South Col. He had already expended much effort summitting Everest that day and was fair exhausted. Naar had just got up to the South Col, but confined himself to his tent. It seems quite plausible that the nearby dying person could have been dragged into the tent and comforted.

Buzz, I wasn't implying anything. I was stating people make informed choices to go on these trips and my slightly arsey reference to 'socialites' was in response to the growing numbers of chequebook climbers who buy themselves into situations and then get themselves in the sh1t. They then expect to be 'rescued' from their own idiocy/unpreparedness.

Socialites or not, they are the sort I would think twice about sticking my neck out for especially as the commercial trips they go on are heavy with very experienced guides and sherpas who are being paid to nanny their charges.

<edit>

That's a scenarios where you decide to acutely put your life at risk. There is not a right or wrong answer.

As is the one being debated. Nail + head.

It's not just on Everest where ambition gets in the way of saving people. My MTBing buddy and fellow ski mountaineer joined a party on Chamonix-Zermatt (he's a fit man and has teamed up with my wife on adventure races). I declined to join the group as I prefer up and down trips rather than multi-day slogs.

In a refuge at 3500m he felt unwell and unable to go on. The next morning his guide and group left him to get down on his own and continued their merry way to Zermatt. The guide hadn't diagnosed the classic symptoms of pulmonary oedema. Fortunately, a Swiss guide took an interest in my friend, realised what was up, and organised a rescue with his own party which included bodily hauling my mate up a climb on the escape route.

He's been slowly recovering and will hopefully be out mtbing tomorrow. Lucky to be alive and still spitting when I jokingly ask after the guys that left him.