Man left to die on mountain

[golem]

Since the invention of the helicopter personally I’ve never seen any reason to climb mountains but to each his own. Nevertheless what a disgraceful thing to have happened.

$0 odd people walked past this poor guy and simply left him to die rather than doing everything in their power to rescue him.

Even if any attempts failed it really should have been tried. Someone should have abandoned their climb and tried to get the poor guy down rather than leaving him to die.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20 ... -9433r.htm

People walked past this man as he died on Everest.

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

How sad, it seem's people are only interested in looking after number one.:yh_sad

[Sheryl]

I read about this yesterday and it saddened me. I cannont believe that the other climbers were so selfish in their endevours, and didn't stop to help this man.

[BabyRider]

Yet again....a perfect example of the shelfishness of most of the population. I hope these people are haunted for the rest of their lives for being so uncaring, knowing they might have been able to help this man. Pitiful, sickening, disgusting. Shame on all of them.

[woppy71]

Absolutely shocking.

I wonder how much support / help that guy got when he had his amputations.

Makes you wonder about human nature.

[chonsigirl]

That was sad....................:-1

[Lon]

They were right to keep on going and not try to get the dying man down from the mountain. At that altitude it would put everyone else's life in danger that tried to put him on a stretcher and get him down. Most all mountain climbers that read this report would agree that it was best to leave him. I know it sounds heartless, but climbers understand the risks.

It's not like trying to get someone off a mountain at 10,000 ft. We are talking about four miles of ice and snow, crevices, slides and you name it.

[minks]

Heartless.

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: They were right to keep on going and not try to get the dying man down from the mountain. At that altitude it would put everyone else's life in danger that tried to put him on a stretcher and get him down. Most all mountain climbers that read this report would agree that it was best to leave him. I know it sounds heartless, but climbers understand the risks.

It's not like trying to get someone off a mountain at 10,000 ft. We are talking about four miles of ice and snow, crevices, slides and you name it.
I just can't agree with that, Lon. I would put my life at risk if there was the chance of saving someone else. I have done so, actually, although not under these circumstances, obviously. I don't know, perhaps you know more about mountain climbing than the rest of us, but I can't picture too many of the people here just walking past this guy.

[BabyRider]

woppy71 wrote: I wonder how much support / help that guy got when he had his amputations.


EXCELLENT point, Woppy.

[Lon]

[quote=BabyRider]

I would put my life at risk if there was the chance of saving someone else.



What if the thinking was that THERE WAS NO CHANCE?

[Lon]

I am not sure that the article really tells the WHOLE STORY or gives us the real picture of either the condidtions or other circumstances that precluded others trying to help the dying man.

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: What if the thinking was that THERE WAS NO CHANCE?
There had been times when I did think there could be no chance. I tried anyway.

So, getting involved in a woman's life who is trying to get away from an abusive relationship is not the same as climbing Everest, it was dangerous, and there was chance of failure. I've done it several times anyway. Just the fact that there IS a CHANCE to save someone....I have to try. These people should have, too.

This is all strictly personal, of course, and I guess I can understand, to a point, what you mean, but I still would have to try, no matter the risks.

[Lon]

[quote=BabyRider]There had been times when I did think there could be no chance. I tried anyway.



But Baby, you are taliking about one life, your own. It would take a minimum of 10 people to take that climber down off of Everest, thus jeprodising 10 lives not just one.

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: But Baby, you are taliking about one life, your own. It would take a minimum of 10 people to take that climber down off of Everest, thus jeprodising 10 lives not just one.
But they were jeopardizing their own lives anyway, by going UP the mountain. What could it have hurt to try, and go back down? Why would going back down instead of continuing the climb been more dangerous?

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote:

Why would going back down instead of continuing the climb been more dangerous?
First, they are carrying the dead weight of a dying man, secondly, from that altitude you don't just go down the mountain in a few hours or even a day. It would take a minimum of two and maybe three days to get back down. Finally, once they got down the mountain there is no EMERGENCY ROOM or easy access medical facilities. We are talking Everest here, not your local high peak. FUTILE!!!

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: First, they are carrying the dead weight of a dying man, secondly, from that altitude you don't just go down the mountain in a few hours or even a day. It would take a minimum of two and maybe three days to get back down. Finally, once they got down the mountain there is no EMERGENCY ROOM or easy access medical facilities. We are talking Everest here, not your local high peak. FUTILE!!!
OK, I'm really not trying to be stubborn here, I just can't imagine simply walking by a dying man. What about trying to contact someone at some base or something to get him help? Granted, I know NOTHING about mountain climbing and it seems you do, Lon. It would just be very hard for me to keep on climbing and leave him there to die.

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: OK, I'm really not trying to be stubborn here, I just can't imagine simply walking by a dying man. What about trying to contact someone at some base or something to get him help? Granted, I know NOTHING about mountain climbing and it seems you do, Lon. It would just be very hard for me to keep on climbing and leave him there to die.


That's the problem with much of what we read Baby. We all tend to make judgements on very limited reporting that is geared to get a reaction from the reader while giving us very little information. I do know a bit about climbing, but realize that 98% of everyone reading that article would feel the same as you do.

[Bez]

Lon wrote: I am not sure that the article really tells the WHOLE STORY or gives us the real picture of either the condidtions or other circumstances that precluded others trying to help the dying man.


From what I've read, this is not an unusual set of circumstances when climbing everest. What was exceptional was that an amputee was doing the climb. I doubt there would have been anything in the paper if this had been a 'run of the mill climb'. They did stop .... the guy was close to death and there was nothing that could be done. The sadness is that this guy died alone. As Lon said these circumstances are exceptional, the group the dead man was with were ill prepared....Everest is littered with the bodies of people that just took that step too far.

[Lon]

SnoozeControl wrote: I don't understand the self-destructive compulsion of someone that's willing to sacrifice his own body parts just to climb a mountain. If he has such little regard for himself, he certainly couldn't be bothered with a dying man.


Wow Snooze-----------that's harsh. Climbers and others that do what's deemed dangerous sports activity do not have a self destructive compulsion, they do it for the challenge, the sense of self accomplishment and the adrenelin rush that goes with it when you succeed. While I have no interest in climbing mountains, I have Bungy Jumped over two hundred feet, head first over a river on my 65th birthday and have White Water Rafted on Force 4 rivers. Do I wish to die? No way.

[Lon]

SnoozeControl wrote: You don't think this sounds self-destructive?



I doubt you've lost any body parts in your adventures, Lon.




It's a matter of INTENT Snooze. The intent is not toward self destruction.

[Lon]

SnoozeControl wrote: But the result in this particular case, is. The man's being whittled down until he'll be nothing more than a torso and head. How is this not self destructive? And the dead guy that attempted the mountain without adequate supplies... what was he thinking?

Unlike BR, I don't have much sympathy for these people. They put themselves in peril. And for what?




If that's the case, you could say that driving a car on the Santa Anna Freeway is Self Destructive Behavior. Or swimming where there have been known shark attacks. Getting drunk, over eating etc., etc.

[golem]

It’s been interesting to read the thoughts of others on this subject. I guess it’s how a person feels abut a thing that makes the difference between the “going-on” school and the “try to help school.”

Here’s how I see it.

When you take on a challenge especially one that is not a solitary act but a team activity that fraught with danger you are automatically enrolled in a single “team”, that of humanity.

That provides certain privileges but also imposes responsibilities.

Amongst the privileges are the right to expect everyone else on the team to do everything that is possible to protect you and the responsibilities include you doing everything possible to protect the rest of the “team” but accidents happen and people make mistakes.

In this case something went wrong and the man was critically compromised.

In my opinion the climbers were absolutely and inexcusably wrong not to have turned back, even if took the whole 40 people, and do their level best to save the stricken climber even to the extent of putting their own lives at risk as there is the difference between the certainty of death and the possibility of raised risk, Even in that apparent certainty of the mans death they should have tried.

What I do think happened was that the size of the team allowed individuals to abdicate their personal responsibility to the man by using the excuse of hiding in the group mentality combined with a selfish want to do what they set out to do.

In my opinion their decision not to do their very best to help the man, even with a known 99% likelihood of him dying, was inhuman and selfish in the extreme.

[Bez]

People who take part in these kinds of activities....explorers, extreme sprtsmen , lone yachtsmen and the like are a different mentality to us so called 'normal' folks.

They consider the dangers, prepare to minimise the dangers (in most cases) but are highly driven to complete the challenges.

While some of these activities appear to be totally 'mindless' to us 'run of the mill' folks, it is because of this trait in man that humans have progressed to where they are today.

What's the betting that the guy who died here knew what was going to happen to him and told his colleagues to "carry on", "reach the top", "do it for me", and that he would have acted in the same way.

I don't feel that you can relate these circumstances to 'ordinary life' however sad the outcomes are.

This is an interesting link for those that are interested in the REAL detail of Mount Everest, the battles won, the battles lost, the Sherpas, what kit you need , who else is missing at the moment (and there are several) etc etc.

http://www.everestnews.com/Default.htm

[orangesox1]

Nobody knows for sure what they would do in certain situations, untill faced with them.



I don't belive I could leave someone to die. at least I would like to think I couldn't.

[Bez]

orangesox1 wrote: Nobody knows for sure what they would do in certain situations, untill faced with them.



I don't belive I could leave someone to die. at least I would like to think I couldn't.


I agree....no one knows how they would react...this is not a day to day situation. YES...if we encountered someone that was ill, had had an accident in everyday life we would do what we could with the benefits of cell phones, ambulances 10 minutes away, a coat to keep them warm and words of comfort.

These standards can't always be applied in these extreme circumstances....it's just not realistic.

[orangesox1]

Bez wrote: I agree....no one knows how they would react...this is not a day to day situation. YES...if we encountered someone that was ill, had had an accident in everyday life we would do what we could with the benefits of cell phones, ambulances 10 minutes away, a coat to keep them warm and words of comfort.



These standards can't always be applied in these extreme circumstances....it's just not realistic.


Thats right, sitting at home we can make judgment calls but untill a person is in the same situation they don't really know. I still don't think I could just leave someone though.

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

Can i ask if the action taken ( leaving the guy to die) would of been considered the norm in this situation (mountaineering circle's) or were the circumstance's in this particular case exceptional . Is there a curtain kind of etiquette that's followed.

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

SnoozeControl wrote: The article said that the corpses of 200 other climbers have been climbed over since scaling Mr Everest came into voque in the 1920s. It sounds like its a fairly common practice to leave someone dead or dying on the mountain like that.

I think there's a difference between an explorer and an extreme sportsman. Scientists and dare devils don't share the same respect in my book.


I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU THERE

[spot]

May I turn this thread onto its head by pointing out the current state of play:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 019288.stm

'Dead' Everest climber 'is alive'

... Mr Abramov's statement said Mr Hall had died as he descended.

But on Friday, an American climber - Dan Mazur - came across Mr Hall and found he had survived the night, at more than 8,000m (24,000ft) and was still alive.

After giving him hot tea and oxygen, a radio call was made to Mr Abramov, who ordered an urgent rescue mission.

Mr Chessell warned that it was too early to say if the rescue would be successful.

"It's a big risk for them to go up there. It will take at least three days to get him back to safety," he said. There is, in fact, a large-scale rescue effort in progress. There is no possible way for a normal Everest climber, obviously without appropriate rescue equipment, to bring a man down from such a location in such a condition.

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

spot wrote: May I turn this thread onto its head by pointing out the current state of play:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 019288.stm

'Dead' Everest climber 'is alive'

... Mr Abramov's statement said Mr Hall had died as he descended.

But on Friday, an American climber - Dan Mazur - came across Mr Hall and found he had survived the night, at more than 8,000m (24,000ft) and was still alive.

After giving him hot tea and oxygen, a radio call was made to Mr Abramov, who ordered an urgent rescue mission.

Mr Chessell warned that it was too early to say if the rescue would be successful.

"It's a big risk for them to go up there. It will take at least three days to get him back to safety," he said. There is, in fact, a large-scale rescue effort in progress. There is no possible way for a normal Everest climber, obviously without appropriate rescue equipment, to bring a man down from such a location in such a condition.


Thankyou Spot:yh_glasse ..hope the guy make's it .

[gmc]

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Can i ask if the action taken ( leaving the guy to die) would of been considered the norm in this situation (mountaineering circle's) or were the circumstance's in this particular case exceptional . Is there a curtain kind of etiquette that's followed.


No it's not the norm and this has sparked off a massive debate in mountaineering circles with many condemning the seeming indifference of some of thre climbers. Just a couple of examples.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... D=10383743



http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 58,00.html

and he seems to have survived. Not all repporting is accurate.

Within hours he collapsed, with guides believing he was dead. Suffering snow blindness, sherpas left Mr Hall and found shelter. The father of two, from Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains, somehow survived the night unconscious and exposed to the world's toughest conditions.


http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/co ... 11,00.html

So far this year 14 people have died. The bodies get left because of the sheer impracticailties of bringing them back. Bearing in mind you are using oxygen at this level and weather conditions are hard to believe unless you actually exoerience them Jeopardising your own life to carry down a dead body is not sensible, climbing carrying a body over your shoulder is not a practical activity. and most mountain rescue teams use specially designed equipment. Nipping up with a rescue helicopter is not an option. Leaving a dead body rather than keeping it company is a more sensible option. Finding bodies again is often impossible because of the conditions. I had a work colleague who died of a brain embolism while on honeymeen with her husband. they had to leave her body to go and get help and they were never able to find her and the tent she was left in and reckon it must have been carried off by an avalanche.

posted by snooze control

But the result in this particular case, is. The man's being whittled down until he'll be nothing more than a torso and head. How is this not self destructive? And the dead guy that attempted the mountain without adequate supplies... what was he thinking?

Unlike BR, I don't have much sympathy for these people. They put themselves in peril. And for what?


So how do you feel about lunatics on motor bikes that wrap themselves around trees or end up quadroplegic having having broken their backs in a rugby scrum? Footballers and skiers taking up valuable hospital beds in orthopedic wards with broken legs through their own stupid sport? Do you wear a car seat belt?

Mountaineering is a dangerous sport but most who persist acquire the skills to do it sensibly and at the more extreme end of it if you make a mistake you kill yourself. But you will find very few climbers that are stupid risk takers. More to the point they don't put others at risk by their activities.

[BabyRider]

SnoozeControl wrote: It's good to hear someone stopped to help! Doesn't sound like Stubby is much of a humanitarian though.
Oh my god, I love your irreverent sense of humor!!! So much like mine....You crack me up....."Stubby".....:yh_rotfl



Spot, thanks for the update, I hope the guy makes it!!!

[spot]

On a point of information, last August "stripped of excess weight to fly in the thin Himalayan air, an army helicopter Wednesday plucked a Slovene climber from the icy ledge where he was trapped for six days" from a height of 20,000 feet. I can find one higher rescue in the same area at 22,000 feet. Nobody seems to have a helicopter with a ceiling that gets close to the approach area for Everest attempts, between 27,000 and 29,000 feet.

Do correct me, someone, if there are actually helicopters which can get that high. The Pakistani helicopter in the quote was bought specially for operating in the Himalayas.

[Lon]

I would encourage all the participants in this discussion to rent the DVD "Everest" if you have not alewady seen it. It is filmed by IMAX and is a scenic masterpiece. It is a doco where eight climbers lost their lives and illustrates the difficulty in trying to save lives of climbers in distress. It's great filming.

[orangesox1]

Hey I just heard on a news flash that the guy left on the mountain has walked into a base camp.



It sounds like the same guy. I'll watch the news later and find out for sure.

[gmc]

SnoozeControl wrote: er... yeah, all the time. Does that make me a bad person?:-2


Nope. I can't understand people who don't wear them viewing them as being silly, self destructive and completely irresponsible.

[BabyRider]

gmc wrote: Nope. I can't understand people who don't wear them viewing them as being silly, self destructive and completely irresponsible.
How about claustrophobic?

[spot]

mrsK wrote: Just saw that ,hard to believe they would just leave him there:yh_think :yh_think :yh_thinkWhy?

Everest is unique, not just because it has the highest summit on Earth. Some places are harder to ascend, but nowhere has even a tenth of the traffic at the higher levels. The traffic is one part of this.

If a protocol developed among climbers on Everest that when someone from another team is unable to reach safety, everyone available takes him down regardless of their own climb, what happens? Climbing teams push closer to their safety envelope, knowing that the worst they risk is embarrassment rather than death. More particularly lone climbers would be far more capable of trying for the peak, and the number of lone climbers would increase. As it is they're the least safe on the mountain already for several of reasons. Perhaps they may be inexperienced or they have no peer recognition. Some are simply the most skilled virtuoso climbers and lone climbing has additional challenges they relish, they're a different matter.

On other mountains where simultaneous teams are rare, no protocol is established. Usually you're the only team in a given space.

Without doubt, on Everest or elsewhere, climbers within a team go to extremes to bring each other back, that needn't be said.

But to go into a place of risk knowing you have a wider safety margin based on the number of other climbers who could abandon their own attempt in exchange for your life? And that most likely you only get a single shot at Everest in one lifetime? If that were the protocol, fewer people would turn back for safety reasons, selfishness would prevail. As it is, climbers have pressed on knowing that they weren't coming all the way back but knowing that getting to the top was more important to them.

The system only applies in this one place on the planet, and it makes more sense than any alternative I can think of. It's chilling thing to do, I agree, but it may well be safer and result in fewer deaths than behaving otherwise.

[Amie]

AUSTRALIAN climber Lincoln Hall will be evacuated from Mount Everest as early as tomorrow after one of the most dramatic rescues in mountaineering history.

Despite suffering acute altitude sickness and possibly severe frostbite, Mr Hall walked unaided into Advance Base Camp, 6500m above sea level yesterday afternoon. He spoke to his wife Barbara at home in the Blue Mountains a short time later and apologised for the trouble he had caused.

Family friend Richard Neville said Mrs Hall and her family were elated to learn he was alive and in good spirits.

"They are overjoyed," Mr Neville said. "Barbara has spoken to Lincoln very briefly and he sounded fine.

"He said 'sorry for causing you all this trouble'".



Mr Hall's condition was improving but he was otherwise in remarkably good condition after surviving what is thought to be the highest-ever night in exposure, just below the summit. His supporters in Kathmandu and Sydney were arranging an emergency helicopter charter yesterday for the first leg of his long flight home, via Nepal or Tibet.

Depending on his prognosis, the experienced mountaineer could be back in Sydney later this week.

Long-time friend and climbing comrade Simon Balderstone paid tribute to his rescuers, especially the Tibetan sherpas who risked their lives to bring Mr Hall down.

"These guys are just angels, they are gems of human beings," an emotional Mr Balderstone said.

And he hit out at suggestions Mr Hall had been left to die by his expedition companions.

"Given the controversy of the last week, to suggest he was left for dead is a real besmirchment of their character," he said.

Mr Hall was originally pronounced dead after losing consciousness shortly after reaching the summit on Thursday. He was later discovered alive by a separate climbing expedition.

The discovery came after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first to reach the summit, condemned climbers for abandoning a sick Englishman who died on the mountain last week. But Mr Balderstone said it might have been impossible to tell Mr Hall was alive after he slipped into an apparent coma with no evident vital signs.

Friends and supporters joined Lincoln Hall's teacher wife, Barbara Scanlan, and their two teenage sons, at the couple's Wentworth Falls home yesterday to wait for news.

Julie Clarke spent the morning with the family waiting for updates. "There's a lot more to be hopeful for," she said.

Mr Hall's sons Dylan, 17, and Dorje, 15, live with their parents in the Blue Mountains.

The property was formerly a wildlife sanctuary and tourist attraction.

"It's a miracle," another friend said as he left after a short visit.

"We're a close-knit group and are sending our thoughts to the family."

After receiving emergency oxygen and hot tea, Mr Hall soon began moving under his own steam, arriving at the first camp below the summit on Friday.

A Russian doctor who examined him said that he was suffering frostbite to his hands and appeared to be disoriented.

However, Mr Balderstone said there was a good chance he would make a full recovery.

"He's amazingly tough to have survived that long," he said.







http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19 ... 21,00.html

[Raven]

Lon wrote: I would encourage all the participants in this discussion to rent the DVD "Everest" if you have not alewady seen it. It is filmed by IMAX and is a scenic masterpiece. It is a doco where eight climbers lost their lives and illustrates the difficulty in trying to save lives of climbers in distress. It's great filming.
I'll see if we can get that over here, thanks Lon!