Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dr.Kodos
Trad climber
Tennessee
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 06:25pm PT
|
How do you think the people who couldn't help are feeling right now
A bit better than the person that died. That is my guess.
Judgment is important. We need to judge. That is how we determine what is right and wrong and what path is the best to to take.
An irony: people condemning others as being too judgmental are themselves rather judgmental, aren't they? Any one that ever tells me I am being judgmental is telling me they can judge but I cannot? I call that hipocrisy. I have always been fascinated by the mind that abhors judgmental people and never realizes they are continually judging others.
I see many of you constantly making judgmental statement about all kinds of things from climbing ethics to how to take photos properly and then in the next breath condemning others for being judgmental. The truth is, we are all judgemnetal if we are decent human beings.
Many of you only use this "judgementalism is bad" perspective whenever you seem to DISAGREE with another person's judgment. It is very shallow indeed and those of you employing such tactics are not fooling me with your holier than thou attitudes.
That being said, in the death zone, it is every person for themselves and all bets are off. That is my judgement.
Perhaps it is time we reconsidered the value of continuing these self serving pursuits that bring nothing of value back to the culture or to other human beings.
I am judgmental and I am proud of that characteristic.
~ Richard DeCredico
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 06:37pm PT
|
Sokol clearly doesn't know much about high altitude alpinism.
Justifiable vs excusable, puleeese!
Many of the people up there clearly shouldn't be. It is now a wild west with thieving bandits and greenhorns and indians and mountain men and NO MARSHALL.
So in his place we have the excoriation of the media wringing their hands bemoaning the lack of compassion engendered by the very goal oriented behavior they do so much to celebrate.
(I really WOULD like to see what Machine could do if on the scene. Its called the Death Zone for a reason, not just a snappy phrase!)
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 07:15pm PT
|
Ron, that might be a good job...Mt. Everest Marshal...In that rarified air surely trajectories would be different.
|
|
Machine
Sport climber
the basement
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 07:48pm PT
|
I can't say that I'd stick by the guy until he died, but I know I wouldn't pass him on the way to the summit.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 07:57pm PT
|
Machine, what happened?
I thought you were going to get him down.
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 07:59pm PT
|
I have nothing to contribute in terms of blame laying or not, but all I can say is that it rents my heart a bit to imagine this man slowly dying while hearing the crunching of snow under crampons as the climbers pass by him. There's been times in my life when I felt utterly alone, and it was usually in the company of people who were oblivious to my feelings.
I hope the guy was totally out of it by then. I always think the shock of trauma is wonderful because the victim never quite remembers the whole thing, but a slow death, hearing people - alive - pass by you when you know you're done for. Whew. Poor dude.
I think, given my current experience, I'd be one of the guided, and I would have to get through that by compartmentalizing what was happening. I can't imagine feeling the freedom or competence to stay behind to be of little to no use to someone that may or may not be able to consciously appreciate it.
|
|
Machine
Sport climber
the basement
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 08:02pm PT
|
I never said I'd get him down. I only said I would try - at least until the point when I'd be coming down from the summit. It's worth at least that much effort.
I just think that the effort to save someone close to you (proximity) as much as you can is more important than a summit.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 09:57pm PT
|
You said pull him down as far as you can.
(Foolish to think you could.)
Or stay with him while he dies.
I do a lot of soloing, but I avoid the trade routes. Soloing around others sort of defeats the purpose. But if I was done for and some strange person showed up and wanted to watch me die I think I'd want to shoot him to put him out of my misery.
What conceit to assume to intrude oneself at a time when no more last utterances can be made. With some games there is no "do over" even if all the players are willing.
|
|
Eddie
Trad climber
Boston
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 10:31pm PT
|
Just because no one has been saved from that high before doesn't mean it can't be done.
Even with clouded brains, we humans can often do remarkable things with our will power and stamina.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
on a rock or mountain out west
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2006 - 10:54pm PT
|
"Even with clouded brains, we humans can often do remarkable things with our will power and stamina."
Yeah, but being above 8000M is a place where the mind isn't working the way it does for regular peaks. Above 26,000 is a different world and the mind and body are affected as such. The lack of oxygen does create scenarios of behavior that may or may not be what is right, but what is what is done to survive up there. I've never been on an 8000M, the highest I've done are 5000M so I can't judge the actions of those who did what they did up in the death zone. I'd imagine they had a heavy heart and a sense of helplessness towards that climber as they passed and approached the summit but a rescue from up there with limited oxygen and resources isn't something that could come together easily...or quick enough to have likely saved his life.
My initial reaction when I heard this story was "how could they pass him?" but the more I think about it the more I realize it's just pure survival instinct up there. Those that passed him were probably pretty bonked on their own and I'm sure once they get down from the mountain will think differently than they did when they were up near the summit and it will probably haunt them for a long long time.
But as Conrad said, rescue from up there is almost impossible. The guy chose to do it solo without oxygen and ultimately paid the price. While a rescue attempt would have been the noble and courageous thing to do, at the very top of the world things like time, a weather window and oxygen are very very precious commodities. I'd imagine your own survival (and those of clients being guided) would ultimately take priority. Like Ron said, it's called the Death Zone for a reason.
Sad story. But no easy answers.
|
|
Dr.Kodos
Trad climber
Tennessee
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 11:04pm PT
|
My pet saying is more valid than ever.
If you insist there is a solution you are part of the problem.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 11:09pm PT
|
While some of this discussion has included the issue of guided climbs on Everest (and it's an issue worthy of discussion in general) It also seems true that nothing about Everest being guided contributed to this climber's death.
The Climber was solo. Realistically, clients can't take it upon themselves to abandon their party and stay with a climber in the death zone like that. They could be endangering their own guides and fellow clients. The guide would have to deal with that call. (Remember, you're in the death zone and you're feeling messed up and conditions are not friendly)
But if the clients and guides weren't there, the solo climber would be in the same boat eh?
So we have to consider what responsibility he might bear. If he heads into the death zone with inadequate O2, he is also taking a chance he'll die for the sake of the summit. He is also risking that others might have to bail him out so he can have his Everest Summit at the expense of their summit, or even their lives.
Unless he's willing to take responsibility for his risky call, which it definately was a risky call. He could have turned back when the O2 supply was adequate. (maybe, again we don't know all the facts)
Again, there many ways we could be saving lives every day if we weren't selfish humans. Folks die every day here and abroad for lack of care and funds. We're looking the other way. The Everest example just makes the plausible denial of it less. Those guided climbers could have donated their $65,000 to aid groups in Nepal and the blind could see and fatal illnesses prevented. So could you. Don't say they shouldn't go if they're not willing to sacrifice, because the contibution they do make does make a difference in a country with a per capita income in the low hundreds.
Kodos post make a fair amount of sense, but doesn't address the main thrust of my point, which is this, folk are making judgements with inadequate data, not knowing the facts, and not knowing what conditions are really like.
It's easy to say "If I saw a little girl in a burning building, I'd run in to save her life."
It's not as easy to say "if I saw a little girl in the fourth floor of a burning building and the first two floors were totally engulfed in flames, and the little girl was already on fire herself, I'd run into the flames and try to save her"
As yet, we haven't had folks with the actual experience at that altitude come into to say wrong was done.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
I'll just bet all of you wanna-be-rescuers would have plenty of extra O2 tanks on your back so you could give the guy one,
and then still have enough to burn that you could spend all day trying to figure out how your gonna get the guy down.
Sounds like a losing proposition.
Probably end up dead yourself.
Remember, the guy died because he ran out of O2!
|
|
Dr.Kodos
Trad climber
Tennessee
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 - 11:34pm PT
|
Karl Baba: here is my last point on this thread.
There is no reason to go up there except for the self. It is inherently selfish. If we are going to accuse people of being selfish, then we need do it BEFORE they go up, not afterwards. It does not matter whatever the facts are. It is called the DEATH ZONE for a reason and it has it own set of rules.
The rules of civilized (wo)man do not apply.
Attempting to apply the rules of civilization is an excercise that again is very selfish in that it only serves to make the person doing the excercise feel better.
It solves nothing nor will it ever change anything.
|
|
Eddie
Trad climber
Boston
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:20am PT
|
Haven't you guys seen Vertical Limit?
It's ALWAYS worth it to risk 8 lives to save 1.
Especially if Nitro is involved.
Tomaz was rescued from what, 24,000 ft, when climbing solo. But I guess that wasn't good samaritan style, though it was balsy of the rescuers.
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:30am PT
|
I remember a few death zones in combat. I remember people attempting to save people who were not in our unit in the middle of fire fights. I have seen pictures of total strangers helping others in absolutely dire situations. Weren’t they foolish . . . .
I don’t know just what the devil being a part of a party (or not) has to do with it. Are you possibly saying that if the person lying on the ground were a member of the party, then it would have been another situation somehow? Good Lord, think what you’re saying. Just think what you’re implying for those who have resources as opposed to those who don’t. For all the Grand Social Intentions and The Grand Complaints I have read regarding the current administration, capitalists, unfeeling industrialists, and tourists that harm the environment on this site, somehow all that gets dashed when it comes to whether or not a person a part of a climbing party. Please.
For those who are in business and have access to Harvard Business Review, an article written in 1983, and re-published in 1997 discusses a very similar issue. You can download the article at http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/, request article 97307 for $6. (I know, they ain’t cheap.) Here is the abstract:
----------------------------------------------
“The Parable of the Sadhu” Bowen McCoy, HBR, May-June, 1997, pp54-64.
Description:
When does a group have responsibility for the well-being of an individual? And what are the differences between the ethics of the individual and the ethics of an organization? Those are the questions Bowen McCoy wanted readers to explore in this HBR Classic, first published in September-October 1983. In 1982, McCoy, an investment banker at Morgan Stanley on sabbatical, spent several months hiking through Nepal with an anthropologist who was a Quaker. Midway through the difficult part of the trek, he encountered an Indian holy man, or sadhu. Wearing little clothing and shivering in the bitter cold, the sadhu was barely alive. McCoy and the other travelers immediately wrapped him in warm clothing and gave him food and drink. A few members of the group broke off to help move the sadhu down toward a village two days' journey away, but they soon left him in order to continue their way up the slope. What happened to the sadhu? In his retrospective commentary, McCoy notes that he never learned the answer to that question. On the Himalayan slope, a collection of individuals was unprepared for a sudden dilemma. McCoy asks, how do organizations respond appropriately to ethical crises? What responsibilities does an organization have for an individual, and when should it take a stand?
-----------------------------------
In the article, McCoy indicates that Hindu businesspeople thought that assisting the sadhu was an arrogant Western approach, an imposition of Western values on the world. The Sadhu may have not have wanted the help at all; he may have been seeking his own death as a means to holiness.
Take Care,
MikeL
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:39am PT
|
Karl,
the reason I mentioned guiding is that it has resulted in a substantial "greenhorn" presence on the mountain. This only exascerbates the circus element and obviates the sense of unity among various parties.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:39am PT
|
MikeL
That was intresting thanks for that.
I would love to coment on some of that but lack the knowledge on how to write it down correctly.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 01:10am PT
|
Mike wrote. "I remember a few death zones in combat. I remember people attempting to save people who were not in our unit in the middle of fire fights. I have seen pictures of total strangers helping others in absolutely dire situations. Weren’t they foolish . . . .
I don’t know just what the devil being a part of a party (or not) has to do with it. Are you possibly saying that if the person lying on the ground were a member of the party, then it would have been another situation somehow? Good Lord, think what you’re saying."
Mike, in a military operation, the enlisted men have limited authority to go against the orders of their commanding officers, even in order to help wounded soldiers of other units. If they were new recruits, they might not have the experience, understanding, or skills to make the proper call and could easily put the rest of their own unit in order.
A guided client on Everest may be somewhat similar to that new recruit. If he stops to try to help a climber in the death zone, against the judgement of his guide, he could easily fall victim himself and thus endanger the rest of the party. The climber in question was alledgedly frozen to the extent that he could only move his eyes. To think there is the remotest chance of this guy, being that far gone, rescued from the death zone is pure folly. If a miracle like that is going to occur, they might as well have pushed him off the mountain in hopes that we could land in a snow bank at base camp.
and I'll say right now, If I'm ever that far gone, I don't want anyone to risk their lives to try to save me, let alone comfort me.
Of course in some ideal situation, trying to selflessly help is noble. The question is, how much do you endanger your own life, and the lives of the your fellow potential rescuers, to "do the right thing" even though it's helpless.
It's one of the first thing they teach first responders of all sorts. You don't become the next victim.
I haven't been to the death zone. I have been on El Cap. While you never know what call you are going to make in advance, I can at least suspect this much:
Would I give up an El Cap ascent to help a seriously wounded climber in fair weather? Probably yes.
Would I remain 2/3rds of the way up El Cap to hang out with an unconscious climber who busted his head so far open that I could see his brains and his eyes were wildly unevenly dialated along with multiple compound fractures? Let say I also knew a big cold storm was coming in stat and I was responsible for my more inexperienced partner. Probably not.
I wish things weren't so hard sometimes, but they are
Peace
karl
Kodos, I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. We're just talking about different stuff from different views.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!