Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ain't no flatlander
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 01:14am PT
|
"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?"
Yes. Absolutely. And you would too; the war scenario implies a massive support team that doesn't exist outside of the military. Perhaps a 90% commitment for a total stranger. A 95% commitment for a close friend. And a 99% commitment for your child or spouse. But a 100% commitment with zero hope is only for martyrs...that's what lowlanders are expecting from this case.
|
|
Conrad
climber
MT
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 02:32am PT
|
A sticky question with some good insight. As Karl pointed out in a theoretical situation on El Cap there are many factors that make the decision difficult. And to MikeL's point, people do go into the hills to meet death. Not a pleasant thought, especially if it affects others.
Two comments regarding this scenario:
Soloing ::
On a popular routes such as the North Ridge, & South Col of Everest, the West Buttress of Denali and the standard route on Aconcagua one is hardly soloing in the way we as rock climbers define it. That is, you are the master of your destiny by the choices you make. On routes that are prepared (fixed lines, set camps, food, radio support, back up climbers) it is not a solo ascent. In 99 we encountered a lone "solo" climber who poached tents, begged water and hired other expedition Sherpas to carry his supplies. He was in way over his head and a liability to the other climbers on the route. He didn't summit in '99, came back on '00 and died trying. The standard I look to is Messner's ascent mid monsoon in '81 of a new variationon the north side of Everest. His support? A liason officer and his girl friend in base camp. Very much alone.
The climber in question passed away was "on his own" and had spent 24 with out protection above 8500 metres. He had a pulse, yet was frostbitten on all four extremities. What do you do? A classic question for ethicists. We in our hearts know we would be drawn to effect a rescue and condemn those that climbed past. Not being in their place at that time this is a hard call. The guilt of leaving this climber for dead is more than I persoanlly would accept and I would have done what I could to make his existence a little less painful. If this involved short roping him down or providing intra muscular medication (morphine) to lessen the pain would again depend on the situation.
In 99 we lowered a non ambulatory Ukranian climber from the north col to the lower glacier. By passing overhand knots on a munter belay we were able to do the lower in six 100 metre stations. Even then it required four western climbers with rescue skills and radios and an equal amount of Sherpas - who are much tougher and stronger. A rescue from 8-5 would probaly require putting 40 people at great risk and with a doubtful outcome. Again - time and place come in question.
16 years ago on the 21st of May Mugs Stump died in a crevasse on the South Face of Denali. It was a grim event, one that changed my world. Stuff happened, but only to "Twinkies", not climbers of the calibre of Mugs. How wrong I was. Gravity plays for keeps and no one is favored. In the subsequent years and the recurring fact that this game is deadly, I have come to accept what happens and not wrack my soul over "what if" situations. One should make peace with potential outcomes before venturing into the vertical.
Guiding ::
This scenario and that of 96 are in part attributable to the increase in guided climbs on the big mountains. The standard routes on these mountains are tamed. Recall if you will a metaphor. Sigfried and Roy after years of training tigers one day got their asses handed to them. Same with "domesticated" grizzly bears. Some one is bound to get hurt.
Overall I am not opposed to guided climbs of these "tigers and grizzlys". They are a ego based goal for succesful people. Beter to flail away on the big E than hunt rhinos in the Serengeti, tigers in Siberia, polar bears in the arctic or ibex in the Karakorum. The planet can ill afford the loss of these rare creatures. So if Viagra and mountain climbing makes the world less threatening to wild animals, all the better.
The other aspect is that Nepal is one of the poorest countries in SE Asia. 80 % of the population is involved in subsistence farming and the influx of cash and employement mountain climbing brings is a positive benefit. There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth and climbing (and tourism in general) is a way to move cash from developed nations to those that do not have as much. Plan an expedition, get to know your porters, play cards with your cook and share a joke with your liason officer - it is good fun and you'll return with a story to tell and the people you hired might be able to send a child to school, buy a roof for their house or improve their lot. Not that bad,eh?
Be safe,
Conrad
(Hi Gary - great to see a note from you - made we want to go and do "Cheetah" and "Gordon's Direct" again...)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 10:18am PT
|
I would like to say this much for the fallen climber.
The guy died in the death zone after 'solo' summitting the highest peak on the planet, not rotting in a bed with tubes in his nose. Good for him. I think, at least on a certain level that it's proud.
By going solo, he knew this was quite possible. I don't think he let himself down. I would be concerned over the impact on his fellow climbers but fortunately, they didn't endanger themselves to give him the slight chance to lead the disabled lifestyle (not that that would necessarily be bad)
and of course his loved ones, who must miss him. Either they understand his quest and accepted the risk, or he had to follow his bliss anyway.
But I don't feel sorry for him at all. Way to go man. Hope the next adventure goes smoother
PEace
Karl
|
|
lagr01
Sport climber
Venezuela
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 11:23am PT
|
I don't have the knowledge nor the experience to make a useful point about this discussion, but I do find this topic pretty interesting, you know, all the survival instinc vs helping someone in need stuff.
Anyway, here's an opinion from someone that has been up there:
[url]http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=3297[url/]
Here are more opinions:
[url]http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=2113[url/]
This stuff really got my attention:
"In 1996, when a number of climbers were missing, some climbers didn't even want to leave their tents in camp 4 to do a headcount. Their reason; they didn't want to jeopardize their summit push."
and...
"Two years back, a guide phoned from Everest BC to a daughter announcing that her father was dead. The guide offered to send some summit pictures. 2 days earlier, from C4, he had already phoned his webmaster - asking him to update the website with the good news of his own summit."
And on amore optimistic note:
Everest Breaking News: Lincoln Hall still alive, after 1 night out
[url]http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=3301[url/]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:07pm PT
|
Thanks for that last post Conrad.
Really clarifies the perspective.
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 12:11pm PT
|
Thanks Karl and Conrad. Werner, you do fine when you want to. (As you imply, you are probably a person who knows more than he can say.)
Just a few confessions. First, I had a couple of glasses of wine last night, and I got emotional, sad, and mad. Two, I wanted to complain and object to an idea that the limits of our compassion and respect for others are somehow determined by their resources rather than ours, or by their lack of membership in a social group. Three, I can see that I am disturbed and struggling over the immense ambiguity of this situation. As I’ve said elsewhere here, when people are unsure of themselves, I think they are getting close to the truth. It’s when people are damned sure of themselves that I get worried.
Take care,
MikeL
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 - 02:46pm PT
|
Conrad, good to hear from you. I keep in touch with some of the Wasatch homies, a lot of good memories. I never thanked you but you provided some much needed beta and inspiration to Stuart back in the early 90’s for one of our ambitious projects. Thanks.
It is always good to hear from someone who has been there as opposed to some of us armchair types who have not sucked thin air…
PS – I have enjoyed reading about your adventures and always thought your heart was in the right place. Hope life is going well up there in Bozeman.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
on a rock or mountain out west
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2006 - 09:33pm PT
|
One of the better articles I've read on the situation on Everest this season in the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1148593812084
Really puts into perspective the scope of what's going on up there right now. Even successful summiters are now calling the "Everest Circus" the "Everest Graveyard" now. Looks to be one of the more deadly seasons in memory.
Conrad - thanks for the insight here. You can acurately describe and analyze something most of us here can't. Also, loved your Viagara/mountains instead of bagging wild animals thought.
|
|
pyro
Trad climber
Ventura
|
|
|
May 27, 2006 - 01:17am PT
|
kind'a big news.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
on a rock or mountain out west
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2006 - 01:55am PT
|
http://www.everestnews.com/
Man, there's SERIOUS drama going on up there. Sounds like the guy from Summitclimb abandoned his own summit attempt and stayed with Lincoln Hall til rescuers got there and helped get him down.
At least there's been some success this week on Annapurna and Anna Czerwinska summitted Makalu (go Anna! She's what, 57 by now?) so there's good news coming out of the big peaks still.
Should make for some interesting reading and analysis in the months to come.
|
|
Conrad
climber
MT
|
|
|
May 27, 2006 - 02:25pm PT
|
After a night's sleep on this issue I'm drawn back to this debate.
In a rescue situation the primary concern is that of the rescuers - not to endanger them in way that would compromise the whole operation. Second to this the next point is to take care of the injured person.
The climber's en route to the summit should have done what they could to make life better for the stranded soloist. Conditions wer such that helping out the climber would not have put their life at risk, just their summit bid. In a triage sense, they choose the summit over the climber. Had a storm been brewing, the climbers out of O2 and the situation on edge yes, they would have been justified in walking past. Yet the fellow had a pulse and was still breathing. Even if he was on the short list to heaven and a burden, I feel it is human nature (and perhaps a responsibility) to care for others.
If I had been the climber that walked past a stricken climber in this situation I would be haunted for the rest of my life about the quality of that summit day. Heavy stuff.
The poigniant memory in this is the Sherpa who wanted to care, help and aid and was pulled away with tears. These humble folk have put their lives on the line for many years to allow westerners to make the summit. That fellow is my hero.
pax
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 01:51am PT
|
What really matters about life then?
|
|
adnix
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 03:50am PT
|
Conrad wrote:
> This being said if one is no longer ambulatory above
> the Second Step the chances of your team mates or other
> climbers effecting a rescue is very slim. To my knowledge
> there have been no rescues of non-walking people above
> this passage. Lowering in a fall line is one thing,
> lowering on a traverse is near impossible.
I don't know about previous years but this year there has been one such rescue above the second step. A rescue seems very much possible if such decision is made:
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=3315
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 09:09am PT
|
He just likes to kick the fire, Riley.
Anyone close to (their own) death and of sound mind knows that what is important is that you live if you can.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 09:17am PT
|
The difference here Radical is that attempting a rescue of a non-ambulatory patient in the death zone would add an astronomical amount of risk to an ascent.
Let's say you were headed to the hospital with a patient that wasn't stable at all but not near death either. Your ambulance passes the scene of a shooting where it looks like the victim is a goner and the shooter is still around and acting wild. It's out of the way so another rescuer would probably arrive too late.
Do you pull over and load the guy into the ambulance?
PS I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here. Was the solo guy at fault? Maybe. Partly. Did the other teams do a bad thing by leaving him? Maybe. Partly. Am I also a bad guy who might do the wrong thing? Maybe. Partly. It's really hard to know unless you were there.
Maybe the weather was fine by Everest standards. Personally, I've never been in 38 degrees below zero with only enough 02 to last a limited amount of time.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 11:04am PT
|
Well, I'd like to think that I know what I'm talking about or else I keep quiet, but in light of the Lincoln Hall evacuation it DOES appear that rescues from such an apparently impossible predicament CAN be effected.
It is hardly my first erroneous assumption and thankfully I was not onscene.
That's just the point too. The people who WERE there will have to deal with their own consciences over the decisions they made.
Most people muddle through their day to day lives never having to come to grips with a life or death crisis of their own making. As climbers we choose to confront such challenges but the coin has two sides and in pursuing our successes we also inevitably face our failings as well.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 11:32am PT
|
So I heard on the news the guy was found alive in Basecamp?
Is that true. That changes the whole story and makes the climbers that did not offer help look like sacks of crap?
Juan
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2006 - 10:23pm PT
|
I think you’re defensive, Karl. You protest too much.
I’m deeply uninspired by this idea that unless you’re been in this or that situation that you should STFU. Well, if that’s our rule of order around here, then let’s not have any more armchair analyses unless you are a practicing economist, politician, military intelligence analyst, corporate financial analyst, psychologist, historian, etc. This criterion stifles debate. Moreover, it looks inconsistent when I compare it to our practice here. You may think, like Thoreau, that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but without consistency, it becomes really hard to talk with each other. Must we be practicing experts, or can we express our points of views here?
I suppose that most people have had some college experience, and I should suppose that they all went to decent institutions. If they did, then I can be sure that one of the objectives in their training was to learn to think for themselves. I thought that’s what all of us are trying to do here.
Some of us may not know what it’s like to gasp for breath at 8500 meters, but that may not be as relevant as some people think. When groupthink strikes, as it does regularly in every field of endeavor, it often takes people outside the field to see just what the hell is going on. (Shall I start to name the almost innumerable events in history?)
I would hope that we can express our opinions about the ethics of things that affect the climbing community without being shot at for not being an expert in the area.
MikeL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!