A young mountaineer’s tragic death on Mount Everest has divided climbers around the world. David Sharp, 34, is believed to have died of oxygen deficiency after being passed up by an estimated forty climbers determined to press on to the top rather than cancel their ascent to help him.
"Sharp was trying to climb the mountain alone. He died after he apparently ran out of oxygen 300 metres below the summit.
"[Climber Mark] Inglis [himself a double amputee who climbs with prosthetic legs] said his party was the only one among about 40 climbers to stop and help Sharp as he lay in Everest’s ‘death zone,’ above 8000 metres. He said his group kept climbing after deciding there was nothing they could do to save the Briton.
"’He had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves,’ Inglis said. ‘He was effectively dead … so we carried on. Trouble is, at 8500 metres it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive.’"
Another veteran climber isn’t buying the excuses.
"’There have been a number of occasions when people have been neglected and left to die and I don’t regard this as a correct philosophy,’ [Sir Edmund Hillary] told the Otago Daily Times.
"’I think the whole attitude toward climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top,’ he told the newspaper.
"Hillary told New Zealand Press Association he would have abandoned his own pioneering climb to save another’s life.
"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ he said.
"He said that his expedition, ‘would never for a moment have left one of the members or a group of members just lie there and die while they plugged on towards the summit.’"
Who is Sir Edmund Hillary?
"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ [Hillary] said."
"[Jesus asked] ‘Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ [The lawyer] said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise’" (Luke 10:36-37).
I found this quite shocking:
“Inglis said he was disappointed that the incident had become the focus of his climb.”
“He was effectively dead.” So this guy’s a doctor, too?
From Explorersweb.com
Mark Inglis told television New Zealand that his group passed the climber on their summit push. “And it was like, what do we do? You know, we couldn’t do anything. That’s, he had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves, things like that. I believe I’ve copped a wee bit of…”
Television New Zealand reporter: “Well, yes. Someone has suggested that maybe you should have stopped the ascent and rescued this man.”
Mark: “Absolutely. Yep. It’s a very fair point. Trouble is at 8,500 metres it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keeping anyone else alive. On that morning over 40 people went past this young Briton. I was one of the first, radioed, and Russ said, look mate, you can’t do anything. You know, he’s been there X number of hours, been there without oxygen, you know, he’s effectively dead.”
…
According to latest media, fellow climbers have backed Mark Inglis including the family of David Sharp. His mother, Linda Sharp, told her local newspaper in England: “Your only responsibility is to save yourself, not to try and save anyone else.”
…
A poll run on The Press website showed 60 per cent of nearly 200 respondents thought Inglis should have stopped to help. That means that 40 per cent think he should have not.
An important thing to realize in light of all the comments, is perhaps the fact that the climbers passed David Sharp on their way up. It was not a question of their lives against David’s – but his life against their summit.
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.
Phone the webmaster before the family
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.
In 2004, 6 people died on the North side with a total 7 fatalities on Everest that year. Novice climber Andre Bredenkamp told a South African news source, about the night of Andre’s ascent, when three Koreans died: “One of them, fell and broke his leg. No one was able to move him or do anything. We covered him up with snow and he just went to sleep.”
I’m NOT a climber, but it strikes me that;
1) It may be that provisions for climbers are calculated so precisely that there is little opportunity for charity, so it might be practically impossible for climbers to pack items like “extra” oxygen or water (both heavy items) for the final push to the summit (though I assume these things are available in base camps).
2) It may be equally impossible to carry a severely injured or disabled climber. The Everest climb is commonplace now, but I expect it is still a dicey proposition. I just don’t know about the chances of successfully negotiating a tricky descent while dragging a couple hundred extra pounds.
I understand that Everest is littered with the bodies of dead climbers because getting them down is so impractical (though someone with more knowledge may be able to correct me on all this).
So it may be that there really was nothing that could be done for this climber without jeopardizing the lives of the rescuers.
Maybe.
But was he conscious? Did they talk to him? If so, wouldn’t the decent human thing be to at least stay with him and give him what comfort was possible in his last hours? Of course, that would mean missing the group picture at the summit.
I hope all the climbers who left this man to DIE ALONE will find a suitable black frame for their photo.
“At the Moutains of Madness” indeed, the sick irrationality of the “we climbed it because it was there” mentality illustrated.
I’m not trying to exonerate anyone, but we should all realize that at that altitude even WITH oxygen tanks, climbers are suffering from oxygen deprivation, and are operating near the edge of what is humanly possible.
I’ve read accounts of climbers near the summit of Everest having to pause and take several breaths after each single step. So if you try to imagine yourself in that situation, imagine yourself on your worst day ever, when just walking across a room is a big effort…
But, TimJ: “If so, wouldn’t the decent human thing be to at least stay with him and give him what comfort was possible in his last hours? Of course, that would mean missing the group picture at the summit.”
Or, using up their time-bound O2 tanks for, well, nothing.
I question the morality of a lot of extreme sports, and climing MtE is an extreme sport, but when people get into deep trouble engaign in such dangerous activites, it’s hard for me to see how others are required to risk themselves lest they face moral censure.
On the question of moral obligations of participants in extreme sports:
If, during Extreme HotDogeering, Takeru Kobayashi is suddenly choking on dog 42, is Sonya Thomas morally required to stop her effort for the championship and administer the Heimlich maneuver (don’t think about what that might produce)? Or can she just let Takeru turn blue while she wins?
Well, OZ, for starters, a Heimlich wont cost the saver his/her life; sitting with unconscious man at 25,000 feet till he dies might, indeed, probably will. those tanks only last so long.
Is it ethical to even be climbing Mt. Everest in the first place? I mean, people are risking their lives, but for what benefit? For their own glory?
I honestly don’t know.
Ed-
My thought was that someone could have stayed back from the climbing party – only while the rest made the summit – and rejoin them on the way back down.
In this way, the climber would not be placing his life in danger, but would only be trading the experience of making the summit for the experience of comforting the dying, which I don’t take to be “nothing”. It’s the kind of thing that Mother Teresa spent her whole life doing.
I am completely ignorant of the real circumstances, though, as well as the risks.
I do agree that the primary responsibility belongs to the climber who died.
TimJ: Ah.
I, too, think this is quite a tragedy, in a number of aspects. It is a tragic sign of our times… Xtreme sports and those that can, turning the most stunningly beautiful and isolated places on earth into their own playgrounds and trash dumps; consequences be damned.
“IT was there, so I had to climb it”… but HE was there too, and being merciful would have spoiled the experience.
I, also, do not judge anyone and I don’t know what I would have done if I had encountered him lying there. It is a serious question.
To look at this from a different angle, I think it is quite poignant that David Sharp was trying to climb the mountain alone with no guide (sherpa). Would a guide have let him know at the bottom of the mountain that he had not the right gloves and not enough oxygen?
“It seems that the crucial decisions and the great experiences of life require a guide. The way to ‘God alone’ is seldom traveled alone. For me there was little, if any, question about the need for guidance.”
– Henri J.M. Nouwen from THE GENNESEE DIARY, p.14
One unfortunate thing about oxygen deprivation (as well as hypothermia) is that it makes you stupid. People often become irrational and can make fatal mistakes, like throwing away gloves or oxygen (though I don’t know if that’s what happened in this case).
I can’t imagine trying to climb Everest without proper gloves, of all things.
“An important thing to realize in light of all the comments, is perhaps the fact that the climbers passed David Sharp on their way up. It was not a question of their lives against David’s – but his life against their summit.”
I would like to repost the above several times so it can be read and re-read, then re-read again.
And whatever mistakes a person makes, no Catholic can claim that THAT exonerates them from their Christian duty. If that were true, we’d have no obligation in Christ’s love to help ANY person who through their own most grievous fault got stuck in some bind. Thank God in heaven that Christ did not decline to come down to earth because, after all, “the primary responsibility lies with the [sinner] who {is heading toward death].”
I am kind of stunned at the responses I am reading here too.
A group was ascending with a double amputee and they were not capable of figuring out a way to help rescue a man whom they knew would die if they left him there. Surely they must have had some resources or was it simply that they did not want to turn back? It is difficult to believe this was anything but callousness.
The fact that the man lost his gloves, or didn’t have a spare pair or the right pair, and was in an extreme situation that maybe we would not have gotten ourselves into, is no reason for the Hindu attitude of “What the hey – it’s his fault, his Karma. Let him die. Maybe next time he’ll come back as something smarter.”
And yes, thank God Christ didn’t feel the same about us.
A question keeps running through my mind, what if Jesus came across this guy while strolling around Mt.E. Oh I know, he would DIE trying to save this guys life, KNOWING that this guy didn’t deserve it.
read John 3:16, then read John 15:13, then apologize for saying heartless things like “it was his own fault” then pray for this guy, and others who die up there, and for those who passed him up.
Every few years I read about someone who died in plain sight of a crowd made up of people who did nothing. Kitty Genovese was the first one of note, but there are always others. “He was effectively dead” doesn’t cut it any more than “I was in a hurry and figured someone else would call 9-1-1.”
I kindof stunned that some people are kindof stunned at some of the responses here. Folks, nobody dies dialing 911, Jesus is not strolling aorund MtER, and a group with double-amputee on the summit is probably the LAST group capable of taking on someone else. As stupid as it was for ANY of them to be up there in the first place. Come up with some better analogies. None of these move the point.
How does an ascent work, logistically? Assuming that they had enough supplies to make it to the top and then back, how could it have endangered them, as some have claimed, to abort their ascent and start taking this guy back down?
Come up with some better analogies. None of these move the point.
Was Terry Schiavo “effectively dead”?
Michael: sarcasm does not come across well in the blosphere (I assume you’re being sarcastic, and that you’re not just stupid). TS was not effectively dead, and I think it an insult to her to use her name so lamely in discussion on a topic which differes so dramatically from her plight.
Wow. On a Catholic blog, an analogy to Christ being willing to die for us as a way to look at how we deal with others; an analogy with the Good Samaritan, etc. – these don’t “move the point?”
Then I guess I am missing the point. Yes, One could DIE trying to help someone. No one said following Christ was a cakewalk. I don’t think Christ say, “Great love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend, unless, of course, laying down his life could actually cost him something. If he only has to dial 911, that’s OK, but anything beyond that…”
No, sorry, I do not see analogies with Christ as missing the point, but only NOT seeing analogies with Christ as missing the point -the point of our entire existence.
Game over – logging off.
From what I’ve read, it takes 8-16 hours from the final camp to get to the summit, which means you obviously have to have enough oxygen to do heavy labor for that amount of time. And then, to get back to that final camp.
We don’t know exactly where Sharp stopped, but if it was about 8500 meters then he was about 300 meters below summit and 500 meters above the final camp. Call it a little over halfway.
So it seems reasonable to me that 40 climbers, each with quite a bit of oxygen, pool their efforts and abandon their summit try, they could have a chance at saving this guy.
FWIW, Inglis said there was “virtually no hope” that Sharp could have been carried down from his position, but he also says that he walked on because there were more experienced and able mountaineers to help him.
If there was a chance to save him it seems to me the other climbers were obliged to try, even if it meant abandoning their summit effort.
Even if there was no chance to get him down, shouldn’t people have stayed with him, assuming an adequate oxygen supply?
Further complicating the mix of moral questions: Sharp’s bid for the summit was apparently taken with bad decisions. Most climbers pay Sherpas $35,000 for help all the way up, but Sharp and some others paid $6,000 for a trip to the final camp, intending to go the rest of the way alone. Then he only took 4 bottles of air when most climbers say you have to have five (a few souls try this with no oxygen at all and soem have succeeded – apparently this was Sharp’s intent, with the bottles as backup). Were other climbers obligated to sacrifice their effort because of Sharp’s foolishness? I still think so, because otherwise we’d just let motorcycle drivers who rode without a helmet die by the side of the road on the grounds that their stupidity shouldn’t stop us from being late to Aunt Minnie’s birthday party.
TS was not effectively dead, and I think it an insult to her to use her name so lamely in discussion on a topic which differes so dramatically from her plight.
Ed,
No, Terry Schiavo was not effectively dead but that was the argument her husband and her supporters made in arguing remove life support and just let her die. The reasoning these mountaineers used was no different in deciding not to expend any effort in attempting to save the climber’s life or provide comfort in his last moments.
Okay, it’s silly to keep debating MtE morals with people who have never been higher the big hill outside of town, and who evidence (you can either agree or not) little logical skill. But look at one claim they make. Essentially, they argue that to save a human life anything that could be done, must be done. They use Jesus as the example because (stifle sarcasm, Ed) “Jesus gave his life for all of us.” Assuming these people understand the need to avoid equivocation fallacies, they might mean that Jesus saved three people from death (the only, son, the little girl, Lazarus). So hey, Jesus did, so should we. Now, for starters, in none of those cases did Jesus “risk” anything to save them from death. More to the point, Jesus undoubtedlly passed by DOZENS of funerals/hospitals/etc during his life (right?), but one could say (albeit stupidly) “Jesus just stood by and did nothing. He is own agenda was so important he couldn’t take time to save someone even from death. No thanks, I’m not a Christian because of the rotten example.”
Moral principles do not click off at 10,000 feet (12,500 for those with aerobic training). But moral examples that work at sea level (or in cities, or places with phones, or with a million other factors) may be taken as proving points that are not based on the principoles but rather on factors unconciously read in the analysis, which since it was so obvious, it’s harder to see it.
That’s all the time I want to put in on this too. Cui bono time. If the above doesn’t help, well, make a note to file: “Don’t climb MtE with Ed.”
We do have the testimony of other climbers:
“In an interview with ExWeb yesterday, veteran Juan ‘Juanito’ Oiarzabal who has the world record of 8000+ summit climbs said “It’s a classic [on Everest] – someone is in trouble, and people pass by, not even taking a quick look at him.”
“In my opinion, solidarity doesn’t exist on Everest. And the reason is, that most of the climbers attempting that mountain are not experienced Himalaya mountaineers,” Juan Oiarzabal said. “I wouldn’t even consider many of them climbers.”
Jamie McGuiness reported yesterday that another Sherpa had tried to help David Sharp, “Dawa from Arun Treks also gave oxygen to David and tried to help him move, repeatedly, for perhaps an hour. But he could not get David to stand alone or even stand resting on his shoulders, and crying, Dawa had to leave him too. Even with two Sherpas it was not going to be possible to get David down the tricky sections below. Dawa did not summit because of giving his oxygen to David.”
According to other reports now coming in, the Brit was very much alive when the large group of 40 climbers passed him. In the EverestMax debrief today, it says that the expedition overheard communication between BC and the climbers, “they had come across a near-dead climber with severe frostbite of his face and all 4 limbs. He had been at 8500m for at least 24 hours and all he said was that he wanted to sleep.”
Altitude is put to blame, but Juanito has another view, “Too often people go to Everest without knowing what it is like above 8000m. They pay huge amounts of money – and they don’t pay for a climb, but for a summit. Thus, reaching the summit becomes their first and only priority. In order to get the summit, they will use all the resources they can afford: Sherpas, bottled O2, camps and ropes previously fixed, etc… Up there, everybody focus on their own progress only, selfishly pursuing their goal. They don’t care for the rest.”
Juanito has been rescued a number of times, including at 8000+ on K2 last year. Other veteran climbers also point out that although difficult, it’s far from impossible to save people in the death zone and it has been routinely done.
“We helped two climbers at around 8500 meters in 1998,” said one. “Lucky enough, they were revived when we gave them oxygen. The scary part was, that other climbers just passed them, some chatting away on their radios.”
There are many examples of high altitude rescues, although far from all end up well. It’s not a matter of succeeding but of trying. Aussie climber and polar skier Damien Guildea offers some examples:
In 1953 Art Gilkey’s friends tried to rescue him from just below the Shoulder on K2 (all the technical ground still below them). They fell, Schoenig held them on one ice axe, but Gilkey eventually died. But they made the effort.
In 1992 Gary Ball collapsed at 8300m on K2. Rob Hall helped him down to the high camp and then other climbers helped them further, down all the technical ground, steeper than Everest. Others came up to help and eventually carried him down – he could not walk. Ball was at death’s door while still up on the mountain but no one just left him.
In 1993 Roger Payne and Julie-Anne Clyma rescued Rafael Jensen from high on K2. His partner (Daniel Bidner) had died and Jensen was on the way out. Roger and Julie were helping him down, they had a little epic with a fixed rope that broke, but they did it. They lost their chance of a summit, as did Victor Saunders who was with them (Victor summited Everest again this year).
and this:
Gary Ball died of Cerebral Edema on Dhaulagiri in October 1993 in the arms of his mate, Rob Hall.
Rob Hall died on Mount Everest South Summit in 1996 after refusing to leave his dying client.
The motivation to climb Mt. Everest in the modern era is pride or vanity. It has been well explored. Over 1,919 have made it and 179 have died trying. The trail is littered with countless O2 canisters and at least 120 bodies; the latter freeze dried.
But, one with the vanity or pride to shell out $50 to $60 thousand dollars (cost at the time of the 1996 disaster) are disinclined, since they are motivated by a fault and not a virtue, to act virtuous with the object of the vanity or pride in sight and in fact, they stand a one in ten chance of dying themselves.
It is at least a questionable act of morality to even attempt to climb it as the preservation of one’s life is a grave responsibility and nearly of ten who attempt it die for their pride or vanity. Given this population, I am not surprised at the behavior, it is in character.
WE have a dramatic rescue from even higher up TODAY:
Lincoln Hall is still alive:
“Yesterday (25th May) Lincoln and two Sherpas were returning from the summit when suddenly he lost energy and became weak just above the third step at 8700m. Initially coherant he quickly developed cerebral edema and began to hallucinate and refused to move down the rope.
As the afternoon wore on his two Sherpas gradually moved him to the second step. But at 7pm in darkness their oxygen supplies exhausted and the Sherpas developing snow blindness they were ordered by the expedition leader Alex Abramov to leave and save their own lives.
They returned to camp 3 at 8200m at 9pm Nepal time. The two Sherpas were totally exhausted and had to be assisted down the mountain by their friends today (26th May).
This morning Dan Mazur on a summit push discovered the still alive Lincoln Hall at the second step and gave him hot tea and oxygen and he was able to use the radio to call his expedition.
Dan with one client continued to the summit….
Alex Abramov immediately dispatched a team of 12 Sherpas (not sure if from ABC or North Col) to re-ascend with fresh oxygen and stretcher. Alex has sent up a further 20 bottles of oxygen of his own.
The DCXP/Project Himalaya team summited on the 25th at 7:30am while Lincoln summited at 9am behind our team. The DCXP team is exhausted but returning to ABC (Advanced Base Camp).
They are all in good health and expect to all be down safe later today. The stretcher and five bottles of oxygen has been supplied by our team to the efforts and we are sending all our sherpa and climber who can stand back to the north col, so far Jamie McGuinness who has already rescued one man from 8845m this season is the only man able to move back up the hill from our team of 14 westerners & 12 Climbing sherpa.
Fresh radio call: 15:30 CST AUSTRALIA Lincoln is down to the first step with the Russian Sherpa team assisting him, it is very difficult going but with every step down he gains strength and a chance to live, this is perhaps the most dramatic rescue on the mountain.
Jamie is heading up to the North Col now and we are all hoping
Lincoln Hall gets down OK.
(from explorersweb.com)
Lurker here, who did not know Ed Peters wasn’t Catholic –
For the Catholics among you, it would seem that anyone can follow Christ in easy situations (writing a check from the comfort of the armchair, dialing 911), but it is preceisely here, in the most extreme situations, when we are face to face with our brother at the very knife-edge of eternity, when all else slips away, when the question is truly asked of us, the question of what the meaning of our lives is.
No, I have never been on Everest,though I have been on the knife-edge between life and eternity. But we don’t have to experience ever single situation in life to know what should be done. I have no idea if I would have the courage and selflessness to do it, but I would pray to God and St. Michael to send me the strength in that moment.
Well, I’ve never been on Everest, either. Being on the other end of 911, I, too, have been on the knife-edge between life and eternity. But I do not have the self-assuredness to say I know what should be done in a situation in which I have zero experience, zero training, and next-to-zero knowledge.
teresa-
You will not gain respect on this blog by that kind of immature name-calling.
“You don’t see it my way, therfore you are not a real Catholic”.
Shame on you.
We are, ALL of us, making judgements about a situation very far removed from our own experience, based on scant information.
“You will not gain respect on this blog by that kind of immature name-calling.”
Aaargh! Please list the names I called him!!!
I didn’t call him any names! I am so sorry you misunderstood – I was being dead serious! I am new here and after I read his last post, he made it quite clear that he thought Jesus only died for three people, not the world!
I know that on various blogs, non-Catholics (sometimes Protestant, sometimes Atheist) post, and I truly believed he was one of those who was not Catholic but posted out of interest in the topic. I thought Ed Peters was one of those, because of comments like this:
“They use Jesus as the example because (stifle sarcasm, Ed) ‘Jesus gave his life for all of us.’ Assuming these people understand the need to avoid equivocation fallacies, they might mean that Jesus saved three people from death (the only, son, the little girl, Lazarus).”
I assumed that he DISAGREED that Jesus gave his life for ALL, and because he used that really sarcastic remark toward the other posters regarding Christ’s sacrifice.
I truly, honestly, was not attacking his faith or being sarcastic about it -please note HE was being sarcastic, or trying to stifle his admitted sarcasm — – I was saying, “oops, **I** made a mistake.” I am very sorry you took it the wrong way; I promise I will never post again; but I really think you owe me an apology. You really jumped the gun and made a judgment about me that could have been cleared up if you had just said, “Is this what you meant?”
Sorry, I promised never to post again (or even LOOK) again, but my PS was cut off.
1) I have never had an abortion, but I know they shouldn’t be done. I don’t experience or training in every possible activity in order to make a moral decision. And note – while I do not know what COULD be done or what I was CAPABLE of doing, I think we can say with confidence,not just with Sur Edmund Hilary but with our Chursh and our Lord, what SHOULD be done.
2) If anyone argues that Christ’s laying down his life was different from what we do, fine. But people like Maximilian Kolbe and a thousand other saints knew what should be done and did it. As Amy Welborn says, “I couldn’t be a saint but I could be a martyr if they killed me quick.” So I am not saying **I** could be a saint, but we have their example. Many, many people have died saving others.
You could look it u 🙂
Bye now,and thanks somuch for such a lovely first-time experience! I’m no longer a virgin!
“I truly, honestly, was not attacking his faith or being sarcastic about it.” But that’s how you came across.
“I am very sorry you took it the wrong way.” Wouldn’t it be better to say that you are sorry you expressed yourself so poorly?
“You really jumped the gun and made a judgment about me that could have been cleared up if you had just said, ‘Is this what you meant?'” Couldn’t Ed say that to you?
“…but I really think you owe me an apology.” I don’t.
teresa-
In as much as you actually, really thought that Ed must be a non -Catholic, I DID misunderstand your intent, and I apologize.
We get that kind of comment here often enough (you’re not a real Catholic, or you would see it my way…) and perhaps I have developed a hair trigger. When you introduced yourself as a “lurker”, I assumed you were more familiar with the site (and with Ed) than you apparently are.
On the other hand, getting offended and NEVER POSTING AGAIN, OR EVEN LOOKING, based on a misunderstanding is not terribly mature, either.
Ok, sorry, I am not only immature but a liar since I looked again. But I am 17 years old and I guess I AM immature. I expressed myself as best I could and it wasn’t good enough. In psych class we learned that even adolescent brains are pretty messed up and don’t get out of the overly emotional level for awhile! I also study moral theology and philosophy but didn’t bother to express myself as well as I would in a paper, which you have to rewrite a lot of times.
I should have gone to school today!
t: Your latest post is both mature and honest, and I commend you. I hope you will continue to post here. I sometimes have the subtlety of a falling brick(sometimes?!). Had I known you were 17, I would have been gentler(a little, anyway).
“Your latest post is both mature and honest, and I commend you. I hope you will continue to post here.”
Dittos! Please come back!
We need more young Catholics like yourself, who are so passionate about the faith.
Thanks bill. On some blogs, like College Confidential, you can click on a person’s name and read all their other posts. If they had that here I could have clicked on ed’s name and maybe found out what I didn’t know about him. I still don’t get what he meant with those comments about Jesus, but i take your word for it that I was wrong about him.
sorry for all the typos above.
Thank you tim. sorry again! Glad I found this interesting blog. Well, I didn’t exactly find it myself; I’m on a wireless node with a lot of other people (it’s connected to an office) and someone else found it first. But anyway Jimmy’s great! I will keep reading other posts but I am not sure about posting 🙂 at least til i get my act together…….
I am not a moral theologian or a mountain climber, so please read this uninformed opinion:
I simply cannot imagine what possible excuse there could be for passing up a dying man while continuing to climb to the summit. At the very least, even if they could not risk taking Sharp with them, the climbers who spotted Sharp could have TURNED AROUND and headed back to the closest base camp to report that there was a dying man on the mountain. Or someone could have stayed with Sharp for the amount of time he had in his oxygen tank for the ascent to the summit and return to Sharp’s location. Or SOMETHING.
But, as Sir Edmund Hillary pointed out, to just spot the suffering man, ignore him, and keep plugging on to the summit is reprehensible. And I assume Sir Edmund has enough mountaineering experience to know whether or not a group could have risked stopping to help. If it was possible to do so in the 1950s when Sir Edmund was climbing, it seems reasonable that it should be even more possible to do so now.
That Sharp was on the mountain alone and without proper equipment certainly showed poor judgment, just as it may well have been poor judgment for the victim in Jesus’ parable to be traveling alone on a dangerous stretch of road. But that doesn’t mean that the victim — either Sharp or the beaten man — deserved to be ignored by those who found him and pressed on.
“I am not a moral theologian or a mountain climber, so please read this uninformed opinion”
Oops. That was meant to read “…so please read this as uninformed opinion.”
Carry on.
“But, as Sir Edmund Hillary pointed out, to just spot the suffering man, ignore him, and keep plugging on to the summit is reprehensible.”
I agree. It still might not have been possible to try and save his life without undue risk to other climbers (many of whom, it seems, are inexperienced).
I just don’t know.
But, like you, I can’t IMAGINE walking away from a dying human being and thinking, “Oh, well, he should have brought more oxygen and some decent gloves… now on to the summit!”.
Even if he’s too far gone, stay and hold his hand, for crying out loud…
I am now confirmed in my life’s motto, “Don’t climb MtE or involve yourself in extreme sports.” I don’t know the family situation of the folks mentioned in all of these articles, but it has been my observation that a mother or father has NO business putting themselves at risk in this way. Isn’t that part of the point of this article? People putting themselves at needless risk to themselves and others? Doesn’t that approach suicide somewhere? Life is interesting enough for me, without all of this adrenaline rush they must be seeking.
Whether the climbers should have stopped is not the proper question to debate.
Human life cannot be sustained atop of Everest –period. Even those who can ascend without supplemental oxygen could not stay for long.
The question to ask is why people are enticed to make the climb at all. The Everest expedition is being sold to people as an entirely doable challenge, and people die every single year taking it on.
After reading Into Thin Air by John Krakauer and The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev, both detailing the 1996 disaster atop Mt. Everest, my feeling is that today’s expeditions up Everest are completely immoral.
People with unique physical capabilities, like tolerance for low oxygen levels, can do this. People who are in excellent physical shape can attempt so long as all conditions are perfect, and the people first described — like Sherpas — go ahead of them and place Oxygen tanks for them to pick up during the climb. Now ask yourself how can you guarantee that these conditions are met.
Anatoli Boukreev could, like many Sherpas, ascend Everest without supplemental oxygen. John Krakauer who ran daily marathons or half marathons to physically prepare for the challenge required supplemental oxygen, and even with it, he reported as follows:
“Twenty-nine thousand twenty-eight feet up in the troposphere, there was so little oxygen reaching my brain that my mental capacity was that of a slow child.”
We are in no position to judge the decisions of the people who encountered the dying man. Precious few could have saved the dying man and waiting with him could also have killed them. If they had gone back down, they could not have picked up their extra oxygen tanks atop the mountain which are needed for the descent. If they had stopped, they would have run out of oxygen or frozen to death. There are few who can carry anything more than what is necessary to keep themselves alive when they are near the summit. There is serious danger of getting lost or falling from a cliff should you leave the group. They only thing they could have realistically done was radio for help if they had a radio.
In 1996, Boukreev, who had ascended Everest several times, saved a few climbers, he was unique in his physical abilities. The expedition leaders, veteran climbers, died trying to get people back to camp. Boukreev, himself, was killed on a different climbing expedition a year or two later.
Scott Fischer and Rob Hall were excellent climbers. They had each ascended Everest several times. They both were killed trying to help others. The stories about them, both extremely likeable figures, are absolutely devastating.
A sad message from the girlfriend of another climber who died sheds some light on the mentality up there:
“I am asking to people on the North side of Everest to consider helping to find [name]. I’m an alpinist and I know the attraction of the summit, but isn’t trying to save someone more noble that to reach the summit? For the moment, I know that a lot of people are high on the mountain, but even just a few people helping would be very valuable. From the North col, people can help by following the “Messner road” and search the area with binoculars, because there is a chance that [name]’s fall was stopped there. If you need more information, or have more information, please contact me via the messages on this blog, or email to [deleted].
If the group were willing to risk their lives to climb mount everest, then they could have risked them to try to save him.
“In 1996, Boukreev, who had ascended Everest several times, saved a few climbers, he was unique in his physical abilities. The expedition leaders, veteran climbers, died trying to get people back to camp. Boukreev, himself, was killed on a different climbing expedition a year or two later.
Scott Fischer and Rob Hall were excellent climbers. They had each ascended Everest several times. They both were killed trying to help others. The stories about them, both extremely likeable figures, are absolutely devastating.”
I think this disproves that notion that people can’t think at 8000 m.
I just find it disconcerting that morality apparently changes the farther you are from sea level.