If you’ve chosen to take the reckless route, are others obliged to rescue you when you get into trouble?
When British mountaineer David Sharp died on Mt Everest on 15th May 2006, he might not even have made the news back home. But listen to this. David was climbing alone late in the afternoon when he reached the summit. Exhausted and without oxygen, he only managed to descend 450m to a rock overhang. Practically immobilised with frostbite, hypoxia and fatigue, he stayed there until 40 ascending climbers passed him. Nobody turned back to rescue to him. Everybody just headed towards the summit. When they passed him again 9 hours later, practically everyone was too exhausted to bring him down without endangering his own life.
David was left there. A Sherpa gave him his oxygen. When other ascending climbers passed him again, he was dead. The internet was soon abuzz with condemnation. How could 40 climbers have passed dying David without giving up their summit attempt to mount a rescue?
Amongst the 40 climbers was the first double amputee to make it to the top of the world – Mark Inglis. Mark’s achievements were remarkable, but they were completely overshadowed by accusations of selfishness, the loudest of which probably came from another Kiwi, Sir Edmund Hillary himself. Mark tried to push the blame by saying that he had consulted with the expedition leader over the radio and was given the order to go ahead. The expedition leader denied this and this was supported by everyone on the radio network. An even angrier Sir Edmund blasted all the herosim out of Mark Inglis’ feat.
There are deaths on Everest all the time. One of the deadliest seasons was that in May 1996 when 15 climbers, including 2 experienced guides died. What touched everyone was the fact that the two guides, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, could have survived if they had abandoned their struggling clients when the storm struck. The moral of the story? Don’t be a fool. Run for your own life.
But David Sharp or rather the 40 climbers’ situation was different. They were not in trouble. They had enough energy to reach the summit. They certainly had enough energy and manpower to bring David Sharp down. But that would mean that the tens of thousands of dollars each climber had forked out for an attempt to get on the highest piece of real estate on earth would go down the drain. Would the people who condemn them be willing to compensate these climbers and donate towards their next expedition?
The outcry didn’t quite stop until Linda Sharp, David’s mother, spoke to the media: “David’s survival was his own responsibility …. Your responsibility is to save yourself — not to try to save anybody else.”
Now let’s add another dimension to this controversy. David signed up for the expedition with a Nepalese trekking company, paying them an impossible $6200 for logistical support up to Advanced Base Camp. Climbing on such an impossibly low budget, he had no guide, no oxygen and some said he didn’t even have proper gloves and adequate food supplies. To put it rather unsympathetically, David was practically asking the mountain to kill him.
On the same mountain at the same time, there were clients who have paid $65,000 (more than 10 times David’s budget) for good Sherpa support from base camp to summit. Of course, they also had adequate supply of oxygen, radio sets to communicate with base camp and some even had an expedition doctor. These are the expeditions which are well-planned, well-financed and well-managed. They have the resources for success on the summit. They have the resources to react to contingencies.
But as more and more “budget” climbers enter the scene, they quite unabashedly ask for these resources to be shared. Should the better-equipped fellows feel obliged to share not just a few some Mars bars but tents, equipment, precious oxygen, doctor and Sherpas? Should they give up their painstakingly planned, organised and financed expedition to save a fellow climber who cannot afford to climb the mountain safely and within his capacity?
It’s so easy for the moralists and retired celebrities to condemn others from behind their keyboards, but have they really looked at the issues closely and put themselves in the other climbers’ boots? Would they themselves have done it, like giving up an important exam they have spent years preparing for to save some reckless stranger’s life?
