Climbers' Attitude Is 'Horrifying', Says Sir Edmund

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 5-24-2006

[Balding_Eagle]

I could agree with you, and I imagine Sir Hillary would have also EXCEPT FOR ONE FACT: They passed by him on the way up.

[goldstategop]

Sir Edmund is a world class human being. His values are in the right place. For me, doing the right thing precedes even the acquisition of fame.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Revolting cat!]

Hillary Clinton was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

Cain't be! Sir Edmund Hillary was named after Hillary Rodham and Dan Brown is writing a book about this ("it's FICTION, people!") mystery and the conspiracy to conceal it (Opie will direct.)

[baltoga]

Absolutely! I've lost all respect for climbers. What a bunch of creeps.

[Tall_Texan]

Yes, they passed him on the way up but that doesn't mean there wasn't still a risk in bringing the man down. I assume he's not able to move under his own power. A lot more energy is expended if you have to drag/carry a 200-lb man down to the base camp (not to mention the oxygen given him) than the simple act of moving just your own weight up and down the mountain.

It makes it seem more criminal to pass him on the way up but I don't know with certainty that abandoning the climb and rescuing the man would be accomplished without significant danger to others.

Again, I'm not defending the climbers as much as saying that there could be legitimate reasons not to attempt a rescue.

[Captain Peter Blood]

As far as I know they only found the body of his climbing companion not Mallory's. If the Mountain ever melts enough the secrets will be revealed.

[Chena]

While I do understand the nature of the climb and the dangerous conditions these climbers have put themselves in, I do not understand how any decent human being could pass by this man and not at least try to save his life. I know I couldn't live with myself if I hadn't at least tried.

[r9etb]

Again, I'm not defending the climbers as much as saying that there could be legitimate reasons not to attempt a rescue.

Which is to say, you're defending them.

Sorry, but there's simply no excuse to leave a guy for dead on the way uphill. The key words are "far less professional climbing party," which is tantamount to saying, "he deserved it." The tacit expectation would be that a similar problem -- say, with our double amputee friend -- would have resulted in a rescue attempt.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I stand corrected, I just checked the web and they claim that was Mallory's body they found. I thought that at the time in 1999 they claimed they found Irvine's body.
The only proof was a name tag on the clothes that they belonged to Mallory, but could have been Irvine.
Like I say if enough snow ever melts the truth may be settled one way or another.

[Tall_Texan]

I'll agree that the comments of Mr. Inglis reflect an arrogance that is troubling. I also think they may be a bit self-serving (well, at least we gave the old boy some of our precious oxygen...).

It may have been an act of true cowardliness and indifference to suffering. I just have a difficult time condemning *with certainty* without better understanding the conditions they were in and how much effort and risk might have been involved in dragging or carrying the man to safety.

Being atop Everest sounds a bit like being on the moon. You can't assume that the physical effort needed to do even normal tasks is going to require the same energy as it would for those at sea level. I know I can't do the same things while visiting my sister at 7,000 feet in Colorado as I can here in Central Texas. It doesn't take much exertion for me to get dizzy and breathless the first day or two up there because of the difference in oxygen levels.

From a strictly moral standpoint, of course, you try to save everyone possible. But even NASA spacewalks have a point where you sacrifice the life of one astronaut in order to avoid killing the rest of the crew.

[Balding_Eagle]

My wife and I were discussing this, and she reminded me that we saw Mr. Inglis's story on "I shouldn't be Alive" just a month or two back.

It was the story of how he lost his legs.

It also featured how his companion, who he had met a day or two earlier, struggled heroically to save his life.

What irony. Inglis came across as a a$$hole of gigantic proportions on that show. I guess they featured him accurately.

Watch the show if you have a chance, I'll wager you serious money that you'll have a change of heart about your position on this.

[The Red Zone]

With no legs, he was what, being CARRIED up the slope? Walking on his hands?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"I think the whole attitude toward climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top," he said.

I wonder how many of these extreme-sports type would pursue their sports if they were the only one on earth and had no one to tell their stories too.

I rather think most of them wouldn't do anything, that the primary motivation for these people is to brag about what they've done.

It is worse than shameful that the desire to boast took precedence over human life.

[Fintan]

Hillary Clinton was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
 

I thought Sir Edmund Hillary was named after Hillary Clinton.

Geez, ya learn something new every day...

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

There are points on the climb where you can barely carry yourself. The many who have died and remain on the mountain are proof of this.

Most likely the "utilitarians" were not praising the decision to leave this man behind, simply stating that their decision was based on the impossibility of the matter.

Surely, if this group could have abandoned their goal of summitting and figured out a way to save this man and bring him down, I'd hope they would have done so.

If they "chose" to summit rather than save a life, then they ought to be haunted the rest of their lives. But in this day of "choice" I wouldn't be surprised if this is just one of the fascinating exploits of their fascinating tale that they tell to all their fascinated and admiring guests at dinner parties.

[ishabibble]

No kidding? How rich that someone rescued Mike Inglis on another mountain. I guess his rescuers didn't think that he was a lost cause because he looked like he was dying.
Good thing for Superstar Mike that his rescuers weren't trying to reach the summit and get their faces on TV.

Mike Inglis is a worthless, soulless POS. He should rot in hell for leaving another human being to die so he could break some record. The national disgrace of New Zealand. Oh, he's famous now, alright.

[AnAmericanMother]

At first the expedition members thought they had found Irvine's body. But in addition to the name tags in the clothes, they found letters and other artifacts on the body. They also took hair and skin samples for DNA analysis.

Haven't seen the results of the DNA testing, but if it had NOT been Mallory I'm sure we would have heard by now (his grandson is still alive).

[AnAmericanMother]

If they were on their way down, I could see it, they would be at the limit of their survivability envelope.

But on the way UP . . . they ought to have abandoned the attempt and given it a shot.

Sir Edmund's criticism is the clincher for me.

And a good thing that the guys who saved this jerk before didn't think the same way he did -- although if you ask me it was wasted effort.

You're right about the number of dead littering the mountain. The account by the guy who found Mallory is amazing -- he was picking his way among dead men, saying "Nah, this one's modern, nylon" - "Nah, modern, plastic boots" - until he got to the guy in hobnail boots and tweed . . .

[dead]

My wife and I were discussing this, and she reminded me that we saw Mr. Inglis's story on "I shouldn't be Alive" just a month or two back.

I saw that too, and it was a great story, but I don't think it's the same guy. That's another legless mountain climber.

I read in an article the other day that this guy lost his legs to frostbite, not a boulder crushing.

[JoeBlow1000]

Speaking as an alpine climber, Sir Edmund Hillary is quite right in asserting that no one should choose achieving a summit over rendering all possible assistance to another climber in distress. However, all mountaineers know that there are places and situations in mountaineering where it is physically impossible to rescue an incapacitated individual. High altitude, high angle terrain is frequently one of those situations. The question here is what aid was possible. Given the environment and the way the human body behaves, it is quite possible that those 40 people were not even aware that they were passing a man in distress. People who have never experienced the conditions that often prevail in high altitude alpinism should remember that ignorance is the firmest base from which to make sweeping judgments.