Attitudes Concerning Rescue

[Abbe Osram]

I wonder what the public attitude is in the UK concerning David Sharp who died on Everest and the fact that no one attempted to rescue him despite being only a few feet from him.

Admittedly Everest is in a different league of mountain from the situation talked about in this thread and he was a competent climber and not underprepared.

Should others have defered their summmit bid and bring him down?

QUOTE]

The BBC report indicates he was ill prepared:

Speaking to the Close Up programme on New Zealand television, Mr Inglis said: "The trouble is that at 8,500m (27,887ft) it is extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive.

"It was like 'What do we do?' We couldn't do anything. He had no oxygen, no proper gloves, things like that.

"On that morning, over 40 people went past that young Brit. I was one of the first."

I'd have thought that any action, however futile, to help him would be worthwhile but if you are driven enough to want to climb Everest maybe ego comes first.
Whatever happened to the concept of the 'Good Samaritan'?

Ok, lets talk about moral. I believe that "moral" is the thing being involved here in out discussion. What is moral? Is there such a thing at all, or is it a mind mate construction, does it exist separate from the human mind / tradition.
Is there such a thing as right and wrong - evil and good? Are the 40 who left the young Brit there on the mountain dying evil - people devoted of moral? Or are they only 40 people going up the mountain being responsible for their life only - free of moral because moral doesn’t exist in reality. The result of that thinking would be as:

If they help him that fine they are free to do so. If they don’t help him that fine too they are still free to do so. If they choose to help him but they die themselves doing it, that’s their choice, they will have to face the consequences too. You see, thinking in these terms set everybody free to face the consequence of their choices and existence. Its form of respect to the spirit of freedom and respect of the decision another human being is doing for his own life.

Now I believe that the young man dying up there on the summit was not a child, he knew what he was doing, he choose not to have oxygen, he chose not to take the help of sherpas, he chose to go alone. The result was he died. It was his choosing and in that way it was respected.

NOW! This doesn’t exclude the fact that you can help him and that he can’t be happy to be helped. You are all free! BUT he can’t be angry and disappointed if nobody helps him because he doesn’t hold a moral right to the life of other people to help him. Doing that he gives responsibility for his life away and forces other people with the weapon called "Moral" in submission. In that way moral becomes the enemy of freedom and respect.

He did his choices I respect him, I let him die or might help him that is up to me.

The case would be different if there is such a thing as cosmic moral like we enjoy the law of gravity. Or if there is a entity called God telling us to be a good "Good Samaritan". I saw a house in Finland where 3 small children died because they played with matches; the house burned to the ground and no person was there.
The children where innocent as children are, because they don’t know better.
Now, they came no angels down from GOD coming to help them, children or no children they died. So, even the innocent, the not knowing little ones where under the law of "choice" and "consequence of their choice.
The parents did their choice to leave their kids alone home. (Mistake) But the kids would not have died if they would not have played with the matches either. (Mistake).
They would not have died if they would not have hided in a cupboard so rescuers could not find them (Mistake) the consequence to face was death. (No God or Angle came to help the little once either.).

The guy up on the mountain is a totally other story as he was grown up and knew what he was doing. So my view on the thing is:

I might have helped him. I am ok.
I might not stop to help him. I am ok too.
He might be thankful that I help him, he is free to do so.
He and society might condemn my free choice not to help him using their weapon of morale. That is their free choice but it doesn’t make me guilty as there is no cosmic law of “morale” in the universe.

Moral is only a construction of the mind. Morale changes all over the world in history or location, while the law of gravity is everywhere.

You are free and I am free, do what you want!
// Abbe

 

[nobby]

You are free and I am free, do what you want!
// Abbe

An interesting but faulty concept. Is there a point at which we stop doing what we want? Four paedophiles jailed yeaterday, three murderers the day before.
They were free to make choices, and did, society has rules and utilised them because free choice is a myth. What we have a set of choices and some are unacceptable. We are not free except to coexist with others. We are not born alone, we do not live alone and we don't die alone.

My belief is that it is unacceptable to pass by somebody who needs help. We are free to refuse help, but this climber was apparently not asked.

 

[Abbe Osram]

An interesting but faulty concept. Is there a point at which we stop doing what we want? Four paedophiles jailed yeaterday, three murderers the day before.
They were free to make choices, and did, society has rules and utilised them because free choice is a myth. What we have a set of choices and some are unacceptable. We are not free except to coexist with others. We are not born alone, we do not live alone and we don't die alone.

My belief is that it is unacceptable to pass by somebody who needs help. We are free to refuse help, but this climber was apparently not asked.

the concept still holds, they all did their choices -nobody forced them to be kriminals they chose and did. The consequence murder and rape. But there it doesnt stop.
One state will but them on the chair and kill them. Right or Wrong?! For me it doesnt matter as it only "is" the "consequence of the choice they did before.
Another state england will put them away for life. Good or Bad? Dont know and dont care as it only "is". Englands choice! The same situation here in sweden, they get max 6 years and are out again. Our choice here in sweden. The consequence is that we have murderers which killed several times time and time again getting only short term sentence. Our choice here and our consequence!
A father of a killed girl looses respect and trust in the swedish juristification and gets his gun and kills the guy being out on permission after 2 years of jail.
His choice! The consequence - the police takes him and his is gone for 10 years now. His choice!

you see it still works - your choice - following the fact that you have to find consequence for your action - only there is the freedom to be found. Nobody can give you freedom.

// Abbe

 

[BorderReiver]

An interesting but faulty concept. Is there a point at which we stop doing what we want? Four paedophiles jailed yesterday, three murderers the day before.
They were free to make choices, and did, society has rules and utilised them because free choice is a myth. What we have a set of choices and some are unacceptable. We are not free except to coexist with others. We are not born alone, we do not live alone and we don't die alone.

My belief is that it is unacceptable to pass by somebody who needs help. We are free to refuse help, but this climber was apparently not asked.[/QUOTE]

We are not talking Snowdon here Nobby.

It's not as if any of those who passed by would just be giving up a days stroll up a mountain.

In the conditions that prevail "very high up" helping someone who is already in deep mire would probably compromise the safety of the helpers to a very great degree.

As has been said already,the young man was doing it his way,he got it wrong and died as a result.Tragic indeed but IMO no blame can be attached to those who passed by.

At that altitude one's whole mind is focused on survival.From the reports I've read and talks attended,even the next step fills your consciousness.If you pass a bloke in bother he probably won't register as needing help and if he did,what could you do?

It is accepted,I think,by the climbing fraternity that if you get into serious trouble on a serious mountain,you are on your own.

Read "Touching the Void" for a first hand account of that "code".IMO that explains perfectly the situation under discussion.

.

 

[nobby]

We are not talking Snowdon here Nobby.

It's not as if any of those who passed by would just be giving up a days stroll up a mountain.

In the conditions that prevail "very high up" helping someone who is already in deep mire would probably compromise the safety of the helpers to a very great degree.

As has been said already,the young man was doing it his way,he got it wrong and died as a result.Tragic indeed but IMO no blame can be attached to those who passed by.

At that altitude one's whole mind is focused on survival.From the reports I've read and talks attended,even the next step fills your consciousness.If you pass a bloke in bother he probably won't register as needing help and if he did,what could you do?

It is accepted,I think,by the climbing fraternity that if you get into serious trouble on a serious mountain,you are on your own.

Read "Touching the Void" for a first hand account of that "code".IMO that explains perfectly the situation under discussion.

.

It seems that Sir Edmund Hilary disagrees. My nephew, an alpinist and instructor, disagrees. I thought that 'Touching the Void' was something of a self justification.
I don't want to sound old here, even though I am, but if this is a modern attitude of self first then I am not very keen on it. I appreciate that won't change anything and if younger folk are happy with it then so be it, but I am very glad that my military service was with guys who I could trust to put themselves in danger to help others.

 

[bogflogger]

I completely agree with you Nobby.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread, regarding "Adventure at any cost."

This now pointless obsession, is nothing but an Ego-driven sausage machine and the level of utter selfishness shown by modern climbers is appaling.

The ironic thing is, that although there are still many, extremely technically difficult unclimbed peaks, people are still prepared to join the back of the queue, in order to gain the dubious accolade of being 1,xxxxth to the summit of Chomolungma.

 

[Abbe Osram]

It seems that Sir Edmund Hilary disagrees. My nephew, an alpinist and instructor, disagrees. I thought that 'Touching the Void' was something of a self justification.
I don't want to sound old here, even though I am, but if this is a modern attitude of self first then I am not very keen on it. I appreciate that won't change anything and if younger folk are happy with it then so be it, but I am very glad that my military service was with guys who I could trust to put themselves in danger to help others.

Dont forget that you guys are drilled not to let your buddies down by letting yourself hang back either. I was reading a book about the english paras, and it didnt look like that a person who would endanger the whole outfitt, because of his behavoir, would have lastest long in the group. They would be selected out before going into battle. The situation would be much like that of a para unit having the objective to take a bridge in very short time but another unit who ****** up wants your unit to help getting a tank out of a ditch. Will the paras stop? I dont believe it. In the book they showed the para training and one single guy was to afraid to do one of the exercise. The entire unit marched on and left him behind. He got a hell of a lot shouting to hear from his leader about letting the other down, being guilty for the death of the unit etc etc and then he was send home.

What is more important to for the unit to reach its objectiv or taking care of a single guy playing the hero and endanger everyone? I dont believe that your army would find it ok if you as a Teamleader miss to take a important bridge only to help a single guy in battle?
I am not a army guy but war is no childs play and I dont believe that they are holding hand and talking softly with a guy who endangers everyone.

Its true that Sir Edmund Hilary disagrees but the boys mother is saying about the incident:

She added: "David had been noticed in a shelter. People had seen him but thought he was dead.

"One of Russell's Sherpas checked on him and there was still life there. He tried to give him oxygen but it was too late.

"Your responsibility is to save yourself - not to try and save anybody else.

"I can't say how grateful I am to the Sherpa and to Russell.

David's body is in too dangerous a position to take off the mountain but Mr Bryce told the family he would try to move it to a less-open site.

Mr Sharp said: "We believe he climbed Everest, that he was on his way down and ran out of oxygen.

 

[stotRE]

To the second: why? What advantages would being like a Scandinavian rather than a Latin bring? The cradle of Western civilisation (even the word is Latin rooted) is the Meditteranean.

Instead of dreaming of buy to let,frapuccinos,bed head haircuts and Gucci manbags we should be camping out,hunting and fishing.(living a mans life!)

The sheeple in Britain have no respect for the 'nature' and have very little interests other than dogging,Ipods and bloody big brother.

Thats why i am such an antisocial b"£$!@d

 

[leon-1]

Right folks, this thread was to do with attitudes towards rescue. What has happened to that thread??

We started talking about people who were considered irresponsible in the view of rescuers and where are we now.

Last year the Marine Rescue Service responded to 20,000 calls, a percentage of them had neither the correct kit or the knowledge to be piloting a vessel.

We have also seen exactly the same thing in the way of mountain rescue (large amounts of people without the kit that they require for doing what they are doing).

I do not care if you are a member of the royal family, if you go out without the correct kit you put your life at risk, the people in your parties life at risk and the rescuers life at risk.

Statsistics show that there has been no increase in risk to lives of rescuers means very little to me. I am not talking about just lives, I am talking about physical or mental harm (as unlikely as it may seem).

People are missing the point, as a rescuer why should I go out and put my life on the line if the person that I am trying to rescue has not got that respect for themselves, the persons in thier team or for me.

Why shouldn't I just say "stuff you you bugger", because that is effectively what they are doing to me? When I get a call to get someone down off a hill and I get there to find that they have no kit and no water and feel a little tired why should I help?

Can you tell me a good answer?
Why should I put my life on the line?

Finally I haven't done rescue for a long time, why ??

I think this thread is answering it.

 

[stone]

Can you tell me a good answer?
Why should I put my life on the line?
Finally I haven't done rescue for a long time, why ??
I think this thread is answering it.

Maybe we as rescuers are enabling these people. Perhaps it's time to cull the herd a bit and get rid of some muppets!

Seriously though, if I was to feel like I was doing anything to put my life in jeopardy, I would re-look at my strategy in a rescue situation. I also don't have to contend with the kinds of calls you get in the UK either.

I commend you leon-1 for your past efforts, and It's a shame that it has to stop for you out of shear frustration!

 

[BOD]

.

Statsistics show that there has been no increase in risk to lives of rescuers means very little to me. I am not talking about just lives, I am talking about physical or mental harm (as unlikely as it may seem).

.

Five years ago, I was on a marine call out in Australia. A man had taken his partner and 2 children out without telling anyone where they were going and not using the free Sea Rescue radio logging service.

It was a day after a storm had passed through the area (the tail end of an Indian Ocean cyclone) and seas were moderate. He chose to take a short cut between a shallow (5 fathom) bank and a long line of rocks ( 3-4miles) on the leeward side. Just after doing that a large wave rose over the bank too large to punch through and he turned and ran, however he did not have room and the aluminium boat was crushed between wave and rocks.

Next morning 24 hours later, we rescued the mother (who had been spotted by passing boaters who did not dare approach the jagged rocks) who some how found her way to a large rock. The next few hours we searched for the others. We collected the little girl (same birthday as my daughter) then the little boy. We passed the childrens bodies to a one man police vessel so that we could continue searching.

Shortly after, I spotted the man. I decided not to pick him up and left it to the other 2 deck crew to retrieve his body as I felt angry with him.

The policeman left alone with the children was weeping when he got back and had a breakdown later.

One of our crew left Sea Rescue. The remainder lay a wreath every year.

My hands are shaking as I type this.

I went to his funeral but I certianly did not feel sorry for him. He wasn't incompetent but an over confident "can do" type of guy who would say "she'll be right mate" when given friendly advice.

The harm happens when we do not succeed in rescuing them.

 

[nobby]

Last year the Marine Rescue Service responded to 20,000 calls, a percentage of them had neither the correct kit or the knowledge to be piloting a vessel.

We have also seen exactly the same thing in the way of mountain rescue (large amounts of people without the kit that they require for doing what they are doing).

I do not care if you are a member of the royal family, if you go out without the correct kit you put your life at risk, the people in your parties life at risk and the rescuers life at risk.

Statsistics show that there has been no increase in risk to lives of rescuers means very little to me. I am not talking about just lives, I am talking about physical or mental harm (as unlikely as it may seem).

People are missing the point, as a rescuer why should I go out and put my life on the line if the person that I am trying to rescue has not got that respect for themselves, the persons in thier team or for me.

Why shouldn't I just say "stuff you you bugger", because that is effectively what they are doing to me? When I get a call to get someone down off a hill and I get there to find that they have no kit and no water and feel a little tired why should I help?

Can you tell me a good answer?
Why should I put my life on the line?

Finally I haven't done rescue for a long time, why ??

I think this thread is answering it.

Hi Leon you seem frustrated with your lot as a rescuer and as you haven't done it for a long time you have rather answered your questions.

I can't think of any reason why you should put your life on the line. I really don't think the point is missed. You're a volunteer. So, don't volunteer if you no longer have a reason, that suits you, for doing so.

Should we say that anybody setting out on an adventure must be correctly kitted out before they set off? How big does the adventure have to be to require 'correct kit'? Who will decide what is correct and who will check that the kit is assembled correctly? Then certificates to show that folk know how the kit works and can use it to best advantage? Hold on, a licence. That's it; a licence for adventure. Like a driving licence; different grades for different adventures, compulsory training, a ministry to organise it, civil servants, a Secretary of State. Compulsion; solve the 'fat kids' problem make them have adventures and charge fees for training, fees for certificates, fees for the staff to check the kit, taxes on the equipment that they must have.
I'll have to share this with Gordon; there might be a knighthood in this.

Sorry, got carried away. The fact is that volunteers don't have to risk anything unless they choose to do so. Equally, they can walk away when they wish.

Just an opinion

 

[bambodoggy]

I am very glad that my military service was with guys who I could trust to put themselves in danger to help others.

Noddy, that's a little bit simplistic....it's human nature to help each other and certainly to help you mates, however, this is not allowed to happen during a drama...unlike the US army which (rightly or wrongly, I'm not judging here) is all for saving each and every man and taking everybody home dead or alive, the British army has had no such ideas in the past and is only in the last few years starting to (unwisely imo) copy this. For confirmation of this policy of burying our dead where they fell please see the numerous British Militray cemetaries around the globe.

It was drummed into me again and again and again during training that during a drama you don't stop for anyone, you push forward all the time and supress the otherside. You don't stop because your best mate is dead or dying because if you do then you'll end up in the same state.
Once and only once the contact has ended then you go back and sort your mates out...this is the only way to do it right and may sound harsh but does work and has been tested over years and years of warfare.

Clearly ths has very little to do with climbing mountains so I'm sorry to have gone off topic somewhat.

Cheers,

Bam.

 

[bambodoggy]

The fact is that volunteers don't have to risk anything unless they choose to do so. Equally, they can walk away when they wish.

Isn't that just what Abbe's been saying? ? ?

 

[nobby]

Isn't that just what Abbe's been saying? ? ?

There you go then, I agree with Abbe.
I'm happy with that; I admire the way he lives his life although it wouldn't suit me.

 

[Mikey P]

On a slightly different tack, a solo climber (famous, well-sponsored East-European) was recently plucked from high on a Himalayan mountain face (Rupal Face, I think) in the highest ever helicopter rescue. He'd been there for about 4 or 5 days, trapped in a storm.

My first thought was, 'Thank God he's OK'. However, there were some very interesting comments from established extreme alpinists like Mark Twight. Comments were along the lines of: is it really as much of an achievement to climb a horrendously difficult route when you know you can bail out and call mountain resuce whenever it gets difficult?

I feel slightly ambiguous about this: on the one hand, I think that it 'cheapens' a difficult challenge when you know that rescue is close at hand. On the other hand, I would not advocate having to die on a route to prove it was hard! I think Mark Twight's philosophy is that: if you are not capable of doing it, then don't try until you are; and, if the going get's tough, don't just give up at the first opportunity.

The parallels to bushcraft are clear. If you go out into the woods and it starts raining, do you bail because you know there's a pub nearby, or your house is just over the hill; or do you tough it out, try a new type of shelter, push yourself and your gear, and gain something positive from the experience? What would you be more proud of? I would not, however, say that you should not seek warm, dry shelter if hypothermia is a real risk...live to fight another day!

Anyway, just another aspect in the debate...

 

[swamp donkey]

Leon 1 as I said before. if you are risking your life you are DOING IT WRONG. and if you do not like the clients or really think you are risking your life STOP DOING IT NOW.

 

[Emma]

Just a quick note at this point - just because you're not risking your neck doesn't mean you're not risking a lot. Every time mountain rescue go out they're risking an accident. By definition accidents are accidental, you might not be taking risks, something can still happen. We all know that. The places people need rescuing from tend to be places where accidents happen.
Every time mountain rescue goes out there is a chance that they will have an accident. A very small chance perhaps, of doing themself serious damage, but every call they attend increases that chance.
I have three very very minor recurring injuries, two knees and a hamstring. I wasn't doing anything risky in the slightest when I got the original injuries. I'm sure most people who have recurring injuries would agree, it isn't fun, it does affect your everday life, and depending on what your everyday life is, it can take away your entire life.

 

[Abbe Osram]

Just a quick note at this point - just because you're not risking your neck doesn't mean you're not risking a lot. Every time mountain rescue go out they're risking an accident. By definition accidents are accidental, you might not be taking risks, something can still happen. We all know that. The places people need rescuing from tend to be places where accidents happen.
Every time mountain rescue goes out there is a chance that they will have an accident. A very small chance perhaps, of doing themself serious damage, but every call they attend increases that chance.
I have three very very minor recurring injuries, two knees and a hamstring. I wasn't doing anything risky in the slightest when I got the original injuries. I'm sure most people who have recurring injuries would agree, it isn't fun, it does affect your everday life, and depending on what your everyday life is, it can take away your entire life.

That’s true, we lost en entire 7 people rescue team while on exercise in an helicopter accident.

Cheers
Abbe

 

[BorderReiver]

It seems that Sir Edmund Hilary disagrees. My nephew, an alpinist and instructor, disagrees. I thought that 'Touching the Void' was something of a self justification.
I don't want to sound old here, even though I am, but if this is a modern attitude of self first then I am not very keen on it. I appreciate that won't change anything and if younger folk are happy with it then so be it, but I am very glad that my military service was with guys who I could trust to put themselves in danger to help others.

I too am old and I don't like the modern equivalent of "I'm all right jack" either.
It's just that on the extreme levels like Everest normal rules don't fit.Attempting a rescue would be pointless and dangerous.I could not leave a man to die but then I wouldn't be up there in the first place.

Guides have stayed with their clients and died needlessly.However it was their client and they obviously felt a duty to that client.

This poor guy, IIRC, wasn't part of a team and so was no one's "responsibility".

My reference to the "The void" was to point out that the guy who was left for dead had no issue with his mate.Indeed he praised him for sticking around as long as he did.