Death on Everest

**Shadows** · 25th May 2006, 16:37

Anybody see the editorial cartoon in the DomPost today? LOL!

**marty** · 25th May 2006, 17:44

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Where does this stop? Surgeons earn huge salaries and yet people die on waiting lists. Should they do free operations in their weekends to prevent this? They know damn well people that can't afford their services privately will in all likelyhood die? Do THEY do anything? Nope....

Could it be that we want our heroes to be dead ones because we can't handle the fact that the world is not a perfect boys own annual and the good guys are not always 100% good...

what a fucking outstanding couple of paragraphs, imho summing the issue up perfectly.

like inglis just said on the news - 'must be a quiet news week huh?'

**GNR** · 25th May 2006, 18:38

at 18,000 ft Time of usefull Consciousness is 15- 30 mins
at 25,000ft Time of usefull Consciousness is 3-5 mins
at 35,000ft Time of usefull Consciousness is 45-60 secs

how high is everest, 30,000 ft?

**SARGE** · 25th May 2006, 19:02

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

So what do you all think?
At least 40 people including Inglis, passed David Smart as he lay dying about 300 metres from the summit.
There has been much toing and froing on whether anyone could have helped him. But I'm on Hillaries side, whether you can save him or not, simple human compassion says you do not leave someone to die alone. You stay and see them through.
He made a significant comment that it works out to around $75,000 per person to make an attempt on the summit. It seems that that is too much money to forgo and help someone.

i think his ego is a bit overblown.. hes lost both legs and now the tips of some fingers and he still goes on..pretty soon , he's going to be a disembodied head in a bag, being carried up mountains by the Sherpas

but to let another human being in obvious stress die alone is just .... well... he's going to whatever hell he believes in.. i hope that man's frozen face never leaves him in peace... $$$ shouldnt matter at that altitude..

**terbang** · 25th May 2006, 19:29

I would have helped to the best of my ability. Helped save a kids life once and put me nuts on the chopping block to do it and took a few risks as well. Paid off and the kid lived and I remember the feeling that I had was, whilst I didn't want to be stupid and really do myself some harm, I felt I was dutybound as a fellow human being to give it a good shot and that meant managing my risks.

**TonyB** · 25th May 2006, 20:44

Oh for FUCKS SAKE! This is driving me nuts!!! What all of you bloody arm chair mountaineering experts are forgetting, is what his JOB was before he lost his legs on Mount Cook. He was a member of the MOUNT COOK MOUNTAIN RESCUE TEAM. Ingils has said that the guy was beyond saving. 40 other people decided the same thing. The mans own family believe that Ingils and the 40 other people on the mountain on that day did the right thing. I suggest you all get down of your completely uniformed moral high ground and just accept that he couldn't be saved.

**Winston001** · 25th May 2006, 21:03

I despise the knee-jerk attitude of the media. I don't know Inglis but he deserves open admiration for summiting Everest. Krakauers "Into Thin Air", Dickenson's "The Death Zone" and Boukreev's "The Climb" all explain in pitiless detail what it is like for a human being above 8000 meters.

This is called the Death Zone for good reason because physiologically the brain and body are dying. There just isn't enough oxygen up there. The brain becomes sluggish and unresponsive. Pulmonary and cerebral oedema are likely to occur at any time.

Climbers report phantom companions to whom they speak. Nothing is quite real. Take a breath, take a step.

And Everest is the grandaddy of them all. Plenty of climbers get to the South Summit and no further.

Inglis was the least able to render assistance of all the other climbers. So it is sickening that he is picked on.

**Pixie** · 26th May 2006, 00:44

What I get from the pro side of this discussion is:

If you are in a dangerous environment and come across a fellow traveller,who has succumbed to the elements.It is ok to continue to your goal,into greater danger,and leave the unfortunate to die alone.
No need to stop and provide company.
Let someone else make the decision,and take the responsibility.
Sounds like a good kiwi bloke.

**Lou Girardin** · 26th May 2006, 09:59

There was an excerpt from a Mountaineering magazine on Inglis' rescue.
back when he lost his legs.
One of the rescue team was asked about risking their lives to save another.
He said, "it was hard and risky, but we know Inglis would do the same for us".
It sounds like the antis in this debate have never seen someone die.

**marty** · 26th May 2006, 13:59

now you just KNOW that's not true, Lou.

**marty** · 26th May 2006, 14:01

and i can tell you now, it wasn't by slowly and quietly freezing to death.

although i have had to defrost a few. and they were 'only' on ruapehu.

**Lou Girardin** · 26th May 2006, 15:47

Originally Posted by Winston001

I despise the knee-jerk attitude of the media. I don't know Inglis but he deserves open admiration for summiting Everest.

Spare us the "summiting", it's not a bloody verb.
He reached/climbedto/ascended to the summit.

**Lou Girardin** · 26th May 2006, 15:49

Originally Posted by marty

now you just KNOW that's not true, Lou.

There will be the odd exception, they're just misguided.

**Winston001** · 26th May 2006, 16:06

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Spare us the "summiting", it's not a bloody verb.
He reached/climbedto/ascended to the summit.

Now now Lou, English is a living language as you well know. Climbers regularly talk and write about "summiting". Google it if you aren't convinced.

Nouns become verbs, verbs become nouns, nouns become adjectives, etc. Run was originally a verb, dating back to about the year 800, but in the 15th century people started using it as a noun, as in to go for a run. Some grammarians decry functional shifts as improper English, but it is a natural process. (source http://www.wordorigins.org/Methods.htm )

But anyway, Inglis situation wasn't a sea-level decision to walk past a sick man. Help and oxygen were in fact given. No-one stayed with him to die. Inexplicable down here but at 28,000 feet, you can't muck around. I have no doubt that if the guy had any realistic prospect of living then he'd have been helped.