May 26, 2006
Nepal Mountain News
The triumph of mountaineer Mark Inglis, who last week became the first double amputee to climb Everest, has been soured by the news he left a dying climber to his fate. Ethicist Daniel Sokol asks whether he was right to do so. One of Malcolm Bradbury's novels is entitled Eating People is Wrong. In normal circumstances, it is also wrong to abandon dying people. Yet, as the saying goes, "circumstances alter cases" and it is not clear whether New Zealander Mark Inglis, a double amputee, and the 39 other climbers in his group committed a moral wrong by abandoning the expiring David Sharpe on Everest.
Were they right to leave him behind? The answer depends on the circumstances. Clearly, there are times when it would be plain foolish to attempt a rescue. A lifeguard cannot be expected to dive into shark-infested waters to save a imprudent swimmer. One factor in the decision-making is thus the probable risk to the rescuers. Would the attempted rescue have posed a serious risk to the climbers? The answer appears to be no. The main defense put by Mark Inglis is not that the rescuers would have put themselves at risk but that David Sharpe was "effectively dead". Frozen, he could only move his eyes. If this diagnosis is correct, it is extremely unlikely that he would have survived the descent. No amount of help would have saved his life. Yet it seems that the climbers viewed the decision as a choice between leaving him behind and attempting a rescue. There was a third option: to stay with him until the end. If saving his life was impossible, then surely the second best option was for some of the 40 climbers to comfort him in his last moments. This would have been a compassionate solution. At 8,500m and -38C, in considerable physical and emotional discomfort, in a group of 40 climbers whose life ambition is to reach the top, and with maybe only enough oxygen for a direct climb to the summit, it is perhaps excusable that no-one volunteered to stay behind. These extreme meteorological, psychological and social conditions should be taken into account when evaluating the climbers' decision. It is too easy to lay blame on the climbers by appealing to abstract moral principles and high-sounding virtues. Decisions are not made in a vacuum, but in specific circumstances, and few can be as adverse and traumatic as those faced by the climbers. Moral philosophers sometimes make a distinction between a justifiable act and an excusable one. An act is morally justified if you can show that it was the right thing to do. An act is excusable if, even though what you did was wrong, the circumstances were such that you cannot really be blamed. So, for example, a liar can claim that he only lied because he was forced to lie by a threatening and powerful friend, or because he was talking in his sleep, or because he feared the truth would cause his beloved wife to leave him. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish the justifiable from the merely excusable. Although few people know exactly what happened on Mount Everest that fateful day last week, it seems that the decision to abandon Mr Sharpe was, if not justified, at least excusable. Only an exceptional person would have willingly chosen to stay behind to comfort the dying man. Blame is not an appropriate response to this tragedy.
Other News
The Ethics of Climbing Everest
The triumph of mountaineer Mark Inglis, who last week became the first double amputee to climb Everest, has been soured by the news he left a dying climber to his fate. Ethicist Daniel Sokol asks whether he was right to do so. One of Malcolm Bradbury's novels is entitled Eating People is Wrong. In normal circumstances, it is also wrong to abandon dying people. Yet, as the saying goes, "circumstances alter cases" and it is not clear whether New Zealander Mark Inglis, a double amputee, and the 39 other climbers in his group committed a moral wrong by abandoning the expiring David Sharpe on Everest.
Were they right to leave him behind? The answer depends on the circumstances. Clearly, there are times when it would be plain foolish to attempt a rescue. A lifeguard cannot be expected to dive into shark-infested waters to save a imprudent swimmer. One factor in the decision-making is thus the probable risk to the rescuers. Would the attempted rescue have posed a serious risk to the climbers? The answer appears to be no. The main defense put by Mark Inglis is not that the rescuers would have put themselves at risk but that David Sharpe was "effectively dead". Frozen, he could only move his eyes. If this diagnosis is correct, it is extremely unlikely that he would have survived the descent. No amount of help would have saved his life. Yet it seems that the climbers viewed the decision as a choice between leaving him behind and attempting a rescue. There was a third option: to stay with him until the end. If saving his life was impossible, then surely the second best option was for some of the 40 climbers to comfort him in his last moments. This would have been a compassionate solution. At 8,500m and -38C, in considerable physical and emotional discomfort, in a group of 40 climbers whose life ambition is to reach the top, and with maybe only enough oxygen for a direct climb to the summit, it is perhaps excusable that no-one volunteered to stay behind. These extreme meteorological, psychological and social conditions should be taken into account when evaluating the climbers' decision. It is too easy to lay blame on the climbers by appealing to abstract moral principles and high-sounding virtues. Decisions are not made in a vacuum, but in specific circumstances, and few can be as adverse and traumatic as those faced by the climbers. Moral philosophers sometimes make a distinction between a justifiable act and an excusable one. An act is morally justified if you can show that it was the right thing to do. An act is excusable if, even though what you did was wrong, the circumstances were such that you cannot really be blamed. So, for example, a liar can claim that he only lied because he was forced to lie by a threatening and powerful friend, or because he was talking in his sleep, or because he feared the truth would cause his beloved wife to leave him. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish the justifiable from the merely excusable. Although few people know exactly what happened on Mount Everest that fateful day last week, it seems that the decision to abandon Mr Sharpe was, if not justified, at least excusable. Only an exceptional person would have willingly chosen to stay behind to comfort the dying man. Blame is not an appropriate response to this tragedy.
Other News
- Height of nudity?: In a record setting spree, a Sherpa reportedly stood naked atop Mt Everest for three minutes and got his pictures taken on Wednesday. Twenty five-year-old Lakpa Tharke Sherpa of Khumjung-9, Phorche, Solukhumbu took off his clothes on the summit for three minutes on May 24, claimed Ishwori Poudel, managing director of the Himalayan Guides Trek and Expeditions. Lakpa, a permanent staffer of the HGTE, scaled the peak as a climbing Sherpa of the Adventure Consultants Everest Expedition 06� team. “I spoke to Lakpa and other climbing Sherpas on the satellite phone yesterday and they broke the news to me,� he said. He claimed that Lakpa had not informed him about his intention prior to his departure. “We are planning to file his extraordinary feat for the Guinness book of World Record,� he added. Ang Tshering Sherpa, president of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, expressed disbelief . “I am too shocked to hear that a climbing Sherpa has crossed the thin red line just to set a new record,� he said. He further said, “Mt Everest also known as Chomulungma is a holy mountain for us. What he has done is extremely shameful for the whole country.�
- Nation’s docs on three-day strike: The hospitals and nursing homes throughout the nation went on three-day strike today suspending all work except emergency service to protest the vandalism in Everest Nursing Home in Kathmandu and Lumbini Zonal Hospital in Butwal and asked the government to ensure the security of medical professionals. Dr Sudha Sharma, chairperson of the Nepal Medical Association (NMA), said there appeared to be some lapses in the treatment at Everest Nursing Home, adding that action in such cases is taken by the Nepal Medical Council only after an inquiry committee is set up and its report submitted. “To err is human. In case of Everest Nursing Home the patient was admitted in a state of shock and collapse. In such cases the patient can die though the doctors do their best,� claimed Dr Sharma. “The government should ensure the security of the medical staff,� she added. Everest Nursing Home in a press conference today said the patient died as he was admitted in a critical state. Dr Ramesh Chokhani, who had been treating the patient for years, said 69-year-old Tulasi Ram Gautam was a chronic asthma patient.
- Lhakpa Eyes Another Everest Feat: Lhakpa Sherpa, the first woman to have scaled Mt Everest six times, is all set to set a new record by scaling the world's highest peak from the North Col (Tibetan side) and descending through the South Col (Nepali route) next year. There is nothing women cannot achieve, she said, urging all women to dream big and realise their dreams. "I hope to become the first woman in the world to have climbed Everest from the North Col and descended through the South Col. There is hardly any difference between men and women. I left the men far behind while climbing Mt Everest on May 11 from the North Col," she said at a press conference organised by the Nepal Mountaineering Association (NMA) to felicitate Lhakpa and American climber George Dijmarescu, the only foreigner to have scaled Everest eight times. Calling on women not to confine themselves, Lhakpa said she used to run a Tongba shop and had to struggle a lot to realise her dream of climbing Everest because "people used to disregard my dream of climbing Everest by refusing to give me a break." "I would continue climbing," Lhakpa, who has been training women on ice climbing in an institution at the Sunny Mountain Guide, Colorado, USA, said.
- Declaration of Secular State: The pro-Maoist, Madhesi National Freedom Front, has welcomed declaration of Nepal as a secular state. A statement issued by Front's acting chairman, Mahendra Paswan, on Thursday, said declaration of Nepal as a secular state will make Nepali people more united and that there is no reason for any religion to feel threatened by another. The statement further said religious freedom would increase religious tolerance among all religions and help build a prosperous Nepal. The statement urged everyone to respect all religions, languages, castes and nationalities and not to be misled by anyone.