ethical dilemma

[scubabob]

i have just returned form a 3 day hike on my own around Wilson' Prom in Victoria. As with most places i go, i meet the tourist who is ill-prepared or forgotten something and that's ok, it happens.

Now today, i was coming back from Oberon Bay to Tidal River where my hike ended and it was quite warm, mid 20's no shade, no cloud, no wind. Between Tidal River and Oberon Bay is basically a damn big hill and is quite steep on both sides. There were many people and groups walking towards me from Tidal River (which by the way at this time of year is literally packed with holiday makers).

Now, water is scarce on the Prom and has to be treated and i resorted yesterday to boiling and filtering creek water as the only shop on the Prom didnt have treatment tablets. i replenished at a clear sand-borne stream near the beach some kms previously but by the time i reached my point in this post i was down to a full litre and about 1/4 in another bottle.

i was at the high point on this big hill between TR and OB when i met this largish woman wearing only a dress and sandles and looking obviously distressed. I asked is she was ok and she asked if i had any spare water. I queried why she was where she was with no water on such a warm day and she said she was with a group and they had the water. The last group i saw was some 150 metres further on from her so she was obviously lagging behind. I suggested that if she didnt have any water to turn around and return immediatly to TR but she refused. I offered to stay with her all the way or at least stay with her until her group, realising she had dropped back would come and retrieve her. Again she refused. So, being only an hour or so from TR where i knew i could go to the shop and buy as many drinks as i wanted, i gave her my full canteen and told her to keep it. As it was i arrived at TR somewhat dried out and no water.

Now, where do our human responsibilites lie here? if i only had enough water to sustain myself comfortably back to TR and i did not give this woman any or only a little water, is it my responsibility if something happened to her? She was clearly not fit enough for that track, certainly ill prepared and at the time i met her in some state of distress. Just how far do we go if it comes to rescuing people from themselves?

[Jellybean]

Hi Scubabob,

Given the circumstances that you've described, I think that you did exactly the right thing. Good job. Yes, some people are a danger unto themselves (and perhaps too inexperienced to understand the predicament that they are placing themselves - and others - in), but in this situation, imagine how you'd have felt if you'd got back safely (as you knew you could) and you heard that she had perished as a result of her lack of preparation and her group not looking after each other.

Cheers,

JB

[ILUVSWTAS]

I agree. It sounds like you did the right thing.
I think it's up to the person in question to be able to handle their own out there, but occasionally people do get into trouble, and providing you dont put your own life at risk it's human nature to want to help.

BUT if you were a few hrs away from water, only had a little bit left for yourself.. what then. Maybe run ahead to the main group and let the leader know this woman is struggling???

[juju]

Sounds to me like she didn't want help and she could have been struggling for all sorts of reasons. If I was in real trouble I'd take help.

[Pteropus]

I dont think it would be your responsibility if you had only enough water for yourself and did not share. I think you made an informed choice that you could spare some water, which turned out OK for you. As ILUVSWTAS said, it is the individual who should be responsible for themself. However, I think the group that the person you helped was walking with, particularly the individual who organised the walk, should keeping an eye out for everyone else they are walking with. This woman may have got into a trip unprepared and beyond her own capabilities without really knowing what she was in for. I think most people who get into trouble are generally naive of what they are getting into. I have seen organised groups take off without looking back and not keeping tabs on their fellow group members, which personally annoys me. If I invite someone to walk with me, I let them know where we are going, what to bring and if they are slower than me, I walk at their pace.

[walkinTas]

IMO you did the right thing giving her water you thought you could spare, and encouraging her to return if she felt she was in trouble.

I think it is important the people who organise trips do two things: 1) check that people have the gear and ability to walk in the conditions, otherwise advise them to stay with the car, and 2) look after people they walk with.

Obviously I don't know all the circumstances of what happened and what was said and done, but I believe if the party was an hour from the car and one member was struggling, then someone should have returned with that member, or the group should have abandoned the trip and returned with the struggling member.

[geoskid]

Hey Scubabob,
I think you did the right thing. The only thing I would have done differently is chased up the group leader and given them the Thought For The Day.

[Moondog55]

I would have asked her to return the canteen by mail, this may have given her time to reflect and next time she may have taken her own supply.
... I would have done as you did but made the suggestion that next time she carry her own water as well.

Well next time she might, she now has your canteen doesn't she??? LOL Clever plot to get lots of water bottles for free.

Seriously tho empty coke bottles are free and plentiful, just most people are not lateral thinkers.

minor moderation in line with forum rules

[north-north-west]

Yes, you did the right thing, but both the woman in question and, more importantly, her companions, were very much doing the wrong thing.
You don't let a party member tail off on a hot day if they don't have food and water. It's just not on.

[lyndoor]

Several years ago I was in a similar situation.

I was on the beach at Wineglass Bay with two of my young sons at the time. A middle aged lady, large & exquisitely inappropriately dressed in street wear & open sandals came over to us. She asked if we had any water!!! I explained to her that I was with my two children & asked why she didn't have her own? She continued to ask for just a small amount after shrugging off the fact that she didn't think it would be that hard a walk. With a quick check of our supply, obvious annoyance & disgust, I tipped out enough in a used bottle for her. I told she should check more thoroughly & always carry water with her. It was probably a bit rude but the 'mother hen protection program' kicked in as there were other people on the beach she could have approached & her ignorance & selfishness just stunned me.

Scubabob, you definitely did the right thing as only a good person would but I agree with Geoskid. If you can be bothered, some people's ignorance should be pointed out. This story could quite easily have ended very differently. I hope the milk of human kindness comes back to you

[Nuts]

i see the dilemma. i probably would have done the same. whether its kindness or not... perhaps her story would save several lives if she had lost hers, who knows... who was leading the group, her fat husband in a suit? : ) i probably wouldn't have shared my 'thought for the day', some are just not worth the effort...

[Drifting]

A human life is always more important than another's recreation, period. Painful at times, but the way it is IMHO.

[Nuts]

It was interesting watching Everest ER a while back, the lengths other climbers will go too to help someone able to be saved (especially sherpa).
Meanwhile, on the northern approach they mentioned dozens had passed one climber, left him to perish while they achieved their goal. Guess the fact that the person in front hadn't bothered to save him cleared each conscience in turn?

[MJD]

Nuts - an interesting comment about Everest ER. I can understand people not helping. It's a harsh and dangerous environment, most climbers (especially those there for a once in a lifetime experience) are probably pushing themselves to their limits and are probably exhausted. They are not equipped for helping someone else. If they stopped to help, the chances are that they would also get into trouble. Of course, there may well be some who could have helped who choose not to.

If you came across someone collapsed in a deep ditch would you just jump in and help or would you first try and assess the situation and check for hazards that might just make one body become two.

I guess that is why its called a "dilemma" - a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.

[Nuts]

Hi MJD. I think the goals were the interesting part. So much paid, so few opportunities. From what i understood them saying the point was that the guy 'could have been saved' (ie not yet above 8000m...which, as i understand, is the point at which its considered 'each to their own')... what is probably more relevant is that it was clearly a dilemma of ethics rather than any sort of thought through risk analysis. Either one is easier to give an opinion from the comfort of a computer desk than faced in the moment. I feel sure in saying that if it was just the personal goal or money id not hesitate but who knows... In the Everest case (and others ive heard of) clearly 100% chose personal goals (or cost factors) first. I find this hard to understand but...

Your right, they are interesting thoughts and comments all round....

[Funky_Bunch]

there is an often misquoted story of climbers sidestepping a fellow climber above 8000 who was ill, though you can never be 100% sure I have it on good authority (if its the 05 expedition) that was not the case. though its not unheard of for that to happen for a mix of reasons (personal ambition included). it does raise the question of duty of care as does the water story. simmilary I have had the same question asked of me on more than one occasion "can you spare some water" and i have been the asker of "ah you wouldnt have a spot of sunscreen i could use" Ive even had an unprepared guy I walked out of the walls of jerusalem who "didnt think id need a jumper or jacket in winter" and it snowed funny that.

so where does the line cross, where do you have to say no, where do you leave selfless behind? I always think of first aid DR ABC and think danger to myself first, do i want to end up another patient. sometimes i think selfish can be selfless (just not all the time)

[normclimb]

If the climber in question was David Sharp, who died on Everest in May of 06, then he was definately passed by many, and figures have it that it could well have been as many as 40 (Mark Inglis interview May 23rd) other climbers, all of whom were fighting for their own lives and/or fulfilling their own dreams.

This is neither a condemnation, nor a condonation of their actions, simply an attempt to put the record straight, if, and only if, the above reference was to the British climber David Sharp.

[Quoll]

How far do you go in these situations (and, to be harsh, 'What would Darwin say about this?'). You've set yourself up right - first tick. You've spoken to her - second tick. You know she's actually with a group, you've offered to help walk her back - more ticks. You've then given her your water - a pat on the back. Would you have done it if you were camping out another night - I wouldn't have, especially if I thought the best she would get was a bit of a headache and not actually collapse but how do you know? Given you knew you could get back OK its probably the right thing to do and more importantly, how would you feel if the next morning you heard on the radio the story about a bushwalking collapsing and dying on the Prom the previous day?

Some people will wander through life waiting for others to rescue them unfortunately and the key decision is whether you'll come to harm rescuing them or create the situation where two people instead of one need rescuing.

I'm sure we all see daytrippers in their thongs and sandals going out to be roasted. I remember camping at Girraween in QLD a few years back and a bunch of our English tourists arriving and setting up tents. They proceeded to build a campfire, have a few drinks and really enjoy themselves - maybe there was more than a few drinks consumed as they kept going through the night until the early hours of the morning. We had an early start the next morning as it was summer and it was going to get hot in amongst the granite. My wife convinced me that it would be wrong to trip over their guylines to help them get up and we did a quick walk up the Pyramids. We had gotten back down to the flat track back to the camping area around 11am - it was stinking hot with the rocks too hot to touch - and we spied our intrepid campmates wandering out towards the base of the Pyramids and, every single one of them was without a hat and wearing singlets and either thongs or sandals. Fortunately a few had little bottles of water. Did I say anything, warn them about the heat and the need for shoes - No, I just gave them a smile and said enjoy the walk. It was almost worth staying an extra night to see if they were a bit quieter in the camping area that night.

[normclimb]

Just one more point: If the incident in question is that of David Sharp then he most definately was over 8000 mts. The cave in which he died, and already contained the body of Indian climber Tsewang Paljor, known as 'Green Boots' is at 27,890 feet (8500 m).

[Funky_Bunch]

the David sharp incident is not the one i was talking of (cant speak for the others). that incident was 06 if my memory serves correct. in 05 it was reported that two guides passed an indian man just below the south summit.

[normclimb]

I can only assume you are referring to the loss of Squadron Leader S S Chaithanya. He was reported to have summitted with with the IAF on May 30th but lost contact with his Sherpas on the decent. I can find no evidence of him being passed by anyone else, and left for dead.

[Nuts]

I dont think they mentioned the name of the climber? They (ER staff) did comment on the fact that it was possible to save the guy and nothing was done, the concept of someone who is able to be saved having all efforts made. Perhaps that was just the conclusion at that point? I believe they mentioned three deaths that season at the time of filming? Maybe someone who saw the documentary knows more of the outcome? I do recall 2006 mentioned in the copyright credits. It was the same year Rhys Jones completed the seven as featured on the doco.

Either way, seems a fragile appeal to ego's. Surely the many historical incidents add to the successful summiters kudos? That in mind they should surely be responsible for All those striving to achieve similar (?), especially with big mountains given that no one can attempt them without (at least) basic assistance.

Perhaps easy access (anyone can wander off into the bush, butt naked if they choose) blurs the boundaries for an everday bushwalk (cant save everyone from themselves)

[normclimb]

Would have to agree with some points and disagree with others.

I think that the idea that one 'should' "surely be responsible for All those striving to achieve similar" implies a fundemental error in assuming that there are moral laws as there are (supposed to be anyway) natural laws, and as such one could derive a 'should' or 'ought' from an 'is'. Personally I cannot see this and would contend that this is a prime case of committing a naturalistic fallacy.

I also would like to point out that there are many instances of someone attempting, and even succeeding, in climbing the big hills, Everest included, without assistance, dating back to Maurice Wilson in 1934, and more famously, Reinhold Messner himself. I would perhaps agree that ill prepared, or indeed totally insane 'climbers' who have tried such feats are driven by something other than simple desire.

Historically there were 6 deaths on Everest in 2005: Marko Lihteneker, Dieter K, S S Chaithanya, Rob Milne and Mike O'Brien who was actually climbing on Dan Mazur SummitClimb permit. There were 10 deaths in 2006, including David Sharp's.

[normclimb]

I think that should have read 12 deaths, not 10, if memory serves me correct (which sadly cannot be guaranteed these days).

[Nuts]

Just the average 'joe', I guess i (personally) see these big climbs as a 'privilege' rather than a 'right'. A want rather than a necessity. The responsibility, therefore, as mandatory in the sense that history has led to the 'want' (they arent out the back door beckoning to you (and sherpa (in this case) didnt historically do it 'just because', though they often have also paid the price, perhaps , in their case, more through necessity). Its a western thing, and in this way everyone has learnt from those they follow. 'Assisted' in the sense of equipment (however basic), history and local knowledge showing the way (however basic it first was).

Assuming a 'want' and being a 'First World' desire I think moral laws are just as valid (in a truly civilized society)...

[Liamy77]

first point:
YOU come FIRST. - you can only help if it does NOT put you at risk - otherwise you have 2 problems instead of one. DRABC that would be the "D"...

second point:
you could try a bit of shock treeatment - suggest they carry their own water and put the fastest walker at the groups rear in the future as it tastes better than drinking your own urine or dying.

third point:
I would probably have done the same except that for 150 meters i woulda just let her have a drink and then cut her loose n kept my canteen.... but from the description there wer more folks around too to help later if she needed it - a bit of distress in relative safety might be the lesson she needed.

some folks are safer scared back to suburbia. a honest forgotten item or uncontrollable situation sure do whatever i can.... but plain poo... planning where life is not at stake- tough love might be safer in the long run?.... well ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves.

Even paramedics in a theoretically life threatening situation Have to accept a refusal of help from a mentally competant adult - but they might try to talk you around.... i have sometimes wondered in the past (sar and medical background) where STUPIDITY ends and mentally incompetant begins....

but these folk exist (as the "Darwin Awards" testify to) and i guess despite my dark thoughts and poo-on-my-shoe opinion of self-endangering foolishness i would ultimately do what i could without risking myself...