At sea level, you can't condemn people for decisions made at 8,000 metres up, writes Grania Willis, who last year ascended the world's highest mountain
International condemnation of the 40 or more climbers who walked past a dying British climber, David Sharp, on Mount Everest two weeks ago intensified this week with the news that a second climber, left on the mountain after being pronounced dead on May 25th and already being mourned by his wife at home in Australia, miraculously came back to life. Lincoln Hall was discovered sitting semi-naked with his legs dangling over the 1,000-metre Kangshung Face the following morning.
By the start of the 2006 season, some 2,557 successful ascents of the 8,848-metre peak had been recorded. A huge number of ascents, possibly close to 500, are expected to be confirmed this year . But, in one of the worst years on the mountain since Everest was first conquered by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953, a total of 10 climbers have been confirmed dead and the death of Briton David Sharp has caused particular controversy.
About 40 climbers who walked past the dying climber have escaped retribution. Troubled only by their consciences, they remain cloaked in the anonymity that Everest confers on most climbers because of the sheer volume of traffic on the peak.
Instead, the condemnation has focused on two New Zealanders - Mark Inglis, who became the first double amputee to summit the world's highest mountain on the same day Sharp died, and Himalayan Experience (Himex) expedition leader, Russell Brice, who provided the backup for Inglis's successful summit bid. Inglis and Brice have become the supposed villains of the piece simply because they are the public faces of the hordes who allegedly left Sharp to die. As well as the condemnation, Inglis is now facing further surgery on his stumps and the loss of three fingers through frostbite.
In the past two weeks, journalists who have never set foot on a mountain, let alone exposed themselves to the rigours and indeed terrors of extreme altitude, have donned the mantle of judge and jury. In their narrow vision, Brice and Inglis have been found guilty and condemned, although the Himex team made a concerted attempt to rescue Sharp.
Film footage taken by the Tigress Productions team that was covering the Himex expedition for a Discovery Channel documentary due to be screened later in the year clearly shows the Himex sherpas giving Sharp oxygen and trying, in vain, to get him back on his feet.
So how can guilt be attached to the one team that has incontrovertible proof that it gave oxygen to the dying man and moved his body out into the sunshine in a desperate attempt to warm his frozen limbs? And how can blame be laid at the door of Brice, who is flying to London to meet the Sharp family next week and who telephoned Sharp's family to break the news of his death, even though Sharp had paid a Nepalese company, Asian Trekking, to provide him with base camp support?
Sharp had spent the night in the so-called death zone above 8,000 metres, but so too did Australian Lincoln Hall, who was dramatically rescued 10 days after Sharp's death. So why did 34-year-old Sharp perish and Hall, 16 years his senior, survive? One factor was undoubtedly the weather, which was described as "brutally cold" on the morning of May 15th. Attempts to revive Sharp failed, but Hall, who had been left for dead on May 25th, responded to oxygen and hot tea the following morning and, incredibly, was brought back down the mountain by an 11-strong rescue party.
Sir Edmund Hillary changed his initial congratulatory message to Inglis to one of condemnation after hearing of David Sharp's death, describing the situation as "horrifying". "On my expedition there was no way you would have left a man under a rock to die", he said. "It simply would not have happened." His comments have stung Inglis and particularly Brice, a close personal friend of the 1953 hero.
But the truth is that, back in the mid-1950s, only experienced climbers took on the challenge of the world's biggest mountains. With the advent of the commercial expeditions, that scenario has altered beyond recognition. Everest has become dangerously crowded, and crowded with climbers who don't always have the skills necessary to get themselves - or others - off the mountain if anything goes wrong.
It's easy to be judgmental at sea level, but issues - even life or death issues - become clouded up in the death zone, where the brain is starved of oxygen. It seems to be a clear-cut moral issue and one which the first Briton to the summit, Sir Chris Bonington, doesn't shirk.
"It is a human responsibility to go to someone's help in need", he said this week. "One's duty as a human being is to go to that person's help and try to get them down."
But does the Good Samaritan ethic evaporate on Everest? Whether it does or doesn't, Sharp's mother, Linda, has exonerated all those who walked past her dying son. Speaking to the Sunday Times, she said: "Your responsibility is to save yourself, not to try and save anybody else."
The fact is that everyone is struggling to survive above 8,000 metres. Those without oxygen struggle sooner. Anyone attempting to reach the roof of the world knows that death is a constant threat. It's tantamount to suicide, except that the lucky ones survive.