Controversy Is Everywhere I Guess

I posted about the double-amputee who scaled Mount Everest. It was a remarkable feat. Then this.

A New Zealand mountaineer's decision to leave a dying man to his fate on Everest has sparked fierce argument in the climbing community and beyond.

Mark Inglis's actions were strongly criticised by Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to reach the top of Everest.

Now other climbers and even the prime minister of New Zealand have weighed into the debate.

Mr Inglis says he is "gutted" at the criticism he got and has repeated that there was nothing he could have done.

Mr Inglis was initially the focus of glowing headlines after becoming the first double amputee to reach the summit of the world's highest peak on 15 May. [emphasis mine]

Yes he was a human. Yes he should have been saved. Could he have been saved? I don't know and neither does Sir Edmund Hillary. He should know as well as any that mountain climbing decisions are similar to wartime decisions. A person makes the best call possible under the circumstances.

Disclaimer: I've never climbed a mountain or been in a war. I'm employing logic here. Under extreme conditions, how else could a person make decisions?

(read more)