Guiding at altitude?

I stole this from the Apinist web sight because I thought the responses here might be radically different. What do you think?

"For the first time, the National Park Service says, a climber died on the Summit of Denali. He was a client on a guided trip, and his guides said that he was fine on the way up. (article here) The Denali mountaineering rangers decided that retrieving the body was too dangerous, and have left the climber on the summit. This brings an important question even closer to home: is it really ethical to guide at altitude? It's a question that has buzzed around Mt. Everest for quite some time now. With countless examples from that mountain, and now the latest on Denali, it's clear that it's impossible to know how individuals are going to react to the extreme environment above 20,000 feet. Even guides have had unexpected reactions to altitude and died (prime example: Rob Hall, Everest, 1996). Is it really ethical to claim to be able to lead and care for marginally experienced climbers in such an unpredictable environment?"

I think that it is pretty clear in most reputable guide-client scenarios that the guide cannot mitigate all the risks present in a mountain environment.

No rope team can mitigate all the risks. A more experienced team who are cogniscent and pro-active will surely reduce more than folks who are new to the environment, but they'll also knowingly accept a higher risk assumption (usually). The issue that gets me is that I'm familiar with the risks as is my partner, the guides are familiar too, the clients I've come accross out in the mountains are typically naive to the reality they're in or just switched off the risk mitigation process because they're paying someone to do that for them.

Another point I'll make is that the range the guides are in makes a big difference. In the Alps, with their guiding culture and hut system, and accessability (around Mont Blanc at least), a network and presumtion of responsibility exist to assist the parties around you. Mt. Ranier is accessable as well; and it has a lot of guides up there(I've led a party there for my own certification), but there is not the level of potential assistance and accessability like there is in the alps. Denali is probably on another level all together.

Just some thoughts,
Jake

I'll paraphrase my response on Alpinist to the initial blog:

"Guiding at altitude has a historic tradition stretching back at least to Edward Whymper and his Italian guide companions the Carrels pushing the altitude envelope in Ecuador in the 1870's.

Ultimately, each time anyone goes to altitude is a crap shoot, but in the sad incident which precipitated the "ethics" question, it does appear that the actions of the guides were nothing less than heroic.

The most important function of a guide at high altitude is to make the difficult judgment calls regarding weather, conditions and a client's ability to continue going uphill. This is where experience and its resultant increased comfort level in dealing with one's own self at altitude really set guides apart from the majority of climbers on Denali. The recent tragedy on Denali might have nothing to do with altitude, guiding or ethics, so please don't call into question a time honored profession simply to stoke the sensationalist flames all too often associated with the media."

I agree with you Jake, that Denali is on a different level altogether. The best guides up there are the ones who have put in years of time and have seen the mountain in all her different moods. Sure, each time they go high it's somewhat of an altitude crap shoot, but by being comfortable with not being comfortable, that is to say, not over reacting to the minor discomforts of being at altitude (of which there are many), they can focus their attention on the task at hand.

I would venture to say that while there is a well established rescue system in place on Denali, seasoned guides know that they cannot rely on anyone coming to their aid, as the weather, altitude and terrain often conspire to cut off any potential assistance. As Iconic Denali Ranger Daryl Miller has always driven home to me,"Rescue inside wilderness areas is not always assured and by no means automatic." The presence or absence of a rescue infrastructure shouldn't necessarily be part of this conversation.

As I wrote to the blogger on Alpinist, and as I always feel when non-climbers read "Into Thin Air" and start to posit their views on guiding at altitude, it's a different world up there. Until you've spent a lot of time up high, it's a bit presumptive to put oneself into the boots of an experienced high altitude guide. They work exceptionally hard and generally help less seasoned climbers reach a bit higher than they might have been able to on their own.

I've never used a guide, and am not a major high altitude climber, but I've always thought that if I ever wanted to do a big peak, I'd most likely hire a guide simply because I wouldn't want to go through the learning curve necessary to handle the logistics of everything myself.

I think the client should be an experienced general climber, should be it proper physical condition, be familiar with all the necessary techniques, but when they are ready for the challenge, it seems perfectly reasonable and ethical for a guide to assist in leading them up a route.

I think the ethics issue probably comes into play when the guide has to decide whether to "go for the summit" or push a deteriorating weather decision because so much of the client's money is on the line. Those are hard choices to make, but in those situations, that's part of what the client is paying the guide for - to have the discipline to give the client bad news for his own good.

You have a very reasoned and thoughtful take on venturing off into new territories, NSFOD.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of my better years taking folks up into the rarefied air of some big peaks, I have to say that I have never felt pressure or been pressured by my employers to push for the summit despite my better judgment. I remember reading about the phenomenon after the '96 Everest tragedy, and have seen some rash decision making on the part of "up and coming" guides, but for the most part, I would say that guides working above 20,000' subscribe to Don Whillans' advise that, "The mountains will always be there lad, the trick is for you to be there to." Apologies to the Whillans clan if I mis-quoted, but the spirit is alive.

Something here though to consider in accepting risk, looking after a group of clients (or for that matter -- other climbing partners in your group), and heroic effort.

You'll note the two cases had cpr performed. More than not & without an aed on-site, cpr won't do much and once cpr is started, it must be continued (through transport) until ALS takes over to put a favorable probability on restarting the rhythm.

Is the guide better in service by conserving their energy for the remaining clients than they are by deciding to perform cpr on someone that will more than likely expire given the commitment of their position?

Well cpr can't hurt. (consider non-trauma related)

With other clients/climbing partners still subjected to the effects of route difficulty & altitude, is this truly the case?

A tough call.

I understand where you're coming from, but sadly, the ripple effect of anyone's death extends beyond the fallen victim (family and friends). While CPR is generally regarded as a means to "buy time" until an AED can be brought on scene, I would venture that there are less tangible benefits from its administration that are appreciated by those affected by the loss.

In the two recent Denali cases, the remaining clients were well looked after and most likely comforted by the knowledge that their guides were willing to work hard to look after their teammate.

One could certainly conjecture circumstances which might cause a person to feel that the immediate needs of the team outweigh the benefits of attempting CPR on a victim, but I for one would sure hate to put myself in that person's boots...

Jake O wrote:I stole this from the Apinist web sight because I thought the responses here might be radically different. What do you think? "For the first time, the National Park Service says, a climber died on the Summit of Denali. He was a client on a guided trip, and his guides said that he was fine on the way up. (article here) The Denali mountaineering rangers decided that retrieving the body was too dangerous, and have left the climber on the summit. This brings an important question even closer to home: is it really ethical to guide at altitude? It's a question that has buzzed around Mt. Everest for quite some time now. With countless examples from that mountain, and now the latest on Denali, it's clear that it's impossible to know how individuals are going to react to the extreme environment above 20,000 feet. Even guides have had unexpected reactions to altitude and died (prime example: Rob Hall, Everest, 1996). Is it really ethical to claim to be able to lead and care for marginally experienced climbers in such an unpredictable environment?"

I read somewhere that the Nepalese government doesn't recognize anyone as a " Guide"....is this true?....I think if it is true it is a smart idea because it allows clients to take on some sort of responsibility for themselves.

It seems that clients at times might forget that their guides and sherpas are human as well.

"Actually Rob Hall died from exposure not the altitude."

He died because he didn't leave his client. He was a close friend of mine and we had shared a rope on many occasions.