Rescue as an ethical dilemma?

"Look at the story just this spring at the Red Rock Rendezvous. Where all those people with no self-rescue skills got stuck on the solar slab. Had phones called it in, but rescue couldn't do anything until the weather cleared. "

Hey Tom got a link for this? I never heard about it.

Nick Mardirosian wrote:"Look at the story just this spring at the Red Rock Rendezvous. Where all those people with no self-rescue skills got stuck on the solar slab. Had phones called it in, but rescue couldn't do anything until the weather cleared. " Hey Tom got a link for this? I never heard about it.

I was looking for the link this morning, but couldn't find it. It was a guy and his partner talking about how they got stuck behind those old ladies on the solar slab buttress, and then stuck again when the rain started and those same old ladies wouldn't/couldn't simul-rappel, because of comfort levels. There was the girl that one guy gave his jacket to that ended up getting stuck on the wall during the torrent. I also got a similar report by one of the rangers at the BLM the week after the Rendezvous.

It might have been in someones trip report.

Potential rescue should be part of everyone's calculus. Even Mallory had support climbers when he died on Everest in 1924, they didn't help him then but you take what you can get. Of course everyone should be prepared but to purposefully leave your phone so you can't rely on it? I hope no one is influenced by that advice.

TomCaldwell wrote:Stich, didn't your friend have to move when rescue personnel got there? What is the difference in waiting for rescue personnel to get there and expediting the process by getting them to the ground while waiting for a rescue to show up?

Believe me, a whole bunch of us tried to move her but she was having none of it. Dislocated shoulders are exquisitely painful sometimes and we had no idea how to properly reduce it, which done wrong would have probably torn her labrum more. Anyway, Rocky Mountain Rescue administered pain meds intravenously and then getting the shoulder back in was simple. After that, we could have rappelled down together no problem, but they were there and gave her a tandem rap off the end of the ledge.

So if you can swing it, keeping serious pain meds in your first aid kit is not a bad idea I would say. I've since learned how to reduce a shoulder dislocation.

Sending for the cavalry for the equivalent of an aggravated hangnail is moronic, and, sadly, it seems as if no condition is too trivial for someone to dial 911. But the debate should not be shaped by extreme examples of stupidity and cluelessness. Calling for a rescue is, like many things in climbing, a judgement call. If, like many of us, you have some preconceived notion about making such calls, then the your judgement may be compromised, and extra vigilance, introspection, and clear-headedness are called for.

The worst moral or ethical lapse I can think of, far worse than hangnail 911's, is sacrificing a partner's life or long-term health to some abstract concepts of "adventure" and "self-reliance." Once you have an injured partner, your moral obligation is to do the very best you can for them under the circumstances, realizing that there are many unknowns, that no course of action is guaranteed, and that you will have to live with your choices (unless of course those choices kill you too). This is the very worst moment to elevate "principles" that are nothing more than personal rules of the game above a measured evaluation of a partner's best interests, the conditions the party now faces, and an honest evaluation of your actual skills in dealing with them.

The obligation to do the best you can for your partner surely means that you should be as competent as possible in self-rescue skills (meaning that you know how to do them but equally importantly know what their limitations are) so that you can respond appropriately when self-rescue is the best or only course of action. But I think it also means understanding and being able to call for help when the situation is either medically or technically beyond your abilities, and this means to me, among other things, having a cell phone in locales where it is appropriate.

rgold wrote:The worst moral or ethical lapse I can think of, far worse than hangnail 911's, is sacrificing a partner's life or long-term health to some abstract concepts of "adventure" and "self-reliance."

I agree wholeheartedly, rgold. There are adventures out there that are not contrived where rescue is impossible and the stakes are actually set at the adventure level some seek. Why stack the deck against yourself when it is not necessary?

Stich wrote: I agree wholeheartedly, rgold. There are adventures out there that are not contrived where rescue is impossible and the stakes are actually set at the adventure level some seek. Why stack the deck against yourself when it is not necessary?

Yeah, don't climb where there is no cell phone reception. You might have to know some rescue skills. "Why stack the deck..." Calculated risk... why do some people free solo, why do people climb where a rescue is near impossible... the list goes on just like all the wild scenarios requiring a rescue like a few of the ones posted here.

Nobody wants to take on the actual question from the op. Read the title of the thread or maybe the first post. Get over the cell phone bit. My contention was that it can and has caused access issues.

Fair enough, Tom, is your point that needing help affects access or how that help is provided that ends up affecting access?

The example you alluded to in Colorado. I know of one being a charge for rescue situation that involved Denver; which would be how that help was provided. Is there another you are thinking about?

Or, we could define what should affect access for climbers?

My thoughts are two: Natural Resource/Habitat & Danger to the Unknowing General Public

Looking through this topic, rescue "can & will" prohibit climbing. What does that mean as a matter of ethics?

To me, whether it's a belay system screw up, or a leader fall, or getting tagged by rockfall, or little Johnnie lost in the woods; the same emergency system is activated. Maybe the manner of resource allocation is determined inappropriately, but that is not a specific climbing concern that climbers can do anything about. Most of the responder community could give a rat's fat ass if the climber was solid in terrain, or just dumbass gumby; someone needs aid, regardless.

Is it the fire chief and local sheriff, though no crime is committed, determines they can't deal with this climbing crap, so the rest of the people they answer to also must obey them? What if they said nobody goes out of their house because it's just too risky to them? Anyone who violates this is arrested.

What the hell for? out of fear??

Not an American ideal to me.

So then we say, well let's go by the democratic media-mob. Who is worthy of rescue? I am. But not that dumbass doing "that." So, who is worthy and who determines the worth?

It won't be fellow climbers and it won't matter what level of safety proficiency is met.

So, where is the ethical dilemma between climbers? Any call for help. Sure it's a dilemma, but an ethical one? Only if it's pain. Well aren't there life-threatening situations that have pain, like cardiac, or chest trauma, or c-spine, or an abdominal organ bleeding? Nah, suck it up cupcake, any 5.13 climber with a WFR and a few biners with slings can just deal with it; I'm just that badass.

Why didn't you call for rescue? I totally understand your son is dead and I coulda done something about it at the time, but that rock is so much more important.

You speak of all "us rescuers" as if we're pushing some financial agenda to make a paycheck or imply some ego-tripping hero mentality. If anyone has demonstrated a lack of ethics it hasn't been the SAR side of this. In as much, most rescue orgs put in the effort to educate with not a one is forcing anybody to go out and hurt themselves so a rescue can be performed. I personally don't know many that pull a paycheck for SAR work even though standardized certification levels must be adhered to, and frankly, I cannot stand the media and could care less about the importance of myself in the public eye.

I would rather we view ourselves serving a humanitarian purpose, to help our fellow man. Granted, some of us are better at it than others; but that is really nothing any of us on this site can do much about.

(as Rich F said, IMHO, or not so humble as it may be)

TomCaldwell wrote: I was looking for the link this morning, but couldn't find it. It was a guy and his partner talking about how they got stuck behind those old ladies on the solar slab buttress, and then stuck again when the rain started and those same old ladies wouldn't/couldn't simul-rappel, because of comfort levels. There was the girl that one guy gave his jacket to that ended up getting stuck on the wall during the torrent. I also got a similar report by one of the rangers at the BLM the week after the Rendezvous. It might have been in someones trip report.

I read about it on supertopo: supertopo.com/climbers-foru…

Tom, with all due respect, I believe I addressed both the op and the title. My remark at the end about cell phones was a consequence of my other remarks but very far from the main point.

Climbers are very fond of speaking of "ethics" when they mean nothing more than the rules they chose to play by and the rules they disapprove of. There is little or no ethics involved. But when the life and/or health of a partner is on the line, I believe and thought I had said clearly that the only appropriate ethical criteria is doing the best you can for your partner. In my opinion, whatever judgements you make need to be governed by that priority, and most especially not by whatever personal distaste you may or may not have about calling for help.

If no one is injured but the party is in some kind of trouble, then I think that the question is more subtle, because trad climbing could be viewed as voluntarily getting into trouble and then getting out of it, and a rescue surely represents a failure of that enterprise. The examples we are all fond of disparaging involve parties that weren't in real trouble or shouldn't have been in real trouble if they had basic skills and experience appropriate to what they had undertaken.

Here is a specific example of how ethics can affect us all because of a rescue.

Georgia barely allows rock climbing and only has one state park that hosts it, Tallulah Gorge. A rescue in this steep narrow gorge is a major undertaking that takes hours and is managed by the state park rangers. Helicopter entry is probably close to impossible with how narrow the gorge is. Now if people were to need a rescuing on a frequent basis, they would just shut down climbing all together in the park. So if you go down there and have no idea what you are doing, you are running the risk of ruining climbing for everyone by relying solely on a cell phone/rescue to get your butt out of trouble. I have more examples if this is not sufficient.

Mark, I have no problem with SAR. I am glad there are people out there that put their lives on the line to save the outdoor adventurist. If people require a rescue because its a life or death situation, then by all means use it. You may not care for the media, but taxpayers watch the news and those are the ones funding those parks to stay open. The CO rescue I was referring happened this year, a hiker was rescued at a place where access is already in jeopardy. One of the posters on here remarked that now it will never be open. Can't think of the name of the place though. I guess I should start keeping a notebook.

Thanks for the link nrd. That story is a great example of how relying on a rescue failed big time when SAR couldn't even get there because of weather.

Here is a real example where a rescue could have caused access issues. This year in Linville Gorge Wilderness, a pair of flat-landers from Florida decided to climb the Daddy 5.6 with probably zero multi-pitch experience. A few pitches up, the leader got out of hearing distance from the belayer and froze. After a few hours of neither person doing anything, the belayer retreated and had to hike all the way out (~2.5 hours) to get help, because there was no cell phone reception. After several more hours the rescue team showed up and gave another experienced climber who just happened to be there a static rope to lead up to the party. The analysis of the incident showed that there were so many simple solutions the leader could have done to get back into hearing distance and even retreat from the entire climb. The rescue team obviously was ill trained and equipped to handle the situation. If one of the rescue personnel were injured, the media would have had a field day. Obviously NSF land would very difficult to shut down, but if this were to happen on a state park like Chimney Rock (which it did), a climbing ban could be enforced. I could tell the Ghost Town story which the state park used a rescue of a hiker to take a jab at climbers in the paper.

The story above shows an instance where nobody was injured or in danger, but rescue was called. My thought is they shouldn't have been there in the first place. They relied on someone else to rescue them, instead of just having the proper training to be equipped to deal with a simple situation.

Obviously, there are places and states that are much more capable of handling these situations. Looking at those two situations from a utilitarian stand point, a rescue could cause an ethical dilemma when it shuts down climbing.

I wish I were as much of an armchair hardman as Tom.

bwalt822 wrote:I wish I were as much of an armchair hardman as Tom.

One day. Keep eating your veggies. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Jim Gloeckler wrote: Yes there is. I had a fracture of my 4th lumbar vertebre and did a short walk out. Doctor's said it was not advised because I could have injured it worse. But I was so embarassed having decked, I thought I'd better suck it up and try. Thanks to Ken Trout and partner who helped carry the gear close to the vehicle!

My husband had a similar situation but snowboarding, not climbing. He had fractured five vertebrae, t-4, t-6, t9-11, and snowboarded off the mountain to the medical center himself. Bad part was, since he made his own way down, they would not believe him that the injury was serious. It was only when we went on our own to a real hospital that he received a proper diagnosis. So that's at least two examples where self rescue could have made the injury much worse (though thankfully, it didn't).

By the by, if you ever properly screw yourself up, go to Hospital for Special Surgery if you live in the NYC area. They delivered an insane level of care, and hubby is now as good as new.

"'I wish I were as much of an armchair hardman as Tom.'"

+1

I feel that when you have someone who knows it all and is continually being the devils advocate, the root of the discussion is lost, communication breakdown if you will.

When you bring the topic of "ethics" into the fray of climbing, I'm sure you have as many schools of thoughts of ethics as the climbing culture you were brought up in. It's a subjective topic with NO real yes or no answers. But to be rigid in one's thinking to me is silly. It's like saying things in the worlds is black and white.

Personally for me ladies and gentlemen, I'm out of this thread. There has been some good replies only to be met by the devils advocate. I'm sure most climbers as was mentioned above, at least I hope this is the case, feel that when shit hits the fan, the "ethical dilemma" should be to your partner, not ego based pride in thinking the call isn't needed. And by not taking the cell phone, you already are making a premeditated decision to limit your rescue options. I don't take the cell typically either, but I was also taught by a few mentors and reading, "stack the odds in your favor".

But like I mentioned interesting, positive contributions. And though I've never had to use SAR, (knock on wood!) as a tax paying contributor, I would not hesitate to make that call for my partner if needed. Access issues aside. That's the least any of us can do for the climbing community (humanity) as a whole.

Thanks for letting me chime in.
Juan

Tom has some very good points, and I do agree that his solution (from what I gather) is that climbers all need to be competent to handle the route. That is a personal decision to nurture that, but as a group encouraging competency through these discussions is also effective I think.

But the idea that because accidents happen authorities need to shut down areas to climbing is an issue we don't have a lot of control over. That accidents occur cannot be prevented unless you forbid people to set foot in natural areas. Hikers will fall into these gorges, get stuck in ravines with no exit, and need rescue. Hunters will break legs and be weeks overdue. That authorities find high profile rescues involving climbing incidents and use them as an excuse to selectively ban the activity is the problem. Only through political pressure can we keep our sport from being banned.

Time and time again, statistically it has been shown that climbers do not even comprise a sixth of the total rescue budget nationwide, even in areas where the most climbing accidents occur. We already chastise mistakes in our own ranks online, sometimes quite viciously. But do you want to ban noobs from areas? Do you want to ask for climbing certifications? Not that this was suggested, but it does happen in some countries. I remember wanting to climb at a sandstone cliff in Suche Skaley, CZ and the kiosk stated that I needed a certification card to climb there. No thanks.

And also, I am not calling for a rescue for myself if I am merely inconvenienced and I can figure out a safe retreat. Encouraging that style of climbing is worthwhile, with the caveats that no great risks are assumed. Some friends bailed off El Cap a week or so ago. One guy fell on lead and broke his arm. It simply was easier to retreat unassisted rather than waiting for a rescue. And so they did and made it down in good time.

Stich wrote:Tom has some very good points, and I do agree that his solution (from what I gather) is that climbers all need to be competent to handle the route. That is a personal decision to nurture that, but as a group encouraging competency through these discussions is also effective I think. But the idea that because accidents happen authorities need to shut down areas to climbing is an issue we don't have a lot of control over. That accidents occur cannot be prevented unless you forbid people to set foot in natural areas. Hikers will fall into these gorges, get stuck in ravines with no exit, and need rescue. Hunters will break legs and be weeks overdue. That authorities find high profile rescues involving climbing incidents and use them as an excuse to selectively ban the activity is the problem. Only through political pressure can we keep our sport from being banned. Time and time again, statistically it has been shown that climbers do not even comprise a sixth of the total rescue budget nationwide, even in areas where the most climbing accidents occur. We already chastise mistakes in our own ranks online, sometimes quite viciously. But do you want to ban noobs from areas? Do you want to ask for climbing certifications? Not that this was suggested, but it does happen in some countries. I remember wanting to climb at a sandstone cliff in Suche Skaley, CZ and the kiosk stated that I needed a certification card to climb there. No thanks.

Good post. That about sums it up. Unfortunately my opinion is skewed because of where I do most of my climbing, just like I believe no1's is because he climbs in CO. Climbing in such fiscally conservative states makes that relationship between land manager and climber so important and often fragile.

rgold's post is the best post thus far.

You have a moral obligation to your injured climbing partner to do what is best for their health. You should have the right experience and skills to deal with emergencies as they arise, but also the wisdom to make the call when necessary.

In my mind probably less than 10% of climbers have the ability to determine the seriousness of their partner's injuries, and the foresight to determine what the effects of self-rescue will have on their partner's long-term health.

This is a very real "dilemma" to me, as just yesterday I had to make that call. My partner was immobilized by his injury, in immense amounts of pain, and self-rescue would have required techniques which I am capable of conducting but would have resulted in taking longer to get the medical care he needed. Worrying about "access issues" when a person's life is in danger is ridiculous.

TomCaldwell wrote:It is funny hearing encouragement for people to make rescue calls from those in the rescue industry. You have a personal interest to support your job, your opinion is biased.

Many of us do this job for free, as well as work another job to pay our bills. So whether or not we get a call, it doesn't affect our job. The calls we "like" are the serious ones when a person truly has no other option than to call for help. When we get to use all the skills we've been trained on over and over again. So how does that make our opinion biased when we say people should call for help?

If a professional in any industry says "if this happens, you should do this" you should listen to what they have to say. I can tell you story after story about how some stupid little injury that was thought to be nothing (therefore the person never sought medical help), ended up claiming a life because of the delay.

With that being said, I completely agree that climbers should know how to self rescue. But lets face it, sometimes stuff just goes wrong.

Also, pain can definitely be an emergency situation. Severe pain can be a symptom of something much worse.