Editorial: Hillary's call for humanity

The first thing that needs to be acknowledged about Sir Edmund Hillary's criticism of climbers who left a man to die on Everest is that it would have taken courage to speak out. New Zealand knows Sir Edmund too well to imagine he took the slightest satisfaction in lending his voice to a concern that was bound to reflect badly on a fellow countryman, double amputee Mark Inglis, one of many who passed the climber lying dying 300m from the summit.

The second thing that needs to be said is that Sir Edmund was not aiming his remarks particularly at Inglis who, with two artificial legs, must have been almost the last person on the high slopes that day who could have done very much to help the young Englishman, David Sharp.

And it also needs to be acknowledged that nobody without experience of climbing at high altitude is in any position to pass judgment on the actions of anybody in conditions where, by all accounts, it is hard to think decisively, let alone act. We can only listen to those who have been there: Sir Edmund, Mark Inglis and other climbers who dare enter this moral dilemma.

The dilemma is evident in Mr Inglis' own account: "On that morning 40 people went past [Sharp] ... no one helped him except for people from our expedition. I radioed and [the expedition leader] said, 'Mate, you can't do anything, He's been there x number of hours without oxygen. He's effectively dead'. So we carried on."

Sir Edmund says there is no question what would have happened if any such mishap had occurred in the course of his ascent 53 years ago. Nobody would have been left to die even at the cost of reaching the summit. He recalled that two members of his party were missing one day. Had they not returned of their own accord there was no doubt that the next day finding them would have taken priority over the climb.

It is not necessary to go back 50 years for testimony to a selfless code on the mountain. Just 10 years ago a New Zealander, Rob Hall, lost his life in a blizzard on Everest because as a guide he saw it as his duty to stay with a sick client rather than save himself.

If the age of alpine chivalry has passed it has happened as ever greater numbers are on the mountain and climbing has been made a great deal easier by the guiding industry. Each May, when the weather provides a reasonable prospect of reaching the summit, there is now a line of adventure-seekers taking their turn to stand on top of the world. Unless they have a notable disability like Inglis their achievement is going to pass without public note and their pleasure will be largely private.

For that reason, if no higher motive, at least a few of the 40 or more people passing that young man in difficulty might have decided there was at least as much personal satisfaction to be gained in trying to save a life. To get so close to their goal, then to sacrifice it for the sake of someone in peril, would surely be a memory as proud as the assisted trek to the top.

If not, then Sir Edmund is right. Something has gone terribly wrong in the Everest experience. By all accounts the mountain is now littered with the frozen remains of those who have died there. If the bodies are witness to the difficulty of the climb, we now know they may also testify to a lack of human help.

Climbers now set out in the knowledge that at high altitude it will be every every man for himself. But Sir Edmund says it did not used to be so and nobody is better placed to say it should not be so. His voice carries around the world. The message should be taken to heart by all who sell or pay for the world's highest terrestrial challenge. Up there they may find they are not above the call of common humanity. It may be the ultimate measure of them.