Should we rescue risk-takers? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

Rain is currently forecast for Sunday (again) but things may change. So, the default is to meet indoors but please look out for updates before you leave home.

When we meet inside, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Should we rescue risk-takers?

This week's topic has been provided by Richard.

In August the climber Natalia Nagovitsina died on Jengish Chokushu in Kyrgyzstan. She fractured a leg at 7,000 metres. Rescue attempts led to the death of another climber and injuries to a helicopter crew. Eventually it was accepted that she had died.

So let us consider someone who may require rescue, not because she is trying to rescue someone else but because she wants to climb mountains, or explore caves, or the like. We shall refer to climbers, but with cavers and others to be included.

The climber will want to conquer the mountain and come back safely. If she chooses to climb, she knowingly takes a risk of death or injury. She must give up climbing or give up her desire to be sure of safety. It is her choice, so we might regard consequences as her responsibility. Or our instinct that we should rescue people could take hold. Then if there is an accident, it is our difficult choice how far to go.

Risking lives

Should people be either invited or ordered to try to rescue a climber, when that would put the rescuers at risk? Would it depend on whether they were in a rescue service?

Would it depend on whether the climber was warned that the mountain was dangerous, either this month or generally?

Would it depend on whether the climber was trained and experienced? Should we not bother to rescue foolish people who ought to have known not to go climbing?

Assuming that the climber was trained and experienced, what role would probability play? There might be only a 5 per cent probability of a rescue being needed, or only 1 per cent, but it would never be zero. Should we be more willing to take risks in rescue if the probability was very low, so that the climber had taken a sensible risk?

What role would the level of risk to rescuers play? If there is an obligation to rescue, is it always an obligation, or only one so long as the probability of a rescuer's being killed or injured is below, for example, 5 per cent? And if an obligation to rescue can be defeated by considerations like risk to rescuers, who should decide whether to go ahead?

Expending resources

Rescues and medical treatment are expensive. This is not a risk associated with a particular rescue once a climber has been injured. Rather, it is a risk of climbing in general. And the risk extends to sports that can lead to injuries without any need for rescue, for example rugby.

One could argue that the costs should be paid by the injured person, not by the rest of us. That would mean requiring insurance for all participants.

But perhaps costs should be borne by the whole community, through rescue services and a national health service. Compulsory insurance might put participation in the riskiest activities out of reach of many people. And everyday sports should not be deterred by bureaucracy and extra costs, both because striving, teamwork and sporting achievement are good in themselves and because exercise makes people healthier.

Stopping or warning risk-takers

Should we ever forbid climbing a particular mountain because of the risk to rescuers, or should we only say "We advise against climbing, and we shall not rescue you if you get into difficulties"?

If we warn that there will be no rescue, should we keep to that and say "Tough, we did warn him"?

If a climber says in advance that she does not want people to risk their lives to rescue her, are rescuers obliged to respect that wish? A recent example was Laura Dahlmeier, who expressed that wish and who died after being struck by a rockfall in Kashmir in July. Unsuccessful rescue attempts were made.