On 15 May, 2006, double amputee Mark Inglis reached the summit of Mt Everest. It was a remarkable achievement and Inglis was feted by press and public alike. But only a few days later he was... Read allOn 15 May, 2006, double amputee Mark Inglis reached the summit of Mt Everest. It was a remarkable achievement and Inglis was feted by press and public alike. But only a few days later he was plunged into a storm of controversy when it was learned that he had passed an incapacitat... Read allOn 15 May, 2006, double amputee Mark Inglis reached the summit of Mt Everest. It was a remarkable achievement and Inglis was feted by press and public alike. But only a few days later he was plunged into a storm of controversy when it was learned that he had passed an incapacitated climber, Englishman David Sharp, leaving him to a lonely end high in the Death Zone.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Edmund Hillary
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (as Sir Edmund Hillary)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
What a sad bunch of losers & liars making up excuses about why they didn't try at least in the most basic sense to try & help a dying mountain climber. Each one has a practiced excuse for their guilt. This unethical behavior is not worth watching. I'm sure if they were in the same position they would expect someone else to try and help them no matter what glory & money is at stake! Not one man could try to help this guy get up and get moving! Disgusting!!!
So you've decided to climb Mount Everest, the tallest mountain in the world. As you ascend into the Death Zone, you begin to see the bodies of those that couldn't survive. But one of those bodies shows signs of life, although seemingly incapacitated. What would you do? Most people insist that they'd do something to help; that they'd try to save them. They are also quick to cast blame on those who "failed" (or simply didn't care enough) to help a fellow mountaineer who was clearly in need of aid.
But here's the thing: they don't call it the "Death Zone" for no reason. Above 8,000 meters, the altitude simply does not have enough oxygen to sustain human life. Your body is literally dying every minute that goes by. This is why most of the dead bodies found on Everest are located within this extremely dangerous altitude. All climbers understand the risk they're taking when deciding to attempt a summit. It's not the people passing by responsible for people dying; it's the mountain itself.
There's an unspoken rule among those climbing Everest to put your own safety first. Most climbers pay to join an expedition party led by guides. In those instances, the guide has a responsibility to ensure the safety of their clients. David Sharp was at Everest attempting a solo climb, without a guide or Sherpa. He was alone by choice and at his own personal risk.
"Saving" people near the summit of Everest is virtually impossible. Rescue helicopters cannot fly at that altitude. Everyone in this area is located within the Death Zone and will die themselves if they don't descend quickly. Attempting to pull and drag a person that is unable to move would require others to exert themselves which will expedite their oxygen loss. The last half mile of the summit takes 11-12 hours to ascend, and most deaths occur during descent when hypoxia sets in. Climbers can barely get themselves out of the Death Zone, let alone do it while carrying a body. You'd likely die trying given the extreme conditions.
It's obviously very distressing to walk by people who desperately need help. But the reality is that there isn't much anyone can do in the Death Zone, especially if someone is incapacitated. Basically, if you're trapped in the Death Zone and you're unable to move, you will likely die within 48 hours due to the hypoxic conditions So it's a tough (and heartbreaking) reality of taking on the challenge of Everest. It's not an environment where a rescue team can just run up the mountain quickly and save people. A rescue at Everest's peak is more challenging than reaching the peak itself. The decision to leave people behind isn't an easy one, but it is often a necessary one. That's what I don't think people really understood when they criticized Mark Inglis and unfairly blamed him for Sharp's death.
This documentary shines a spotlight on this ethical dilemma. Personally, I think anyone climbing Everest (including Sharp) understands they are risking their lives doing so. They understand they're not likely to be rescued if things go wrong. That's why most of us regular people have no intention of ever going there.
But here's the thing: they don't call it the "Death Zone" for no reason. Above 8,000 meters, the altitude simply does not have enough oxygen to sustain human life. Your body is literally dying every minute that goes by. This is why most of the dead bodies found on Everest are located within this extremely dangerous altitude. All climbers understand the risk they're taking when deciding to attempt a summit. It's not the people passing by responsible for people dying; it's the mountain itself.
There's an unspoken rule among those climbing Everest to put your own safety first. Most climbers pay to join an expedition party led by guides. In those instances, the guide has a responsibility to ensure the safety of their clients. David Sharp was at Everest attempting a solo climb, without a guide or Sherpa. He was alone by choice and at his own personal risk.
"Saving" people near the summit of Everest is virtually impossible. Rescue helicopters cannot fly at that altitude. Everyone in this area is located within the Death Zone and will die themselves if they don't descend quickly. Attempting to pull and drag a person that is unable to move would require others to exert themselves which will expedite their oxygen loss. The last half mile of the summit takes 11-12 hours to ascend, and most deaths occur during descent when hypoxia sets in. Climbers can barely get themselves out of the Death Zone, let alone do it while carrying a body. You'd likely die trying given the extreme conditions.
It's obviously very distressing to walk by people who desperately need help. But the reality is that there isn't much anyone can do in the Death Zone, especially if someone is incapacitated. Basically, if you're trapped in the Death Zone and you're unable to move, you will likely die within 48 hours due to the hypoxic conditions So it's a tough (and heartbreaking) reality of taking on the challenge of Everest. It's not an environment where a rescue team can just run up the mountain quickly and save people. A rescue at Everest's peak is more challenging than reaching the peak itself. The decision to leave people behind isn't an easy one, but it is often a necessary one. That's what I don't think people really understood when they criticized Mark Inglis and unfairly blamed him for Sharp's death.
This documentary shines a spotlight on this ethical dilemma. Personally, I think anyone climbing Everest (including Sharp) understands they are risking their lives doing so. They understand they're not likely to be rescued if things go wrong. That's why most of us regular people have no intention of ever going there.
Mount Everest makes every decision cold. I mean to say you have to decide and decision changes with weather or say lack in decision power. But David Sharpe incident reminds me is that today we want to achieve everything without helping others on the way and today information is the key to survive whether say Mt. Everest or today's world. Right information at right time may have changed things for David Sharpe.One thing is sure you have to walk and talk to survive in Mount Everest atleast.
On its own, this is good documentary.
However, a quick internet search will reveal that it is incomplete.
It failed to mention several instances where many more people from various teams attempted to help David that day.
For example, there were at least two separate instances where climbers spent at least an hour with David trying to help him.
He was not able to move. He was not coherent.
Unfortunately, David consciously made dangerous choices, like climbing alone, limiting his own oxygen supply intending not to use it, & refusing to carry a radio.
Anyone that blames a double amputee or anyone else that day for David's death is a praise-for-sensitivity seeking dolt.
And yes, that includes Sir Edmund.
In other parts of Edmund's interview that weren't included, Edmund kept comparing his "expedition" to those on the mountain that day.
We'll, his "expedition" in 1953 included 200 people that were there to solely support just four climbers, split into pairs. When Edmund & his partner ascended through the Death Zone where David died, there were just the two of them. OF COURSE, he wouldn't have just left his partner to "just die"! Plus, there were people on standby monitoring them.
Comparing his "expedition" to David's situation is nonsense. David didn't climb with a partner that knew or could monitor David's condition. No one knew why David stopped where he did, what kind of condition he was in when he decided to stop, nor how long he was there. BECAUSE David chose to climb alone, without anyone monitoring him, & with no way of contacting anyone!
Plus, David didn't have the luxury of having 200+ people at base camp hanging of every little detail that could be gleaned from his journey.
In another interview part not included, Sir Edmund referred multiple times to climbers NOT trying to help David. We know this to be a categorically false summation of what occurred!
Sir Edmund either chose to not research all the facts first or was ill informed. In either case, his grandiose proclamations & morale superiority was based upon ignorance.
However, a quick internet search will reveal that it is incomplete.
It failed to mention several instances where many more people from various teams attempted to help David that day.
For example, there were at least two separate instances where climbers spent at least an hour with David trying to help him.
He was not able to move. He was not coherent.
Unfortunately, David consciously made dangerous choices, like climbing alone, limiting his own oxygen supply intending not to use it, & refusing to carry a radio.
Anyone that blames a double amputee or anyone else that day for David's death is a praise-for-sensitivity seeking dolt.
And yes, that includes Sir Edmund.
In other parts of Edmund's interview that weren't included, Edmund kept comparing his "expedition" to those on the mountain that day.
We'll, his "expedition" in 1953 included 200 people that were there to solely support just four climbers, split into pairs. When Edmund & his partner ascended through the Death Zone where David died, there were just the two of them. OF COURSE, he wouldn't have just left his partner to "just die"! Plus, there were people on standby monitoring them.
Comparing his "expedition" to David's situation is nonsense. David didn't climb with a partner that knew or could monitor David's condition. No one knew why David stopped where he did, what kind of condition he was in when he decided to stop, nor how long he was there. BECAUSE David chose to climb alone, without anyone monitoring him, & with no way of contacting anyone!
Plus, David didn't have the luxury of having 200+ people at base camp hanging of every little detail that could be gleaned from his journey.
In another interview part not included, Sir Edmund referred multiple times to climbers NOT trying to help David. We know this to be a categorically false summation of what occurred!
Sir Edmund either chose to not research all the facts first or was ill informed. In either case, his grandiose proclamations & morale superiority was based upon ignorance.
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $300,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 53m
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content