Do People Have The Right To Rescue Services When They Put Themselves At Risk?

A little boy jumped into the townpool with no lifejacket on. The lifeguard suddenly jumped right into the water. The little boy was in the deep end of the water that was twelve feet. The lifeguard dove in and grabbed the boy out of the water in seconds. The little boy was alive. He knew how to hold his breath but not swim. The lifeguard was a hero and saved him. Otherwise, the boy would have died. It is clear that people should have the right to have rescue services rescue them when they put themselves at risk. This is a controversial topic because there are many arguable opinions about this. Others believe, rescue services shouldn’t go out and rescue them. For example if you’re trying to rescue two people you are risking three lives. More

In ‘The Cost of Survival”, the author proposes that adventures who willing put themselves in danger should be responsible for the cost of their rescue. The author states in paragraph 3 there are several examples of reckless behavior that cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, man hours, and resources. In paragraph 5 an interview with an idividual with the Ca Air National Guard says “You can’t put a price on saving a life”. The counter claim goes agaisnt what the author is saying.

In order to continue climbing Everest, many aspects of climbing need to be improved before more people endanger their lives to try and reach the roof of the world. The guides have some areas that need the most reform. During the ascension of Everest the guides made a plethora mistakes that seemed insignificant but only aided in disaster. The guides first mistake is allowing “any bloody idiot [with enough determination] up” Everest (Krakauer 153). By allowing “any bloody idiot” with no climbing experience to try and climb the most challenging mountain in the world, the guides are almost inviting trouble. Having inexperienced climbers decreases the trust a climbing team has in one another, causing an individual approach to climbing the mountain and more reliance on the guides. While this approach appears fine, this fault is seen in addition to another in Scott Fischer’s expedition Mountain Madness. Due to the carefree manner in which the expedition was run, “clients [moved] up and down the mountain independently during the acclimation period, [Fischer] had to make a number of hurried, unplanned excursions between Base Camp and the upper camps when several clients experienced problems and needed to be escorted down,” (154). Two problems present in the Mountain Madness expedition were seen before the summit push: the allowance of inexperienced climbers and an unplanned climbing regime. A third problem that aided disaster was the difference in opinion in regards to the responsibilities of a guide on Everest. One guide “went down alone many hours ahead of the clients” and went “without supplemental oxygen” (318). These three major issues: allowing anyone up the mountain, not having a plan to climb Everest and differences in opinion. All contributed to the disaster on Everest in

Many people have had a an issue of safety on rescue services. Some say they are risking their lives while others say that they are not. There have been many articles on the subject about rescuers that died and climbers that had a false sense of hope. Some articles say that the climbers are safe and that there is nothing dangerous about mountain climbing. But what is right is that people do have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk because all humans have a right to rescue services.

Why should park rangers put themselves at risk to save those who choose to climb the mountain aware of the risk? The rangers could die up there trying to save another person’s life, which is very heroic but why should he save him. There could be another incident in the park where someone was not doing anything risky but nature struck. Mountain climbers shouldn’t be able to demand rescue services on the mountain.

“Don't be afraid to have a reality check. Taking risks is OK, but you must be realistic.” Joy Mangano. This proves that although risk-taking can be accepted, you must be experienced in the risk that you’re taking in order to be safe. My first source, Helicopter Rescues Increasing on Everest is transcribed from Robert Siegel’s radio show, and is a nonfiction radio interview whose purpose is to inform readers. Another source I analyzed is “Why Everest?” The article was authored by Guy Moreau and is a nonfiction article that is meant to inform readers. The third source I researched is Ranger Killed During Rescue of Climbers on Mount Rainier and is a nonfiction newspaper article meant to inform readers. The author of the article is The Seattle Times. People do not have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk because it puts more people at risk, it is cost-heavy, and because they choose to risk their lives.

Did you know that over two-hundred thirty deaths have happened on Mount Everest and that rescue services have only successfully removed thirty bodies? Those people died because they were unprepared by not having enough oxygen or they didn’t plan accordingly. Being unprepared, not being physically fit, and putting other people at risk are three reasons why I think that Rescue Services should not be allowed for people who put themselves at risk.

If you were stuck on the top of a mountain with a broken leg wouldn't you want to get rescued? I think the climbers should get rescued because rescue attempts can draw attention to the hazards and safety of climbing, and the rescuers can become heroes. That’s why people who put themselves at risk do have the right to get rescued.

Can you save other people’s lives when you are in danger or close to death? I would say “No” most of the time because my life is the most important thing in the universe at least for me. This is a quite difficult and controversial question, but I assume that the majority of people would say no as well. I don’t understand why the climbers take risks that they can die.

Everest and has supposedly “risked his company’s reputation.” Two years after, 16 out of the 25 Nepalese guides were killed from the exact wedge of ice which led to the question if mountaineering should be banned (Source two). There were many ways that this incident could’ve been avoided. If Brice and his group escaped out safely, then why didn’t they tell anyone about the enormous wedge of ice that averted them from going any further? If there was a flag that said “HAZARD ABOVE,”then it would have been evaded easily. In my opinion, I believe that in this situation, Brice should be the one to be

Climbers pay lots of amounts of money to climb famous mountains and try to make it to the top. Unfortunately some people have not made it. This is why climbers should have a right to rescue services.

There are many things that could have been put into play to prevent this disaster. A very important one is better preparation for climbing. Simple things, like fixing ropes or getting more radios could have helped immensely, and prevented many deaths. For example, we are shown one possible effect of something basic being ignored

Nimi Sherpa a female relative of Purbal Ongyal Sherpa one of the men who was killed says that “The government has given a 40,000 rupee compensation . It has just increased our sorrows . There are procedural hurdles to get those 40,000 rupees. You might have to spend 80,000 rupees to get it” ( Morrow 1 ) . These families are getting left with heart breaking realities and the government isn’t really doing anything to help the communities out . Workers have made demands for the government to value life insurance payouts that private companies who hire the Sherpas be paid regardless the climbing season be on or canceled . The Sherpas distress the demand of “ 30 percent of government revenue from mountain expeditions is deposited , to be spent on compensation for workers killed and those who are injured”(Morrow 2) . The government has reviewed the concerns of people but have yet only to agreed to some of the demands . Sherpas who risk their lives every season trying to keep the clients happy while they carry up a lot of necessities for the clients deserve better . Just to climb the mountain it is 100,000 per person . Needless to say climbing Mount Everest is DANGEROUS . The Nepalese government has recouped an annual revenue of between $3 and $4 million over the last few years . Unfortunately , “hardly any of this money is received by the Sherpas

Mountain Climbers do certainly have the right to use emergency services in case of a catastrophic emergency. Though they do put themselves at risk I bet you can agree that their lives matter and that people who work for emergency services are also putting their own life on the line like the mountain climbers. Therefore the following reasons state that Mountain Climbers do reserve the right to use emergency services to save themselves from a disastrous accident that is possible during their climb.

Yes, I believe people should have the right to rescue services even if they put themselves at their own risks for multiple reasons.  My first reason is that it’s their job to protect and serve everyone including people who put themselves at their own risk.  The next reason is everyone is always putting themselves at their owns risks when they step outside the door.  My final reason is service members want to help all people. Have you ever wondered why rescue services exist?