This story has absorbed me as one of the most interesting ethical questions I've seen. There's an overlay of misinformation as to the true facts, which adds multiple dimensions of analysis. There is a debate raging on climbing blogs about the culture of silence regarding the facts of any given death. This is ostensibly to protect the dead climbers' families from grief. However, this Inglis case is disrupting all of that. According to the Inglis scenarios I've read, they found the climber on the way up. They tried to administer oxygen, but without success. One version has Inglis' team ahead of him, and he radioed base camp when he got there, who told him it was a lost cause and to proceed. Another version has him near the front of the group, and he decided that those vastly superior climbers should make the right decision.   But the most striking conflict is between Inglis and some of his group from Australia, who went public very recently. Inglis said they inspected and decided on the way UP. According to two Australians in the group, they saw Sharp on their way up, but passed by thinking it was the body of a Polish climber from an earlier season – It was not until their way down that they learned it was a new person, and that they detected some eye movement but no other sign of life.

Inglis desperately wants a meeting with his hero Hillary, who will probably meet him. I won't be surprised if Hillary moderates his early statements (but I don't know.)

When you boil it down to its simplest fact patterns, ascending or descending makes a huge difference. They said Parks was virtually dead, which is easy to believe. If they were descending, it's easy to believe that the failure to attempt a rescue was made on an ethical basis. However, if they were ascending, as seems likely, they found someone near death with no oxygen and no, or the wrong, gloves. (Facts again are confused. It seems he may have taken off good gloves, or had inadequate gloves altogether.) He had taken two oxygen bottles up, when most carry four or five. There is some implied criticism of his preparations (on this second, solo attempt, without guide or sherpa or companion.)

But when you distill it down: You are ascending the treacherous death zone when you find a man in Parks condition, near death from hypothermia and oxygen deprivation. You have superior clothing and oxygen reserves. Attempting to save him is highly likely to fail and risks the deaths of you or your team. (Inglis passed by nine dead bodies on his descent.) What do you do (After you've invested $80,000 and a lot of ego.)   Same question again, but this time potential rescuers are descending. (It's possible that Inglis' and the Australians' versions are both true from their own perspectives.)