Whose responsibility is it?

Contributing Editor Jules also blogs at Dragon Girl.

Mark Inglis, the first double amputee climber to reach the summit of Mount Everest, has been criticised by the first climber to reach the summit of Everest & fellow New Zealander, Sir Edmund Hillary, for not trying to save a British climber on the mountain. This action has sparked an interesting debate: Are you responsible for the health, safety and well-being of the people around you?

From the SMH:

Sharp, 34, died about 300 metres from the summit last week after 40 climbers of different groups continued past him.

While others reportedly left Sharp alone, members of Inglis' party gave the man oxygen but decided he was too close to death to attempt a rescue.

"It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say 'good morning' and pass on by," said Hillary, one of the two men first to conquer the Everest summit in 1953.

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read this story in the newspaper was a first year Psychology lecture from my undergraduate degree on the Diffusion of Responsibility. Simply put, if you are in need of help from strangers, the more people in your vicinity, the less likely it is that you'll be helped. This was one of the hypotheses from an event in March 1964, when a New York woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed and sexually assaulted over a 30 minute period - 38 people admitted to hearing her screams and cries for help, but only one called the police and no one went to her aid.

On the one hand, everyone knows the dangers associated with scaling Everest - small things that go wrong turn into catastrophes rather quickly at that altitude. But on the other hand, to walk past a climber who is in trouble and not assist them in getting off the mountain because you are on your way to the summit, seems cold, heartless and inhumane. The idea that personal achievement trumps human life is something that I find abhorent.

What is interesting is that this debate is happening at the same time as peace and stability is breaking down in East Timor, with troops from Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal being sent to Dili to restore order on the request of the East Timorese Government.

In a speech yesterday to the Australian Parliament, Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlined what he saw as Australia's responsibility in dealing with unrest in our region, and the responsibility we have for our neighbours:

Australia takes this deterioration in East Timor's security situation very seriously. Having played a decisive role in the birth of the nation of East Timor, we recognise that Australia has a particular obligation to assist what is a small and poor country in its struggle for a stable democratic future. This deployment reflects what I have said on many occasions: that Australia - a large, stable and prosperous country - has a special responsibility to act as a force for peace and order in our region. I want to reaffirm in the strongest terms that this action is in our national interest, because the world we live in is one where the problems of weak and fragile states, especially ones on our doorstep, can very quickly become our problems. At the same time, I want to underscore the importance of states accepting their own responsibility for improving governance and reducing corruption as the path to a better future.

As someone who has never voted for Howard and who disagrees with most of the policies of his Party, I almost fell off my chair when I heard his speech yesterday and realised that we actually agreed on something.

Adopting isolationist policies in a world that is becoming increasingly connected is just not feasible - individual conflicts don't remain inside national borders. Just like we have a responsibility to get people off a mountain safely, walking on by when our neighbours are in trouble is not an option.