Rescue at What Price?

Dec. 23--The three climbers lost on Mount Hood chose to put themselves at risk for their own satisfaction. But whether their trip was well planned or foolhardy had no effect on the exhaustive labors to save the men.

Scores of volunteers and professionals risked their lives, and tens of thousands of dollars were spent to try to rescue the lost. For 11 harrowing days, the search continued with no consideration of whether the effort was "worth it."

Why? From a strictly utilitarian perspective, risking many to save a few seems to make no sense. If an ant falls down a crevice, the rest of the colony sends out no search parties.

But the default option for American culture is generally the same as was seen on Mount Hood: Rescue first, analyze later.

The motivation may be religious; God says to do it. It may be more selfish; if I try to rescue you, maybe one day you'll try to rescue me. Or it may be something harder to pin down; scientists struggle to explain altruism.

For climbers, there's a powerful "brotherhood of the rope" that partly explains the response on Mount Hood, said Dr. David Shilm, a travel medicine specialist who spent five years running a clinic in the Himalayas.

But firefighters plunge into burning homes, never wondering if a careless smoker ignited the fire. Police officers fling themselves into rushing floods to save people who drove into the water, never asking why the driver didn't stop. The Coast Guard helps drunken boaters, no matter how besotted. Marines famously leave no fellow Marine behind, no matter how the injured soldier got wounded.

And regular folks suddenly confronted with critical needs often jump to help, heedless of the potential personal cost.

All victims are not equal, of course. Stories with a dramatic twist and visuals that lend themselves to live TV grab more media attention these days and, inevitably, more resources. And people who can afford to pay for help -- like the relatives of the Kim family who were lost in an Oregon snowstorm earlier this month -- can gain additional searchers.

But high profile rescues, such as Jessica McClure in a Texas well or miners trapped in the bowels of a West Virginia coal mine, are only the most famous of many lesser-known efforts.

Reason doesn't matter

Rescuers tend not to do a cost-benefit projection while they're rescuing, experts say. And many people for whom rescue is a part of the job tend not to talk about it much, even after the fact.

"There's a lot of aspects of police work you just don't discuss," said Dallas police Officer Jeffrey Ell.

Officer Ell, a 20-year veteran with the department, recently pulled a woman from her burning apartment. He and his rookie partner had to go in and out of smoke-filled rooms three times before they found her and pulled her to safety.

Officer Ell still doesn't know how the fire started -- and doesn't much care. Saving people who may have put themselves in a tough spot is just part of the job, he said.

"We deal with people who have poor social skills or for whatever reason don't recognize the obvious signs of danger around them," he said. "That's about 85 or 90 percent of our job."

In adventure rescues, on the other hand, the people in trouble knew they were doing something dangerous. But outsiders may not know how well they'd planned to avoid problems. Because the three climbers died on Mount Hood, we'll never know if they got caught by something unforeseeable.

"Bad things can happen in the mountains, even if you think you're prepared," Dr. Shlim said.

The massive response on Mount Hood, and other large-scale searches, are evidence of American affluence as much as altruism, he said. As a society, we can afford it.

By contrast, in the cash-strapped Himalayas, lost tourists could routinely expect a helicopter search while native Nepalese could not, he said. The difference was a matter of scarce resources --not many helicopters available -- and money. Tourists were much more likely to have the $1,500 to $2,000 a helicopter rescue would cost the military, Dr. Shlim said.