Risky activity when you have kids

Zombrex

The sad news that an Irish man has died on Everest has been updated with the even sadder news that his wife had recently given birth to their 3rd child.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0524/delaneyj.html

While I have huge sympathy with this man's family, I can't help thinking What the fudge was this guy doing trying to climb Everest with 2 kids already and a new born baby on the way.

I appreciate that just cause you have kids your life doesn't stop, but I really do think that one has a responsibility to dial back the overtly risky behavior if such behavior is just for trills or personal achievement (ie I would put this man in a different category to say someone in the Army or Coast Guard who risks his life for the greater good).

Just wondering what other people thought about this sort of thing, particularly people with kids.

Yes I thought it was a bit much of him to be traipsing off with his wife due.
Don't really know what else to add except to echo what you've said, wick.

Giselle

I think when you're part of a family, the greater good of the family should come first. It means selflessness and sacrifice, but thats part of growing up and being a responsible adult.

The childrens right to have a father should superceed the fathers right to realise a dream.

Jimdagym

Exactly my first thoughts when I read the story.

What's even more sad for the family is that his body must stay there as it's unsafe to bring it back down, depriving the kids of visiting his grave.
Horribly sad time for the family.

Count Duckula

Giselle wrote: »

I think when you're part of a family, the greater good of the family should come first. It means selflessness and sacrifice, but thats part of growing up and being a responsible adult.

The childrens right to have a father should superceed the fathers right to realise a dream.

Is that not a slipperly slope, though? Where do you draw the line? If you start insisting that the children have a "right" over their parents, then do you stop fathers walking out? Men divorcing their wives? Both those things will infringe their child's "right" to a father.

No one has the "right" to anything involving control over another human being, in my opinion. If this man wanted to go and get himself killed on Everest then that was his choice. His wife will likely feel deserted, and his kids will grow up not knowing a father, but to say that he should set everything he wants and desires aside because his sperm have developed into a human is ridiculous to me.

Jimdagym

Count Duckula wrote: »

Is that not a slipperly slope, though? Where do you draw the line? If you start insisting that the children have a "right" over their parents, then do you stop fathers walking out? Men divorcing their wives? Both those things will infringe their child's "right" to a father.

No one has the "right" to anything involving control over another human being, in my opinion. If this man wanted to go and get himself killed on Everest then that was his choice. His wife will likely feel deserted, and his kids will grow up not knowing a father, but to say that he should set everything he wants and desires aside because his sperm have developed into a human is ridiculous to me.

The point is that it's not morally responsible to his family, not that there should be a law to stop him.
His wife gave birth a couple of days before he died, I don't see how you can argue that morally he did nothing wrong.

Delta Kilo

Im going to look at this from the other aspect...

I am involved in the same sport as the climber who died, John Delaney.

I am not the age where i have a family but it is something I have already thought about. For now, I love the thrill of adventure, going into the unknown with just what I have on my back and my wits, it is a great feeling. I have been in situations in the french alps and Scotland in the winter where I really felt close to risking a lot ie serious injury or death. Despit all the safety equipment used, there is always the element of risk, the danger that something will go wrong.

My stance is now to enjoy it, take the risks, capture the memories and store them in photo albums to show my kids when im older that i wasnt always a boring old fart! Whenever a family does come my way, it will result in a serious step back in my sport as I just dont think it is worth it.

However to add another twist to what happened...

The death on Everest would have been largely unexpected and it seems he was an unlucky victim of the only real risk on everest, the altitude. The mountain is not technically difficult requiring little to no technical knowledge to climb and results in many wealthy people from all over the world coming and paying to get dragged to the top. It is unlike K2 where there are very real technical dangers. Just unfortunate really and altitude sickness is different in everyone with different consequences

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

Is that not a slipperly slope, though? Where do you draw the line? If you start insisting that the children have a "right" over their parents, then do you stop fathers walking out? Men divorcing their wives? Both those things will infringe their child's "right" to a father.

No one has the "right" to anything involving control over another human being, in my opinion. If this man wanted to go and get himself killed on Everest then that was his choice. His wife will likely feel deserted, and his kids will grow up not knowing a father, but to say that he should set everything he wants and desires aside because his sperm have developed into a human is ridiculous to me.

You're taking it to the Nth degree, and no where did I say that he should set aside everything he wants. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that responsible parenting brings sacrifices. Are you seriously arguing with that?

Count Duckula

Giselle wrote: »

You're taking it to the Nth degree, and no where did I say that he should set aside everything he wants. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that responsible parenting brings sacrifices. Are you seriously arguing with that?

No, you said that "the child's right to a father supercedes the father's right to realise a dream."

That's a little more serious than "responsible parenting brings sacrifices".

I'm saying that a child has no right to a father, the same as they don't have a right to a mother. No one should have their own liberty infringed for the sole benefit of another human being.

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

No, you said that "the child's right to a father supercedes the father's right to realise a dream."

That's a little more serious than "responsible parenting brings sacrifices".

I'm saying that a child has no right to a father, the same as they don't have a right to a mother. No one should have their own liberty infringed for the sole benefit of another human being.

Its a little different to 'another human being' when its a human being you created. Children will affect your liberty, most people accept that.

I think being a father to the children you chose to have is more important than climbing a mountain and risking depriving those children of your presence.

It may not be a legal right to have your parents in your life, but its a moral right. They had you, they should do their best to stick around til you can look after yourself. In my opinion, just to be extra clear.

If I don't want my freedom affected, I won't have kids.

If I do have kids, I'll give up the Russian Roulette, the base jumping, the shark diving, the formula 1 racing, and the Everest climbing until they hit 18.:)

silverharp

part of this depends on what his wife thought, if she was fully behind it and he knew the risks, then its just bad luck. For sure its way outside the normal risks that someone should take to pursue a hobby, and being a family man should have been part of the equation, if you "invite" a child in , you should try your best to stay around for all concerned.

Count Duckula

Giselle wrote: »

Its a little different to 'another human being' when its a human being you created. Children will affect your liberty, most people accept that.

I think being a father to the children you chose to have is more important than climbing a mountain and risking depriving those children of your presence.

It may not be a legal right to have your parents in your life, but its a moral right. They had you, they should do their best to stick around til you can look after yourself. In my opinion, just to be extra clear.

If I don't want my freedom affected, I won't have kids.

If I do have kids, I'll give up the Russian Roulette, the base jumping, the shark diving, the formula 1 racing, and the Everest climbing until they hit 18.:)

What about salesmen who drive long distances and work silly hours? Or lorry drivers? Pilots? Police officers? Social services? Should they stop working because of the risk? Or a soldier? At worst he or she might be killed, even at best they're likely to spend months away on duty and miss their child's life. Should soldiers not have children or give up their job when they do?

Like I asked earlier - where do we draw the line?

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

What about salesmen who drive long distances and work silly hours? Or lorry drivers? Pilots? Police officers? Social services? Should they stop working because of the risk? Or a soldier? At worst he or she might be killed, even at best they're likely to spend months away on duty and miss their child's life. Should soldiers not have children or give up their job when they do?

Like I asked earlier - where do we draw the line?

Big difference between earning a living and taking unnecessary risks.

Thats where I'd draw the line.

Count Duckula

Giselle wrote: »

Big difference between earning a living and taking unnecessary risks.

Thats where I'd draw the line.

Yet you mention Formula One racing as something that should be stopped when children are on the scene. Is that not earning a living?

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

Yet you mention Formula One racing as something that should be stopped when children are on the scene. Is that not earning a living?

No.
I do it for fun.

*sigh*

silverharp

Count Duckula wrote: »

Yet you mention Formula One racing as something that should be stopped when children are on the scene. Is that not earning a living?

I think you are forcing people to "draw lines" when its not possible. Outside of broad ranges its difficult to calculate the risks for other people as people have different tolerences for risk.

however who plays with those odds

The death rate on Mount Everest has not changed over the years, with about one death for every 10 successful ascents. For anyone who reaches the summit, they have about a 1 in 20 chance of not making it down again. "

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_chance_of_dying_on_Mt_Everest#ixzz1NJC9MXl3

Count Duckula

Giselle wrote: »

No.
I do it for fun.

*sigh*

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Let's take this further. What about stuntmen? There's nothing morally "upstanding" about being a stuntman, yet it is still exceedingly dangerous. By your logic, a father should therefore cease being a stuntman if he has children because it is incredibly dangerous.

But what if that's the only way he can afford to help keep his family? Is it acceptable then?

That being the case, why should a man who doesn't need the money be prevented from taking similar risks? The child in the former case is not going to be any less disadvantaged because its father was killed trying to pay the rent.

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Let's take this further. What about stuntmen? There's nothing morally "upstanding" about being a stuntman, yet it is still exceedingly dangerous. By your logic, a father should therefore cease being a stuntman if he has children because it is incredibly dangerous.

But what if that's the only way he can afford to help keep his family? Is it acceptable then?

That being the case, why should a man who doesn't need the money be prevented from taking similar risks? The child in the former case is not going to be any less disadvantaged because its father was killed trying to pay the rent.

I never said anyone should be prevented from doing anything. Just that they shouldn't (in my opinion). Again, don't put words in my mouth.

FYI, being a stuntman isn't really that dangerous. Theres all kinds of health and safety procedures to safeguard the industry.

Unlike climbing Everest, which has very poor odds in ones favour as per Silverharps post.

I'm done repeating my point.

mrsdewinter

Count Duckula wrote: »

Is that not a slipperly slope, though? Where do you draw the line? If you start insisting that the children have a "right" over their parents, then do you stop fathers walking out? Men divorcing their wives? Both those things will infringe their child's "right" to a father.

How is it a slippery slope? In one instance, you have an adult with dependent children consciously deciding to leave their children behind. In the case of this poor man from Kilcock, he made a grave miscalculation of the risks involved: he certainly believed he'd be in a position to raise all three of the children. Poor guy...

Count Duckula

mrsdewinter wrote: »

How is it a slippery slope? In one instance, you have an adult with dependent children consciously deciding to leave their children behind. In the case of this poor man from Kilcock, he made a grave miscalculation of the risks involved: he certainly believed he'd be in a position to raise all three of the children. Poor guy...

Wow, you're coming at me from entirely the other side!

For what it's worth, I actually agree with you. The father walking out is far worse than the father taking part in a risky activity, because the former has already weighed up his options and decided his children aren't important. The latter is obviously hoping all goes well.

Latchy

You often hear of people getting stuck up in the Scottish Highlands in winter , people who go out like little Edmund Hillarys with little expierence of hill or mountain climbing , a mobile phone for contact , dont bother to check the weather forecast before starting off ( and in mid winter on a Scottish Mountaintop you can be sure it will always get worse ) and with minumum protection from the elements except a pair of boots . If you are negligent about your own safety in these situations then you should pay for cost of the police , search and rescue helicoptors which run into £1000's .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

James Jones

Count Duckula wrote: »

The father walking out is far worse than the father taking part in a risky activity, because the former has already weighed up his options and decided his children aren't important. The latter is obviously hoping all goes well.

So a father who leaves his wife has "decided his children aren't important"?
No, he has decided that he cannot live with the mother of his children but more than likely will seek to maintain as much contact with his children as possible. He would also be "hoping all goes well" but probably isn't aware of the discrimination he will face.

chocgirl

Personally I think it was such an unnecessary tragedy. It can't be right that he left his wife so close to giving birth and parted with his two small boys for effectively three months for his expensive and extremely dangerous hobby. He wasn't working or doing a good deed he was doing what he did for enjoyment. He knew there was a ten per cent chance he wouldn't return and he had already attempted the climb so he knew the dangers more than anyone and still went ahead.

People need to be responsible for themselves but with three small vulnerable children I just don't understand it.

Shelga

I don't understand why he had to make the trip while his wife was heavily pregnant? It just screams 'selfish' to me. Why not wait until after the child was born, at the very least?

Sleepy

To me, it's not morally justifiable to take such risks when you're a parent.

I've run with the bulls in Pamplona, my partner took a 500cc motorbike she couldn't reach the ground whilst seated on across Europe to Moscow but we did those things before we had children and, tbh, both were less risky than a one in twenty chance of death. Since our daughter was born I wouldn't dream of doing the bull-run again until she's of age and, while we dream of a motorcycle tour of Europe, it'll be our little girl's 18th birthday before either of us go near them again.

I'd also consider it morally wrong to chase material things to the extent that you're working 70/80 hour weeks when you've children tbh. Sure, it can be necessary for some but the vast majority of people working those sort of hours are doing it to pay for luxuries or because they enjoy the work more than being a parent to their children.

Dudess

mrsdewinter wrote: »

he made a grave miscalculation of the risks involved: he certainly believed he'd be in a position to raise all three of the children.

He knew the risks. It is a terrible tragedy - I still feel awful for him having his life cut short at such a young age - but he had a choice.

And the likening of it to a dangerous job when you NEED to earn money for your family is just ridiculous - going against the grain for the sake of it...

dimiec

I appreciate that just cause you have kids your life doesn't stop, but I really do think that one has a responsibility to dial back the overtly risky behavior if such behavior is just for trills or personal achievement (ie I would put this man in a different category to say someone in the Army or Coast Guard who risks his life for the greater good).

Just wondering what other people thought about this sort of thing, particularly people with kids.

I have to agree as well. I was also shocked that he went whilst his wife was heavily pregnant, she may have understood and accepted the man she married but I think he should have been more thoughtful to the needs of his family.