Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Should a medical exam be required before a major trek?
The latest person to die on the Kokoda was a 38 year old man named Paul Bradfield who was hiking the trail as part of a fund raising effort for a children's charity. Before the hike he was believed to have been in good health and spent weeks training for trip. The exact cause of his death is still unknown, but it is believed that he suffered a heart attack while hiking. The other two people to die on the trail this year were also quite young as well. One was a 26 year old man, and the other a 36 year old woman.
This story brings up an interesting debate. Should a physical be required before embarking on any major trek? At what point does a government begin enforcing such requirements and how exactly do they do so? At the moment, Australia has no requirements of the trekking companies that operate on the Kokoda, but they are developing a "code of conduct" for those hiking the trail, and are now strongly considering the requirement of a medical check as well.
While three deaths is certainly something to be concerned about, it is also a very small number when you consider that 6000 people take on the Kokoda each year. Similarly, on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, roughly ten people die in a given year as well, usually due to altitude sickness. But that too is a small number when you consider the thousands that climb the mountain each year. Should these relatively minuscule numbers of deaths cause a change in policy that will effect all the trekkers that go to these places? And would a mandatory health check have saved these three hikers to begin with?
On the other hand, there is a certain inherent danger to these kinds of trips, and obviously anyone can be at risk, no matter what condition they're in. Wouldn't a responsible traveler want to ensure their safety by having a physical anyway? Don't they owe it to themselves and their families?
If Australia does institute a change, it'll probably require the tour operators to be the ones that have to enforce it by requiring all hikers to show proof of a medical examination before they join the trek. The question is should they make this change, and if so, should other major treks around the world follow suit?
On the other hand, there is a certain inherent danger to these kinds of trips, and obviously anyone can be at risk, no matter what condition they're in. Wouldn't a responsible traveler want to ensure their safety by having a physical anyway? Don't they owe it to themselves and their families?
If Australia does institute a change, it'll probably require the tour operators to be the ones that have to enforce it by requiring all hikers to show proof of a medical examination before they join the trek. The question is should they make this change, and if so, should other major treks around the world follow suit?
Filed under: Climbing, Hiking, Africa, Oceania, Tanzania, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Camping, Consumer Activism
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nzm Sep 30th 2009 10:12AM
Kraig - just to be clear, Paul didn't die while hiking. Yes, he was walking the Kokoda trail, but he suffered the attack at night while asleep in his tent. His guide (also sleeping in the same tent) woke up after hearing Paul having breathing difficulties which he didn't survive.
When taking trips which require a certain amount of strenuous activity, it always pays to prepare beforehand. That’s the responsibility of the person who has chosen to take the trip. They, and they alone, should be accountable for ensuring that they have done all the necessary preparation and have the necessary fitness level.
I'm not sure if this doesn't already happen with some of the tour operators, but once someone books with them, it would be appropriate for them to start the communication immediately - informing their clients on what's ahead; suggesting exercise routines to better prepare them for the journey; placing a stake in the ground as to what would be the minimum fitness level required to complete the tour – e.g. a certain distance covered in a particular time.
Ultimately, it’s a combination of both the tour operator and the client working together to ensure that the adventure will end happily for both parties, but the tour operator should also have the final say on whether they feel that a client presents in a fitness condition that is acceptable to undertake the trip.
Would a medical certificate have helped in Paul's case? Here was a 38yo - reasonably fit, not overweight and he had prepared for 6 months before going on the hike. It's possible that a medical examination may have found something wrong with him, but then again, maybe not. Medical exams are not necessarily the most thorough tests. This also raises the question, that, if something does go wrong for a traveller with a medical certificate, is the medical examiner then responsible for that person's death?
I believe that when it's truly your time to go, then it's time to go. If it's on the Kokoda trail or on the sofa in front of the TV, that's it - lights out!
I’m sure that, as with most cases where someone dies in similar circumstances and not due to any accident or weather mishap , Paul will have died due to some other influence – it wasn’t the trail that killed him. He just happened to be there when it was his turn.
Kraig Sep 30th 2009 10:19AM
Thanks for the clarification Paul's case NZM. It is appreciated.
And I personally tend to agree with you that when it's your time, it's your time, and that could happen anywhere. As I mentioned in the article, an examination may or may not have revealed anything for any of these three young people. Their deaths may simply not have had anything to do with the trail at all, they just happened to be there when it was their time.
Still a physical exam can't hurt and is probably worth doing none the less.
nzm Sep 30th 2009 10:30AM
Hey Kraig
Thanks for the prompt response.
Yes, getting a medical is not a bad thing to do, although when I got a medical for my dive certification, it was purely based on blood pressure and listening to my lungs, as well as an assessment on my physical appearance. Hardly a test that would bring up most anomalies!
But then - it raises the question that I asked above - would the medical practitioner then be held accountable if they signed off on a medical certificate for a person who then died on something like an adventure trek?
The phrase "opening a whole can of worms" comes to mind!
cheers
Michele
Kraig Sep 30th 2009 10:43AM
I'm right there with you Michael. It really does open a can of worms, and it seems like they're looking to make someone ultimately responsible. I don't want to sound callous about three deaths on the Kokoda at all, but when you have 6000 people hiking it each year, there is bound to be some issues.
I'm all for making these treks safer, but I also don't like to see over reaction either. I also happen to believe that we are all responsible for ourselves when taking an adventure trek like this one.
Rick McCharles Sep 30th 2009 3:23PM
I am happy when trekking companies require a full physical. But against it being mandated by government.
http://besthike.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/need-insurance-to-hike-europe/
Kraig Sep 30th 2009 3:31PM
Well said Rick. I'm with you on that as well. I get them for myself because it's a good idea. Don't like being told that I have to though.
Lonnie Baker Oct 1st 2009 5:26PM
Getting a Medical Release before anyone engaged in any physical activity (such as hiking, mountain climbing, running, biking, skiing, joging, etc.), is a good idea. All you would have to do is "pass" a standard test. Something like a Diving Certificate.