Articles like this bother me - they represent consummate 'yellow journalism' and create mis-impressions about their topic focus, without offering any useful, or at least thoughtful, commentary. It is simply another 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling!' article, which sells newspapers, chock full of blame-mongering, whether it be in regard to 'fly-by-night' adventure companies (I would love to know the basis for the description) or supposed corruption in the Nepalese government, which is always good reading.
There are probably similarities between climbing and diving. But, in almost every endeavor, there are people with sufficient financial resources who try to buy their way to 'the top', or 'the bottom', whatever. People with money buy scuba equipment and end up dying because they don't know how much they don't know. People with money attempt to summit Everest, and die because they don't know how much they don't know. People with money buy airplanes that they don't have sufficient experience to fly, and die because they don't know what they don't know. What is the alternative? Close Everest to climbing altogether, as Danduraj Ghimire suggested? Have the government set standards and requirements? Or accept the fact that individuals ultimately have to use their own judgement, deciding for themselves if they have sufficient training, and experience, and stamina.
If someone with marginal experience joins an Everest expedition, and happens to do so in that incredibly rare year when there is a 4 day window in May of perfect conditions, chances are they will make it to the summit and back. But, if ANYTHING goes wrong, the chances of reaching the summit, and coming back alive, drop dramatically. That's just the way it is. And, the lamentations about the lack of empathy are simply naive. On Everest, you cannot count on ANYONE else. At 28,000+ feet every person has barely enough energy and resources to keep themselves alive. That includes experienced mountaineers and guides - e.g. during the 1996 season, where Rob Hall and Scott Fisher both died on the mountain. In technical diving, we plan every dive as if we will have to finish it solo. And, if we can't do that, we should not be doing the dive. In Rescue class, we emphasize the fact that a diver may reach the point of having to save themselves, rather than aid another diver in distress - 'don't turn one tragedy into two'. Possibly lacking in empathy, but nonetheless reality.
What intrigued me about the article, the commentary of Ed Dohring, and the picture of the line of climbers, was the fact that he may have been 'shocked by what he saw' at Base Camp, he may have thought it was 'like a zoo', but apparently decided to continue. If the weather had turned to crap, and he had been caught exposed near the summit and died, his family may have wanted to blame the Nepalese government, the company running the expedition, other 'inexperienced climbers, etc. But, the primary responsibility for his fate lay with HIM. Would a reasonable person continue the climb, after seeing that line and watching the minutes tick away toward what was a reasonable 'drop dead' turn-around time? Does the fact that he lucked out, and made it, mean that he made a wise decision?
I spent almost 20 years climbing in North America. I always applied a fairly conservative 'GO - NO GO' threshold (or, perhaps better put, a conservative 'turn back' threshold), although I had my share of close calls. I have lived to tell about it. Now, I am well past the age and fitness threshold to climb in the Himalayas, and I know it. At one point, I thought I would like to climb / trek just to Everest Base Camp, but the expense, and consistent reports of crowding and the general conditions discouraged me. I have been diving about the same number of years. I have done some deep technical dives. But, I also have a fairly conservative 'GO - NO GO' threshold for diving. In reality, there have been dives where, if everything had turned to crap, I wouldn't be here to write this. I hoped for the best, planned for the worst, and turned around when things didn't feel right, even when I had paid quite a bit of money to get to do the dive. Every diver, every climber, has the same opportunity, and responsibility.
Yes, it is appealing to blame depersonalized entities - governments, expedition companies, training agencies, etc. - and to lament the possibly judgement-clouding influence of money. And, yes, there have been recent examples of potentially poor professional judgement exercised by some instructors conducting Discover Scuba experiences. But, the reality is that scuba, and climbing, are inexorably associated with some risk. The individual has to decide whether that risk is worth it.
then leaving crap and empty scuba tanks behind because who would bother taking them back anyway, the Mexican government would clean up the jungle afterwards and take the trash with them 
