Medical Approval Issues

[Hawkwood]

"We" don't learn anything from the form.

The person filling out the form either had no issues, therefore "no", or needs to be made aware of issues ("yes").

The "protection" provided by the form goes both ways...

 

[RJP]

Just in case I am missing part of your point, what difference does it make if it is the same diver, different divers or identical twins?

As I realize how little you actually learn from these forms, I also recognize that it is only if a diver is not medically fit to dive that instructor risk might be a consideration. So, anything less than a thorough, current, and reliable dive physical leaves you not really knowing.

I guess it is a good thing you have been trained to deal with emergencies without exposing yourself to excess risk.

The only thing those forms do is to provide some level of liability protection to the scuba provider when the fit hits the shan.

It's funny. My non-diving 11 year old understands that truthfully completed medical forms effectively identify and help screen out people who shouldn't be diving for medical reasons. I'm not sure how it is that someone with 1,000-2,499 dives doesn't understand that.

 

[redacted]

It's funny. My non-diving 11 year old understands that truthfully completed medical forms effectively identify and help screen out people who shouldn't be diving for medical reasons. I'm not sure how it is that someone with 1,000-2,499 dives doesn't understand that.

What makes you think I don't understand that?

But it is also true that any completed medical form (truthful or not), with one or more YES answers, may keep you from diving even when there is no medical condition that should prevent you from diving. In my case, I have already taken care to establish, with my Dr and pharmacist, that I have no medical condition that should prevent me from diving. Why would I want to provide anything but NO responses? I'm trying to see the benefit to either me or you and I'm missing it.

What I do understand is that an overbooked dive op is liable to do anything they can to solve their overbooking problem. And, since the proponent of that form was thoughtful enough to give me an option that avoids such risk to me (and does not add to anyone's risk) I choose to take that option. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Lets take the example of the op. He went with YES on asthma, has seen a couple doctors and past the test that RSTC says needed to be done to insure the asthma should not limit his diving. And he is still being screwed over. Granted, when he first filled out his form he may not have known that he was OK to dive; but he knows now. Time to change the answer to NO and go dive.

 

[RJP]

In my case, I have already taken care to establish, with my Dr and pharmacist, that I have no medical condition that should prevent me from diving. Why would I want to provide anything but NO responses? I'm trying to see the benefit to either me or you and I'm missing it.

I have to admit, I'm struggling to make it any "duckies and horsies" simpler for you.

You're proposing a bizarre self-fulfilling hypothetical "Assuming there are truly no conditions incompatible with diving, what's the benefit of asking for the form to be truthfully completed?"

In the OP we have the exact opposite: there's an underlying condition that could be problematic, to the point that three physicians have declined to medically clear the poster. But you're still asking me to base my decision to accept the student on the assumption that there is NOT a potentially problematic medical condition.

What I do understand is that an overbooked dive op is liable to do anything they can to solve their overbooking problem.

C'mon fess up... some dive op stole your Cabbage Patch doll when you were a child or something, right?

PS - the best way for a dive op to solve their over-booking problem (are there any of those?) is to simply keep raising their prices until they only have one person on their "wait list."

 

[archer1960]

The inaccuracy of this statement is so high that it makes me question the rest of your "facts."
I assume it is just unthinking hyperbole.

Obviously

 

[RJP]

And, since the proponent of that form was thoughtful enough to give me an option that avoids such risk to me (and does not add to anyone's risk) I choose to take that option.

What does that refer to?

---------- Post added August 18th, 2015 at 05:32 PM ----------

Lets take the example of the op. He went with YES on asthma, has seen a couple doctors and past the test that RSTC says needed to be done to insure the asthma should not limit his diving. And he is still being screwed over.

So three doctors refuse to sign off that the OP is medically clear to dive... but I'm supposed to accept the higher risk associated with taking their word that they are?

Actually, you're not even giving me that option. You're suggesting that I don't even need to know that three doctors refuse to sign off on the OP.

Sorry... no.

 

[redacted]

I have to admit, I'm struggling to make it any "duckies and horsies" simpler for you.

You're proposing a bizarre self-fulfilling hypothetical "Assuming there are truly no conditions incompatible with diving, what's the benefit of asking for the form to be truthfully completed?"



C'mon fess up... some dive op stole your Cabbage Patch doll when you were a child or something, right?

PS - the best way for a dive op to solve their over-booking problem (are there any of those?) is to simply keep raising their prices until they only have one person on their "wait list."

I'm not assuming that I have no conditions that would limit my diving and you probably should not either. I'm verifying that I have no such conditions and, if you ask me, I'll tell you I have none. In stead, you want to ask me a lot of excessively broad questions that are designed to generate false positive responses. But you also gave me a way out of that mulberry bush and allowed me to take responsibility for my unimportant medical conditions. For that, I am thankful.

 

[ev780]

See, you have a critical misunderstanding of healthcare privacy laws:

1.) They only cover healthcare providers, healthcare systems, and healthcare data companies.
2.) They don't cover scuba diving.
3.) They don't cover YOU.

You don't have an absolute, inalienable right to receive a scuba certification. If you want to receive a scuba certification, you need to willingly complete the medical forms. If you don't want to complete the forms, you don't have to. That is your right. But then you can't take the scuba class. Which is OK... because you don't have a right to receive a scuba certification.

See... it's really not that hard.

I very much do understand US healthcare privacy laws. I do it every day. HIPAA only covers those entities you mention and it may not cover me but it is there FOR me. There are a myriad of other laws that also reflect patient privacy. And there are a lot of laws in the US and other countries that govern discrimination based on medical conditions. Your point is taken that I do not have a right to certification but I do have a right to privacy and the question is whether the SCUBA agencies have a right to invade my privacy and how far. Just because you are a private company isn’t good enough any more. Just ask a few conservative cake bakers about that. And you inadvertently made my point. SCUBA agencies are NOT covered entities under HIPAA and likely under any other privacy laws. Fair Credit Reporting maybe, but that is about it. Therefore they are under no obligation to keep anything I tell them confidential. Thus I tell them nothing.

 

[redacted]

So three doctors refuse to sign off that the OP is medically clear to dive... but I'm supposed to accept the higher risk associated with taking their word that they are?

Actually, you're not even giving me that option. You're suggesting that I don't even need to know that three doctors refuse to sign off on the OP.

Sorry... no.

Where did you find any valid reason to assume he is high risk? His YES response dictates follow-up and I would not expect you to be sufficiently qualified or authorized to declare him fit in light of those follow-up results. But, he should now know enough about his asthma condition to realize his asthma is not a reason to limit his diving. So, rather than waste the time, effort, and money finding a Dr that will sign off on his waiver, I suggest changing the YES to NO. I guess He could either explain to his provider why he is doing that, or find another provider.

BTW, Three doctors also refused to declare him unfit for diving.

 

[ev780]

Yes, that is one good thing.
The other good thing is it probably keeps the truely unhealthy folks from diving.

And no matter how many times ev780 says it, there is NO invasion of privacy if you just provide a doctor's signature without the questionnaire. You don't like the questionnaire and refuse to provide me with one? No, problem, just give me a doctor's OK and we can ignore the form.

I never disagreed with that. I am railing at the checkbox form not the physician form. You are right in this context. And you and I agree. But, that is not the real world and that is not the forms that are shoved in our faces. If we require a doctor’s note to dive then lets get it on. Otherwise these ops should mind their own business