Follow up on US diver death in NZ

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

buddhasummer

Down under...
ScubaBoard Supporter
Divemaster
Messages
17,265
Reaction score
9,466
Location
Somewhere between here and there
# of dives
2500 - 4999
There may be the original post somewhere so mods feel free to move:

Copied from NZ Herald:

Tighter screening needed for divers - coroner


10 September, 2013
A coroner has called for tighter medical screening for divers after an American man with a history of heart problems died while diving off the Northland coast.


Donald James Brown, 55, did not disclose his history of coronary artery disease to dive company Dive Tutukaka before he and a friend went on a dive at the Poor Knights on May 14, 2011.


He also told the company he had completed more dives than he had logged.


Mr Brown, originally from Florida, was an insurance adjustor for Zurich New Zealand whose work involved claims relating to the Christchurch earthquakes.


He showed no signs of distress during his dive, but separated from his diving buddy and dived deeper and longer than was safe.


After surfacing, he did not respond to staff on the dive boat. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful.


Coroner Brandt Shortland found Mr Brown likely died of a cardiac event brought on by his dive, noting that his failure to fully disclose his medical history had placed himself "at serious risk".


Dive Tutukaka required Mr Brown to sign a disclosure form, and to confirm his dive history and experience in person on the day of the dive.


However, Mr Brown did not disclose that he had undergone surgical intervention for his coronary artery disease - including a catheter procedure and the insertion of a stent - just under a decade before the dive.


He was later found to be wearing a medical alert bracelet, warning of his heart condition, at the time of the dive.


Mr Brown also told the company he had completed 70 dives, but only 26 were recorded in his log book.


Dive Tutukaka said they would never have allowed him to dive had he disclosed his medical history.


Police investigating Mr Brown's death found he had exceeded the safe ascent rate on every previous dive logged on his dive computer, which had activated visual and audible warnings.


Coroner Shortland said there was evidence Mr Brown had placed himself at serious risk on more than one occasion, and he accepted police's conclusions about the fatal dive.


"The stresses and strains placed on his body whilst diving has most likely triggered a cardiac event when Mr Brown returned to the surface after almost running out of air and after a rapid and unsafe ascent."


Mr Brown had also misjudged the seriousness of his heart condition.


"Had he disclosed the extent of his coronary heart history he would have been denied the opportunity to dive and may well be still alive today."


Coroner Shortland accepted the recommendations put forward by the police investigator, including tighter diver screening like that in Australia.


The tighter screening would include a diving medical and consultation with a diver or student's GP to identify medical conditions dangerous to diving.
 
I am sure he knew the risk and did not disclose it because he decided he wanted to dive.
People need to be accountable for their own actions. Stop trying to protect everyone by adding in more regulations.
These people are adults and can make their own decisions.

Recommendations I am fine with. Regulations not so much.
 
Police investigating Mr Brown's death found he had exceeded the safe ascent rate on every previous dive logged on his dive computer, which had activated visual and audible warnings.

I'm sorry but that screams Darwinism to me.
 
I am sure he knew the risk and did not disclose it because he decided he wanted to dive.
People need to be accountable for their own actions. Stop trying to protect everyone by adding in more regulations.
These people are adults and can make their own decisions.

Recommendations I am fine with. Regulations not so much.

It is one thing to say all that when you are talking about a guy and his buddy doing a shore dive where an incident with one of them will affect nobody else. However, when somebody has a cardiac incident on a group dive, it affects everybody. From the buddy or DM who may have to put themselves at risk to get them to the surface or on the boat, from the boat crew who have the stress of trying to revive a patient while getting them to shore, to the other divers who may be left in the water while the boat tries to get the patient to shore or who may have to make unsafe ascents of their own to get back on the boat so it can leave, to the emergency personnel who have to spend time, money, and other resources that may be limited in isolated dive locations to try to rescue the patient, etc. etc. etc. If the guy did a dive with his buddy from the beach, died, and his buddy called the coroner from the shore, you would be correct. But when his death has the potential to affect many other people and potentially put other lives at risk, then you can't just blow it off and say "let him make his own decisions". Especially when his family is likely to sue the dive operator for not preventing him from diving.

Would you feel the same way if his cardiac incident had happened while he was "deeper than safe" as described in the article, and his buddy and a DM got bent going down to get him? His decisions affected other people and had the potential to put them in danger. I don't think new regulations are really the answer...but you can't just blow it off and say "he can make his own decisions". He had an obligation to let the dive operator know about his condition and to be responsible in his actions while diving.

---------- Post added September 19th, 2013 at 05:31 PM ----------

I'm sorry but that screams Darwinism to me.

Totally agree...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Police investigating Mr Brown's death found he had exceeded the safe ascent rate on every previous dive logged on his dive computer, which had activated visual and audible warnings.


I'm sorry but that screams Darwinism to me.

Totally agree...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


What model computer was it? Was it one of those that records too fast an ascent when you atre at a rest stop and raise your computer to look at it?
 
What model computer was it? Was it one of those that records too fast an ascent when you atre at a rest stop and raise your computer to look at it?

No idea.

---------- Post added October 10th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ----------

It is one thing to say all that when you are talking about a guy and his buddy doing a shore dive where an incident with one of them will affect nobody else. However, when somebody has a cardiac incident on a group dive, it affects everybody. From the buddy or DM who may have to put themselves at risk to get them to the surface or on the boat, from the boat crew who have the stress of trying to revive a patient while getting them to shore, to the other divers who may be left in the water while the boat tries to get the patient to shore or who may have to make unsafe ascents of their own to get back on the boat so it can leave, to the emergency personnel who have to spend time, money, and other resources that may be limited in isolated dive locations to try to rescue the patient, etc. etc. etc. If the guy did a dive with his buddy from the beach, died, and his buddy called the coroner from the shore, you would be correct. But when his death has the potential to affect many other people and potentially put other lives at risk, then you can't just blow it off and say "let him make his own decisions". Especially when his family is likely to sue the dive operator for not preventing him from diving.

Would you feel the same way if his cardiac incident had happened while he was "deeper than safe" as described in the article, and his buddy and a DM got bent going down to get him? His decisions affected other people and had the potential to put them in danger. I don't think new regulations are really the answer...but you can't just blow it off and say "he can make his own decisions". He had an obligation to let the dive operator know about his condition and to be responsible in his actions while diving
.

---------- Post added September 19th, 2013 at 05:31 PM ----------



Totally agree...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Agree 100%. A little selfish or ignorant to the risks or both, sad nonetheless.
 

Back
Top Bottom