DCS hits: "deserved" vs. "explained"

[victorzamora]

If you had a normal 6 sided die, but all sides were black except 1 (1/6), would you really be shocked if you rolled so that the 1 white side was up? No, of course not. Nor would you be very surprised if you rolled 6 of them, and they were all black except 1. Or even if there were 2 white, and 4 black. All are pretty reasonable because the chances are at a familiar scale. You wouldn't say that rolling white was "anomalous" or "unexpected", even though the chances of rolling black are much much higher.

1/100, or 1/1,000 or 1/10,000 are unfamiliar scales. DCS chances for rec dive is somewhere around 3/10,000. 3/10,000 is not something we deal with in our normal lives. Humans do well within a certain range. Things that are too big, too small, too fast, too slow, or in this case, too rare are tough to work with. Hence looking for explanations beyond "well, it was bound to happen eventually", which is actually the case.

I think your analogy is lacking something. I feel like there are things we can do to reduce the chance of DCS. So, "deserved" is selecting a die with 5 white sides....and "undeserved" is selecting a die with 1 white side. The closer you ride super aggressive deco profiles, the more "white sides" the die has on it. To me, breaking the "rules" is a "deserved" hit, or expected, or explainable, or whatever. You do things that increase the chance of you getting hit by a white side. I think that getting a hit off of a die with 5 white sides can teach us one set of lessons. I also think that getting a hit off of a 1-white-side die might teach us about deco profiles.

 

[PfcAJ]

If I could jump in, I think, by your analogy PFCaJ, that you are looking at DCS as a random roll the dice event and therefore not worth categorizing as such. That there is no value in assigning any DCS event a label because it is not controllable, there will always be the risk as long as we dive.

I think victorzamora is agreeing that we all are at risk and as such the hits are "deserved" because we choose to dive but that the hits are not truly random, there is "something" that made that individual susceptible to that hit that day. And that by determining if the dive profile fell outside the statically area in which we might "expect" a hit and thereby label it as "unexpected or undeserved or anomalous" we could then try and determine the "something" that made that diver more susceptible to DCS on that dive.

I'll butt out now...

This is a very human thing you're experiencing. Trying to assign a "why" to a rare event, even if its predicted (expressed as a % or a ratio. In this case, .03% or 3:10,000 or less). If a certain person gets bent more frequently than that, then I'd say some investigation is needed. But once? No. You're just it that day.

The variables you're trying to control for (and blame) are just too numerous to be realistically controllable for. Hydration, nutrition, exertion, BMI, and temperature are a few easy ones that come to mind. Assigning blame on something just further digs us into this stigma-hole that we're currently experiencing.

DCS is no ones "fault" (when the tables are followed). Its just math.

 

[uncfnp]

This is a very human thing you're experiencing. ...//..

It's also a very medical thing. We all have hearts, vessels, blood. We are all at risk for heart disease. Some of it is "expected." Fat old men with uncontrolled HTN that eats all day and sits on the couch. Some is "unexpected." The well conditioned athlete that eats healthy and has a low BMI. But that doesn't stop us from studying the "math" to try and define that missing factor or factors that lead to the "unexpected." In neither case is blame being assigned (well maybe a little) but the fact that we can not yet define all the factors and "predict" which individual will have a heart attack does not stop us from trying.

Will the arm chair analysis on SB solve the mystery? Of course not, but the discussion, especially if we can do it in a nonjudgmental way (I was once warned not to use that term on SB since none of us would be judgmental of others here ) as the OP has suggested can only be a good thing and may trigger something in someone that could lessen their risk of a hit as well as increase awareness for others of the apparent "randomness" of some hits so they will seek care sooner then they might otherwise.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I like "unsurprising" and "dumb ing luck" myself, but I suppose that's insufficiently mirror image to just roll right off the tongue.

 

[drrich2]

It is my perception that the diving community in general takes a judgmental stance toward DCS hits, as evidenced by the words “deserved” and “undeserved.”

My thinking:

1.) It makes no sense to claim all hits are 'deserved.' The way people are using the term, it's like they're saying all hits 'have a cause.' That they do, but that doesn't equate to 'deserved.' The term deserved indicates a moral judgment, either that one is entitled to something good, or is justified in having to endure something bad. Hence the question of whether a law-breaker 'deserves' a punishment.

2.) Also, we generally use descriptors for something when the descriptor is useful to distinguish/categorize. If all hits were 'deserved,' we wouldn't use the term, because it adds no meaning.

3.) The general usage of deserved vs. undeserved refers to a moral/ethical judgment as to whether the diver violated community standards of risk mitigation and engaged in contributory negligence (violated said standards), whether due to ignorance, apathy, accident or emergency.

Let's use an analogy against the 'all hits are deserved because you choose to dive knowing there's never zero risk' position.

Next time you have a close relative or dear friend get nailed & seriously hurt in a car wreck, through no fault of their own (e.g.: struck by drunk driver), be sure to inform your fellow loved ones that the wreck was a 'deserved hit' because your loved one knew full well driving is never perfectly safe.

Richard.

 

[Foxfish]

Deserved versus undeserved

or

Remaining within the NDL versus exceeding the NDL limit
Inside versus outside
Over versus under
Within versus without
You poor soul. What sort of dive computer have you got? Have you thought of suing the manufacturer? versus You idiot! Serves you right for not being more careful!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Deserved versus undeserved

or

Remaining within the NDL versus exceeding the NDL limit
Inside versus outside
Over versus under
Within versus without
You poor soul. What sort of dive computer have you got? Have you thought of suing the manufacturer? versus You idiot! Serves you right for not being more careful!

... derstood ...

Anyone who believes that simply following their dive computer will keep them safe needs to go back to OW class and pay attention this time ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[SeaHorse81]

Does anyone know for sure where this use of deserved/undeserved originated? I'm guessing it goes back to the military, probably an artifact of how DCS data was originally sorted and has just carried on ever since, never anticipated to become what it has.