Diving and Epilepsy

[sharpenu]

I have to say to those that say diving is a privledge:
Why do I need the permission of any certifying agency to dive? NAUI, PADI, SSI. Are any of them law making bodies? No, they are private companies. Sure, it is a good idea to get the training that they offer, but in reality all that is needed to dive is the equipment and a compressor. The only reason that the main agencies say no, is to protect thamselves from liability. It is certainly not out of some altruistic motive.

The question of whether it is safe for divers who have seizures to go diving is like most other medical issues and is answered only after consulting one on one with a competant physician. I have a buddy I dive with who has a seizure disorder that was caused by a blow to the head at a young age. This diver is taking Dilantin. I not only have dived to 120 feet with this diver, and I have been on EANx dives to a PPO2 level of 1.4 with the same person. No problems in over 75 dives with the same diver in all sorts of conditions.

 

[devjr]

A benefit of a socialist society like ours is that everyone is responsible for you and me. If you screw up, we ante up. Unfortunately, that is also interpreted as giving society the right to tell you what you can and can't do, mainly because we wish to limit payouts for any consequences which we previously assumed in the name of said society. For example, in fairness to non risk takers, the Coast Guard will no longer rescue us dizzy types from routine foibles, and if you really screw up they will charge you for services rendered. Furthermore, they reserve the right to tell you what safety equipment to carry, how much booze you can drink, and etc.

Personally, I believe in the right of self destruction. No pain, no gain. Look at free basers, free climbers, bungee jumpers, etc. They have a right to commit suicide, or die trying. Same with epileptic divers.

The costs can be spread over society without using the tax paid institutions as a cover. For example, the self indulgent blind man who climbed Mount X used private funding. There was the usual payback through endorsements. An upside can be found for most anything involving the poor, dispossessed, discriminated, handicapped and infirm. Lawsuits work especially well.

 

[wingflyer152]

Just like DevJr said, epilepsy is protected under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and since there is no federal law outlawing epileptics to dive, such as in flying, (FAR part 63) one could probably sue the pants off of PADI or NAUI for discrimination until they let them into the program with the proper precautions taken care of. However, I have yet to hear of this in a court of law.

 

[sharpenu]

Devjr:

The Coast Guard is an agency of the US Government. They have enforcement powers. NAUI, PADI and all of the rest are private companies and have no power to enforce their rulings. Under your reasoning of "protecting" people from themselves because we have a form of socialized medicine would also have us outlaw booze, fast food, red meat, getting a tan, driving a car and living in any large city or the entire state of New Jersey.

 

[sunfish]

So this kind of brings us back to the question I was asking about dive shops being required to have seizure-resistant (can't say seizure-proof, 'cause, as the toothdoc said, theoretically someone in a disoriented post-ictal state could just take off the full-face mask and all bets would be off...) equipment, and also the financial issue devjr pointed out. IF such a discrimination law suit were filed, and if the courts ruled in favor of the seizure disorder patients wanting to dive. just exactly WHO would become responsible for their training?

Before I say anything more, I want to make perfectly clear that I have nothing against wingflyer himself diving, although I would not feel comfortable being his buddy, because I am not familiar with his equipment and I am just a newbie diver who can barely take care of herself and still always dives with a DM at the very least. Nothing personal, and I am hoping he understands why I say this. Also, I'm not a neurologist, but I have read a bit on the subject.

As the toothdoc mentioned, I've read there are a lot of situations that can trigger a seizure, all of which vary with the particular patient in question. For example, some women have changes in the frequency of their seizures according to the phase of their menstrual cycle! That's why I think it is pretty safe to say that there probably are people with seizure disorder whose seizures are triggered by something associated with diving. wingflyer is probably not one of these people, sharpenu's dive buddy is probably not one of these people, but it seems reasonable to say that somewhere in this world, there are people like that. OK, I haven't said anything THAT far-fetched yet, have I?

Let's say for purposes of discussion, the cert agencies became required to accept patients with seizure disorder to their training courses, with the potential to be certified (duh). Would this mean every single dive shop on the face of the planet would be required to have instructors familiar with seizure disorder and the seizure-resistant equipment, and also to own and maintain the equipment so that it would be available for anyone who would need to use it during the cert course and beyond, regardless of how small the shop was? wingflyer said that the equipment was pretty darned expensive. What if the shop were so small, they couldn't afford to own and maintain that kind of equpment, and also that kind of training for their instructors? Or would the individual shops still have the right to refuse to train someone based on someone's being diagnosed with seizure disorder, and instead would there be certain "seizure disorder friendly" shops designated by the respective agencies, that would have appropriately trained instructors and also the right equipment?

 

[sharpenu]

You misunderstand me. I don't think that anyone should be REQUIRED to do anything. I just am saying that the agency shouldn't restrict the diver. Diving is (somewhat) dangerous and I think that people need to learn to accept that and stop trying to protect people from themselves.

 

[Laurence Stein DDS]

Actually, the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) is kind of a strange bird. It provides certain protections to the disabled but these protections are not necessarily to provide exteraneous equipment to make their lives easier. At my office,
I lease space. I am not the landlord. If the landlord were to install ramps (this is a one level building, then I would be required to install wheelchair access in my leased office space. My doors would have to meet design specs. for wheelchair access. I do not, however, have to provide wheelchairs.

I don't believe that a certifying agency or dive shop is required to provide equipment for the disabled to undergo training.
The burden would be for the disabled to provide the necessary equipment to make their training possible.

There is certain equipment that I may install which qualifies for a deduction based on ADA wording. However, I do not have to install that equipment if I choose not to. I do not have to supply TTY phones or special audio visual devices to help me communicate with the disabled.

The specialized, expensive equipment is not a required purchase by dive instructors , dive shops, or in some way provided by dive organizations.

On the otherhand, I am required to make some adjustments for staff if disabled. Since it is not my building, an exterior ramp would not be required for me to install.

Getting away from the ADA issue. No one may sign away their liability. If someone comes to my office and want me to perform a treatment which I know to be wrong or inadequate but the patient insists that is what they want, I cannot absolve myself of that responsiblity to the patient by having them sign a release form that states, in effect, that I am not
not responsible.

This is one of the draw backs that block diving agencies from allowing anyone, cart blanc to take the training courses they wish to take. If it is medically unsound then the only choice the agency has is to withold training. It is NOT against the law to withold training. It would be against the law to provide training without the proper equipment needed to adequately train an individual. This is true whether it is "Joe Average" diver or an ADA diver.

I'm NOT a lawyer so the specifics escape even me. Perhaps someone in these forums is familiar with these laws.

Larry Stein

 

[Laurence Stein DDS]

Thought everyone might want to see a brief overview of the ADA.
Enclosed is the web link.

http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/kinder/overview.htm

The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Brief Overview
[Home | Documents | Links | Kinder ]

Disclaimer; This is a brief overview which cannot possibly set forth everything about the ADA and which, for purposes of brevity or as part of an effort to state legal concepts simply and in plain English, may describe the law in a manner which is not necessarily precise and/or accurate in every respect.

Signed into law on July 26 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a wide-ranging legislation intended to make American Society more accessible to people with disabilities.

It is divided into five titles:

Employment (Title I) Business must provide reasonable accommodations to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. Possible changes may include restructuring jobs, altering the layout of workstations, or modifying equipment. Employment aspects may include the application process, hiring, wages, benefits, and all other aspects of employment. Medical examinations are highly regulated.
Public Services (Title II) Public services, which include state and local government instrumentalities, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. In addition, public transportation systems, such as public transit buses, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Public Accommodations (Title III) All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as privately owned transportation systems.
Telecommunications (Title IV) Telecommunications companies offering telephone service to the general public must have telephone relay service to individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs) or similar devices.
Miscellaneous (Title V) Includes a provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.
The ADA's protection applies primarily, but not exclusively, to "disabled" individuals. An individual is "disabled" if he or she meets at least any one of the following tests:

He or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his/her major life activities;
He or she has a record of such an impairment
He or she is regarded as having such an impairment.
Other individuals who are protected in certain circumstances include 1) those, such as parents, who have an association with an individual known to have a disability, and 2) those who are coerced or subjected to retaliation for assisting people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.

While the employment provisions of the ADA apply to employers of fifteen employees or more, its public accommodations provisions apply to all sizes of business, regardless of number of employees. State and local governments are covered regardless of size.

Dive training seems to fall outside of the specific titles--the disclaimer not withstanding.

Larry Stein

 

[devilfish]

My, my, arn't we getting a bit hot under the collar. Please read.
We, divers and instructors sometimes get lost in the role of a mother, protector, expert, parent, etc., and voice your opinions why some one is permitted to dive or not. Yet, those with conditions contraindicative to diving are willing to take risks and persist. It is their choice if to take the risk. Of course the concern is if they get in trouble often another diver is in jeopardy. If they want to risk another, well, that is also their choice.
However, everybody has a choice, including me. I do have some idea what are the risks of conitions, but that's not the point. The point is if a diver dies, the lawers for the plaintif are ruthless and I will protect myself by not certifying them. Let's not get too lost in playing a parent, we also have a responsibility to protect ourselves and our families from lawsuits. They want to dive, fine, but I don't want to loose my house because they want to play. Diving is a wonderful sport and activity, just like space travel, but contrary to common belief diving is not for everybody.

 

[wingflyer152]

Stein,
Is that the "official" words from the ADA or YOUR biased summary of it? Also, for the record I think that a dive shop should not have to carry special dive equipment for epileptics, though if diving was publicly opened to epileptics, renting such equipment would probably be profitable. Diving is an expensive sport, and with a disability, that much more expensive.

Wingflyer