Smoking does not automatically fail if the diver can pass the fitness/breathing test. But the consequences/smoking related diseases could lead to a failure. In the UK it is illegal to smoke in a place of work. . . . That means not being so unfit as to just drop dead in the water and being able to provide aid to another diver in the case of need. There also rules which almost completely preclude the one man band instructor by requiring a safety diver. There are literally thousands of people still walking about the place who would be dead without the improvements in work place safety brought about by the HSE.
Ken, Thanks for the info. And, I fully understand the focus - preventing death and injury in the workplace. And I am not trying to be critical of HSE in any way. In the US, OSHA has also produced dramatic improvements in
workplace safety. However, I reasonably suspect that in the case of both organizations, the vast majority of improvements - in the workplace - have been in accident prevention, not 'healthy lifestyle' promotion.
What concerns me in matters like this (again, not singling out HSE) is a somewhat inconsistent application of 'standards' which, although well-intentioned, are not substantiated by actual data. Using the BMI, for example: it sounded, from your earlier comments, that a BMI above a certain value would produce an automatic fail and denial of a work permit, with no further functional testing available to allow a permit to be issued. The instructor would have to lose weight, or else. Whereas, a history of smoking could lead to further functional testing, which might allow a permit to be issued? Clinically, the point could be made that the adverse health effects of smoking are far greater, more pervasive and insidious, crossing multiple organ systems, than obesity.
kensuf:
t is not the ability to perform the functional aspects of the job that matters to the HSE, it is avoiding death and injury which matters.
And, the fact that the 'ability to perform the functional aspects' somehow is not the primary concern of HSE (and similar organizations) that is the crux of the issue. I will assert, without fear of contradiction, that there are simply
no data whatsoever, that justify the use of an anthropometric measurement (like BMI) as a criterion for approving a work permit for scuba instructors. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There might be some general, intuitive, subjective sense that a scuba instructor who is fat and out of shape is a 'heart attack waiting to happen'. [PLEASE, anyone reading this whose BMI is, shall we say, ' generous' - do not take offense. I am simply making a point about the errancy of regulation.]
Personally, I am an antagonist of cigarette smoking (and smoking is not permitted in the workplace in the US, either). I do not think scuba instructors should smoke - it sets a bad example, is unprofessional, etc., etc., etc. Personally, I think scuba instructors should be a role model and exhibit a reasonable level of personal fitness. Personally, I do not think scuba instructors should assume responsibility for the safety of others (students) if there is some reasonable possibility that they will not physically / mentally be able to respond properly in a crisis. And, personally, I am concerned that regulation of work, albeit well-intended, is increasingly - across continents - being established without a legitimate, objective basis. In health care delivery, we are increasingly focused - and forced to be focused, by government regulation - on improving delivery through data-driven practices. In that case, reimbursement is the stick that is being used. And, delivering care on the basis of actual data is a good thing. I think it is equally appropriate and necessary to hold government accountable for data-driven regulation.
