Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[Scuba_Jenny]

YOu have a right to kill yourself. That is the risk you take everyday.. when you go outside and run that stop sign, make a hasty decision, try to beat the train, drink, eat dinner.. anything. Anything you do is a risk, and will impact a lot of people. Do you consider all the risks and outcomes before doing something?
Me? I prefer to live life to the fullest and when my time comes, I am gone. It was there time to go. Nobody knows if they were narc'd outa their brains, or some type of emergency happened and all their well thought out plans got tossed to the wind. Nobody knows. However, they took a risk and for whatever reason, and they are now gone. From the sketchy details that have been posted, it sounds like they were trained, and knew what they were doing.

 

[Thalassamania]

Unfortunately, if it gets tested, we're further on our way toward a "nanny state", aren't we?

Loosely defined, that would be where one is held responsible for the independent actions of others, thereby making it prudent to limit those independent actions and "take care" of others "for their own good".

Erosion of freedom is insidious, but one can hear it, if one listens carefully...

Sounds like this:

"they allowed them to...."

"there ought to be a law...."

"if we can save just one life...."

"they claimed they were only a taxi to the dive site...."

"they should have stopped them from doing that dive...."

"the wreck should be closed to diving...."

There's a simple alternative: expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, rather than entitled to protection from themselves.

Dave C

If it is tested I hope that the concept of "you pays your money and takes your chances" wins out. But I suspect that it will be tested.

 

[dave4868]

We have discussed obligations of the charter boats to the divers, but what about divers to the charter boats? Is it fair to them to embark on something extreme without their knowledge? This particular dive sounds like a techical dive, but another poster said that charters like scuba-do don't take out techical divers? Something doesn't make sense in that regard. The boat has a right to know what a diver is up to, if it exceeds the scope of the chartered trip.

It's very helpful to read Scuba-do's release form:

http://www.scuba-do.com/forms/divingrelease.pdf

You will see that the diver, when he signs the form, affirms specific limits to his diving.

Release forms such as these are why charter companies are still willing to take divers out.

Bizarre "nanny state" legal judgments increase the charter companies' risks, and there may come a time when their legal risk or liability insurance costs will force them out of business.

Can you say.... "tort reform"?

It's so much better to have individuals take responsibility for themselves.

Otherwise, where does it end? How far will this pre-socialism conditioning go? I wonder if such major, self-serving trends can be reversed.

That's not so far-fetched in this age of victimhood, as "righteous rage" and the need to have a "mission" is so tempting to so many. It feels so good!

It's really the infantalization of a nation. A tantrum culture, always on the verge of exploding in a "rage against the machine", in defiance and rejection of reality.

There, I've said it. No offense intended to anyone.

It's just another way of looking at "obligation" and "responsibility".

Dave C

 

[Boatlawyer]

First, God bless those who died and my prayers go to their families.

Regarding a "do not rescue or recover waiver," I hope you're kidding.

I think such a waiver would be characteristic of a culture that is, perhaps, more complex than primitive savagery but certainly less sophisticated than an advanced civilization.

Why do you say that? We are a culture of alleged self-determination. This thread is replete with assertions of personal autonomy. Living Wills and the accompanying "Do Not Resusitate" orders abound. There is almost universal support for the "Right to Die."

Is it so unreasonable to ask those who would place others in harm's way to deal with the aftermath of their own freewheeling choices, to step up to the plate and address those dangers?

If one disagrees with nanny-state regulations, then isn't it fair to ask those same people to take full responsibility for their independent decisions?

 

[Boatlawyer]

It's very helpful to read Scuba-do's release form:

http://www.scuba-do.com/forms/divingrelease.pdf

You will see that the diver, when he signs the form, affirms specific limits to his diving.

Release forms such as these are why charter companies are still willing to take divers out.

Bizarre "nanny state" legal judgments increase the charter companies' risks, and there may come a time when their legal risk or liability insurance costs will force them out of business.

Can you say.... "tort reform"?

It's so much better to have individuals take responsibility for themselves.

Otherwise, where does it end? How far will this pre-socialism conditioning go? I wonder if such major, self-serving trends can be reversed.

That's not so far-fetched in this age of victimhood, as "righteous rage" and the need to have a "mission" is so tempting to so many. It feels so good!

It's really the infantalization of a nation. A tantrum culture, always on the verge of exploding in a "rage against the machine" rejection of reality.

There, I've said it. No offense intended to anyone.

It's just another way of looking at this idea of "obligation" and "responsibility".

Dave C

I wholeheartedly agree and would take it a step further. Isn't it just another form of "victimization" to expect people to rescue you when you've made poor choices or exceeded your limits? (disclaimer: this is not a judgment of the accident in question, because those facts aren't in yet).

 

[djanni]

Why do you say that? We are a culture of alleged self-determination. This thread is replete with assertions of personal autonomy. Living Wills and the accompanying "Do Not Resusitate" orders abound. There is almost universal support for the "Right to Die."

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about "Right to Die." But nothing you said above has anything to do with trying to rescue or recover those divers.

Is it so unreasonable to ask those who would place others in harm's way to deal with the aftermath of their own freewheeling choices, to step up to the plate and address those dangers?

I believe people have the right put themselves in harms way.

If one disagrees with nanny-state regulations, then isn't it fair to ask those same people to take full responsibility for their independent decisions?

I believe people are fully responsibile for their actions. I also believe that rescue and/or recovery attempts should be made.

Again it's barbaric to think people would just walk away without knowing for sure if they're dead or knowing exactly how difficult it would be to rescue or recover them.

You suggested a waiver that in essence says; If I'm not back on time it is okay to forget about me. You sure that's what you intended?

If you boarded a rocket ship to the moon that ran out of fuel at 50,000 feet and crashed on top of Mount Everest I probably would not support efforts to search for your body parts. On the other hand, if the ship made it to the moon, communications were lost and it's return is over due I would support efforts to rescue or recover your body.

 

[J.R.]

Is it so unreasonable to ask those who would place others in harm's way to deal with the aftermath of their own freewheeling choices, to step up to the plate and address those dangers?

Well... bottom line... we and only we place ourselves "in harms way"... inherently by being the final "go/no go" authority. Last I heard, while there may be lots of pressures to do things one way or another... they still haven't passed a law which forbids us to NOT do something that we might deem dangerous. If we elect to follow the crowd, abdicate our personal accountability/responsibility, put blind and unvalidated faith in what we hear... we shall, accordingly, reap the consequences.

Wisdom is never perfect... at best it is thoretical knowledge that has been pounded on by the hammer of reality over the anvil of experience... and everybody's is different. What works for me in my reality might not suit you at all... no "right or wrong" here... just the way it is. To assume that I can ever 'make the call' for somebody else or that anybody can ever 'make the call' for me is a joke.

In the final analysis, the law suit issue does nothing to prevent accidents or death... it is simply a mechanism for the surviviors to, justly or unjustly, fulfill that inherent human desire to "hit back"... but I really can't think of how a lawsuit is going to stop somebody who's life motto is "Hey fellas'... watch this." from fulfilling their destiny... one way or the other. The world is full of laws... it doesn't and never has stopped the determined.

The only way I know of to make something completely safe is make it cease to exist enitrely... so... who here want's diving to "go away"?

... as an interesting aside... there are many who pontificat on ScubaBoard... bottom line... I don't *know* the qualifications of any of you. Yet "advise" is handed out willi-nilli... anybody thought of the "ramifications" of that? :no Yea... SOMEBODY out there is listening... and, perhaps, acting on what they choose to believe based on how its presented... maybe they validate it... maybe not.

... just a thought...

I'd also note that those who do "Search and Rescue" do it for a variety of reasons... but each chooses to do it... I find it a stretch to assume that somebody who dies in an accident is putting somebody else at risk. Every step is a choice... every choice has consequences. Consequences lead to the next step... its really just that simple.

 

[dave4868]

I wholeheartedly agree and would take it a step further. Isn't it just another form of "victimization" to expect people to rescue you when you've made poor choices or exceeded your limits? (disclaimer: this is not a judgment of the accident in question, because those facts aren't in yet).

The risk-taker's expectation of rescue is certainly self-centered and inconsiderate, and causing a rescue may be irresponsible, but I don't think it victimizes the rescuers.

I'm not sure where your thoughts are on this, whether you were just being somewhat rhetorical.

As far as "victimization" of the rescuers, no, that's a stretch, since they signed on for the duty and they accepted the risks.

I get queasy when these ethical discussions begin to reach their tentacles into our many impacts on others or society. I worry that someone will rip that chunk of fat-marbled steak off my fork because I am driving up everyone's healthcare costs.

Thankfully, most people are still truly tolerant of others' activities, and are willing to tolerate some negative impact, just for the sake of freedom; to live and let live.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts, since, as a lawyer, you deal with ethical issues all the time.

Dave C

 

[String]

It doesn't matter who the dive op was. It's just a boat ride, the rest is up to the divers.

Terry

Sums up my views perfectly. Dive operators get you to/back from the site.
Dive conduct is the divers responsibility.

(where no instruction is taking place)

 

[Tollie]

I think "recovery" is more about us than it is about the one who has gone.

We recover our dead because of what we feel about the dignity of life and the apropriate response to its end no matter its means of comming.

By "us" I mean the relatives of the deceased and by his or her community.

I dont believe any individual can sign a "do not recover waver"... as it would be signing away something that is not theirs.

We do not have any "rights" to dispose of our remains in any way we chose.