Absolutely. And you can also just rock up on a boat and go diving without qualifications (in some locations).
Lets face it, if you're not up to it then it's only you who is to blame.
Medical form for dive op?
- Thread starter brsnow
- Start date
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
Lets face it, if you're not up to it then it's only you who is to blame.
In another thread, the focus is on the skyrocketing cost of dive insurance. A key participant is an attorney, David Concannon, who specializes in cases involving scuba. I am going to summarize a couple of I took away from it because they apply to this thread.
- The biggest category of dive fatalities involve medical issues.
- In a large portion of those cases when medical forms have been signed, the divers lied on them, hiding known conditions that became part of the problem causing the fatality.
- Whatever medical condition may have caused the fatality, the cause of death is usually listed as drowning.
- When drowning is listed as the cause of death, the family of the deceased assumes that it is like a drowning with surface swimming, and they assume something could and should have been done to prevent it. That leads to a lawsuit against whoever or whatever should have acted to prevent the death that was actually caused by a medical condition that the diver lied about on the medical form.
- From what I read, I would expect requirements for medical forms to increase, because if a customer dies while diving and a medical issue was involved, the fact that the customer lied on the medical form will not help them in their lawsuit.
C'mon, there must be VERY few places where a boat will take a diver on without the diver having to show a cert card. Certainly none of the locations that attract the kind of divers the major training agencies target with images of easy diving in tropical paradise. Diving has been pitched to the masses as something that anyone can do, and for decades loads of "anyones" have been taking them up on the offer--there are likely many more divers whose skills and physical health are a bit lacking than people in other somewhat demanding sports (I noticed you didn't include skydiving on your list). Is it surprising that the dive industry asks for some modicum of evidence of training (and in some cases, health)?
I can honestly say that I have never been asked to see my cert cards in the UK outside of doing a course. The boat drivers are basically taxi drivers; up to the diver to be competent.
Having said that, you sometimes need to "sign in" with your name, address, phone and dive qualifications but these aren't checked.
Having said that, you sometimes need to "sign in" with your name, address, phone and dive qualifications but these aren't checked.
drrich2
Contributor
A big question is whether having accurately filled out forms with a physician or APRN sign off clearance to dive on file would've made any difference. The diver still went diving and died.
One might argue some of the divers might've been barred from diving, but I question what % that would've been (I'm guessing a minority).
Let's take a closer look at those:
Does it do that? People who want to know about the added risks of well-controlled hypertension, asymptomatic coronary artery disease, well-controlled diabetes or hypercholesterolemia might do well to research that themselves, not just count on a random care giver at the local urgent care center filling out a medical clearance form, not knowledgable about diving.
How many people who get the clearances just present the form and take the result, vs. really getting into it, searching out and traveling to see a physician who dives, etc...?
People who don't do the clearance forms may well dig into these matters, and some are under professional health care.
Summary: a medical clearance form doesn't mean you informed yourself of the relevant issues, and the lack of one doesn't mean you didn't.
This is a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing. Every diver who boards a dive boat creates some risk for the staff, as you described. We don't see this risk objectively quantified and a rationale for difference made on the basis of risk to staff and self, other than 'Big Brother said so,' where Big Brother is the insurance company (maybe government in some places).
People with minor conditions well-controlled with treatment (e.g.: you had a high cholesterol reading a decade ago and it's been well-controlled on a statin since then), who would only have to get the medical clearance done as a formality, aren't doing much to protect anybody. They jump through the bureaucratic hoops and go diving, and if they die, the negative effects you described happen anyway.
So let's say 2 pairs of dive buddies get on a boat. Bill and Ted are recent OW course graduates, young, overweight to moderately obese, no outstanding health issues, but pretty 'green' as divers. Jack and Joe are seasoned divers both 50; Jack had a few high cholesterol readings a decade ago, now well-controlled with diet and a statin, and Joe had mild hypertension, is on one med. that controls it well, and both men have read up on their conditions and treatment in the context of diving, and are monitored by their caregivers.
It's not clear Jack and Joe are at radically higher risk for serious problems or death on the trip that put the boat staff and others at risk for trauma. Bill and Ted may be at higher risk due to inexperience. No one shows us statistical odds of death rates, compares them and explains why one requires clearance and another doesn't...except...Big Brother said so.
I don't think most people checking all 'yes' on medical forms would be barred from diving if they didn't. Most of them could get a care giver to sign off, probably the first they asked.
So it's not clear protecting the boat staff from trauma is what's driving this issue.
You are comparing private activities to those that require outside sources. If you buy the kit, buy a compressor and go diving in public areas, there are no laws requiring certification. It isn't until you step on the boat or try to buy the air from a private source that anything becomes required.
You are moving the goal posts...from pros/cons of signing to the drivers. But, let's go there: the med form is to lessen injuries/deaths.....any consequences of that are are also good. Are there bad consequences?
I assume you feel that OW certification is a good idea? Why? It didn't used to be necessary, why is it now? Do you think there might be more deaths if there were no certification rules?
FishWatcher747
Contributor
It is interesting VAERS data is now being given validity by pro experimental mRNA gene therapy researchers when it was previously universally dismissed.
Keep in mind there is a general consensus when evaluating VAERS data dating back decades that for every VAERS case reported, 40 cases go unreported.
drrich2
Contributor
I suppose given the different players (e.g.: divers, dive op.s, dive insurers) with different goals, there are a range of goal posts to pick from! There are some 'bad,' though I doubt critics will find them compelling.
1.) The medical form is also a liability management tool. Has anyone shown that in 2 comparison groups, one with forms and one without, showed different fatality rates, and explained why one rate was acceptable and the other was not? If we look at the medical form requirement like a medication for a condition, has anyone shown how much it lessens injuries/deaths, or is that just assumed?
2.) Inconvenience, difficulty scheduling, time and financial cost. There's a cost to the diver to get this done.
3.) Perceived return on investment. Some divers are in such a condition I'd agree with you, they ought to get checked out. The people I think of in these debates have minor conditions where it's more of a technicality to check off. Some divers (such as those who've gotten these things done in the past, and there's been no change in their condition) see no credible expectation of medical benefit to themselves, only a bureaucratic hoop to jump through (and pay for).
I'm not arguing for the person with 2 heart attacks and a triple bypass not to get checked out.
Good comparator. Yes, I think the certification system is a good idea. That's because scuba entails a range of serious risks which someone with no dive experience can't reasonably be expected to know and understand, so the capacity for an informed decision is lacking. Even people who've gotten an OW cert. often have a very rudimentary grasp of some of the risks. Without the certification system I think there'd be more deaths, reminiscent of the Accidents & Incidents threads where people discuss uncertified cave diver deaths.
I don't see the issue as all-or-nothing, though I clearly lean toward individual autonomy. I believe people with health conditions ought to consider their fitness to dive, and seek what resources are needed to achieve informed consent, which may include consultation with their health care providers.
P.S.: You asked why is certification necessary now? I think it's 2-fold - liability management by service providers related to scuba becoming big enough to get Big Brother's attention.
When I was a kid in rural Arkansas, I did a range of things no safety management committee would've signed off on (I'm talking roaming the woods alone, whipping around the roads on an ATV, climbing trees alone, etc...not drugs or alcohol). The modern culture of regulatory agencies dictating what we can and can't do seems more intrusive than what I grew up with. I'm much more risk conservative now, but still value autonomy in decision making.
Similar threads
