But the fact is that knowingly putting false information on a form is lying.
Yes, and that's the one thing in all this that bothers me a great deal, the thing I struggle with most. I prefer forthright, plain-spoken dealings, and this isn't. The problem comes in real world situations where you run into problems with forthright, plain-spoken dealings. I usually try to steer away from that angle in these discussions, but maybe I should deal with it. Here goes.
Moral question: is lying ever justified? There are religious and secular viewpoints. Some would immediately conclude it's absolutely condemned, religiously and ethically. Let's explore this.
1.) What about spies? In the course of their duties, the spies we associate with the CIA, undercover cops infiltrating criminal organizations and similar presumably lie.
2.) What about lying in the service of a perceived greater good? Such as people lying in the context of hiding Jews from the Nazis?
3.) What about self-defense from a serious threat? I'm loathe to bring the Bible into this, because clearly God is no fan of lying, but David feigning madness to Achish king of Gath (1 Samuel 21:10-15) may be an example. For a Christian perspective on the thorny topic of 'the ethics of lying,' here's a page - Considering David's Deceit --
The Ethics of Lying. From that article:
"Part of it depends on how you define lying.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "lie" as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics is more nuanced. It defines lying as
"the intention to deceive when we are bound to speak or do the truth."
[340]
This second definition makes a distinction related to the circumstances of the lie -- "when we are bound to speak or do the truth.""
It's often thought the dive operator demands the form because they're required to, and if the diver is not in bad condition, then either a doctor's signed off form or an all-no's-checked from is fine. They know the latter are often false. Is anyone being deceived? The diver isn't trying to fool people, just give them plausible deniability to let him dive. This raises the question 'Is it functionally lying (e.g.: practicing deceit)?' Maybe so.
Some of you may be ticked that I'd allude to a desire for a fun dive to be on par on with sheltering Jews from death camps or busting heroin distribution rings. No. I'm citing extreme examples to establish the point that maybe sometimes lying is justified.
I'm not saying it is or isn't, just posing the question, because you answer for yourself, as we all do. I'll proceed on the assumption answered 'yes.' When weighing competing interests as we have here, between the insurance companies and dive operators on one side and divers on the other, if the diver is to be vindicated somehow, we must then look at his/her motives/issues. What 'good' is being served?
Is confidentiality of personal health information considered an individual right, and protected under various laws or regulations? Yeah. Even before HIPAA.
I extrapolate from that a right to keep your info. hidden. That right has limits, but what are they? Dive op.s and insurance companies have the right to ask for voluntary disclosure of that info.
But what happens when every op. offering a given service in an industry demands the same disclosure as a condition of service? It's not like if McDonalds starts demanding physician clearance for Big Macs and you switch to Burger King and start eating Whoppers. You check off those boxes or you are shut out of that service industry.
Some will say you should see the care giver (I've covered how that's costly) and get the clearance, just as a matter of honesty. That's one argument I can't clearly refute. Many divers who check all no's falsely have minor issues and could get the forms done, but that's doing nothing for diver safety in many cases, just checking a bureaucratic box and creating potential liability on the caregiver. The difference to the dive op. vs. a false 'all no's' form isn't clear; if anything, in the aftermath of a death, might the plaintiff claim you knew though cleared he had issues so you should've been watching him closer, or refused to let him dive anyway, or required a more elaborate waiver for informed consent?
The assumption the form serves the dive op. better than the all no's form does isn't compelling to me.
Does the aggregate good of individual autonomy, liberty and confidentiality justify filling in all no's on a clearance form to spare yourself the bother/time/expense (maybe every year) of getting a care giver unfamiliar with diving to check off you can go...rise to the level of justifying that act?
Everyone answers for him/herself.
There is a separate issue that falls under this, judged on a more case-by-case basis. While most people technically required to get the clearance could, some could not (at least with their first provider). They fall along a continuum.
1.) Care provider is wise to the liability shifting game and unwilling to sign the clearance, even though the risk looks quite low. It's also possible the provider is one of those 'abundance of caution' types who's just very risk averse/idealistic.
2.) Diver does have issues and is probably okay to dive, there's some room for dissent, but the care giver is, again, one of those more risk avoidant types.
3.) Diver has substantial but not severe risk, and some of us in his position would have to mull over whether we would choose to dive, but would ultimately choose to do so. Business entities will be more risk averse. Here, if the diver discloses his condition, he is refused service, forced to let an outside entity impose on his liberty.
4.) Diver was high risk and none of us would want him on our dive boat. We'd hope he'd choose not to dive.
