Medical form for dive op?

[PirateFoxy]

A lot, but the way the issue is phrased is a big issue. One might rather ask how many think it's okay to withhold information from businesses who would use it to discriminate against them, or impose onerous requirements, on the basis of what the diver considers minor things, based on liability management (that a 'no' checked form helps with)?

A common accusation from past threads on the subject has been that such divers are selfish, jeopardizing dive guides who might need to enact in-water rescues in the event of a crisis, boat staff who might be psychologically traumatized, other divers whose trip might be cut short, etc... There's truth to that...but we put others in some danger when we drive a car on public roads. By choosing to dive, the diver 'votes' he considers the risk low.

Thanks for the post. For others interested, I think the key points are found under the Discussion section, particularly this (bold emphasis mine):

"Our analysis showed higher rates of myocarditis than reported by the CDC through the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). As of a 7 June 2022, presentation, VAERS documented 4.64 cases per 100,000 doses for those aged 12–15 and 7.59 cases per 100,000 doses for those aged 16–17 after dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine.11 However, data from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) aligns better with our report. Vaccine Safety Datalink reports 15.3 cases per 100,000 doses for those aged 12–15 and 13.9 cases per 100,000 doses for those aged 16–17 after dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine.11 Notably, Sharff et al found that VSD undercounts cases of myocarditis. Her analysis using encounter text description keyword searching identified five additional cases of myocarditis that were missed using VSD methodology.9

Furthermore, we found that for both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the risk of myocarditis is orders of magnitude greater after the second dose compared to the first dose, especially for age groups under 25. There are five studies reporting an incidence greater than 10 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in men aged 12–19 after dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine. The risk of myocarditis across those five studies ranges from 1/2562 to 1/9442 persons. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was approved later than Pfizer's; thus, there are less data on the incidence of myocarditis. However, we found that men aged <40 who receive the second dose are at highest risk.

To contextualise the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, it is helpful to compare the risk to the incidence of myocarditis after influenza vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Myocarditis is typically not associated with influenza vaccination; thus, there are few, if any reports describing the incidence. On the contrary, myocarditis is a known cardiovascular sequala of COVID-19.13 The CDC estimated that among men 12–17 and 18–29, the incidence of myocarditis and myocarditis or pericarditis was 50.1–64.9 and 55.3–100.6 cases per 100,000, respectively.13 The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, Patone et al showed that the number of excess myocarditis events after SARS-CoV-2 infection was at least four times larger than after either dose 1 or 2 of the AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna vaccine among people of all ages.14 However, when Patone's analysis was limited to those under 40, the number of excess myocarditis events after dose 2 of the Moderna vaccine outnumbered those having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection.14 Furthermore, calculating the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination is relatively precise given that the two inputs, cases of myocarditis and vaccine doses administered, are known. The calculation for estimating the incidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection is more challenging to obtain because the total number of people who have had an infection is likely unknown and unattainable. Studies typically rely on documented infections, which likely suffers the flaw of undercounting the total number of infections because not everyone with the infection has a documented positive test. Thus, the incidence may be inflated and inaccurate. Using seroprevalence data as opposed to documented infections would better capture the total number of infections in a given population, and would more accurately estimate myocarditis post infection."

Very interesting. It's worth adding that myocarditis appears to remain a low absolute risk even in that age group, and COVID-19 poses a range of serious risks in addition to myocarditis.

P.S.: I know the COVID-19 vaccine debate is a bit off topic, but it's very important and impacts most of us, potentially in a big way. I don't want to turn this into a multi-page battle for the last word, just point out the issue bears a look.

Most VAERS data is pretty much junk, so anything using it is highly questionable at best.

 

[drrich2]

You probably should not keep saying this, since it relevant to the OLD form and not the NEW form.

Thanks. Is this PADI Diver Medical Participant Questionnaire the new form?

 

[tursiops]

Thanks. Is this PADI Diver Medical Participant Questionnaire the new form?

Yes, but it is not actually a PADI form; they have just reprinted it with their part number on it.
The fundamental citation is https://www.uhms.org/images/Recreat...Questionnaire_10346_EN_English_2022-02-01.pdf. The key is the date 2022-02-01 in the lower-left corner; the version before this one had Covid questions.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Not sure if I am providing the same form you folks are talking about......or even if I know how to attach it... but I am currently in process of taking the SDI Solo Course......which interestingly enough I am taking from TDI. Just finished and passed all of the academics and will be doing the OW work in Bonaire on a 10 day trip at the end of April.....

If this form had been sprung on me as I was boarding a LOB half way across the world I would be totally pissed off..... Unless I happened to have my doctor with me I would have no other choice but to be "less than truthful" on question No. 10 if I wanted to dive. I take a statin for cholesterol and it keeps my numbers tip top.

I am OK with that decision to say "no" on that question because I honestly feel that I am in no way infringing on anyone else's rights.

I also like the earlier post that basically says something like........ "why shouldn't we as divers and customers have the option of requiring the captain and DM's of the LOB to provide us with a medical form and clearance from his or her doctor stating that are medically cleared to perform DM duties and operate the boat" !!

 

[tursiops]

Not sure if I am providing the same form you folks are talking about......or even if I know how to attach it... but I am currently in process of taking the SDI Solo Course......which interestingly enough I am taking from TDI. Just finished and passed all of the academics and will be doing the OW work in Bonaire on a 10 day trip at the end of April.....

If this form had been sprung on me as I was boarding a LOB half way across the world I would be totally pissed off..... Unless I happened to have my doctor with me I would have no other choice but to be "less than truthful" on question No. 10 if I wanted to dive. I take a statin for cholesterol and it keeps my numbers tip top.

I am OK with that decision to say "no" on that question because I honestly feel that I am in no way infringing on anyone else's rights.

I also like the earlier post that basically says something like........ "why shouldn't we as divers and customers have the option of requiring the captain and DM's of the LOB to provide us with a medical form and clearance from his or her doctor stating that are medically cleared to perform DM duties and operate the boat" !!

Yes, that is the current UHMS/RSTC/DAN form.
What about question #2; are you over 45? Then Box B asks about high cholesterol...and you take statins...

 

[PirateFoxy]

I am OK with that decision to say "no" on that question because I honestly feel that I am in no way infringing on anyone else's rights.

I also like the earlier post that basically says something like........ "why shouldn't we as divers and customers have the option of requiring the captain and DM's of the LOB to provide us with a medical form and clearance from his or her doctor stating that are medically cleared to perform DM duties and operate the boat" !!

You may not be infringing on someone's rights as such, but you are potentially harming other people - someone being severely injured or dying in front of you is not a harmless event. Imo that potential harm should be considered when assessing if it's acceptable to lie on the form.

Also, who says you can't require captains and DM's of LOBs to fill out your medical form? You're certainly welcome to supply one and decide which group to go with based on who is willing to fill it out.

 

[drrich2]

Really? I'm nothing near 50 and I've had an annual physical for ages.

A lot of young adults in the U.S. don't regularly see a physician. Whether their insurance covers it or not. Through most of my adult life, I didn't, until I got to an age where I needed occasional lab work, screening studies, etc...

You may not be infringing on someone's rights as such, but you are potentially harming other people - someone being severely injured or dying in front of you is not a harmless event. Imo that potential harm should be considered when assessing if it's acceptable to lie on the form.

The example he based that off of was one not expected to create substantial risk to others of what you describe; it'd just make him go get a form done.

Now if the example were a poorly controlled diabetic running blood sugars in the 300's lately, that'd be another story. Hence the shades of gray.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Yes, that is the current UHMS/RSTC/DAN form.
What about question #2; are you over 45? Then Box B asks about high cholesterol...and you take statins...

Yes..... but since I take the statins, the result is that I do not have a high cholesterol level.

I also enjoy a good cigar while on the golf course......while walking 4-5 miles. And even though I may have had some general back pain or diarrhea in the past year.......... who hasn't!!!!

Now that I think more about all of this........ my general take on all of this is "you operators do what you think is necessary for you and I'll do what I think is necessary for me.... and then we'll see ya in the next life"...

You may not be infringing on someone's rights as such, but you are potentially harming other people - someone being severely injured or dying in front of you is not a harmless event. Imo that potential harm should be considered when assessing if it's acceptable to lie on the form.

Also, who says you can't require captains and DM's of LOBs to fill out your medical form? You're certainly welcome to supply one and decide which group to go with based on who is willing to fill it out.

 

[Tracy]

I also like the earlier post that basically says something like........ "why shouldn't we as divers and customers have the option of requiring the captain and DM's of the LOB to provide us with a medical form and clearance from his or her doctor stating that are medically cleared to perform DM duties and operate the boat" !!

You already have that. Your captain must show their credentials if asked. If they have the book, they are up date on a VERY full medical workup. Just ask if you really care that much.

 

[scubadada]

You already have that. Your captain must show their credentials if asked. If they have the book, they are up date on a VERY full medical workup. Just ask if you really care that much.

I dived on a boat out of Lantana and then Boynton Beach, FL for many years that was owned and captained by a very nice man. Unfortunately, he suffered from a cardiac arrhythmia and required an implanted defibrillator. He was no longer able to captain. He limped along for a while with a hired captain but threw in the towel, sold the boat and moved on to another life. It was very sad.