i guess i'm thinking that in a case of severe injury or death, it is possible for a dive op to be held liable for an accident that wasn't their fault. they "transported a diver to a dive site without doing due diligence to ensure they're fit for the dive" or something like that.
The topic of dive shop medical questionnaires for dive trips (rather than dive courses), and the extent to which people deem it morally obligatory to fully disclose truthfully in accordance to the questions on some of the more intrusive ones, have long been contentious issues on ScubaBoard. It draws on quite a range of perspectives and values. I'll try to illustrate that. My comments are only regarding adults. This is long-winded, but these themes are worth explicit description.
1.) Customer informed consent. The belief participants in an activity ought to be informed of reasonably foreseeable substantial risks they might not reasonably be expected to know. If you are a diabetic with poor glycemic control and often hyperglycemic (high blood sugar), and during the dive your body expels more water than usual via induced urination, might that raise your blood sugar and impair your mental capacity? If you have an asthma attack at depth, you can't call for help and body can get you an inhaler; panic could get you killed.
While no dive operator can spoon feed you every conceivable risk, it's reasonable to point out diving presents special demands that can exacerbate medical risks.
I think we all agree with 1.).
2.) Dive Op. informed consent. The guide is likely dive master or instructor credentialed and trained to handle common and even some uncommon problems of dealing with a group of fairly healthy divers. He's not trained to monitor a 350-lbs hyperglycemic diabetic who started the dive with a glucose of 400 then peed a lot, and now on dive #2 might be a little stuporous...
Just how much right the guide, and the dive op., have to restrict services from/discriminate against (depending on your point of view) divers with various problems, and to what extent they're obligated to be 'reasonable' (whatever that is) in this, is controversial.
I think we'd all agree they have a legitimate interest. Some of us might not agree on case-by-case examples.
3.) Personal autonomy. When a risk exists, whose right is it to make the call whether you can dive or not? If you believe it's your moral right, you favor 3.). You might still discuss concerns with a physician, etc..., but at the end of the day, you will decide whether to dive or not.
Some of us, including me, favor 3.). In the current state of the dive tourist industry, the only way you can keep the decision yours rather than the dive op.'s, their insurance company or a physician (e.g.: medical release letter) is to maintain secrecy that you have a medical condition.
There's controversy here. Many of us would criticize that hypothetical diabetic for putting the guide and other divers at risk, but consider someone with mild to moderate hypertension well-controlled with medication to be fine.
4.) Paternalism. This is where insurance companies and fear of lawsuits come in, but there are other people who think like this. If a certified adult diver has a medical condition creating moderate risk, has opportunity to consult a physician or what-have-you, is of informed decisional capacity and wants to dive anyway, should a dive op. knowingly let him do it? Or is there a paternalistic 'duty of care' to refuse service?
To avoid the 'get the guide in trouble and cut everyone's trip short with your rude medical crisis' boat trip argument, let's say our guy is solo shore diving in Bonaire (or his buddy knows the situation and agrees).
I say 'no.' I might relent in the most glaring of cases (where the dive sounds like literal suicide), but strongly prefer letting adults be adults.
This is not unlike the discussions over efforts to close some Florida caves to diving to save people from themselves, after someone dives recklessly and dies in one. If the lives of consenting people who act fools (in others' judgment) is the price of freedom to enjoy recreational diving for others, is that okay?
This is contentious. The insurance companies, and fear of getting sued, are about risk mitigation for companies, not concern for the diver. A form with everything checked 'no' shields from them from being shown knowingly complicit in providing services to people at heightened risk. That's not absolute protection from lawsuits, but it's a nice thing to have!
5.) Gatekeepers. This is sort of the opposite of 3.) and another version of 4.). If you have a medical condition, and it's not of such nature and severity as to be a clear cut contraindication to diving (e.g.: not poorly controlled epilepsy), are you morally obligated to submit to the judgment of a medical professional as to whether you can dive (as opposed to just using his advice to inform your decision)?
Some people are 'rule followers' by disposition, and deferential to perceived authority figures. Some are more skeptical and need to be personally persuaded the imposition on their perceived rights is justified, and the exercise of authority is wise.
6.) Utility. Let's say you have a history of mild to moderate hypertension, well-controlled, and you've spoken with a physician before, maybe had a medical clearance before, nothing's changed and yet the dive op. policy is clearances are only good for a year. You know you can get another letter...and have to make an appointment, pay a co-pay, basically jump through hoops for an over-reaching bureaucratic demand rather than a legitimate health concern.
Do you feel bound to honor that?
7.) Perspective - old adage 'Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.' I'm a recreational diver. I have no professional credentials and don't train divers or conduct dives. Those who do may have their view influenced by perspectives I can only imagine.
They say those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. These medical questionnaire threads are a case study in that
. Experience teaches we won't all agree on this. I tried to be fairly objective covering the concerns.
