OWD license without a doctor's certificate?

[KenGordon]

And, if in the US this is about PADI transferring liability about, why do you put up with that and give them your business?

 

[kelemvor]

It's a lie-ability form. You're supposed to lie on it. When I got certified, I considered a couple shops. One was SSI, another was NAUI. At the time, I had no idea these were different agencies. I'd filled out the ssi medical form, and wasted the time and money to get my doc to sign it. When I turned it in to the naui instructor, he pointed out that it was for a different agency and he didn't need a form anyway.

What makes the situation even more stupid is when dive charters require such a form. Doubly stupid are the ones who require a recent in-country doctor evaluation in countries like Cozumel. Although I've never experienced the latter, I have seen operators in Coz post on SB that they have such a requirement. Those situations just beg for customers to check "no problem" on the form.

The whole situation adds no value to the individual diver. The value in a courtroom after a potential incident seems to be limited given the history of liability suits. I think they only serve to dissuade some families from seeking a lawyer after an accident.

 

[doctormike]

Maybe I'm missing something in 24 pages of the thread, but I read this as her asking if a doctors certificate was required for her husband to do OWD (in Japan) through PADI. She didn't say anything about checking boxes, and she has only posted twice (the OP and one clarification) on page 1.

As far as a transfer of liability, why is that such an awful thing for any company to do? I mean, every dive boat that I have ever been on does it. If you state to the training agency and to your instructor that you have condition that could potentially make diving unacceptably risky, should the instructor be responsible for assessing that risk? In a court of law, if a surviving relative claims that the instructor shouldn't have let the deceased dive, how would that instructor defend themselves?

 

[dmaziuk]

The PADI form includes the following verbiage:
“You must complete this Medical Statement, which includes the medical questionnaire section, to enroll in the scuba training program.”

Not requiring answers when doctor's signature is provided is the reasonable thing to do and if PADI tells its instructors to do it, more power to them. What boggles my mind is that after 50 pages of this a year, every year, people still don't get it that unless there is an official statement to that effect on PADI letterhead, with PADI date and PADI stamp, publicly available from PADI, only one of those two is an official requirement. The other is hearsay, something I read on the Internet (therefore it must be true).

 

[dmaziuk]

Maybe I'm missing something in 24 pages of the thread, but I read this as her asking if a doctors certificate was required for her husband to do OWD (in Japan) through PADI. She didn't say anything about checking boxes, and she has only posted twice (the OP and one clarification) on page 1.

Nitpick: she said she checked PADI handbook. That strongly implies but not guarantees that hubby was doing a PADI course.

As far as a transfer of liability, why is that such an awful thing for any company to do? I mean, every dive boat that I have ever been on does it.

That's perfectly fine and I've given the page 2 with doctor's signature to my instructors and liability waivers to every op I dived with. But unless you're a qualified physician acting in professional capacity, you have no right to ask for my medical history. Whether I care about privately disclosing it to anyone and everyone in the shop, on a boat, or on the Interwebs, is irrelevant.

 

[JackD342]

Not requiring answers when doctor's signature is provided is the reasonable thing to do and if PADI tells its instructors to do it, more power to them. What boggles my mind is that after 50 pages of this a year, every year, people still don't get it that unless there is an official statement to that effect on PADI letterhead, with PADI date and PADI stamp, publicly available from PADI, only one of those two is an official requirement. The other is hearsay, something I read on the Internet (therefore it must be true).

Yeah, you can bet I'll be following up on that this week.

My point to them will be if that is the case, where is it published in the documentation I rely on to apply the standards? And if not published, why not? I would like everyone PADI to be following the same guidelines. Better yet, if this actual expectation is different than published standards, what else can I ignore that is published? This isn't a "secret menu" at McDonalds or Taco Bell!

Or just maybe I will find out that no one inside will tell me that page is not required when there is an MD sign-off.

 

[dmaziuk]

Yeah, you can bet I'll be following up on that this week.

Tell them to tell WRSTC that you either have to

- refuse to train EU citizens (and possibly residents as well), or
- get your paperwork, document storage, and disclosure rules and procedures, examined and certified for GDPR compliance.

Either of which would drive the cost of doing business with a WRSTC-affiliated agency unacceptably high.

 

[JackD342]

Tell them to tell WRSTC that you either have to

- refuse to train EU citizens (and possibly residents as well), or
- get your paperwork, document storage, and disclosure rules and procedures, examined and certified for GDPR compliance.

Either of which would drive the cost of doing business with a WRSTC-affiliated agency unacceptably high.

Will likely be a topic included with updates at the Vegas DEMA Show in a couple of weeks. PADI has also been moving towards online paperwork rather than relying on the printed forms. I'm not sure where they are with those options at the moment, as I am still in a comfort zone that involves killing a few trees. Just haven't had the need yet.
Might also be that the innovations they announced last year as just a few months away are still not ready for prime time a year later. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time digging into that right away, as I know I'll hear plenty at DEMA.

 

[BlueTrin]

Tell them to tell WRSTC that you either have to

- refuse to train EU citizens (and possibly residents as well), or
- get your paperwork, document storage, and disclosure rules and procedures, examined and certified for GDPR compliance.

Either of which would drive the cost of doing business with a WRSTC-affiliated agency unacceptably high.

Lol ! More seriously I think GDPR would apply only to business made in the EU, EU citizens doing their business in the US wouldn’t require the US business to apply EU laws ?

 

[JackD342]

Lol ! More seriously I think GDPR would apply only to business made in the EU, EU citizens doing their business in the US wouldn’t require the US business to apply EU laws ?

Not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I'm thinking the law can apply anywhere they want it to apply, the question would be just how they would/could plan to enforce it?