As public forums seem to bring out both sincere folks who are interested in ongoing education/risk management as well as folks who are more inclined to blame/shame and grab pitchforks, the next of kin may not wish to have their loved one's story dissected and analyzed publicly, especially if comprehensive and final cause determination points to some degree of culpability on the part of the deceased. Please note that I am not saying this is the case for this incident - and we might never know. I doubt many healthcare providers would participate in M&Ms rounds if they were opened up to public comment/participation. Assumptions of malfeasance and neglect right off the bat doesn't make space for constructive dialogue.
Student lost - Seattle, Washington
- Thread starter DandyDon
- 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
What evidence is there that any agency is regularly keeping track of world-wide accidents and refusing to publish the results?
A few years ago PADI and DAN did a joint study of scuba incidents and published the results. PADI made changes to their OW course requirements as a result.
A few years ago PADI and DAN did a joint study of scuba incidents and published the results. PADI made changes to their OW course requirements as a result.
What information was released about this incident? Body of diver recovered at Seacrest Park in West Seattle
What has that got to do with my question?
No one is asking agencies to publish worldwide results, so not sure why you are bring that up. It is about investigations of individual incidents after they are completed that should be available.
Are you referring to individual investigations of training related accidents only?
Those reports are supposed to be confidential. A few years ago when one of the attorneys in a lawsuit accidentally disclosed the report. IIRC, they got sued.
Yes. I don't see why agencies would investigate accidents outside of training.
What lawsuit is that? Why are the reports supposed to be confidential? While not in the same category, NTSB reports are public information, and these are for far more serious events.
You don't understand why releasing a report like that could lead to a lawsuit?
The IUCRR (International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery) team writes detailed analyses of the cave diving accidents in which they become involved, and they provide them to the police. (I am the actual author of one of their reports.) They used to publish them on their website, but they stopped doing so when attorneys advised them that even though they were not in any way involved in the accident, they could become the subject of a lawsuit if someone objected to something in the report.
I wrote cave diving accident reports for the National Speleological Society, and that is a concern for NSS as well. Here are some examples of cases in which I have been involved.
- In one incident, the two principle people involved in a non-fatal (but darned close) incident gave me two very, very different accounts of a key part of the incident. I believed one of them, but the other person refused to allow me to include anything he said in the report (yes, permission was necessary).. He threatened to sue. (He would not look good.) After much discussion about a possible lawsuit, we left that part of the narrative out completely, which had the net effect of supporting the person I thought was lying.
- In another incident, the people who recovered the bodies were also charged with doing the analysis. It took them more than a year to provide their report, which I used as the basis of mine. I had a long email exchange with the author about it all, and he explained that there were things they simply could not understand about the accident, no matter how they analyzed it. If not worded very carefully, one of the victims could potentially look bad, which might result in an unpleasant response from the family.
- In the most troublesome case on which I worked, there was a lawsuit and a settlement, followed by lots of incriminations on social media before I was assigned the case. My investigation took many, many hours, and I was left in a state of real confusion. I am convinced that one of the people involved lied, both to me and to the police, pointing a finger at someone else to avoid his own potential liability. I am convinced an expert witness gave a false report in order to serve the best interests of the party paying his fees. (I got that idea by interviewing the expert witness.) My final report was a major exercise in tap dancing to avoid potential liability of my own. As it was, a very rough draft that included some personal opinions not meant to be made public was leaked, and I suffered greatly from the recriminations those who did not like those opinions.
I don't see why you would insert your own personal opinions. The only thing that should be included in a report are facts. As long as people/organizations stick to facts, there is no basis for suing for slander. That doesn't prevent a lawsuit. We could sue each other. And it would be thrown out, however there is still the expense and inconvenience of it. I do not think that agencies are at the same level of risk. If I was still a PADI instructor and I caused a training accident, and PADI published a report detailing facts that reveal my negligence, I could try and sue. But PADI would win that case, possibly countersue to recoup their legal costs.
Because when you are retained as an expert, to analyze and evaluate, your opinion is exactly what is being asked for?
Similar threads
