Teenager with DCS, mother in denial, treatment delayed

[Miyaru]

I feel like if I were to ever get the bends, I’d feel like an absolute failure of a diver. Because “I know the risk factors and how to avoid getting them, yet got them anyway”. Which is obviously wrong, but…people make it sound like if you get bent, it’s because you were a dumb***.

...and that's a thought you can leave on the shore for any of your future dives.

It's good to know how to avoid the bends. But we simply don't know 100%.
Divers have learned a lot, especially over the last two decades. Which has lead to notorious discussions about the best plan to avoid the bends, especially on deep and long dives. But the guaranteed method is still unknown. We'll get there, some day.

 

[boulderjohn]

I feel like if I were to ever get the bends, I’d feel like an absolute failure of a diver. Because “I know the risk factors and how to avoid getting them, yet got them anyway”. Which is obviously wrong, but…people make it sound like if you get bent, it’s because you were a dumb***.

When I got bent, I was well within limits. It should have been a very safe pair of dives. That is the primary reason I, too, went into denial and did not seek treatment until @Duke Dive Medicine set up my appointment for me. I could not believe I could possibly be bent given my very safe profiles. (I also knew I do not have a PFO.)

But I was bent. No denying it. It happens. No one knows why people diving within limits get bent. I have a lay person's opinion about it that I will not share here because someone might take that untutored thought as gospel, but the simple truth is that some people get bent despite following all the rules carefully. I try not to talk about it outside of a more knowledgeable community, because if I mention it to someone (including a relative) who is less knowledgeable, the immediate response is almost always, "So you came up too fast, huh?" (Thus implying that I must be an idiot.)

 

[Celt]

But are chamber runs logged and can they appear on your record. I refused treatment when another team member blew his deco and got bent, I had no symptoms and completed my deco.

 

[dmaziuk]

I feel like if I were to ever get the bends, I’d feel like an absolute failure of a diver. Because “I know the risk factors and how to avoid getting them, yet got them anyway”. Which is obviously wrong, but…people make it sound like if you get bent, it’s because you were a dumb***.

That's because "people" never read the manual. Granted, DSAT report is not most peoples' idea of fun read, but it explains rather clearly and at length that the purpose of a decompression algorithm is not to "avoid getting bent". There's a whole section in there titled "DCS is not an accident".

 

[kaylee_ann]

That's because "people" never read the manual. Granted, DSAT report is not most peoples' idea of fun read, but it explains rather clearly and at length that the purpose of a decompression algorithm is not to "avoid getting bent". There's a whole section in there titled "DCS is not an accident".

What’s a DSAT report? I’m dumb lol

 

[Wookie]

What’s a DSAT report? I’m dumb lol

Diving Science and Technology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You aren’t dumb, just young.

DSAT writes dive tables

 

[tursiops]

What’s a DSAT report? I’m dumb lol

The mentioned section is below, and the full "DSAT Report" is attached:

6. Safe or reliable; DCS is not an accident
People working in decompression development occasionally use the word "safe" to refer to a situation that meets a chosen set of criteria. For example, an exposure that is below a theoretical limit might be described by some as "safe." Although a case can be made that if something has an acceptable level or risk it is safe, there are some disturbing aspects of using the word safe in the context mentioned. First, most limits are determined to be acceptable according to criteria which may be questionable, theoretical, or even arbitrary. Many limits once considered proper have been found to be unacceptable over time as data poured in and standards of acceptability evolved. Also, a limit that avoids a known hazard may not avoid other occult hazards not seen or known at the time. This is to say, being below the limits may not be "safe" in all respects, although it may indicate an acceptable degree of decompression risk.

But the nature of decompression and decompression sickness presents a more complex picture. The specific numerical limits are regarded by the computer as "hard," but, as discussed earlier, there is a probabilistic or statistical aspect to decompression, such that being slightly below a limit ( e.g., being shallower than the table depth or spending less than the allowable bottom time) does not guarantee that DCS will not occur. It only presumes a sufficiently low probability to make it acceptable. It can be argued that the word "safe" is inappropriate in this context. Decompression sickness is an integral part of diving; it cannot be completely avoided, only made acceptably improbable.

On the other hand, the capacity exists to treat DCS when it occurs in most stressful diving situations and even in many more advanced recreational diving settings. The overwhelming fraction of DCS and other decompression disorders are resolved completely when proper treatment is started soon enough. If at the end of the day there is no remaining injury (despite possible major inconveniences and perhaps expenses), was the situation really "unsafe"?

Therefore to avoid the implication that a diver can ever be completely "safe" from decompression disorders, we prefer words like "reliable" to describe situations considered to be within proper limits or believed to have an acceptable level of risk.

One final point. Decompression sickness can be expected to happen occasionally, even in relatively benign recreational diving situations. Thus it should not be regarded as an "accident." It can be painful, expensive, inconvenient, and even life-threatening, but because it is expected to happen occasionally its occurrence does not represent the "loss of control" implied by the term "accident."

 

[dmaziuk]

What’s a DSAT report? I’m dumb lol

Diving Science And Technology is the thinktank that developed PADI Recreational Dive Planner aka tables. Their work is published in
Hamilton Jr RW, Rogers RE, Powell MR (1994). "Development and validation of no-stop decompression procedures for recreational diving: the DSAT recreational dive planner"
-- aka "DSAT report".

It's not something you'd read unless you want to get under the hood of decompression algorithms -- not many people do, dumb or not.

 

[pauldw]

I'm wondering if it may be that she was so scared about her son having severe DCS, and she went into denial because she didn't want to face it. The brain is a weird thing.

I agree that denial is strong. When my daughter became type 1 diabetic, the signs were there and should have immediately picked up on that because I knew the signs from when I was in EMS, but I just didn't see it; my brain didn't want to put 2 and 2 together. So I can see denial being powerful like you say. But it's hard to shake the idea that once someone can't even walk, there's then a delay in getting help.

 

[Ghost95]

Ok. Read through all 20 pages. Wow.

The story reads like such a load of BS I'm betting, until shown I'm wrong, that this is some kind of troll or some idea of a joke to see what kind of response could get sued up.

The whole story is so over the top that even those of us in Florida are questioning what reality this could happen in.

If this is true, well, i just don't see how this can be true...