- Messages
- 16,612
- Reaction score
- 5,393
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
I think the issue with what CipherBreak is describing has this dynamic:
1.) The customer has the option to conceal medical history & only check 'no' on the form. This is seen as protecting the dive op. from liability should something bad happen without a doctor's statement.
2.) The customer instead make a choice to disclose this info., shifting the liability burden onto the dive op., which caught between a rock (shouldering that liability) and a hard place (ticking off a customer, losing business), will not tolerate that liability and instead demands it be shifted to some Physician (or maybe Nurse Practioner?), a process that's time consuming, inconvenient and if one doesn't have a current Physician willing to do it, and reachable at the time, may border on impossible. And the Physician may refuse to take the liability onto himself.
3.) The customer who put the dive op. in this position then proceeds to try to cajole, push and in some cases maybe even get belligerent in begging/requesting/demanding the dive op. write the issue off as insignificant and take them diving without the medical release.
From some dive op.'s perspectives, I suppose it could be interpreted like 'Look, buddy, you can either screw yourself over by checking 'Yes' after you showed up without a medical release in hand, or you can check all 'No,' but if you do the former, don't expect us to stick our neck out to take you diving.
Yes Richard. That's the complete picture. Thank you. You've probably explained all the angles before, but I appreciate it.