Those health forms -- Truth or Consequences?

[Mike Boswell]

Although if that were the case they could simply give you the list to read in private and if you meet any of the conditions you could then return with a medical sign-off otherwise you could simply sign a declaration saying you don't have any of the pre-conditions which might affect your ability to dive. I still don't see what it adds providing the instructor with a yes/no list - it either contains personal information or it doesn't contain enough information to come to any particular conclusions on fitness to dive, I don't see how it's possible to meet in the middle.

For folks who don't want to divulge confidential medical information, I am not sure what the best answer is, but I am sure there is a free-market solution: Dive ops could simply charge special price premiums to offset the added risks of handling those with unknown medical status.

 

[dharmon]

If you have said "yes" for anything and have a doctors approval, then the dive op should be satisfied.

What's the worst case? Something bad happens to you while diving and you (or your family) files a suit against the dive op. If they show that what happened to you was a result of the thing you said "yes" to (and not negligence), then it all falls on the doctor who signed off on you. The dive op has successfully covered their behinds.

However, they still have to go through the process of showing there wasn't negligence, and if the injured person has a good lawyer they may be able to get the suit heard despite having a pre-existing condition. Some dive ops don't want to go through it. PADI says that shops don't have to take someone out if they don't want.

If you lie and say "no" on everything, then there's no shop to pin a problem on nor a doctor---it's all on you.

Does anyone know if DAN insurance is revoked by lying? I'm guessing so.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Does anyone know if DAN insurance is revoked by lying? I'm guessing so.

This is an interesting question. Assuming that the diver completed all DAN forms honestly, then I see no legal justification for DAN withholding medical coverage. The medical questionnaire in question is a document filled out by the diver and submitted to the dive op. The fine-print on the form should prevent the dive op from sharing that info with any third parties (if not...oh boy). DAN has no access to that information; therefore, it is irrelevant whether the diver was dishonest on the dive op's form.

 

[k ellis]

Ok RJP I am going to get off subject for just a minute but in the instance you helped try to save a young lady I just wanted to say thank you for your efforts as I can personally tell you it meant more to the family then anyone will ever recognize. It means alot that someone tries to save their loved ones.

 

[AndyNZ]

My current inclination is to just lie on the form and sign off on the 'if I didn't disclose something, on my own head be it' statement at the end. I figure that protects the business from liability (not that I or my people are the suing type) and it's none of their business anyway.

Your decision has a much wider consequence than you may believe.

For example, following a very small number of deaths that showed that the the divers involved had lied on their medical forms, the NZ government very nearly instituted a "all divers must have a dive medical, even visitors" policy. Thankfully, through some hard work of the industry, this was avoided allowing the industry to self-regulate.... for now.

Coroners around the world share information, if you end up as a statistic after having lied on a form... the impact will get spread around the world, and before you know it every where will be as heavily regulated as Southern Queensland.

Take one for the team, and tell the truth.

 

[scuga]

I recently ran into this. I am a new diver and doing the health form I put yes for wheezing and I had to go to the doctors to get them to sign off. Reading the form they give doctors they say something like "if its a temporary thing don't worry about it" or something like that. Well my wheezing is when I am around cats, and I wish they had explained like don't worry about something temporary. I asked the guy why he didn't say something and he said he didn't want to lead me, I guess that's valid. anyway long story short I'll write no to everything from now on.

 

[dharmon]

Your decision has a much wider consequence than you may believe.

For example, following a very small number of deaths that showed that the the divers involved had lied on their medical forms, the NZ government very nearly instituted a "all divers must have a dive medical, even visitors" policy. Thankfully, through some hard work of the industry, this was avoided allowing the industry to self-regulate.... for now.

Hmm. When I was diving in NZ last year the dive op required a medical from me, signed by a doctor. I can't remember if this was for regular diving or for my Rescue course, but in the states a doctor's signature isn't required for either.

 

[Kingpatzer]

We are not talking about refusing to answer questions based upon some legal, practical, or ethical principle. Obviously you are free to decline to answer any questions.

We are talking about knowingly lying on a form, and signing your name affirming that you have told the truth.

Different thing.

No, we're talking about the equivalent of checking the "i agree" button on a EULA license on a software package. It is a non-negotiable undue burden that is imposed by the dive operator as a requirement to use the product/service.

Where they willing to accept a note from my doctor stating that I had a complete dive physical and am cleared to dive, without revealing any specific medical information for which they have no need, no expertise to evaluate, and provide no guarantee of confidentiality, then there would be no issue as I, and I'm sure everyone else who state saying "No" is just the best solution, are not interested in diving unsafely when we should not. We're interested in protecting privacy.

Given the ubiquity of these documents, and the non-negotiable stance the operators take with regard to having the forms filled out, simply telling them what they want to hear is the only reasonable recourse those who know they are medically cleared to dive and care about the privacy of their medical information have.

It is not a moral question. To call it "lying" makes a value judgment that is simply not applicable. We're clicking the button required to start the service.

From the perspective of a (former) small business owner, I can't help but think that the dive operators would rather see divers with physicals and expert evaluation of their fitness to dive checking "no" when that is not the case than divers with undiagnosed conditions checking "no" out of ignorance. And I'm fairly certain that the latter is far more common than the former.

Requiring a dive physical would be a far better solution than this questionnaire, which is nothing more than an unnecessary and burdensome point of contention applied in an ignorant attempt to limit liability without due concern to the interests of the customer.

 

[Mike Boswell]

lie –noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; .
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

 

[Kingpatzer]

lie –noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; .
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

And?

When coming to these forms with a dive physical and having been cleared to dive, there is no intent to deceive. Those questions are not there to garner information -- as that information is above the capability of the dive op to use, since they have no expertise or training to evaluate that information.

To call it a lie is to suggest that the intent is to deprive the dive operator of information they need for them to meet the demands of the contract they are placing before the customer. There is no such intent. Nor is there such deception.

The presented form states that if the answer is "yes," then a medical clearance is required; and if the answer is "no" then a medical clearance is not required. If I have a medical clearance, then regardless of if the answer is "yes" or "no," the information the dive op is asking for at the logical level, namely "are you aware that these medical conditions can be an indicator that you should not dive, and if they apply have you been cleared to dive by a medical authority", has been answered truthfully.

From the perspective of a logical outcome, the only way I am deceiving the dive op is if I am aware of a medical condition for which I do not have medical clearance after a recent dive physical and I answer "No." At that point I have caused an outcome contrary to the intent of the contractual offer and have deceived the dive operator as to my medical fitness to dive.

These questions are in the context of a legal contract and must be interpreted in that light. The exchange of promises and assignments of liability that will be backed by the force of law are clearly outlined and agreed to. And while I am not a lawyer, to my layman's eye, I can't for the life of me figure out how the liability would differ if I answer "Yes" and provide a medical clearance or if I have a medical clearance and answer "No" to protect my privacy from an unwarranted and intrusive question being presented in a non-negotiable contract. If there were an attempt to alter those outcomes by this action, then it could rightly be said to be an attempt to deceive. But as there is no such attempt, that is clearly not the case.