Where the buck stops...

[Twiddles]

Anyone get and read Dive Training Magazine? If so what is your opinion on the post entitled "The Lost Boy: A story of panic and personal accountability?

In brief, the story revolves around a divers comments "Marty" about a diver who went out of air on a dive Marty was on; "To be honest, unless I am absolutely certain that someone I have never dived with before and who I have never discussed any emergency contingencies with is under TOTAL control and not panicky, or unless I am certain I can physically control the person or drop their weights, I would be reluctant to put myself at risk" by providing them with my alternate air source. The person "Marty" is refering to a group dive where your not specifically buddied with the diver in need and also refers to the fact that the diver made his bed by not checking his air prior to dive on three seperate occassions prior to submerging. Marty felt his obligation to himself and his family would outweigh his obligation to a dying diver who was not known by him or his buddy.

Worse the editor of the magazine appears to agree with "Marty" since he wrote an editorial on the article entitled where the buck stops. In short he commends marty on his honesty and agrees with his statements. (Sort of funny how he quotes Truman in the buck stops here but fails to see how that quote conflicts with his opinion, I take responsibility for everything that happens under my command even those things I dont directly control is what President Truman was stating).

I was actually a bit unnerved to discover that I would be evaluated in a life or death situation to determine whether I was safe to help. In fact if you refused and I asked would you not be guilty of murder (assuming of course I didnt just take your alternate after you refused)? Whatever situation leads to an emergency is often not known at the time of the emergency, to claim that you have the right to decide whether or not to prevent a persons death when you have the means to do so is so totally wrong in my book. I can see the "implied risk" but the response rates right up there with playing god. Any attempt to offset your responsibility to a person at risk of dying by implying a greater risk to yourself is just attempting justification.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Anyone get and read Dive Training Magazine? If so what is your opinion on the post entitled "The Lost Boy: A story of panic and personal accountability?

In brief, the story revolves around a divers comments "Marty" about a diver who went out of air on a dive Marty was on; "To be honest, unless I am absolutely certain that someone I have never dived with before and who I have never discussed any emergency contingencies with is under TOTAL control and not panicky, or unless I am certain I can physically control the person or drop their weights, I would be reluctant to put myself at risk" by providing them with my alternate air source. The person "Marty" is refering to a group dive where your not specifically buddied with the diver in need and also refers to the fact that the diver made his bed by not checking his air prior to dive on three seperate occassions prior to submerging. Marty felt his obligation to himself and his family would outweigh his obligation to a dying diver who was not known by him or his buddy.

Worse the editor of the magazine appears to agree with "Marty" since he wrote an editorial on the article entitled where the buck stops. In short he commends marty on his honesty and agrees with his statements. (Sort of funny how he quotes Truman in the buck stops here but fails to see how that quote conflicts with his opinion, I take responsibility for everything that happens under my command even those things I dont directly control is what President Truman was stating).

I was actually a bit unnerved to discover that I would be evaluated in a life or death situation to determine whether I was safe to help. In fact if you refused and I asked would you not be guilty of murder (assuming of course I didnt just take your alternate after you refused)? Whatever situation leads to an emergency is often not known at the time of the emergency, to claim that you have the right to decide whether or not to prevent a persons death when you have the means to do so is so totally wrong in my book. I can see the "implied risk" but the response rates right up there with playing god. Any attempt to offset your responsibility to a person at risk of dying by implying a greater risk to yourself is just attempting justification.

I haven't seen the article, but I would find it hard to understand how the editor of Dive Training magazine would say that it's OK to refuse to donate air to an OOA diver.

That would seem to go against everything I was ever taught about why we tell developing divers how important it is to dive with buddies ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

I read the article, and had mixed feelings about it. We've talked about this issue here before. The principle is that it is never good to create a second victim, and it IS possible for a panicked diver to cause someone else's death. The strength and irrationality of panic is something that's easy to underestimate unless you have either experienced or observed it firsthand.

Each of us has to make a personal decision about how much risk he or she is wiling to assume to help another. It may depend on the the relationship -- I feel far more responsible for my dive buddy, with whom I have made a form of contract, than for a stranger who appears out of the murk. And someone might go much further to save a wife or child than a stranger, as well. It also depends on what you see as the risk. If someone is going to drag me to the surface from the bottom of our local underwater park (25 feet), I'm going to feel different about that than about being dragged up from 100 fsw on the Cape Breton, when I've been there 20 minutes.

But over all, I can't imagine living with myself if I had the opportunity to help someone and did not do it, and that person died. I make my living helping people, and sometimes saving lives, and I do it at some risk to myself, financial and medical. I'm therefore predisposed by temperament and training to try to help if I can. I hope I'm never faced with a situation underwater where I think that stepping in will result in my own death. I don't know what I'd do, and I don't like the thought of dealing with not acting.

 

[Twiddles]

Should have thought to check online, http://www.dtmag.com/05-07-articles.shtml The Where the Buck stops editorial and the Lost Boy article.

 

[SteveAD]

In any emergency response training, whether it is the rescue diver class or EMT training, the first thing you are trained to do is evalute the scene to determine if you can help the victim without becoming a victim yourself. I have not yet read the article in question, but I don't see anything unreasonable with the philosophy quoted. MY first responsibility is to get ME home safe. If someone else is in trouble and I can help them without putting myself at an unreasonable level of risk I will do so. If the sitution appears to present UNREASONABLE risk, then it is far better for me to get myself out of the situation and come back with the apprpriate personel and resources, than to die alongside the original victim.

Just exactly where that line of reasonable vs. unreasonable risk is drawn is an individual decision. I'm a very big strong guy, so in a panic/ ooa situaton there is a strong likelyhood that I could physically control the panicked diver. If on the other hand I was 4 foot 11 and 97 pounds I would not want to let a paincked individual anywhere near me.

One definition of a hero is someone who is willing to die to save another, the problem with that is that wives and children of heroes are called widows and orphans.

 

[Vayu]

I agree with the original poster. If I am in need underwater you must help me. If you don't, I will have vengeance. It is the responsibility of a human diver to help another human diver when given the oppurtunity. If you have made a conscious decision not to help a diver in an emergency, chances are you are not human.

I understand all of those hypothetical scenarios we can create to justify NOT aiding a diver in an emergency. Unfortunately underwater things can happen quickly. It is likely that you will not have a chance to evaluate a diver before you see their signals. The choice must be made for life.

 

[Stu S.]

I read it on line.

Notice how the author of this little ditty wrote it from the perspective of a guy who was doing everything right, and had air. Maybe it should have been witten in reverse.

How would we react if it read:

"I was out of air and facing death. A man with air looked at me and refused to help"?

The author of this piece has multiple reasons to be glad that all ended well.

 

[jbd]

I have not read the article nor the editorial. I do agree and teach that a regular diver is under no obligation to actually rescue anyone UW. The reason is that an individual cannot be forced to risk their life to save another person. Even professional rescue people don't take unnecessary risk in saving someone. The typical person out of air underwater is going to be a distinct threat to a rescuers life if the "rescuer" gets close enough. Its bad enough on the surface--I know from personal experience.

The same magazine has printed at least one story in the past about two teenage boys who died together, when one was trying to save the other.

The recent event at Gilboa had similar results and these are not isolated incidents.

This is why I teach the OOA stuff that I teach. IMO, OOA is not a reason to die there are just too many options available.

 

[jbd]

I agree with the original poster. If I am in need underwater you must help me. If you don't, I will have vengeance. It is the responsibility of a human diver to help another human diver when given the oppurtunity. If you have made a conscious decision not to help a diver in an emergency, chances are you are not human.

I understand all of those hypothetical scenarios we can create to justify NOT aiding a diver in an emergency. Unfortunately underwater things can happen quickly. It is likely that you will not have a chance to evaluate a diver before you see their signals. The choice must be made for life.

No one has an obligation to help you unless they can do so without undue risk to their own life. No one is expected to die on your behalf. Should you find yourself in an OOA situtation underwater, you should already know all the ways out of that situation including self rescue.

 

[Meng_Tze]

I'll help. But if it becomes a clear danger to myself, I am cutting loose.

No need to create two victims or 'swap places' with original victim. There are many threads on this subject and you will see it come up again and again.

You walk down the street, you see a car on fire with people inside alive..... do you risk your life right there and then to rescue them? How far would you go?
saving victims and burning a little, 25%, 100%?

Same goes for diving.... getting properly bent hurts or kills, if you don't drown before hand