Would you let my wife dive?

[spectrum]

Is the doctor dive medicine certified if not go find one and consult them, if you can not find one contact DAN and they can help.

With all due respect is there such a thing?

I know there are doctors who take a special interest in the sport, have become dive savvy and have chamber training but outside of the military is there an actual board certification for scuba diving medicne?

 

[uncfnp]

https://www.uhms.org/education/credentialing/diving-medical-examiners.html

 

[RJP]

Tom:

And using that approach, a FFM could mitigate some of that risk, further changing the equation. Jim Lapenta pointed out that while a FFM might reduce immediate drowning risk, it's harder to gauge whether disrupted breathing might put the diver at risk for over-expansion injury on ascent (assuming that an epileptic might close their airway so gas couldn't flow out as it expanded). But at least part of the risk would be reduced.

I would like to know what type of seizure was had, at approximately what age, whether there were any known precipitating conditions (e.g.: fever, infection, medication or drug exposure, recent head injury), etc...

If the OP takes an interest in FFM's, be mindful they are a bit more complicated to work with. My wife has an old AGA Interspiro, and a buddy of mine has also used it. From their experience & observation with that specific model:

1.) It's strapped thoroughly on the head. Getting it off could be a bit involved.

2.) You can't donate an octopus readily to my wife unless she takes it off.

3.) At the surface, there's a knob/valve/what'cha'ma'call'it she turns to let her breathe ambient air, yet must turn off to submerge. You could take an unconscious person to the surface, forget to open it, and have them run out of gas & suffocate.

4.) It doesn't fog.

5.) It generally doesn't require purging.

6.) It's a bit harder to equalize; there's a plate of some sort pushed up to the nose, I think.

7.) You can breathe through your nose!

8.) They seem to go through their gas (e.g.: air, nitrox) a bit faster vs. standard scuba mask.

9.) The 2nd stage is integrated with it, so we needed to use a 1st stage from another regulator with it.

There are other brands & models of FFM, and at least one of the Kirby Morgans lets you detach the 2nd stage and accept a buddy's without taking the whole thing off, if I recall correctly. FFMs tend to be rather expensive. Some have the option to add wireless communication modules, but that adds its own complexities.

Richard.

You left off another point...

10.) You can't do OW course in a FFM

 

[drrich2]

I suspect the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room that has somehow not been brought up in this thread is that some people would make their own risk assessment decision, then, if they decided to pursue the certification & scuba diving, check 'No' on the liability release forms that instructors & dive charter op.s require. So they'd do the OW course in a regular scuba mask, figuring the risk very low, then perhaps switch to FFM if so inclined for regular diving.

Which leads to a moral debate on a number of issues:

1.) Some define it as lying and morally wrong.

2.) Some consider it maintaining your rightful confidentiality and politely releasing the instructor or operator from liability since you didn't disclose & they didn't know.

3.) Some believe your instructor and dive buddies have a 'right to know' about your medical conditions and a right to decide for themselves whether to dive with you (of course, the counter argument is that disclosure imposes a burden of liability risk on the instructor, sets you up for service refusal, and if you believe your condition does not pose a substantial risk, disclosure puts you at risk for buddies to 'discriminate' against you).

4.) Some people believe you risk traumatizing your buddy if you die, or disrupting other peoples' vacations on the boat if the trip has to be aborted because you die or have some sort of medical crisis. Counter argument: we could ban people over 50 from charter boats since they might have heart attacks and ruin other peoples' fun, or upset a buddy.

5.) If you don't disclose, the decision is solely yours. If you do disclose and wish to proceed with diving, the decision is the instructors, the dive charter boat operators, the dive shop's, etc... And minimizing liability may drive their decision.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't already been derailed into a heated debate on this option. Perhaps people got tired of fighting over it in other threads?

Richard.

 

[Annika1]

Not even the BEST doctor could predict if a seizure is going to happen, with or without dive medicine training. Knowing about the seizure disorder you have to decide for yourself if the benefit of diving outweighs the risk of seizure and if you are comfortable with your decision, whatever the outcome. Scuba diving is already considered a high risk activity, and there is always a risk of death every time you get into the water. If you need to seek the advice of strangers on an internet dive forum, you probably already know the answer to your own question...

 

[TSandM]

I think freewillie has written some excellent posts in this thread.

My first question, as his, is whether this woman needs to be on seizure medication at all. Frequently, the neurologists will do a trial of withdrawal if the patient has been several years without any seizure, and I would think that, unless her original EEG was highly abnormal, that with one seizure ever, they would have tried that. (We frequently don't even start patients with a single seizure on medication.) Off medication for a significant period of time and continuing to be seizure-free, I would eventually say her risk of seizure underwater would approach that of the general population.

If you are trying to make a decision for today, it's a little more difficult. One doesn't know how important the medication has been in preventing further episodes. The hyperoxic environment underwater is a risk factor for seizures, as well, and the outcome of seizures underwater is generally very poor.

I suspect my advice to her would be to discuss with a neurologist the possibility of medication withdrawal, and then do a trial of being med-free and see what happens. I don't think I would sign a blanket release to take a diving course as things stand, just because survival of underwater seizures is so unlikely.

 

[RJP]

I suspect the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room that has somehow not been brought up in this thread is that some people would make their own risk assessment decision, then, if they decided to pursue the certification & scuba diving, check 'No' on the liability release forms that instructors & dive charter op.s require. So they'd do the OW course in a regular scuba mask, figuring the risk very low, then perhaps switch to FFM if so inclined for regular diving.

Which leads to a moral debate on a number of issues:

1.) Some define it as lying and morally wrong.

Which people define lying as "morally correct"?

---------- Post added December 26th, 2014 at 01:37 PM ----------

2.) Some consider it maintaining your rightful confidentiality and politely releasing the instructor or operator from liability since you didn't disclose & they didn't know.

We know all-to-well (as discussed in multiple current threads) that such "polite release of liability" goes out the window when an accident happens and the person who lied on the form ends up dead or injured.

3.) Some believe your instructor and dive buddies have a 'right to know' about your medical conditions and a right to decide for themselves whether to dive with you (of course, the counter argument is that disclosure imposes a burden of liability risk on the instructor, sets you up for service refusal, and if you believe your condition does not pose a substantial risk, disclosure puts you at risk for buddies to 'discriminate' against you).

4.) Some people believe you risk traumatizing your buddy if you die, or disrupting other peoples' vacations on the boat if the trip has to be aborted because you die or have some sort of medical crisis. Counter argument: we could ban people over 50 from charter boats since they might have heart attacks and ruin other peoples' fun, or upset a buddy.

5.) If you don't disclose, the decision is solely yours. If you do disclose and wish to proceed with diving, the decision is the instructors, the dive charter boat operators, the dive shop's, etc... And minimizing liability may drive their decision.

The decision to not disclose may be "solely their's" but the impact of that decision extends to others.

As a person who willingly puts myself in harm's way on a regular basis in order to protect/save/supervise/instruct other divers I greatly resent the idea that someone thinks they have the right to falsify information that I need in order to make appropriate decisions about your diving activities in my role as DM, crewmember, instructor, or even buddy. Decisions that can have significant consequences for ME and other divers.

As the old saying goes "the right to extend your arm ends at the tip of my nose."

 

[drrich2]

Which people define lying as "morally correct"?

That'd be a tough sell, no doubt about it. A determination of right & wrong is made by referencing a value system of some sort, and there are so many value systems used by so many people that opinions vary. Granted, often self-serving opinions. Key issues are to what extent do you think the right of confidentiality extends, and to what extent can you go protecting that self-perceived entitlement?

We know all-to-well (as discussed in multiple current threads) that such "polite release of liability" goes out the window when an accident happens and the person who lied on the form ends up dead or injured.

For a dive op. to show that the deceased or injured party completed and signed a liability release affirming the lack of any known pertinent medical conditions, including of the type resulting in the death, has got to be good leverage in the event of a possible liability claim. No guarantee, but then, there are relatively few of those.

The decision to not disclose may be "solely their's" but the impact of that decision extends to others.

As a person who willingly puts myself in harm's way on a regular basis in order to protect/save/supervise/instruct other divers I greatly resent the idea that someone thinks they have the right to falsify information that I need in order to make appropriate decisions about your diving activities in my role as DM, crewmember, instructor, or even buddy. Decisions that can have significant consequences for ME and other divers.

As the old saying goes "your right to extend your arm ends at the tip of my nose."

Lately at work quoting cliches' seems to be a thing with me, so I'll meet your old saying with one from an old Murph's Law poster I had on my camper trailer wall in college: "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." Your perspective makes fine logical sense as a dive professional who wants to determine for himself who he provides services to, and what self-perceived risks (medical and liability both) he chooses to take on in doing so.

For you to be able to do that, it is necessary for your prospective customer to fully disclose information that will likely lead you to discriminate against her, denying her services she wishes to receive though she (likely disagreeing with you in such a scenario) does not believe the issue at hand justifies the denial of service. Especially if by not disclosing and affirming otherwise she avoids putting the liability burden on you that disclosing would if you took her diving anyway.

I can understand why you don't want people lying on the forms. And I can understand why they do.

Richard.

 

[RJP]

For a dive op. to show that the deceased or injured party completed and signed a liability release affirming the lack of any known pertinent medical conditions, including of the type resulting in the death, has got to be good leverage in the event of a possible liability claim. No guarantee, but then, there are relatively few of those.

Hmm... you need to get out more, Rich.

Having "good leverage" does not guarantee that you'll prevail. It certainly has no impact whatsoever in preventing someone from bringing a suit you... no matter how baseless the suit may be. It can cost a defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars to "win" a suit filed against them.

---------- Post added December 26th, 2014 at 02:37 PM ----------

For you to be able to do that, it is necessary for your prospective customer to fully disclose information that will likely lead you to discriminate against her, denying her services she wishes to receive though she (likely disagreeing with you in such a scenario) does not believe the issue at hand justifies the denial of service. Especially if by not disclosing and affirming otherwise she avoids putting the liability burden on you that disclosing would if you took her diving anyway.

But Rich... how can you say she "avoids putting the liability burden" on me? Her withholding of information in no way releases me from any liability.

There is no absolute "right" to be a scuba diver. If you want to be a diver, you agree to disclose certain things that are material. You accept this as a condition of participating in training or other dive services. Therefor you have ZERO expectation of keeping that information to yourself. If you want to avoid disclosing that information... don't dive. It's pretty simple.

Because the prospective diver freely accepts the requirement to disclose, there is no "where you stand depends on where you sit" cover of moral relativism available here. Sorry.

PS - I suggest you stop using the socio-politically loaded term of "discrimination" here. Denying scuba training to someone because they are black is discrimination. Denying scuba training to someone because they have a medical contraindication to scuba diving is NOT discrimination.

 

[tomfcrist]

PS - I suggest you stop using the socio-politically loaded term of "discrimination" here. Denying scuba training to someone because they are black is discrimination. Denying scuba training to someone because they have a medical contraindication to scuba diving is NOT discrimination.

From a socio-political perspective you are correct. By definition though it surely is discrimination. Our society has made discrimination a "bad" thing. Where in reality we discriminate everyday.