Would you let my wife dive?

[ScubaSteve1962]

This seems to always be a controversial topic in the diving community, however if you were a shop owner or DM would you let my wife dive in this situation?

She has had only one seizure 16 years ago, but is still on medication. Her doctor has signed off for her to be able to dive. We are going on a trip soon and she expressed interest in doing a discovery dive to see if it's something she would be interested in. If you were the shop owner, would you allow her to dive at shallow depths?

I have a friend who's certified, and she suffers from seizures also. So far she hasn't had any problem while diving. The doctor that okay'd her to dive was also a diver.

 

[RJP]

This seems to always be a controversial topic in the diving community, however if you were a shop owner or DM would you let my wife dive in this situation?

She has had only one seizure 16 years ago, but is still on medication. Her doctor has signed off for her to be able to dive. We are going on a trip soon and she expressed interest in doing a discovery dive to see if it's something she would be interested in. If you were the shop owner, would you allow her to dive at shallow depths?

I realized I never answered the original question:

1.) I'd do a pool DSD with her with medical clearance from whichever doc has been treating her for seizures
2.) I'd do OW with her with medical clearance from her physician after that physician consulted with DAN

 

[Lefty17]

Wow, thanks for all the responses. I apologize for not checking back sooner but I lost track of the thread.

In the end we decided it's not worth the risk and she will stick to snorkeling. Thx again!

 

[BRT]

But again, the person who lies on the form puts OTHERS at risk by doing so. They have NO right to do that. There is no "that depends on your point of view" option here.

On the other hand, if the dive operation or instructor could have the customer sign something that absolutely absolved the operation or instructor from liability they probably wouldn't be so nitpicky about who they would take diving. Almost all the reasons I am hearing for not taking a student for instruction or a diver on a dive boat involve the liability. I would never lie for any reason but telling them what they want to hear so I can go diving might be the exception to that someday.

 

[tomfcrist]

But again, the person who lies on the form puts OTHERS at risk by doing so. They have NO right to do that. There is no "that depends on your point of view" option here.

On the other hand, if the dive operation or instructor could have the customer sign something that absolutely absolved the operation or instructor from liability they probably wouldn't be so nitpicky about who they would take diving. Almost all the reasons I am hearing for not taking a student for instruction or a diver on a dive boat involve the liability. I would never lie for any reason but telling them what they want to hear so I can go diving might be the exception to that someday.

I'm not worried about you filing suit against me, because you will probably be dead. You however cannot sign away your estates right to sue me for allowing you to do something that is completely against standard practice in the industry.

 

[drrich2]

I think a lot of divers perceive the sport as a solo evolution, and people who are prone to lie on a disclosure form probably use that as a rationale, e.g. "I'm responsible for my own well-being and if I die diving, so be it, because I'm the only one affected."

Having been on station for more than one diving death, I can tell you that the diver is most definitely not the only individual affected, and I know I'm not the only poster here with that type of experience.

That's the straight truth. I suspect one issue driving peoples' decision making is that, in matters with high stakes (e.g.: lawsuit, death), you can usually find a way that someone's actions could affect other people, thus providing a rationale to curtail an individual's rights. By way of analogy, consider a solo rock climber who is not taking a course or on a professional guided activity. He just buys gear off the internet, heads out to a mountainous area, and climbs. He may or may not be trained & a seasoned climber; let's just say he's knowledgable about the risks involved and making an informed decision. Even if his undertaking is one that many climbers would deem just pushing the risk envelope a bit, I don't think most people would try to coerce him into not climbing.

But if he dies, will that create disruption at his workplace, which just lost an employee without required (e.g.: 30 day) notice? Did his wife just lose a husband, and get additionally traumatized identifying the mangled body at the morgue? Did his 2 kids get traumatized hearing that Dad is never coming home?

Suddenly this 'individual's' self-perceived 'right' is called into question because exercising it could have harmful effects on people who were party to the consequences but not party to the decision. That's a powerful argument. Is this not the argument used to try to force competent adult U.S. citizens riding motorcycles in a supposedly 'free' country (which I don't hear it described as as often as I used to) wear helmets? Or car drivers to wear seat belts?

Which gets back to the Constitutional right of the 'freedom of the pursuit of happiness.' In order for an individual to have sole right to decide anything 'high stakes,' where there will be indirect consequences to others if tragedy ensures, it seems to me there must be some threshold of risk for others where, if the likelihood & gravity of potential impact falls below that threshold, then their interest in the matter does not give them decisional rights in it. It's up to the individual. Part of the cost of liberty in a society, I imagine.

Put another way, do you believe U.S. government has the moral right to pass laws demanding competent adult citizens wear seat belts for their own protection? If, despite the potential negative impacts on family, insurance company, society via health care costs, emergency workers who have to deal with the carnage, etc..., you believe that it does not, then the rule of thumb that 'my rights end where your nose begins' gets more nuanced.

Personally, I don't know where the threshold lies. I don't believe the U.S. government has the moral right to make me wear a seat belt. I wear one because it's wise, and I resent every 'Buckle Up; Your Safety Is The Law' sign I pass on the road.

Richard.

 

[RJP]

On the other hand, if the dive operation or instructor could have the customer sign something that absolutely absolved the operation or instructor from liability they probably wouldn't be so nitpicky about who they would take diving.

I'm actually more concerned that the customer might be injured or die than that they might sue me. Seeing as there is nothing they can sign that would "absolutely absolve" the grim reaper of his duties... I'd still be just as nitpicky about medical forms.


---------- Post added December 28th, 2014 at 10:20 PM ----------

That's the straight truth. I suspect one issue driving peoples' decision making is that, in matters with high stakes (e.g.: lawsuit, death), you can usually find a way that someone's actions could affect other people, thus providing a rationale to curtail an individual's rights. By way of analogy, consider a solo rock climber who is not taking a course or on a professional guided activity. He just buys gear off the internet, heads out to a mountainous area, and climbs. He may or may not be trained & a seasoned climber; let's just say he's knowledgable about the risks involved and making an informed decision. Even if his undertaking is one that many climbers would deem just pushing the risk envelope a bit, I don't think most people would try to coerce him into not climbing.

But if he dies, will that create disruption at his workplace, which just lost an employee without required (e.g.: 30 day) notice? Did his wife just lose a husband, and get additionally traumatized identifying the mangled body at the morgue? Did his 2 kids get traumatized hearing that Dad is never coming home?

Suddenly this 'individual's' self-perceived 'right' is called into question because exercising it could have harmful effects on people who were party to the consequences but not party to the decision. That's a powerful argument. Is this not the argument used to try to force competent adult U.S. citizens riding motorcycles in a supposedly 'free' country (which I don't hear it described as as often as I used to) wear helmets? Or car drivers to wear seat belts?

Which gets back to the Constitutional right of the 'freedom of the pursuit of happiness.' In order for an individual to have sole right to decide anything 'high stakes,' where there will be indirect consequences to others if tragedy ensures, it seems to me there must be some threshold of risk for others where, if the likelihood & gravity of potential impact falls below that threshold, then their interest in the matter does not give them decisional rights in it. It's up to the individual. Part of the cost of liberty in a society, I imagine.

Put another way, do you believe U.S. government has the moral right to pass laws demanding competent adult citizens wear seat belts for their own protection? If, despite the potential negative impacts on family, insurance company, society via health care costs, emergency workers who have to deal with the carnage, etc..., you believe that it does not, then the rule of thumb that 'my rights end where your nose begins' gets more nuanced.

Personally, I don't know where the threshold lies. I don't believe the U.S. government has the moral right to make me wear a seat belt. I wear one because it's wise, and I resent every 'Buckle Up; Your Safety Is The Law' sign I pass on the road.

Richard.

When did the government get involved in the discussion?

PS - Yes, I do be believe that there are situations where the government has a responsibility to protect people who are not competent enough to protect themselves. In doing so, they also protect other people from those people's lack of smarts. Seatbelts are a pretty good example. Some guy and I have a car accident while he's wearing a seatbelt... there's property damage and cuts and bruises. We exchange information and our insurance companies take care of the details. We have the same accident with him NOT wearing a seatbelt... maybe he dies, maybe he ends up a quadriplegic, maybe just disfigured. Either way he (or his estate) sues me for far more than the limits of my auto insurance.

You do know that those "Buckle up" signs are targeted at the people NOT wearing seatbelts... right?

 

[drrich2]

It's an authority dictating when people can't do something, and thus makes a good comparator everyone can immediately understand. There is also the sinister principle that if the government is responsible for people, it has the right to exercise control over them to discharge that responsibility. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for what they have no control over.

You do know that those "Buckle up" signs are targeted at the people NOT wearing seatbelts... right?

They remind us that as far as the law is concerned, we don't have a choice.

Yes, I do be believe that there are situations where the government has a responsibility to protect people who are not competent enough to protect themselves.

Working in an inpatient mental health facility, I see this a lot; people committed on short-term court orders on the grounds that they have some sort of serious mental disturbance putting them &/or others at risk for harm which can't be reasonably addressed by a less restrictive alternative.

In doing so, they also protect other people from those people's lack of smarts. Seatbelts are a pretty good example.

A good example for different reasons. In this case, it's most likely this other driver is not insufficiently competent to protect himself.

1.) If he's driving he's probably not mentally retarded (they've started calling it Intellectual Disability now) or demented (e.g.: Alzheimer's Disease) - so it's not a lack of smarts.

2.) Nothing in the example given suggests he's psychotic or manic - so he's not 'crazy' (irrational).

This is simply someone who, although he has the mental capability and knowledge to make wiser decisions you agree with, makes an informed decision to not wear the seat belt, because he's indifferent or, if he's thought it through, prioritizes the certain added convenience of not wearing it over the highly unlikely but potentially grievous added harm that may ensue from not doing so.

It is the nature of liberty that if you give it to free-willed competent adult citizens, some of them will use it to make some foolish choices. Drinking too much. Staying in abusive relationships. Driving without a seat belt, or a motor cycle without a helmet. Buy large sugary soft drinks at restaurants in New York City. Eat too much fat & not exercise enough. Put too much salt on their food. Smoke cigarettes. There is a price to be paid for liberty; higher highway death rates, obesity rates, shorter average life spans, etc...

According to a t.v. commercial I've heard a number of times, smoking kills 1 in 4 smokers. Sounds a lot more dangerous than not wearing a seat belt. I don't smoke or drink and I wear seat belts, but I'm fat and out of shape. The old saying 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' comes to mind.

The broader relevance to this issue is, for reasons having to do with practical access to desired dive sites (e.g.: coral reefs) and liability concerns of dive op.s in our litigious society, there is a de facto dive industry culture that in effect excludes some people from diving based on medical conditions. A well-off diver could buy his own tanks, compressor and boat, move to southern Florida and dive without going through an op., I suppose, but probably at much higher risk.

Some people with these conditions may not agree with this exclusion. They have an option to 'do something about it.' Unfortunately, sometimes that something is lying.

Richard.

 

[RJP]

They remind us that as far as the law is concerned, we don't have a choice.

I'm imagining you don't have the same resentment issue with other signs that "remind us that as far as the law is concerned, we don't have a choice?"



:d

I suspect that most people "resent" seatbelt laws because they were enacted in our lifetimes... effectively "taking away" a choice we used to be able to make ourselves. So the seatbelt sign is as much a reminder of THAT as it is of the salience of wearing the seatbelt.

My 16yr old daughter and her friends all have their driving permits now, yet - even as rebellious "I'll live forever" youth they have no such resentment of seatbelt laws. They all put their seatbelts regardless of convenience, comfort, etc. Not because there are signs... but because that's what you do. Why don't they resent the signs the same way you do? Simple: they never had the choice... so they never had the choice taken away.

 

[RJP]

The broader relevance to this issue is, for reasons having to do with practical access to desired dive sites (e.g.: coral reefs) and liability concerns of dive op.s in our litigious society, there is a de facto dive industry culture that in effect excludes some people from diving based on medical conditions.

What do you mean "there's a culture" that excludes people with certain medical conditions from diving? These are not "cultural biases" at work here. We are not "discriminating" (in the connotative sense) against people with certain conditions.

Some people with these conditions may not agree with this exclusion. They have an option to 'do something about it.' Unfortunately, sometimes that something is lying.

There's also a "de facto dive industry culture that in effect excludes some people from diving" if they are afflicted with the condition of not having enough money to pay for training, purchase gear, get tank fills, take charters, etc.

Some people with this condition may not agree with this exclusion. Those people have an option to 'do something about it' in that they can rob a dive shop, pass bad checks to pay for training, use stolen credit cards to pay for charters, or even steal your gear out of your car. That would be more than "unfortunate" don't you think?

Similarly, on the boat that I crew on we have a de facto dive culture that excludes people with just an OW certification from diving the Andrea Doria with us. Those people could easily produce cards claiming appropriate certifications.

Hell, suppose you went to Cozumel and were assigned an insta-buddy for a challenging drift dive to 130ft including a swim-through at the deepest point of the dive. Your insta-buddy - who just finished his OW course yesterday - told you and the op that he had 500 dives because he didn't want to be discriminated against. Would that be OK with you?