Sorry, I clearly didn't read the thread closely enough -- I didn't mean to overlook your suggestions.
Contingency plans, staff prep, training, on-site supplies, etc. are all great ways to respond to an incident. I'm still curious about ideas to prevent divers from having incidents, rather than respond after the fact.
So far, I think the best suggestions may have been the hand-written acknowledgment of risk and the idea of having all divers--regardless of age--provide medical clearance. The first is well aligned with widely-held beliefs re. taking personal responsibility, while the second at least sidesteps the accusations of ageism.
Personally, I'm torn -- I don't think a dive op should be in the position of evaluating my medical state (ie., being given the details of a medical release, unless it contains specific restrictions such as 'should not dive below X feet') , but I have much less of an issue with an operator requiring that I have been evaluated by a 3rd party and cleared for the activity. Is the request to provide proof that a medical clearance was granted fundamentally different than providing proof that the diver has been trained and certified to dive by showing a C card? It's interesting that no one complains if a OP wants a check-out dive for someone who hasn't been in the water for 6~12 months, and there's frequently advice given here to get recertified if you haven't been diving for several years, yet there's such an objection to an OP proposing a different type of evaluation of fitness to dive.
What if the op introduced more diving-related qualifications, rather than just medical? What would the reaction be if the statement was something like "Because of the remote location, difficult access to medical care, etc., all divers must carry solo-dive certifications or dive-master or higher and show 50 or more logged dives within the last 6 months."? Sure, that would exclude a lot of customers (more than the medical requirement, I'd guess), and people here would jump all over it because those requirements are way out-of-proportion to the dive conditions...but I bet there would be a less hostile response, with none of the rhetoric about a pre-dive qualification being such an imposition on personal liberty.
Agreed...but... plausible != likely.
Perhaps a nonfocused routine physical could be compared to, say, a $99 OW dive certification -- neither is ideal, but each has some plausible benefit over not having any pre-dive evaluation or training, and each could lead an over-confident, underprepared diver into trouble. So...do we advocate eliminating certification just because a person might get poor training?
All of this reminds me that I'm about due to schedule an annual physical. Since I'm over 50 and check some "Yes" boxes on the standard medical-release-for-diver-training form, I'll probably have my GP sign it again, so I've got it ready in case I decide to do any training...or go to Little Corn.
