Medical Privacy Concern

[Riger]

interesting subject, i find the hassle and expense of getting a doctor to sign off on exactly the same thing that was signed off last time i upgraded my PADI standing somewhat hypocritical. i understand the problem of liability, but think having passed the first time is enough already. no need to mention that some of the other certification routes such as SSI may not be as picky but then PADI being US based are more prone to the law suit culture.

I agree that this can become tedious and time consuming if nothing else. My wife has a similar issue having had sinus surgery and lower back surgery. I have asked her to try get a clearanec cert from the doc for a 5 year period perhaps, or an unlimited cert that declares that the previous surgery is over and done with and that there is no longer a diving issue related to that specific event. Here's holding thumbs.

Best Regards
Richard

 

[vladimir]

In no manner does the required medical statement bear any resemblance to the inquisition, your analogy is either disingenuous or ignorant.

If you don't like the questions, you aren't required to answer them and you won't be punished because you don't. We aren't talking about a little white lie here, "yes" answers are a serious indication of a real and immediate danger to yourself and to those who will be around you. No matter how much sophistry and hyperbole you employ in your argument, lying, especially when it endangers others, is morally bankrupt. That's a lesson you should have learned in kindergarten.

What we are talking about is balancing the rights and privileges of the individuals in a group you would like to join with commensurate obligations and responsibilities. Personal responsibility isn't a license do whatever you want and the rest of the world be damned, sometimes being honorable means you have to make the hard choice and do the unpleasant thing. That's another lesson you should have learned in kindergarten.

I agree with your sense of the ethics involved. Most reasonable people would, I think. The cases where one can justify lying are few and far between. But this proposition--cede some privacy or don't do business with us--has become so commonplace that standing on principle and maintaining your privacy is nearly impossible if you want to lead a normal life. Sure, you can pass on scuba training, but how about credit cards, utilities, internet access, phone service, etc.? The vast majority of people seem happily willing to cede their privacy, leaving the rest of us in a bind. So it is certainly irksome when people who don't require our personal information demand it, as is the case, in my opinion, with scuba instructors and students medically cleared for diving.

 

[Just another Cinderella]

All MDs who are divers should get together with DAN and PADI [and whoever] and establish a standardized History and Physical for divers. They can then take a course, DAN has them all the time, and become "accredited" scuba physical MDs.
Divers under 55 must have a physical with such an MD every 10 years and over 55 every 5 years. You get a little card just like your C card with an expiration [not a pun] date.
The MDs are trained for what to ask and look for. Your privacy is protected and the dive shops get a no questions asked medical clearance.
If a diver has a change in their medical condition in the interim hopefully they would update their card. The diver always has the option of discussing a serious but "divable" medical condition with the DM/Instructor.

 

[tridacna]

Happens to be the way I speak. My question stands relevant to the discussion at hand. You have asserted that decendent's prevarication/falsification on a form was proximal causality to death.

Are you going to answer or continue ad hominum?

"descendent" - Hint: Always "cut and paste" from the on-line thesaurus.

 

[don Francisco]

I think that there's an overemphasis on the form itself which clouds the separate issue of whether you are in fact fit to dive. Like a prior poster, I'd prefer a form that listed medical conditions that potentially contra-indicated diving. You'd initial each to show that you've read it, and sign a general release at the bottom saying that you have none of the above or provide a doctors letter that stated that while you had a condition, it was not, in his opinion, a problem.

As it is, the form does a poor job, and does create serious privacy issues. For purposes of debate let's divide the purpose into 3 issues and consider each.

1- actually keeping folks with medical problems from diving. Here it does a so-so job, if someone knows he has a condition, but isn't aware of how diving would affect it (or vice versa) it'll flag the problem, and send him for a professional opinion. Two problems. First, large numbers of people have undiagnosed conditions and won't find out until a crisis. Second, the form is generic, and doesn't separate conditions with specific contra-indications to diving from others, and there is no guidance given to General Practicioners about medical issues unique to diving. For example; do all MD's know the physiological effects of submersion in cold water, or how it might impact a mild heart condition differently than excercise in general. The end result is that even the doctor's opinion may be uninformed and inadequate.

2- Safeguarding the physical safety of DM/instructors, who face the consequences of dealing with problems under water. There's a catch 22 here, if the forms are simply tucked away unread to protect privacy, or the people involved remove themselves from the equasion by dealing with this digitally - doctors letter = OK, no letter = NG, they draw no benefit from the form itself. If they inject themselves into reviewing the decision process, they assume a degree of legal liability.

3- legally protecting the vendors. This is what the form does best, It documents imformed consent, whereby the diver signs a document that he has no relevant medical problem, or a doctor signs the same. The dive operators, associations and employees are removed from the decision. The diver is forewarned of possible problems and assumes the risk. This purpose is served whether the signer lies or not.

So coming full circle, if you are in fact fit to dive, the form is nothing more than a legal release protecting the operators and the details are imaterial. If you're in fact not fit, you shouldn't be diving, form or no form.

just my 2 cents worth, maybe worth even less than that.

 

[adurso]

"descendent" - Hint: Always "cut and paste" from the on-line thesaurus.

Sorry "decedent". The true literati have no need of thesauri.

 

[SDAnderson]

If a diver has a change in their medical condition in the interim hopefully they would update their card.

Please forgive the pun, but this may be a fatal flaw in your plan.

Consider a couple of alternatives that are actually in place:

Australian law requires all entry level divers undergo a physical exam by a specially trained doctor. Continuing training requires a medical questionnaire, any "yes" answers mean the diver is referred for the dive physical. The RSTC form used in the US isn't specified but is accepted. Dive operators (charters, resorts, etc.) are authorized to require a medical questionnaire and most do.

Great Britain requires the UK Sport Diver Medical Form which is remarkably similar to the RSTC form used in the US but their form allows a "referee" to contact any physician who has ever treated you for information about your medical condition.

 

[Sas]

Australian law requires all entry level divers undergo a physical exam by a specially trained doctor. Continuing training requires a medical questionnaire, any "yes" answers mean the diver is referred for the dive physical. The RSTC form used in the US isn't specified but is accepted. Dive operators (charters, resorts, etc.) are authorized to require a medical questionnaire and most do.

Just a correct: this is not a law. This is an Australian standard, and standards are not legally enforceable. However, I believe pretty much all OW instructors would enforce this standard for liability reasons. I.e. if they get sued they can defend themselves easier by saying they had followed a set of standards.

 

[SDAnderson]

Just a correct: this is not a law. This is an Australian standard, and standards are not legally enforceable. However, I believe pretty much all OW instructors would enforce this standard for liability reasons. I.e. if they get sued they can defend themselves easier by saying they had followed a set of standards.

Good point: for us rubes coming from the States, the GBR is what diving in Oz is all about but Queensland laws don't automatically apply to the rest of down under. According to what appears to be an official Queensland government website, their law states: "Ensure that someone training for an entry level recreational diving certificate is certified (by a medical practitioner with experience in diving medicine) as being medically fit for diving." Thanks for the input.

 

[tridacna]

Sorry "decedent". The true literati have no need of thesauri.

"Decendent" is what you originally wrote. You may go back and correct your post if you wish.

What you really meant to say was: "I like to write in an arcane and undecipherable style to obfuscate my lack of understanding of the subject".

True literati do not announce themselves in SCUBA threads. Only self-aggrandising braggarts do.