Would you let my wife dive?

[drrich2]

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.

Here's what I mean. Let's say we have 2 women, each with this same medical history, called Jane and Joanne.

Jane walks into Dive Adventures and fills out the paperwork, truthfully reporting her history. If Dive Adventures takes her on a 2 tank boat dive, and she seizes and drowns, and there's written documentation that the dive op. knew this woman had a seizure history. Hopefully they also have a signed medical release from her Physician, which will be helpful from a risk management perspective; they are in a terrible position if they don't have one.

Joanne walks into Scuba Duper, fills out the paperwork claiming perfect health and denies any medical history, they take her on a 2 tank boat dive, and she seizes and drowns. There's written documentation showing she attested to not having any seizure history, with her signature. There is no way the dive op. could have known she had that history.

It's true most anybody can try to sue for most anything, and it can run up big costs to defend against such.

Will this reasoning lead people to disclose their confidential information to empower others to discriminate against them on the basis that their own relatives may be gold diggers or fools?

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.

Discrimination, in its literal sense, is quite appropriate here. Yes, in the U.S. we're accustomed to hearing the term used for what is now deemed socially unjust discriminatory practices, such as targeting gender or ethnicity, thus in the popular cultural mindset 'Discrimination is Wrong.' Which is not a blanket truth. And if you choose whether to provide services to prospective customers or not based on a criterion (whatever it is), you discriminate on the basis of that criterion.

It is often appropriate to discriminate. We use age to discriminate when to let people drive or buy cigarettes and alcohol, or join the military or get married. We use citizenship status to determine eligibility for some social benefits. A number of people on this thread agree with denying scuba instruction or charter op. services on the basis of some medical conditions.

When I say discrimination, I don't assume the term = bigot, racist, etc… But I use it because the person being denied services may well see it as being discriminated against. Which in a literal sense is true, even if many people believe the reason is valid and it's the right thing to do.

Richard.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I don't see it as any form of discrimination. Discrimination adds to your risk of getting sued because someone took offense.

Denying service to someone who refuses to answer medical questions is nothing more than good risk management and reduces the chance of getting sued by someone. I have additional medical questions on my learning agreement. The standard form is outdated and not up on current science. Before doing that I checked with my insurance carrier and they had no issues with it. It's not just medical conditions that add to risk. I've turned down people whose attitudes I did not like. They wanted me to cut corners and their approach toward safety made me nervous. Told em to move on down the road since I got the feeling that it was so ingrained in them I did not want to deal with trying to correct them.

The instructor has the final say on whether or not they are willing to accept the risk. At least they should. Unscrupulous shops and resorts that the instructor works for may disagree. That's why being an independent is nice.

 

[boulderjohn]

From an English teacher....

The word discrimination in itself is neither right nor wrong. It is neither good nor bad. It is the context in which it occurs that brings on the question of morality.

When a wine connoisseur carefully selects a wine based upon his or her knowledge of that variety, it is discrimination, and there is nothing wrong with it. "Discriminating readers" select high quality books, and we all try to do the same thing with books, TV shows, movies, etc. We look at qualities and make decisions.

The problem is that the word has been used a lot in negative contexts, especially with the phrase racial discrimination. In racial discrimination, people make decisions about individuals not because of their individual characteristics but rather because of their race. If you have observed that Sam Smith is lazy and untrustworthy, you are right to discriminate against Sam Smith because of those reasons. If you instead discriminate against Sam Smith because of race and regardless of his personal qualities, then you are guilty of racial discrimination, which is usually against the law.

 

[drrich2]

One thing I think is worth a quick repeat look, even though RJP made the point, since threads like this sometimes serve as references for 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."

It's worth remembering that, if a diver falls unconscious and sinks, it's quite possible that in addition to the psychological (& possible litigious) trauma of a failed rescue (or no rescue), that a charter op. professional in the water (e.g.: such as a guide) can easy find him/herself in the position of abandoning others to go after the unconscious sinker, and can have hazardous, demanding decisions such as seeing that the other diver has sank well past normal recreational depths. Do you try a fast bounce dive on inadequate gas stores to attempt rescue of a probable lost cause? And you don't know the back story.

It's an angle worth being mindful of. I'm not telling anyone to lie on their form, or what to do. Just trying to clarify the issues & choices the different parties face.

From posts in other threads, I've seen there are 2 dive op. perspectives on the issue of the release/liability waivers. Some are concerned about it in terms of preventing people seen as undue risk from diving, either to protect customers, or themselves, or both. Some, from what I understand, are interested in having a clean bill of signed off on by the diver, giving the shop full deniability in the event of a medical catastrophe.

While it has no discernible relevance to reality, I wish there were a way to quantify the risk, have divers informed of them to the extent of being allowed to make their own informed decisions, and then allowed to make and live (or die) with the consequences of their own decisions without burdening the dive op.s with liability risk. Reminds me of what some say about some dive boats in California; basically taxis to & from the dive site, not hall monitors telling you what you can & can't do in the water.

Richard.

 

[boulderjohn]

While it has no discernible relevance to reality, I wish there were a way to quantify the risk, have divers informed of them to the extent of being allowed to make their own informed decisions, and then allowed to make and live (or die) with the consequences of their own decisions without burdening the dive op.s with liability risk. Reminds me of what some say about some dive boats in California; basically taxis to & from the dive site, not hall monitors telling you what you can & can't do in the water.

I was recently taking some fellow divers to a dive site that had some advanced characteristics. There was no instruction involved. With my rapidly developing fear of lawsuits, I wrote a description of the site and its advanced characteristics, figuring that if there were any problems, I could show that they were informed. One of the divers was an attorney, and although that was not her area, she advised me that doing so may have increased my liability, for they now had evidence that I considered the site advanced, and they could then nit pick on the description to indicate I had not fully informed them of its supposed dangers.

By the way, the California dive operations might say they are just taxis with no responsibility for you in the water, but that does not make it legally true. A couple of years ago a diver died while using a California boat. He was struggling on the surface trying to get back on the boat after the dive. The DM jumped in the water to help, and for some reason decided to have the diver take off his BCD before taking off the weight belt. The results were predictable. Both the DM and the boat operator were sued. The DM had not renewed his certification for several years, and the failure to provide a current DM for safety reasons was part of the complaint against the operator. Because the DM was not current, he had no liability liability insurance. He committed suicide soon after.

 

[RJP]

Will this reasoning lead people to disclose their confidential information to empower others to discriminate against them on the basis that their own relatives may be gold diggers or fools?

Again, they should disclose the information for no other reason than they agreed to do so and signed a piece of paper saying they would. Why would they do that if they intended to lie on the form?

 

[drrich2]

People don't disclose because they want instruction or trips and doing so would subject them to discrimination.

People may believe, or engage in self-serving rationalization, that they are justified in lying to protect a perceived entitlement (access to instruction/dive services) from unjust discrimination.

I'm not saying they have this entitlement, or that discrimination in this situation is unjust. I'm saying the potential customer may think so, and until he or she discloses that medical history, he or she has the power to 'call all the shots,' so to speak.

If the person discloses, and does not provide a Physician letter releasing him/her to dive, that person will be discriminated against (denied services). This is very understandable. If that person discloses & provides such a letter, that person might be discriminated against. Of course, if the instructor or shop makes that choice, it may well be a permanent denial in practical terms.

Prospective customers who have considered the issues & made an informed decision to pursue OW instructor & join charter boat dive trips may not like that. And may balk at disclosing info. that will empower others to discriminate against them. Lying on release forms is an easy fix. Which brings us to the thorny topic of lying.

The main objection to lying is that it's 'wrong.' Wrong means violation of a value system. We don't all share the same value system. I'm a Christian, but if I site a moral absolute and accountability before God to an atheist, he won't be moved. He might talk about situation ethics, or respecting the varied interests of stakeholders (e.g.: providers don't want to take on risky clients). An attorney might believe in rigid adherence to the letter of contractual agreements on a professional ethical basis. Absent a common frame of reference, how do we achieve consensus? Does that consensus matter when 'we' don't make the decision?

Hard question; is lying ever justified? Going to an extreme to prove a point, how about government spies & undercover cops? If you believe lying is ever not morally wrong, that opens up the question of when is it justified? Is it legitimate to lie to avoid empowering other people to discriminate against you for reasons that you consider unjustified (even though they don't)?

I'm 'reaching' with some of my examples to establish abstract ideas via analogy. Fighting the Mafia via undercover work is indeed a different issue than indulging in a chosen recreational hobby. But that hobby is seriously important to a lot of people.

I knew lying on liability release forms would be a contentious topic; it usually is. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's easy, and fully in the hands of potential customers likely biased by their desire to engage in activities others may try denying them access to. Threads like this serve as a reference for exploring ideas. Examining the issues can be worthwhile.

Richard.

P.S.: Lost my post when SB went down for maintenance, so wrote this in Notepad on my Mac & pasted to the forum. That's why the font is different.

 

[RJP]

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.

 

[Duke Dive Medicine]

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. I think that viewpoint is illusory, like calling cocaine use a victimless crime. Disclosure forms don't exist solely to protect dive operators from litigation; they also protect every potential rescuer on the boat and may even protect the occasional diver who's in denial about a medical condition from himself or herself.

Recreational diving clearance is becoming more descriptive and less proscriptive. That is, we focus on the medical condition of the individual diver and, if at all possible, try to assist him or her in planning to dive safely with that condition.

Best regards,
DDM

 

[RJP]

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. I think that viewpoint is illusory, like calling cocaine use a victimless crime. Disclosure forms don't exist solely to protect dive operators from litigation; they also protect every potential rescuer on the boat and may even protect the occasional diver who's in denial about a medical condition from himself or herself.

Recreational diving clearance is becoming more descriptive and less proscriptive. That is, we focus on the medical condition of the individual diver and, if at all possible, try to assist him or her in planning to dive safely with that condition.

Best regards,
DDM

Unfortunately if you click "Like" twice the SB software "unlikes" the post... so I clicked it three times.