Medical Standards 'fit-to-dive
1. Do you agree that the SPUMS 'medical standards applying to fit-to-dive
medicals' should be available on thepublic page of the SPUMS website ?
2. Should the 'Standards' be treated as mandatory or as advisory ?
3. Should SPUMS leave such matters to the Australian Standards group ?
Hello Mark,
The simple answer is that the legislation should state which medical is appropriate (and I would guess the Australian Standards one would be listed). Now historically the Australian Standards medical is the medical that is developed by SPUMS so there is always a delay in getting the SPUMS medical into the Australian Standard.
On top of all this Standards Australia has a policy that the cost of changing a standard has to be borne by whoever proposes the change and SPUMS would not be in the position to fund that as it would be quite expensive so there is some uncertainty now as to whether the new SPUMS medical will be adopted into the Australian Standard.
And finally to make thngs even less clear (as if it could be) Australia is committed to conforming to the ISO standards over the Australian standards and they have a different medical yet again......
Clear as mud?
SPUMS fundamental job is to take a lead as the pre-eminent diving medicine organisation in the South Pacific so SPUMS's goal is to produce an Evidence Based Medical as part of its 'Charter' what happens after we set it free is a little less certain.
I am sure that people will be able to discuss this further at the ASM where it is proposed that the Full Medical will be released.
Regards Glen Hawkins
I agree with the comments by Mike Bennett and Glen Hawkins.
The issue now is when and how the new SPUMS medical is to be disseminated.
This needs an accompanying explanation, so that SPUMS members can understand the processes that were gone through in revising the medical and the rationale(s) behind the changes. This needs to be disseminated to all members within the pages of our Journal as soon as possible.
This review has now taken nearly three years, since first envisaged at the Fiji ASM in 2007, so it is time for public release. The 2010 ASM at Redang would seem a suitable moment.
Mike Davis
Hi guys,
1. I don't see why the documentshould not be public.
2. The standard should be advisory - dictating terms in black and white is barely acceptable in the workplace and I do not think it is reasonable in the recreational sphere. There are too many cases that fall just outside the strict guideling that we need some wiggle room.
3. I do not think we should feel under any obligation to ensure our recommendations and the standards are synonymous. We are the experts here and should drive the discussion, not the other way around.
Now, to change the Standard is not as easy as it once once was - considerable expense is incurred by whoeer is motivated to propose the change. I guess this means in pracice that only the dive industry will ever be prepared to get the Standards team together. Should be intresting times ahead while we see what happens with our new guidelines.
Mike B
Hello Dr Walker,
1. Do you agree that the SPUMS 'medical standards applying to fit-to-dive medicals' should be available on thepublic page of the SPUMS website ?
That is currently being debated as there has been a recent change in the SPUMS medical and it differs from the Australian Standard at the moment. There is a slight issue with making them freely available as the medical is to be used in conjunction with a Diving Trained doctor helping to interpret and discuss each particular issue. The main issue I suppose is that whether the medical form is for the doctor or the patient to used effectively.
2. Should the 'Standards' be treated as mandatory or as advisory ?
Standards are nearly always advisory unless they are mandated in law. The question becomes.....can you defend yourself in court against a national/international standard?
3. Should SPUMS leave such matters to the Australian Standards group ?
For the production of the standard they do. As the "experts" in diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, SPUMS and other craft groups are required to contribute to the Standard as much as Electrician Representatives advise on the Electrical Standards. There is no other group in Australasia that can fulfil this role as far as I am aware of. Generally Standards Australia has adopted the SPUMS medical as the "Standard" and they have been synchronous. SPUMS as an organisation has (quite correctly) reviewed its medical regularly and adapted it to new and developing research around the world (particularly with respect to Asthma and Diabetes and diving). A new SPUMS Medical has been developed and now it is for Standards Australia to determine when the standard is to be updated or not.
Regards Glen Hawkins
i am pleased with the progress re the "new spums medical" my main concern is in queensland if not adopted by Australian Standards which medical is deemed appropriate for recreational diving from a stae legislation point of view ?