This just seems wrong. Drinking six beers a day doesn’t mean you drive drunk. How can the state do this? What ever happened to doctor patient confidentiality?
Bad news…
It doesn’t say they have to report instances where he did drive unsafely, just that it was possible. On the other hand…
They do seem cognizant of doctor-patient confidentiality. On the other hand…
How does he do this? Show up and pass a breathalyzer test? And finally…
Whoops.
[quote]
Emerich said his heart problem has prompted him to limit his beer drinking to weekends. Aside from a drunken-driving conviction when he was 21,
[quote]
That was 23 years ago.
That is an absolute travesty. How anyone could defend this and not be outraged is beyond me.
This “driving is a privilege, not a right” BS has got to go. This isn’t 1930 anymore. Driving is nearly a requirement to a normal life in most areas of the country - to deny someones ability to drive removes their ability to get many jobs and generally take care of themselves. The government needs to be restricted regarding how easy it is to remove this “privilege”.
Geez, it makes me sick that we have to thank our Mommy Government for “allowing” us to drive. If I do something that endangers others, sure punish me, but the burden of proof should be on the government, not the citizen anymore.
Regarding this particular case - at what point will doctors start calling the government to tell them that they are “too old”, or too at risk of heart attack, to drive. Anyone with a cholestoral count above X can no longer drive. Over 300 lbs? Sorry you can’t drive.
Well if it’s illegal it’s a very bad law. This comes close to the premise of the movie “Minority Report” where you are found guilty of a crime before you commit it. Six beers a day is a lot but you can certainly drink them at night and be sober in the morning. Speaking of which, I assume the fellow has an eight hour a night sleeping habit. He can’t very well drive while asleep, can he? Let’s yank all the licenses.
Short of a state or federal constitutional amendment, you are not going to get a simple privilege raised toi the level of a right. And with the amount of wacko drivers already on the road, don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.
Considering the purchase of a home now triggers the USA Patriot Act and federal government notification (all those sleeper terrorist buying homes, you know!), the more immediate concerns of road safety won’t be touched. I would think we will see greater scrutiny of drivers not too far down the road (and take a hard right!).
Driving is a priviledge and not a right. By no means should it ever be a ‘right’. It’s a convenience.
This isn’t a slippery slope.
It’s a steep, smoothly polished, vaseline covered slope. It isn’t the State’s business if someone drinks enough beer to float a battleship everyday and has a driver’ license. Not too mention docto patient priviledge. :rolleyes:
I agree with him. Driving is a privilege and not a right, but that privilege shouldn’t be revoked arbitrarily. I’d be willing to bet that the judge gives him his license back; I can’t imagine a judge revoking a license when there’s no evidence that the guy is drinking and driving. I think these doctors and PennDOT might be misinterpreting the law; usually when doctors make these reports it’s because the personhas a medical condition like poor eyesight or a muscular disorder that makes them unsuitable drivers. Applying the law to heavy drinkers is just going to encourage people to lie to their doctors.
Speaking of which, I’d switch doctors.
This guy doesn’t sound like a drunk driver. Oh, sure, he’s a drunk. Long as he’s sober on the road, though, I don’t see the point of taking his license.
yep not having to walk 14+ miles a day through the nasty Michigan elements is such a privilage and a convinance
:rolleyes:
It’s a necessity that should removed only when it poses a clear and unreasonable danger.
People, we still don’t really know the medical side of it. The doc might have uncovered hepatic encephalopathy, for all we know. If I’ve got a patient whose ammonia levels are significantly elevated, but tells me he plans to continue drinking, I will NOT consider him a safe or competent driver. And I will report him.
Now consider the reporting requirement from the physician’s side. Say this guy takes out an old lady escorting kindergarteners across the street while drunk. Survivors uncover that his excess drinking was noted by his doctor, but not reported in apparent violation of law. You think the physician will come out of this with gonads intact?
I’m not a big fan of “one size fits all” laws like this, leaving too much up to individual interpretation by physicians, DAs, and judges. But I think we should withhold judgement until the particular facts are really known.
Since your a prison doctor, their isn’t much wrong with that. 
Well, we already tell some folks that they’re “too young” to drive. If that’s OK, surely “too old” is OK as well.
The article doesn’t say he drinks six beers a day, though.
This could be seven beers, it could be 27.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, states revoke licenses for less than that all the time. My license was once revoked because I’m epileptic and had a seizure 2 1/2 years before. It was reinstated after medical review showed that I was medically controlled and didn’t pose a threat, but that process took a couple months and cost me $50. It didn’t even make the news, much less have people up in arms.
I’m just not seeing anything worth getting all worked up about here.
As usual, the news story is one-sided, incomplete, and contradictory.
Just look at these two quotes:
So…which is it? Daily drinking or weekend drinking? What’s this “heart condition” and how serious is it? Is it possible the doc reported him for the heart condition and mentioned the drinking as an additional complicating factor, but the guy in question, when interviewed, glossed over his heart problems and emphasized the six pack?
While I agree that what he does in the privacy of his own home is generally nobody’s business, that changes when what he does can affect other people. He might well be an excellent driver at this point in time, but if he’s at high risk of sudden death or incapacitation he is not a safe driver. Certain conditions DO impose a burden on the driver - in CrazyCatLady’s situation she had to provide reasonable evidence that she was not going to have a seizure behind the wheel. It’s not a matter of whether she drives well or not, it’s a matter that you have to be concious to drive well. I myself have some vision problems - and the state is entirely justified in insisting that I wear corrective lenses and periodically demonstrate that my ability to see is adequate to drive safely. Should I ever arrive at the Department of Motor Vehicles and fail the vision test they are entirely justified in pulling my license until such time as I can satisfy their requirements. Likewise, this person mentioned in the OP apparently triggered some sort of alarm in this doctor. And, as I said, maybe it’s the heart disease that’s the problem, not the drinking, and someone is in heavy denial.
You do not have a right to endanger others
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Want to keep that privilege? Then you’re going to have to play by the rules.
Probably true.
None of this is the state’s business, until there is reasonable cause to suspect that he is engaged in driving drunk. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
Having a seizure is non-voluntary. Not driving while drunk is voluntary. Unless you can demonstrate the criminal behavior of driving while drunk, you cannot impose the sanctions involved in being convicted of DUI. A conviction 23 years ago does not demonstrate that, as Kel Varnsen points out. Unless he has been on probation for the last twenty-three years.
But that right is not absolute, and cannot be revoked by the state without due process.
I get the feeling there is more to the story than we are reading. But I was struck by this gem:
The confidentialy requirements allow you to release his name, his occupation, his medical conditions, and how much he drinks - but not the name of the doctor who ratted him out. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Well, I suppose I can see some arguments in favor of requiring people to prove their competance to drive - though I notice apparently “being an incompetant asshole” isn’t enough to trigger them, judging by a lot of other drivers.
So the next time I go to a doctor, since he is an agent of the police, should I insist that I be advised of my rights and supplied with a lawyer before I answer, “So, how are you feeling?”
It’s clever how they trick you into providing evidence against yourself.