Those rules are irrational. They punish people for something that may negatively effect driving. Going without sleep negatively effects driving too, i don’t see doctors stripping licenses away from people who report insomnia. ANd what if they do? All that will happen is people will stop telling their doctor they have insomnia.
As far as your feelings that driving is a privilege, we buy our cars, and we pay the taxes that build and maintain the roads, the traffic cops, the courts and the DMV. Literally every aspect of driving is paid for by the driver either directly via registration payments and car payments or indirectly in taxes. Saying driving is a privilege is like saying a prostitute getting $10 from her pimp is a privilege.
But saying driving is a right while the courts have decided that it is not (in the US at least) seems even sillier. Many people feel it should* be a right, but stating loudly that it is, despite all evidence and rule of law, is just silly.
But we pay the taxes that build the driving infrastructure. We also buy our own cars. True there are certain rules you need to follow, but most are rational rules like obeying stop signs, not tailgating, etc. This current rule is totally irrational. And as I said insomnia is just as bad for driving as alcohol. Luckily insomniacs can still seek treatment w/o fear of having their licenses revoked. All this will do is prevent people from telling their doctors they have alcoholism.
So you have to weight the two things. Maybe some lives will be saved by having alcoholics have their licenses revoked, and maybe some will be lost because alcoholics will hide their alcoholism from doctors and surgeons, and end up with dangerous drug interactions or surgical complications as a result.
I would weigh on the side of getting rid of the ruling, because drinking everyday does not make a person a drunk driver. I have driven at noon, drank at 1pm and drove again at 10pm on the same day before, I was not a dangerous driver on those days.
If you must drive, don’t drink and if you must drink don’t drive.
Same applies to both illegal and/or prescription drugs.
A conviction of driving under the influence does not necessarily result in loss of license (even if many feel it should) but additional convictions may depending on the state.
.
.
.
It’s not a question of tricking you. It’s not as though they’re out there, deliberately trying to hunt down possible unfit drivers.
However, if a physician does know of a medical condition that would make someone dangerous behind the wheel, then that physician would be grossly negligent not to bring this to the attention of the authorities. Besides, what would you have them do – shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well. If he manages to kill a busload of children, that’s his problem, not mine”?
I want to be advised that the doc is working for the police, that’s all. And how about a warning sign posted in the exam room that says something on the order of, “Doctor-patient confidentiality does not exist in this state. Be advised that any discussion of drug and/or alcohol abuse, and any symptoms that relate to dizzyness or loss of consciousness, may be reported to the authorities.”
Then that’s a different story. I don’t see a problem with the doctor reporting something that is actually a crime and poses a threat to other drivers.
But I also agree with cookeze that the patient deserves to know that doctor-patient confidentiality doesn’t apply to certain subjects before he starts discussing those subjects.
As you know full well, this is a gross oversimplfication. As QtM said, we don’t know the full story, and it seems likely that this patient has some pressing medical problem that would be severely aggravated by alcohol. It is certainly unlikely that the courts would take his license away merely for being a regular beer drinker.
Now, we don’t know for sure if he has such a condition or not. However, we do know that this isn’t necessarily the same as calling the cops simply because he might be driving drunk.
Picture it, semi-rural Mississippi, 1995. Summertime, the living is hot, humid and horrific, but the cotton is high.
Mama TeaElle reports to her doctor that she’s having trouble sleeping at night. Doesn’t know why. Nothing she’s tried has helped her to be able to get more than three or four hours a night, and those hours are not consecutive, as she awakens at the slightest sound. Further, Mama TeaElle reports that she’s found herself nodding off at her desk at work, and, heaven forbid, once at church. She’s feeling constantly fatigued, cranky and she’s afraid she’s going to nod off at a highly inopportune moment.
Doctor prescribes a fairly powerful sleep aid to help Mama TeaElle get her sleep cycle back on track, and tells her to check in every 72 hours. Meanwhile, he orders her absolutely, positively, not to drive. Get herself home from his office and hang up the keys until he gives her the all clear. If the situation isn’t remedied by a short spell of medication, he will have to report her to the state to have her license temporarily suspended for medical reasons.
That doesn’t make driving a right. Restaurant owners buy their own buildings, their own equipment, their own supplies and their own food. They pay for their own utilities and for their own staffs. But if health inspectors find that there are problems in a restaurant’s kitchen, they can shut the restaurant down, even if no one has complained or become ill. There is no right to stay open, even though shutting down will have an incredibly deleterious effect on the restaurant’s business.
You know, doctor-patient confidentiality in an absolute sense hasn’t existed for years, if it ever did.
There are many diseases that your doctor is obligated to report to the government if you show up suffering from them.
There are obligations to report child abuse.
There is an obligation to report you if the doctor has reason to believe you may harm yourself or others.
And there are some medical conditions that are incompatible with driving. Sorry, folks. That’s the unfortunate reality.
True, a six-pack a day does not necessarially an alcoholic make - but combining alcohol with other medications, or with certain disorders, will put you into an extremely high risk category. Maybe this guy hasn’t had an accident yet because he’s an extraordinarially good driver - but that doesn’t mean he’s immune to sudden death, medication side effects, or just a bad day.
Mr. Driver can blab all he wants to reporters and divulged just the information he wants them to know - the doctors/state can’t say anything, including the one or two crucial facts that might make you sit up and go - oh, wait - he shouldn’t be driving after all.
The State can already take away your driving privelege for a myriad of reasons.
Such as; failure to pay a non moving violation, non payment of a fishing or hunting fine, failure to pay child support, failure to pay taxes, court ordered actions that are non driving related, old age, etc.
Now, it should be in the States interest to protect its citizens against any known liabilities and a medical condition that may endanger other drivers is a liability.
A six-pack a day person should not automatically be revoked, however, that decision should still be left to the State. Especially in this case were the person in question has other medical conditions that would be made worse by the effects of alcohol and deteriorate the driving abilities even further. Often, the State can make absolute sobriety a term of probation and I don’t see why it couldn’t do so in some cases as a proactive measure when the State has other medical information that would indicate the driver to be a certain hazard.
"Many states will ask you specific questions regarding your health when you renew your driver’s license. For example, you might receive a questionnaire that asks you whether you have ever had seizures, strokes, heart problems, dizziness, eyesight problems or other medical troubles. If you have medical problems and answer the questions truthfully, an examiner may question you further and may even deny you a license. If you don’t tell the truth, you may get your license, but you’re setting yourself up for big legal trouble if you are in an accident caused by one of these impairments. It’s not that different from driving a car when you know the brakes are bad: If you go out on the road with defective equipment that you know about, you greatly increase the chance that you will be held responsible if the defect causes an accident. "
Excuse me, I want to be perfectly clear on what you’re suggesting here… Are you saying that doctors should explicitly state “from this point in the conversation forward, strict confidentiality no longer exists and it is possible that the information you give me may be used to strip you of driving privileges”? (Or equivalent, given some other situation)
And the patient then does… what? Elect not to mention that seizure six months ago/the heart pains/the need for a beer to get going in the morning…? This benefits the patient how? What about those who might be in the passenger seat? How about the rest of us sharing the road?
This is NOT a situation where no one else can be hurt!
I can’t help but think this would also lead to patients simply not mentioning problems like sleep troubles, chest pains, etc. - the vast majority of which are treatable and do NOT require suspesion of driving privileges.
The revoking of a license for medical reasons is NOT done as punishment - it is done as a safety measure. For your benefit as well as everyone else’s. Or are you going to tell me you honestly don’t mind sharing the road with someone who may pass out, die suddenly, or otherwise be unable to function well enough to control the vehicle?
You don’t want your doctor reporting health problems in you that might make you an unsafe driver? OK - then don’t drive. Because as soon as you accept the license you are, in fact, surrendering that much of your privacy - it’s the price you pay for driving. No one forced you to get that license - granted, going without might have it’s disadvantages but hey, you’ll have less government meddling in your life.
Yes, maybe. If he tells a doctor something in confidence, and the doctor is not actually required by his position to keep that confidence, then it seems perfectly reasonable to let people know that they shouldn’t be completely honest with their doctor if they don’t want that kind of stuff getting out.
And a guy losing his job because he can’t drive benefits him? Come on. Certain professions have an air of confidentiality about them. Lawyers, doctors, and priests come to mind. If there is no legal protection of confidentiality, then fuck yes the person deserves to know.
You can get killed walking your doggie. It is a dangerous life. And driving is a privilege, remember? If you don’t think the privilege is worth the risk, then don’t do it. :rolleyes:
Which should show you the inaneness of breaking a situation based otherwise on trust and privacy, shouldn’t it? Or do you intend to also pass a law that punishes people for lying to their doctors?
A license makes it legal to drive. It doesn’t allow people to drive. I can get into a car with or without a license. There is nothing inherent in the nature of cars, humans, or the entire universe that gives a rectangular piece of plastic the ability to let a person drive.
You afraid that someone might be on the road that is dangerous? Ok - then don’t drive.
Hey, it’s not as if the doctor is allowed to just blab all over town - the circumstances under which he/she divulges such information are very limited. It should be obvious from reading the article that this information is NOT available to the public from either the doctor OR the department of motor vehicles - when they tell the reporter “due to privacy concerns we can’t discuss this with you”.
And if you don’t want it getting out that you’re a chronic drunk with heart disease then
Don’t drink
Take better care of yourself so you avoid/reduce the health problems
Don’t talk to reporters about it.
This guy dumped more of his privacy by talking to reporters than his doc did by talking to the state.
If you can’t drive safely I’m sorry - you’ll have to either find alternate transportation or get a job allowing you to exist without driving. I’ve worked with people who were blind, semi-controlled epileptics, brittle diabetics… all folks who could not drive safely yet managed to hold down very decent jobs, buy houses, and maintain middle class lifestyles.
I’m sorry if someone has a problem that makes them *inherently * unsafe behind the wheel - nonetheless, I can’t condone them driving. This may require some major readjustments on their part but that is the way you deal with this sort of thing ethically. “I need to drive to get to my job” is NOT a sufficient excuse for needlessly endangering others.
15 of the 24 years I have been working for a living I was employed at jobs where I did not need to drive to work, and often choose not to. In fact, for 9 of those years I didn’t own a car, didn’t borrow a car, did not rent a car - basically just didn’t drive at all. Not because of legal issues or medical problems but simply because I didn’t need to do so. So don’t tell me how “necessary” it is to drive in order to work - because it isn’t.
Then I’ll tell you right now that no, your legal guarantee of confidentiality is not and never has been absolute. If, for example, you are threatening to kill someone and relate detailed plans to either your doctor or your lawyer he/she is obligated to act on that information. I’m not 100% sure about the priests.
Since it is not just your life involved you do not have the absolute final word here. It’s not a matter of do YOU think you’re safe - are you objectively safe?
Your “right to drive” or even “privilege to drive” ends where the risk to others of allowing you to do so goes up significantly above average.
I’m glad you realize that. However, if you’re caught driving with a suspended or revoked license I would argue for jail time, and not just 90 days or some such. Those who willfully break the law most certainly do not deserve the privilege of driving and if they can’t behave on their own they should be put where they will not endanger others.
Actually, I frequently avoid driving for that very reason, often electing to take a bus or train. When I do need to drive roads I consider particularly hazardous I often choose to drive at times when traffic is light, again, to avoid as much trouble as possible.