- Joined
- Jul 16, 2004
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
so your average, 48 year old american laborer admits himself to the hospital after having heart problems. In talking about his health with the doctor, he candidly admits to having a penchant for drinking 6-10 beers daily after he gets home from work (i suppose 6 after a good day at work and 10 being a bad day, or maybe the converse). anyway he says he only drinks in the privacy of his home and never drinks and drive. he had a dui 23 years ago and since then his driving record has been clean.
now under PA state law the doctor is responsible for reporting patients to PennDot with conditions that might impair the ability to control and safely operate a vehicle, otherwise the physician is liable for damages resulting in an alcohol-related accident. Penndot gets about 20,000 such reports from doctors annually in which 25% concern siezure disorders. Two other states have similar laws.
so a few weeks later averge laborer joe gets a letter in the mail from PennDot saying his liscense is revoked and his only recourse involves getting a second doctors opinion in 30 days. which apparently he doesnt.
after wide local publicity, penndot changes its stance and now he regains his liscense but has to install an interlock ignition at a personal cost of a 1000 dollars. This punishment is mandatory for repeat dui offenders in PA. so when he wants to drive, he'll have to blow into this device on his door handle in order to unlock his car and prove his sobriety.
now debating the limits of being a functional alcoholic aside, what is clearly disconcerting is how this law undermines patient-doctor confidentiality. it encourages people to not disclose their drug and alcohol habits for fear of reprisal and in so doing, the law serves niether the patient's health nor public safety. The preffered approach of the AMA is to report drivers whose condition poses a "clear risk to public safety" and urges doctors to discuss the matter with their patients first.
in my opinion, while the doctor is absolutely smart to follow the law and not risk being unjustly screwed, it serves as another fine example of government meddling in people's business. while certain crimes discovered in the course of patient-doctor affairs warrant reporting (child abuse, rapes, etc), i know that my primary motive for becoming a doctor is far, far removed from being a law enforcement figure in disguise, god forbid. this further reinforces my belief that 90% of the laws enacted should be repealed, especially those communitarian laws, but thats a whole other issue.
and to think our nation once proudly embraced the motto "the government is best which governs least"
now under PA state law the doctor is responsible for reporting patients to PennDot with conditions that might impair the ability to control and safely operate a vehicle, otherwise the physician is liable for damages resulting in an alcohol-related accident. Penndot gets about 20,000 such reports from doctors annually in which 25% concern siezure disorders. Two other states have similar laws.
so a few weeks later averge laborer joe gets a letter in the mail from PennDot saying his liscense is revoked and his only recourse involves getting a second doctors opinion in 30 days. which apparently he doesnt.
after wide local publicity, penndot changes its stance and now he regains his liscense but has to install an interlock ignition at a personal cost of a 1000 dollars. This punishment is mandatory for repeat dui offenders in PA. so when he wants to drive, he'll have to blow into this device on his door handle in order to unlock his car and prove his sobriety.
now debating the limits of being a functional alcoholic aside, what is clearly disconcerting is how this law undermines patient-doctor confidentiality. it encourages people to not disclose their drug and alcohol habits for fear of reprisal and in so doing, the law serves niether the patient's health nor public safety. The preffered approach of the AMA is to report drivers whose condition poses a "clear risk to public safety" and urges doctors to discuss the matter with their patients first.
in my opinion, while the doctor is absolutely smart to follow the law and not risk being unjustly screwed, it serves as another fine example of government meddling in people's business. while certain crimes discovered in the course of patient-doctor affairs warrant reporting (child abuse, rapes, etc), i know that my primary motive for becoming a doctor is far, far removed from being a law enforcement figure in disguise, god forbid. this further reinforces my belief that 90% of the laws enacted should be repealed, especially those communitarian laws, but thats a whole other issue.
and to think our nation once proudly embraced the motto "the government is best which governs least"
