mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | MJA shop | MJA Careers | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS  | Login | Buy full access

Letters

New driving guidelines: ethical and legal uncertainties

MJA 2003; 179 (6): 327-328

Andrew B Black,* Sam F Berkovic

* Neurologist, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, SA; and Chair, Driving Committee, Epilepsy Society of Australia. † Neurologist, Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, West Heidelberg, VIC; and President, Epilepsy Society of Australia. Correspondence: Dr A B Black, Ashford Specialist Centre, 57–59 Anzac Highway, Ashford, SA 5035. abblackATchariot.net.au

To the Editor: Seizure disorders are often the most scrutinised medical conditions in relation to road accidents.1 Epileptologists internationally have reached some consensus on the role best played by treating doctors:

In a recent editorial on sleep disorders and driving,3 McEvoy also emphasises the essential role of first establishing the therapeutic relationship, and refers to the impending release by the National Road Transport Commission of new medical standards for all vehicle types.4

Australian neurologists and the Epilepsy Society of Australia find that the new guidelines are imprecise in defining the role played by doctors and Driver Licensing Authorities (DLAs), and are excessively detailed with cumbersome processes that are open to confusion. The instructions for using four separate forms (3.3) are complex and imprecise, giving no indication about discretion in their use or non-use. Moreover, it is not the role of doctors to define specific restrictions for holders of conditional licences (3.3.1), but that of the DLA. Demands on doctors for surveillance and enforcement are excessive, and by interfering with the maintenance of proper rapport may prove counter-productive. The roles for consultants are not clearly defined.

A more desirable model is one in which the DLA takes responsibility for all legally enforceable decisions and does not expect treating doctors to decide on fitness-to-drive. A treating doctor may provide factual information, but is not expected to give an opinion on licensing questions. This model, used in the United Kingdom,5 is simple, well understood and respected. The DLA there obtains independent medical advice in deciding borderline cases, an optional mechanism given little attention in the Australian review. Doctors in the UK are well aware of their common law duty to report patients if their actions are endangering.

We are drifting away from this simpler and ethically and medicolegally more satisfactory model at our peril. We should re-engage our DLA colleagues to establish a more effective relationship, in which they ensure their licence holders are well informed of their obligations, while we provide the expert care and management of our patients which will best encourage a safer driving environment.

  1. Black AB, Lai N. Epilepsy and driving in South Australia: an assessment of compulsory notification. Med Law 1997; 17: 253-267.
  2. Fisher RS, et al. Epilepsy and driving. An international perspective. Epilepsia 1994; 25: 675-684.
  3. McEvoy RD. Asleep at the wheel: who’s at risk? Med J Aust 2003; 178: 365-366. <PubMed><eMJA full text>
  4. Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers. Australian Transport Council 2003. (Final Draft dated 3 September 2002.)
  5. Taylor JF, editor. Medical aspects of fitness to drive. 5th ed. London: Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, 1995.

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2003 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X


Home | Issues | MJA shop | Terms of use | MJA Careers | More... | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS 

mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia