"To the Editor: Seizure disorders are often the most scrutinised medical conditions in relation to road accidents. Epileptologists internationally have reached some consensus on the role best played by treating doctors: * ensuring patients receive proper medical care; * advising on assessed risk and its minimisation; and * reporting (if necessary, without patient consent) when a patient becomes a risk yet continues to drive. In a recent editorial on sleep disorders and driving, 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. 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 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, 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, 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. (Author/publisher)
Abstract