Doctors ordered to report patients to DVLA
Poll
Should GPs break patient confidentiality and report patients to the DVLA?
Do you agree with this or is patient confidentially more important? Is it really a GPs job to inform the DVLA?
While there are clearly far too many people on the roads that shouldn't be there, I don't think it should be doctors responsibility and the erosion of trust it may cause will be more damaging. It will certainly make me think twice before mentioning certain things to my GP, I won't be telling them about any past drug use for instance.
While there are clearly far too many people on the roads that shouldn't be there, I don't think it should be doctors responsibility and the erosion of trust it may cause will be more damaging. It will certainly make me think twice before mentioning certain things to my GP, I won't be telling them about any past drug use for instance.
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I disagree, patient confidentiality should be paramount.
If you start making exceptions people will lose trust in doctors and stop telling them information that may be important
If you start making exceptions people will lose trust in doctors and stop telling them information that may be important
I can see your argument and yes its true, it could potentially harm the doctor-patient relationship and they may withhold giving all the infomation to them.
On the other hand, if that person its a potential danger to the public, its the doctors duty to inform the DVLA to avoid a potentially serious accident before it happens. Better safe than sorry imo
On the other hand, if that person its a potential danger to the public, its the doctors duty to inform the DVLA to avoid a potentially serious accident before it happens. Better safe than sorry imo
Original post by Ekno
On the other hand, if that person its a potential danger to the public, its the doctors duty to inform the DVLA to avoid a potentially serious accident before it happens. Better safe than sorry imo
On the other hand, if that person its a potential danger to the public, its the doctors duty to inform the DVLA to avoid a potentially serious accident before it happens. Better safe than sorry imo
Where as this is indeed true, I would ask how many accidents would be prevented as a result of this change? If it is a big number then fair play. If it is a small number then it seems a large price to pay for such a small outcome and yet another intervention into our privacy by the state.
Original post by silverbolt
I disagree, patient confidentiality should be paramount.
If you start making exceptions people will lose trust in doctors and stop telling them information that may be important
If you start making exceptions people will lose trust in doctors and stop telling them information that may be important
I think if someone is genuine and immediate threat to themselves or members of the public they should be reported.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Agree with the idea that GPs should inform the DVLA (or perhaps some admin staff rather than GPs).
If there is someone with poor health, reduced eyesight, mobility, etc, it affects their driving and endanger others on the road. With the current system, its up to people themselves to decide whether they're fit enough to drive.
Only need to look at what happened in Scotland with the rubbish truck driver to see an example of this.
If there is someone with poor health, reduced eyesight, mobility, etc, it affects their driving and endanger others on the road. With the current system, its up to people themselves to decide whether they're fit enough to drive.
Only need to look at what happened in Scotland with the rubbish truck driver to see an example of this.
Original post by SallyMae
Link?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34912771
I wonder how many people who are medically unfit to drive actually do (and don't) tell the DVLA? I have, somewhere, a load of papers from the eye infirmary. Somewhere, it tells me that I have to inform the DVLA that I am now registered partially sighted, therefore, I am medically unfit to drive. (most people with the condition I have can't drive; so had tests done at the hospital first and too their advice before even thinking about driving)
Original post by DiddyDec
I think if someone is genuine and immediate threat to themselves or members of the public they should be reported.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Sounds reasonable, but what constitutes an immediate threat to themselves or members of the public?
The DVLA would include any past illicit drug use in this.
'The guidance also emphasises that when doctors diagnose a patient's condition, or provide treatment, they should keep the patient's ability to drive safely at the forefront of their minds.'
This angers me. A doctor should be focused on treating their patient to improve the patient's quality of life. Not focused on 'is my patient safe to drive?'
This angers me. A doctor should be focused on treating their patient to improve the patient's quality of life. Not focused on 'is my patient safe to drive?'
Original post by MichaelGreen
Sounds reasonable, but what constitutes an immediate threat to themselves or members of the public?
The DVLA would include any past illicit drug use in this.
The DVLA would include any past illicit drug use in this.
I don't think that doctors should the ones to actually decide. It should go to a committee or board to check the case so that doctors can reduce their liability.
I believe there would need to be sensible guidelines in place. Taking drugs previously (not within the 3 days to be on safe side) should not be counted against you.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SmallTownGirl
'The guidance also emphasises that when doctors diagnose a patient's condition, or provide treatment, they should keep the patient's ability to drive safely at the forefront of their minds.'
This angers me. A doctor should be focused on treating their patient to improve the patient's quality of life. Not focused on 'is my patient safe to drive?'
This angers me. A doctor should be focused on treating their patient to improve the patient's quality of life. Not focused on 'is my patient safe to drive?'
Taking away their ability to drive could make their quality of life very poor as it could mean that they can no longer work.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
Taking away their ability to drive could make their quality of life very poor as it could mean that they can no longer work.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Those decisions aren't made lightly. If someone's unsafe to drive, they have to be taken off the road.
Original post by OU Student
Those decisions aren't made lightly. If someone's unsafe to drive, they have to be taken off the road.
I think in relation to the context it was said in I understand it to be meaning when treating the patient keep in your mind their ability to drive as some treatments will limit driving more than others.
If someone is unsafe to drive then there are no 2 ways about it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by OU Student
Those decisions aren't made lightly.
Not sure where you get that idea, the DVLA are a bureaucratic nightmare that will take your licence away in a flash and have you jumping through hoops for months on end for so much as ticking the wrong box.
Original post by domonict
Perhaps the victims of the Glasgow bin lorry would disagree?
Quite possibly, not sure it's a good idea to decide policy on appeals to emotion though.
Original post by domonict
The Dr is only being asked to refer the patient to DVLA for assessment, with reference to current medical conditions.
Past drug use is not any more relevant to DVLA as "I drank a bottle of Vodka last weekend"
The Dr is only being asked to refer the patient to DVLA for assessment, with reference to current medical conditions.
Past drug use is not any more relevant to DVLA as "I drank a bottle of Vodka last weekend"
Yes, drinking a whole bottle of vodka on a weekend would probably be considered misuse, which the DVLA would expect to be reported to them just like if you smoked a joint on the weekend.
(edited 8 years ago)
Smalltowngirl
This angers me. A doctor should be focused on treating their patient to improve the patient's quality of life. Not focused on 'is my patient safe to drive?'
So if they are unsafe to drive, then surely it is the doctor's responsibility, according to your own logic, which would require them to report their patients to the DVLA.
Once people realise that Doctors might tell the DVLA about their condition they'll stop seeking medical help and continue to drive regardless. Arguably a worse situation.
Given how essential being able to drive is for a lot of people it might even put people off seeking medical help for conditions which the patient thinks might get reported to the DVLA, even if that's not the case.
Given how essential being able to drive is for a lot of people it might even put people off seeking medical help for conditions which the patient thinks might get reported to the DVLA, even if that's not the case.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Driving after having a fit
- What is in both of these degrees - biomed/pharmacy
- Medicine Interview Discussion 2024 Entry
- Visual field eye test & driving
- Are doctors always right?
- Routes into pathology
- Provisional license query for international boarder in the UK
- Oxford vs Cambridge
- Confused abt counting repsirations, whats the best way??
- Application Competition Form for Provisional
- Royal Mail lost my BRP
- *MEGATHREAD* Medicine 2022 entry interviews discussion
- Failing nursing management placement
- Work experience For degree in medicine
- Fitness to practice appeal
- Radiography or Midwifery?
- DVLA Customer Support Officer
- I'm a Phlebotomist, AMA!
- Can patients ever know more than doctors?
- Becoming a doctor in the US from UK medical school
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
