A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
I was under the care of a doctor. I
replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
Diabetes I was told that I could not
renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
condition. Now every six months I am
mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
Washing department of
licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
reason for this is and how many
other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
discussion on this topic.
26
Feb
Driver license hassle
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)
In article <48q0hk$1…@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, XEPK…@prodigy.com
(Carol Haagensen) wrote:
* Wow! Seems like a good reason to lie!
No, never lie. Just accidentally misunderstand the question and say no.
I would *NEVER* let this type of info on department of motor vehicle
records if I could at all help it. DMV records are almost as easy to get
as telephone records, it seems. The latest thing is DMV records by state
on CD-ROM, available to anyone with a couple hundred bucks. I don’t want
any medical conditions floating around on that.
bh
jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) wrote:
>A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
>I was under the care of a doctor. I
>replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
>Diabetes I was told that I could not
>renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
>condition. Now every six months I am
>mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
>Washing department of
>licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
>reason for this is and how many
>other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
>discussion on this topic.
Ohio has a similar hassle for diabetics. When I arrived
here 25+ years ago, like you I was asked if I suffered from
a "list of diseases," diabetes included. When I answered
yes, I was given an "interim licence" ( good for 90 days? )
and instructed to have a doctor fill out a form ( which I
did ). Every 90 days, for 20+ years, I had my doctor "filled
out a form." *Finally* the BMV got tired of receiving forms
that said the same thing om me, and sent me an "unrestricted"
license. Go figure. Guess the BMV doesn’t have anything
better to do.
John
jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) wrote:
>A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
>I was under the care of a doctor. I
>replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
>Diabetes I was told that I could not
>renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
>condition. Now every six months I am
>mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
>Washing department of
>licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
>reason for this is and how many
>other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
>discussion on this topic.
Hi James,
Well, I also live in Washington. I was diagnosed with type II
recently, and I just attended classes at our local hospital. They did
tell us that we were supposed to go to the Driver’s License office and
inform them of our Diabetes and fill out the form for our doctor to
sign. Most in the group didn’t seem too interested in volunteering
this information to the licensing bureau.
The instructor said that the reason for this is because of the
potential for danger if you are driving and experience low BG and
black out or something. Apparently, they want your doctor to sign
that you have not experienced these type of severe lows in the last
six months.
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
÷÷—Bob Martin–©1995–rmar…@teleport.com—-N7JXN
÷÷———Check my General Santos City Web Page!!
÷÷——http://www.teleport.com/~rmartin/gensan.shtml
÷÷—Author-"North American Repeater Atlas"-pub. by ARRL
÷÷-Opinions Expressed Are Mine and Probably Nobody Elses!
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
In article <48quhg$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
tbjsuza…@aol.com (TBJSuzanne) wrote:
>ACLU. This is a violation of your privacy and civil rights. It’s bad
>enough that diabetics are discriminated against with insurances!
I, also, am aggrevated with having to do this. And, yes, it does *seem* like
discrimination. One thing we have to remember though is that driving is a
*priveledge*. It is in no way our *right* to drive a motor vehicle. I can
certainly see the state’s reason at wanting to know how our health is for the
rest of us (yes me included) on the road. I saw one comparison to HIV and why
the state doesn’t require people to explain their condition. I don’t believe
that HIV and diabetes are on the same ball field. With diabetes, it is
possible to black out in a very short period of time and that’s not true with
HIV (ok ok I suppose it’s *possible*, if the person is sick enough).
It really bugs me to have to provide this info every 6 months, but that’s
what we have to deal with right now. What is really discrimination, IMHO, is
the denial of pilot’s license to diabetics. Period. I hear there may be some
change to that rule, allowing individual review a patients health for
obtaining a pilot’s licenses. I hope this is happening.
ACLU. This is a violation of your privacy and civil rights. It’s bad
enough that diabetics are discriminated against with insurances!
In article <48nk79$…@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) writes:
>A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
>I was under the care of a doctor. I replied yes and was asked what the
>condition was and when I replied Diabetes I was told that I could not
>renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
>condition. Now every six months I am mailed a form, which must be taken
>to my doctor and then mailed to theWashing department of licensing. This
>seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the reason for this is and
>how many other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
>discussion on this topic.
Sorry, folks — I think this is a good idea, and I speak as a drivers’
license examiner AND as the wife of a former Type I diabetic.
Before my husband’s kidney/pancreas transplant in February of this year, he
had *two* minor auto accidents due to what I call "brown-outs" — he was
conscious the entire time, but afterward could not recall what led to the
accidents. On both occasions the EMTs said his BG was *extremely* low. We
are just fortunate that no one was hurt in these accidents.
Last year, here in GA, a teenager lost control of her car and crashed through
the front of a McDonald’s when she went into insulin shock. Fortunately there
were only minor injuries.
Regulations such as these may seem like a "hassle," but at the very least,
they assure that you see a doctor every six months, or year, or whatever.
This may not prevent an accident, but it *does* provide some kind of proof
that you are taking steps to care for yourself and, hopefully, prevent injury
to yourself and others.
Joy, on Evan’s acct.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
ch…@skypoint.com (chris) wrote:
>In article <48quhg$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> tbjsuza…@aol.com (TBJSuzanne) wrote:
>>ACLU. This is a violation of your privacy and civil rights. It’s bad
>>enough that diabetics are discriminated against with insurances!
>I, also, am aggrevated with having to do this. And, yes, it does *seem*
like
>discrimination. One thing we have to remember though is that driving is
a
>*priveledge*. It is in no way our *right* to drive a motor vehicle. I
can
>certainly see the state’s reason at wanting to know how our health is
for the
>rest of us (yes me included) on the road. I saw one comparison to HIV
and why
>the state doesn’t require people to explain their condition. I don’t
believe
>that HIV and diabetes are on the same ball field.
Apparently I was not very clear. I was *not* comparing diabetes to HIV,
for heaven’s sake. GET REAL! I was saying that there are *laws* that
protect the privacy of individuals with health concerns…HIV being the
most glaring and publicized example, with the most obvious reason *to*
provide that information…especially for those who are most likely to be
exposed to bio-hazards.
With diabetes, it is
>possible to black out in a very short period of time and that’s not true
with
>HIV (ok ok I suppose it’s *possible*, if the person is sick enough).
> It really bugs me to have to provide this info every 6 months, but
that’s
>what we have to deal with right now. What is really discrimination,
IMHO, is
>the denial of pilot’s license to diabetics. Period. I hear there may be
some
>change to that rule, allowing individual review a patients health for
>obtaining a pilot’s licenses. I hope this is happening.
My *point* is that if a diabetic is required to provide this information,
which can cause impaired judgement when driving if Bgs are out of control,
then why aren’t DUIs, known drug users, etc., also required to do this?
I think a diabetic is *far* less likely to cause an accident than these
groups of people! It is clearly discrimination. And, I am seriously
wondering if it is even constitutional. Thank heavens it is not required
in my state, or I *would* hire an attorney!
–ch
eherr…@mindspring.com (Evan L. Herring) wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Sorry, folks — I think this is a good idea, and I speak as a drivers’
>license examiner AND as the wife of a former Type I diabetic.
>Before my husband’s kidney/pancreas transplant in February of this year,
he
>had *two* minor auto accidents due to what I call "brown-outs" — he was
>conscious the entire time, but afterward could not recall what led to
the
>accidents. On both occasions the EMTs said his BG was *extremely* low.
We
>are just fortunate that no one was hurt in these accidents.
>Last year, here in GA, a teenager lost control of her car and crashed
through
>the front of a McDonald’s when she went into insulin shock. Fortunately
there
>were only minor injuries.
>Regulations such as these may seem like a "hassle," but at the very
least,
>they assure that you see a doctor every six months, or year, or whatever.
>This may not prevent an accident, but it *does* provide some kind of
proof
>that you are taking steps to care for yourself and, hopefully, prevent
injury
>to yourself and others.
>Joy, on Evan’s acct.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that diabetes *may* cause a car
accident. However, *I* am arguing that so can several other conditions
and lifestyles. You mentioned kidney problems. I can add heart attacks.
We’ve all heard stories of some guy having a heart attack and crashing,
too. If diabetics are required to fill out this papterwork, then I say
so should every other medical condition, alcoholic, DUI, known drug user,
etc., that could also potentially cause an accident. To single out one
medical condition, such as diabetes, is clearly discriminatory…and I
doubt it is constitutional! The "hassle" for a diabetic isn’t the point.
The point is that MANY medical conditions can cause accidents. So, if
the State takes that point of view, it should require *every* person
living in the state who may potentially cause a car accident due to
impaired judgement while driving, to see *their* doctor every six months,
also.
–ch
I had an accident once, several years ago, where I passed out while
driving. No one was hurt and the police weren’t called. I was later
told that if the police had come and my driver’s license had shown that I
was diabetic, I would be the responsible party in the accident, no matter
what the circumstances or who was at fault. I don’t remember who told me
this, seems like it was someone in the doctor’s office, but what right do
they have to blame me for an accident just because I’m diabetic.
I hesitate to tell my story. Several years ago I told the
truth and checked the box next to "diabetes" and it took a
couple of weeks, doctor interviews, etc, to get my license
renewed.
Our state evidently has no such tracking of us nasty diabetics
as yours does. Recently, four years later, standing in the
license renewal line again, I couldn’t resist and checked "no"
this time to the diabetes box and was immediately issued a
license, no problemo at all.
This drivers license restriction for certain diseases is a real
sore spot with me, since I am diabetic and have 2 driving age
daughters with epilepsy. On the one hand I understand the
"HORROR" of the general idea of licensing people with problems
to drive.
Hoever, I have only circumstancially heard of a couple of cases
wherein diabetes or epilepsy was blamed on a wreck, and do not
know if either resulted in serious injury. Drug and alcoholic
intoxication are supposedly involved in most traffic accidents
in this country, but nowhere on our drivers license
application is there any "box" or question about whether we
drive while drunk or whether we drink to excess or any such
thing, in spite of this being a major factor in auto accidents!
My gripe is, if they are going to restrict us with diseases,
why no effort to filter out those who are much more likely to
cause problems on the road? "IMHO"
Jim
—
rmar…@teleport.com (Robert C. Martin) dijo a todos por la red:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) wrote:
>>A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
>>I was under the care of a doctor. I
>>replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
>>Diabetes I was told that I could not
>>renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
>>condition. Now every six months I am
>>mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
>>Washing department of
>>licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
>>reason for this is and how many
>>other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
>>discussion on this topic.
>Hi James,
>Well, I also live in Washington. I was diagnosed with type II
>recently, and I just attended classes at our local hospital. They did
>tell us that we were supposed to go to the Driver’s License office and
>inform them of our Diabetes and fill out the form for our doctor to
>sign. Most in the group didn’t seem too interested in volunteering
>this information to the licensing bureau.
>The instructor said that the reason for this is because of the
>potential for danger if you are driving and experience low BG and
>black out or something. Apparently, they want your doctor to sign
>that you have not experienced these type of severe lows in the last
>six months.
Yeah, California too. Makes me very angry.
Jason16
In article <eherring.540.01180…@mindspring.com>,
Evan L. Herring <eherr…@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <48ret9$1…@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> XEPK…@prodigy.com (Carol Haagensen) writes:
>>My *point* is that if a diabetic is required to provide this information,
>>which can cause impaired judgement when driving if Bgs are out of control,
>> then why aren’t DUIs, known drug users, etc., also required to do this?
>Drunks *can* sober up. So can drug users. Diabetes, like it or not, is a
>permanent condition. (Unless you’re fortunate enough to have a pancreas
>transplant.) And for those of you who think diabetics are singled out, most
>states also want to know about epilepsy, heart conditions and unexplained
>black-outs or dizziness.
And hypoglycemia can be treated with carbohydrates…
As a hypoglycemic, I know how dangerous it can be when someone drives
when they have low blood sugar. But, if we can trust the average
citizen to take a cab when they’re drunk, we should be able to trust
a hypoglycemic or diabetic to do the same when blood sugar is low.
Pam
—
Pamela Minthorn
paja…@atticus.stanford.edu <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
. ,
.:/
. ,,///;, ,;/ "Ambition is so powerful a passion
. o:::::::;;/// in the human breast, that no matter
>::::::::;;\\\ how high we achieve, we are never
”\\\\\’" ‘;\ satisfied." – Machiavelli
’;\
In article <48so2l$…@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
elai…@osuokc.okstate.edu says…
>I had an accident once, several years ago, where I passed out while
>driving. No one was hurt and the police weren’t called. I was later
>told that if the police had come and my driver’s license had shown tha
>t I
>was diabetic, I would be the responsible party in the accident, no mat
>ter
>what the circumstances or who was at fault. I don’t remember who told
> me
>this, seems like it was someone in the doctor’s office, but what right
> do
>they have to blame me for an accident just because I’m diabetic.
If I was investigating the accident regardless of whether there were
injuries I would probably consider issuing a ticket for driving without
due care and attention. You don’t have to have diabetes to fall asleep
at the wheel. As far as automatically being responsible for an accident
just because you have diabetes, I think you were misinformed. If
however, it can be proved that you drove knowing that you were
experiencing a low sugar reaction it might change the picture. What’s
the difference between someone knowingly getting into their car and
driving under the influence of alcohol or knowingly getting into their
car when they are having a diabetic reaction? Neither is a prudent
thing to do.
Cheers, John C.
In article <48r7ko$…@newshost.lanl.gov>, jdevenp…@lanl.gov says…
>I hesitate to tell my story. Several years ago I told the
>truth and checked the box next to "diabetes" and it took a
>couple of weeks, doctor interviews, etc, to get my license
>renewed.
<snipped>
>Hoever, I have only circumstancially heard of a couple of cases
>wherein diabetes or epilepsy was blamed on a wreck, and do not
>know if either resulted in serious injury. Drug and alcoholic
>intoxication are supposedly involved in most traffic accidents
>in this country, but nowhere on our drivers license
>application is there any "box" or question about whether we
>drive while drunk or whether we drink to excess or any such
>thing, in spite of this being a major factor in auto accidents!
>My gripe is, if they are going to restrict us with diseases,
>why no effort to filter out those who are much more likely to
>cause problems on the road? "IMHO"
>Jim
>–
Been a cop for 18 years and only came across two accidents involving
diabetic reactions as the contributing factors. Only one accident as a
result of an epileptic seizure. One accident a fellow had a coronary and
died at the wheel.
Bottom line is that we have more to worry about from impaired drivers and
just plain poor driving habits than we do about the incidence of accidents
due to diseases, IMHO.
All states and provinces keep statistical records of the causes of accidents
and it would be interesting to see exactly what those statistics reveal
about the frequency of accidents caused by pre-existing medical conditions.
Cheers, John C.
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 05:30:11 GMT, rmar…@teleport.com (Robert C.
Martin) wrote:
>Well, I also live in Washington. I was diagnosed with type II
>recently, and I just attended classes at our local hospital. They did
>tell us that we were supposed to go to the Driver’s License office and
>inform them of our Diabetes and fill out the form for our doctor to
>sign. Most in the group didn’t seem too interested in volunteering
>this information to the licensing bureau.
>The instructor said that the reason for this is because of the
>potential for danger if you are driving and experience low BG and
>black out or something. Apparently, they want your doctor to sign
>that you have not experienced these type of severe lows in the last
>six months.
A couple of years ago I asked about this at our Oregon DMV. I was told
that only if I had ever lost consciousness or physical control would I
be required to get a doctor’s OK. Since this has never happened to me,
I’ve never had to do it. The policy must vary widely from state to
state.
==Sam==
eherr…@mindspring.com (Evan L. Herring) writes:
>Before my husband’s kidney/pancreas transplant in February of this year, he
>had *two* minor auto accidents due to what I call "brown-outs" — he was
>conscious the entire time, but afterward could not recall what led to the
>accidents. On both occasions the EMTs said his BG was *extremely* low. We
>are just fortunate that no one was hurt in these accidents.
>Regulations such as these may seem like a "hassle," but at the very least,
>they assure that you see a doctor every six months, or year, or whatever.
>This may not prevent an accident, but it *does* provide some kind of proof
>that you are taking steps to care for yourself and, hopefully, prevent injury
>to yourself and others.
>Joy, on Evan’s acct.
Such regulations will do NOTHING to prevent such accidents. It sounds
like your husband was under a doctor’s care — at least I assume he
was if he was in bad enough shape to need a kidney transplant. Did it
make him responsibly check his blood sugar before driving?
Regulations such as these serve only to harass responsible diabetics,
while doing nothing about irresponsible ones.
Kelly Miller
mil…@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
In article <eherring.538.013EA…@mindspring.com>,
Joy Herring <eherr…@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Sorry, folks — I think this is a good idea, and I speak as a drivers’
>license examiner AND as the wife of a former Type I diabetic.
[snip]
>Regulations such as these may seem like a "hassle," but at the very least,
>they assure that you see a doctor every six months, or year, or whatever.
>This may not prevent an accident, but it *does* provide some kind of proof
>that you are taking steps to care for yourself and, hopefully, prevent injury
>to yourself and others.
I do not think that it is the proper responsibility of the Department of
Motor Vehicles to intervene in my relationship with my doctor. My
experience with DMV regulations is that they are applied inconsistently.
I have had drivers license examiners who have chosen to ignore my diabetes,
as well as those who have consulted at length with supervisors as to what
to require of me. I would be interested in seeing any actual statistics
on whether requiring doctor’s certification makes any difference. I doubt
that it does, since the DMV grants licenses to practically everyone who
applies. I see little point in a six-month doctor’s re-certification
requirement in the absence of documented poor driving performance.
–
Steve Kirchoefer
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5347
*
* Drunks *can* sober up.
And do they? Not much. I’m from Wisconsin, where we regularly read of
people getting fifth or more drunk driving conviction. I’m from
Wisconsin, the state of drunk driving legislators. For all practical
purposes, the justice system does *nothing* about drunks on the road. I
don’t even call it a slap on the hand, even when they kill innocent
people.
Going way out on a limb, I don’t think they have a right to spend 2 cents
thinking or doing anything about diabetics, epileptics, etc, on the road.
When they start doing something about the thousands of innocent people who
get killed by these drunk drivers, then they can bother with the small
percent of "diseased" on the road.
rant off
bh
In article <eherring.540.01180…@mindspring.com>, eherr…@mindspring.com (Evan L. Herring) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <48ret9$1…@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> XEPK…@prodigy.com (Carol Haagensen) writes:
>>My *point* is that if a diabetic is required to provide this information,
>>which can cause impaired judgement when driving if Bgs are out of control,
>> then why aren’t DUIs, known drug users, etc., also required to do this?
> Drunks *can* sober up. So can drug users. Diabetes, like it or not, is a
> permanent condition. (Unless you’re fortunate enough to have a pancreas
> transplant.) And for those of you who think diabetics are singled out, most
> states also want to know about epilepsy, heart conditions and unexplained
> black-outs or dizziness.
> BTW, here in GA, we can make things pretty tough on the drunks and drug users,
> too.
> Joy, on Evan’s acct.
And I’ve always bneen told that alcoholism is a disease.
I thought diabets could control their disease as well.
Guess I’m wrong on both counts.
Orville R. Butler
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <48nk79$…@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) writes:
>A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
>I was under the care of a doctor. I
>replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
>Diabetes I was told that I could not
>renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
>condition. Now every six months I am
>mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
>Washing department of
>licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
>reason for this is and how many
>other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
>discussion on this topic.
I also have had the same trouble. I have been diabetic since age 15 so have
had to put up with all the B.S. of the BMV my entire driving life. This last
time really took the cake though. In ohio if you have a medical restriction
they send the actual photo license to the state and give you a piece of paper
similar to a drivers license permit to drive on. This last time the state lost
the photo license! I had to have it retaken and they lost the second one!! I
was finally able to convinve someone at the state BMV to have the deputy
register give me my photo license the third time on the spot. I don’t
understand why they just can’t give you the license on the spot like everyone
else and if your doctor says you aren’t fit to drive suspend it. It’s a real
pain to cash checks, etc. without a photo ID. I was also told by the BMV that
if I wanted a state ID for check purposes I’d have to surrender my license. In
Ohio you can’t have both a state ID and a drivers license. If the state
insists on sending in your photo license I think they should make an exception
for diabetics and allow them to have a photo ID> I took the CPA exam in May,
which was the most improtant exam for my career, and was almost denied
admission because I didn’t have a photo license:( What I find really amusing
is that I’m a healthy 29 year old and diabetes is the only health problem I
have which is controlled and I have such a hastle at the license bureau yet a
80 year old that can barely walk to the counter gets his license on the spot
with no hastles. I think something is wrong there.
/save
/post
/instert
/s
jame…@ix.netcom.com (James McLellan ) wrote:
> A few years ago, while renewing my drivers license, the clerk asked if
> I was under the care of a doctor. I
> replied yes and was asked what the condition was and when I replied
> Diabetes I was told that I could not
> renew my license until I had my doctor fill out a form about my
> condition. Now every six months I am
> mailed a form, which must be taken to my doctor and then mailed to the
> Washing department of
> licensing. This seems like a real hassle to me and I wonder what the
> reason for this is and how many
> other states treat diabetics this way. I would like to see some
> discussion on this topic.
In Minnesota, I receive a form from the Dept of Transportation that my
doctor and I must fill out. We both must sign and date the form
saying that I have not had any driving problems due to complications of
my diabetes.
I receive the form, I believe, once a year for four years. Then there
is a break for four years ( if I have not had complications ) before I
receive another form once a year for four years.
KDH
In article <48ve1h$…@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
<swki…@chrisco.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
Naval Research Laboratory
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Joy Herring <eherr…@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Sorry, folks — I think this is a good idea, and I speak as
a drivers’
> >license examiner AND as the wife of a former Type I
diabetic.
> [snip]
> >Regulations such as these may seem like a "hassle," but at
the very least,
> >they assure that you see a doctor every six months, or year,
or whatever.
> >This may not prevent an accident, but it *does* provide some
kind of proof
> >that you are taking steps to care for yourself and,
hopefully, prevent injury
> >to yourself and others.
> I do not think that it is the proper responsibility of the
Department of
> Motor Vehicles to intervene in my relationship with my
doctor. My
> experience with DMV regulations is that they are applied
inconsistently.
> I have had drivers license examiners who have chosen to
ignore my diabetes,
> as well as those who have consulted at length with
supervisors as to what
> to require of me. I would be interested in seeing any actual
statistics
> on whether requiring doctor’s certification makes any
difference. I doubt
> that it does, since the DMV grants licenses to practically
everyone who
> applies. I see little point in a six-month doctor’s
re-certification
> requirement in the absence of documented poor driving
performance.
> —
> Steve Kirchoefer
> Naval Research Laboratory
> Washington, DC 20375-5347
I’m with you, Steve. I doubt the statistics would support the
legal requirements to get "certified" by a doctor. But I’d
love to see such statistics if they exist.
Also, if I were an M.D., I’d be afraid to certify any diabetic
as okay to drive because if there were an accident, I might be
named in a lawsuit. Probably win the case and lose a bunch of
time and money. Who needs that? I think this is one of those
things brought on by legislators needing to do something,
whether or not it makes sense, in response to news reports of a
nasty accident caused by a hypoglycemic diabetic.
John Carroll
pp001…@interramp.com
In article <48so2l$…@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<elai…@osuokc.okstate.edu> writes:
> I had an accident once, several years ago, where I passed out
while
> driving. No one was hurt and the police weren’t called. I was
later
> told that if the police had come and my driver’s license had shown
that I
> was diabetic, I would be the responsible party in the accident, no
matter
> what the circumstances or who was at fault. I don’t remember who
told me
> this, seems like it was someone in the doctor’s office, but what
right do
> they have to blame me for an accident just because I’m diabetic.
Well, if you’d passed out at the wheel, I’d bet you’d get blamed for
the accident — rightly so. However, if you were sitting at a light
and somebody rear-ended you, or somebody ran a stop sign and hit you
as you drove legally, I find it hard to imagine you’d take the rap
for the accident. Probably not a good idea to collect legal
information at the doctor’s office — or medical information from a
law office.
John Carroll
pp001…@interramp.com
In article <48sjtk$…@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> XEPK…@prodigy.com (Carol Haagensen) writes:
> I don’t think anyone is arguing that diabetes *may* cause a car
>accident. However, *I* am arguing that so can several other conditions
>and lifestyles. You mentioned kidney problems. I can add heart attacks.
> We’ve all heard stories of some guy having a heart attack and crashing,
OOOPS!!
I guess tere is a small difference here?
I know that I am diabetic, and beeing a diabetic I know that I may some day
have a severe and quick case of low BG, which may cause a black out or just
some reduced consentration and avereness. When my father in law had his hart
attack in his car, that was the first he had ever experienced!
Try to figure the difference:
1. What is the possibility that a known diabetic may have a black-out or
something that may cause a car accident.
2. What is the probability that an average person may have a hart attack while
driving?
If the probability of 1. is significantly larger than 2., I have no problem
accepting that these conditions are treated differently.
>too. If diabetics are required to fill out this papterwork, then I say
>so should every other medical condition, alcoholic, DUI, known drug user,
>etc., that could also potentially cause an accident. To single out one
Does an alcoholic or a drug user receive a drivers licence at all? If so, you
authorities should do something serious with the regulations!
>medical condition, such as diabetes, is clearly discriminatory…and I
>doubt it is constitutional! The "hassle" for a diabetic isn’t the point.
Have you ever checked this? Do you know that diabetes is the only medical
condition that is reacted upon this way?
> The point is that MANY medical conditions can cause accidents. So, if
>the State takes that point of view, it should require *every* person
>living in the state who may potentially cause a car accident due to
>impaired judgement while driving, to see *their* doctor every six months,
>also.
Maybe it does??
Good luck,
Bjorn BL.
______________________________________________________________________
s-mail: e-mail:
| | | Bjorn B. Larsen, Ph. D. bjoe…@iet.hist.no
|__ |__ | Sor-Trondelag College
| \| \| Gunnerus gate 1
|__/|__/|_ N-7005 TRONDHEIM tel: +47 – 7389 6288
NORWAY fax: +47 – 7389 6286
______________________________________________________________________