Man loses license after telling doctor about drinking

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/13/beer.drinkers.license.ap/index.html

A man who told his doctors that he drinks more than a six-pack of beer per day is now fighting to get his driver's license back because the physicians apparently reported him to the state.

Keith Emerich, 44, said Tuesday that he disclosed his drinking habit in February to doctors who were treating him at a hospital for an irregular heartbeat.

"I told them it was over a six-pack a day. It wasn't good for me -- I'm not going to lie," Emerich said in a telephone interview from his home in Lebanon, about 30 miles east of Harrisburg.

Emerich received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in April that his license was being revoked effective May 6 for medical reasons related to substance abuse.

[kikiek]

1. I see it..I just don't believe it. Is he driving while abusing substances?

Is a substance abuse test going to be part of the licensing process in the future?

[Born Free]

18. Sleep Apnea patients will lose license as well

During my last stay at the hospital, the head of the local sleep center told me she feels really bad about truckers losing their license and income until they are treated for sleep apnea. She said once positively diagnosed, she can not let them drive as they may kill people on the highway when they fall asleep behind the wheel of the big rig. Although she did not say it, there is a certain liability involved, much like the bartender that keeps giving drinks to a drunk, knowing the drunk is driving. Fortunately for sleep apnea, it is almost always treated with a simple to use machine to keep the individual breathing properly at night - once the machine is set up the trucker can return to work, even though there is no real proof he/she is using the machine, but it does eliminate the liability for the doctors.

I don't think it's a matter of rights, but rather a question of legal liability, if the doctor lets someone drive, knowing they may kill innocent people, the doctor may be liable. If you want to change it then you need to change the liability part of it, I am sure doctors don't like getting involved with any of this, any more then they enjoy being legally liable with abuse issues.

ON EDIT: Here is Pennsylvania, the doctors are rebelling because of high malpractice insurance premiums - the doctors are doing everything then can to eliminate the possibilty of lawsuits and to bring attention to the general public. They do not seem to be addressing the problem of being overcharged for the insurance.

[shanti]

49. sleep apnea

i knew someone personally with this condition. he could fall asleep on his feet sometimes, couldn't go to a movie because as soon as he sat down, he'd be snoring away. and the snoring would wake the dead. i sympathize with anyone that has this condition, it's no joke! he was not allowed to drive either.

[Born Free]

59. "sleep apnea"

"i knew someone personally with this condition. he could fall asleep on his feet sometimes, couldn't go to a movie because as soon as he sat down, he'd be snoring away. and the snoring would wake the dead. i sympathize with anyone that has this condition, it's no joke! he was not allowed to drive either."


Being able to fall asleep very easily and snoring loudly isn't the worse part, the worse part of having a difficult airway is the choking every few seconds or minutes whenever you are asleep. It really gets bad/scary if you need major surgery, it is very traumatic waking up on the operating table choking and having everyone there staring in amazement because they don't understand why. Even with a medical alert necklace there is always the fear that medical technicians will not be able to get there in time should something cause you to be unconscious as in an acident.

[shanti]

71. yes, that would happen too

he'd stop breathing for about 15 seconds, take a huge breath, wake up, fall asleep again, and repeat the process, sometimes dozens of times during the night. it's scary to hear it!

[Heddi]

73. What you're describing isn't just sleep apnea

The snoring is apnea. The falling alseep for no reason is Narcolepsy.

Generally the two go together, though, but they are separate conditions.

[Wapsie B]

97. Narcolepsy and Sleep Apnea

both can cause a person to fall asleep suddenly. With narcolepsy the sleep attack is normally triggered by emotional stimulus, especially laughter or anger. The snoring and stoppage of breathing during sleep is the apnea. This can cause micro-arousals all through the night with dangerously low oxygen levels in the body. This is what causes the daytime fatigue, headaches, irritability and can elevate blood pressure and put stress on the cardio-vascular system.

[fujiyama]

84. .

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. Fucked up for a variety of reasons.

So much for doctor patient priviledge.

Also so what if he said he drank more than a six-pack of beer a day, I never knew that in and of itself was a crime.

Yes you can lose your license for drunk driving but admitting that you drink beer is not the same as admitting that you drive drunk.

IMO if they want to take away his license they should have to catch him doing something criminal and give him his chance for a day in court.

[Fovea]

4. There are understood limits to Dr. Patient priv.

For example, if patient admits to a crime, the doctor is often
required to notify authorities, this is particularly true if the crime is child abuse.

In this case, it is a gray area, and I am on the physician's side.
Driving is not a right like say, voting. I lost my license after a stroke, and I fully agree that I am not a fit driver.
I am a lot safer to others at 18mph on a bike, than 65mph in a car.

Either this guy can get his 6pack a night habit under control, or the doctor was probably correct in their assessment. Driving is a privilege, after all. And assuming he did this after work, he would not be sober to drive for pretty much the rest of the night.

[uncle ray]

6. well, as i recall from my own experience in DUI school

they teach you real well how much you can drink LEGALLY and STILL operate a vehicle, for an average weight man, as i recall to stay under a .10, it's something like 3 beers the first hour, then you can maintain at a rate of one beer an hour and still be legal in the eyes of the law to operate a car. so this guy can have beer for breakfast, drive and be ok. then have a couple at lunch, and still be good to go. let's call that five beers so far. he can still have a couple right after his day of work, again, be below the legal limit, get home and proceed to get tanked. so our guy has had half a dozen beers before he even settles down for the night, yet has driven legally all day. is that a lot of drinking? yes. is it healthy? no. is it legal? perfectly. we might not like the fact that someone CAN drink, and then drive legally, but that's how it is. it doesn't change the fact that this doctor, apparantly, overstepped his bounds, even if the man was dead drunk when he had his doctor appointment, it's up to law enforcement to determine that he is driving impaired, not for a doctor to assume.

yes, i've spent some of my earlier years as a heavy drinker, and admitting to half dozen or so beers a day is nothing.

[hightime]

9. So if I come home at 6pm and drink a 6pack by 9pm I am Fucked??

Why? I am not driving until 7:30 in the morning...EARLIEST!! It is only a 6 pack. Presumed guilt is what you believe in?

[Fovea]

63. No I am not presuming guilt.

I am presuming impairment.

If you drink a six pack every night, then are you willing to sign a document stating that you will never drive after you get home until say, 3 am or so?

If not, you are admitting that you will go out drunk from time to time
while impared. Which would you prefer, that the doctor declared this driver unfit (and who better than a doctor to do so) and thus preserve his and the communities health, or let them drive drunk on a presumed daily basis?

Sorry, my 4+ years in a trauma center emergency room suggests to me that a greater good is being served, not just to society, but to the individual.

Maybe if the driver was willing to have a breathalyser interlock installed on their car, it might be a different matter.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. To-ma-toes, to-mah-toes.

The guy admitted he DRANK, period. He NEVER admitted drunk driving. As much as the American Temperance Gestapo would like to repeal the 21st amendment, it's still there.

Why didn't the police simply intercept him while driving to breathalize him, as a response to the doctor's tip? THAT I'd consider reasonable. THAT would be considering him a SUSPECT, instead of automatically GUILTY.

And no, by not signing such document I am not admitting ANYTHING.

This "you don't have to worry if you've nothing to hide" line of thought is EVIL.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Well you are still assuming...

that this guy is drunk driving.

The article doesnt state that this guy admitted to driving drunk, just that he drinks about a 6pack a day.

Its entirely possible to drink a 6pack a day and not drive drunk.

So on the surface it seems that the state has taken away this man's license merely because he drinks, not because he drives drunk.

[truthspeaker]

21. who said he was driving anywhere? this is an outrage

There's nothing illegal about drinking six beers a night.

[leesa]

24. So how do you know he was driving intoxicated. You don't and this was a

bogus decision.

[Fovea]

66. neither did the doctor, but he was responsible for the patient

and the community. Neither of us know if this was a bogus decision.
If it was bogus, it will be overturned on review. But better that, than a fatal accident.

This is not about free speach, assembly, or any of the other enumerated rights of Americans. This is about under which circumstances a person is permitted the privilege of driving a car or truck (or Semi or Train, Plane, etc)

[shanti]

50. who said the guy drank and drove?

you are assuming he did this. there are many drinkers like this who get home from work, pull out their first beer, and drink till they go to bed. no driving is involved.

[joeunderdog]

58. HIPPA violation

I hate HIPPA's ridiculous tentacles in many ways, but I'd wrap one around the doctor's neck for this one.

[JayS]

3. It sounds like there is either more to the story and/or the...

...doctor is misinterpreting the intent of the law.

A state law dating to the 1960s requires doctors to report any physical or mental impairments that could compromise a patient's ability to drive safely, PennDOT spokeswoman Joan Nissley said. Nissley said she could not discuss the details of Emerich's case because of confidentiality requirements that also protect the doctor from being identified.

[gatlingforme]

43. I agree, this is a nebulous piece of info to ascertain any conclusion.

[BiggJawn]

5. Could we get Janklow to move to PA?

I think I'd sue that doctor. Was it a judgement call on his part that consumption of a six-pack a day was "abuse"?

Emerich has a right to an admin hearing, doesn't he?

[devinsgram]

94. Please no, this is my neck of the woods

and we don't need anymore idiots here, big right wing area. My husband is upset because he told his doctor same thing. Now he's afraid they will do it to him. He drinks a six pack a night but never never ever leaves the house. He got a DUI about 30 years ago and that was enough for him.Once burned, twice shy. He won't drink anywhere but at home, even if we go to a party or out for dinner.

[sandnsea]

7. My neighbor is a 75 year old drunk

He is drunk all the time. He's gone through two sets of children who have had to come live with him so he doesn't drink himself to death. He's had DUI's. He's had his car impounded. The doctor finally took his license. Last week he fell down and cracked his head on the coffee table and they had to call an ambulance. So after causing real harm to his kids, drunk driving arrests and losing his license, he still hasn't learned and won't go to treatment. So if the doctor in the article knew his patient had the kind of history of my neighbor, he was right to turn him in. There may be more to the story.

[LeighAnn]

8. I've said it a million times, let doctors treat cancer and broken bones

Keep your personal business to yourself.

When you're pouring your heart out to a sympathetic doctor or shrink, that person is writing down every word you say, and Big Brother John Poindexter will know all about your "guilt" and "shame".

[Snoggera]

11. Let's be clear on this

A man lost his license because he MIGHT POSSIBLY be impaired to drive at some time in the future. NOT because he WAS impaired, but because he MIGHT be if he did indeed drive while drinking, which was not shown to be the case in this article.

Presumptive guilt is unamerican.

Fuck the doctor and the moralistic PC bullshit train he rode in on.

[Spentastic]

12. "moralistic PC bullshit "

Firstly, we don't know how much the guy was drinking. He says "more than a six pack a day". What if he told the doctor it was 4 six packs or 8? Everyday? What if the Doctor determined on the evidence that he is privy too that there would be no time at which the man would not be impaired? Should he tell anyone then? Perhaps he should just have waited till the guy ploughed his way into a crowd of school kids or something.

For the life of me I cannot connect this with political correctness. Do you require another chip for balance?

[Snoggera]

13. The article pointed out

that he didn't have a dui in 23 years. He apparently had a very good work record.

I don't require anything for balance. Political correctness is usually used as a moralistic tool; simplistic, and meant to appeal to the emotions rather than logic.



Do you believe it is okay for someone else to determine whether or not you should be able to drive? That someone else thinks you shouldn't because they believe you shouldn't? Not because of anything you did that showed you couldn't adequately drive?

Again, presumptive guilt is unamerican, or at least, it used to be.

[Spentastic]

15. Get a slightly lower horse.

Do you think that someone may say something different to the press than to their doctor?

"Political correctness is usually used as a moralistic tool"

Is absolute right wing talking point bollockrey. If you allow the right to define the use of terms we'll forever be condemned to fo things to please them. Political correctness is about respecting everyone. It's as simple as that. It's a liberal a concept as you can imagine.

as for this

"He's been able to go to work, and he's got a heck of a nice work record. He's been able to function in all other avenues of life,"

Useless lawyer strawman. I know drunks who hold high office. So what?

"Emerich said his heart problem has prompted him to limit his beer drinking to weekends."

Before or after the consultation that's cost hims his license? How does that square with "a six pack a day"? There are holes in this story.

Note, he's never been told that he can never drive again. He has been asked to prove his competency. Allowing someone with an alcohol problem to drive is an issue for everyone. If this guy proves himself competent he'll get his license back.

[Speed8098]

16. That tall horse is yours

I'm sorry, but you're way wrong.

In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, no crime, no presumption.

[Spentastic]

19. He's not being prosecuted

Would the doctor informing the DMV of epilepsy cause you similar concern?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. How would the doctor know that a patient has epilepsy unless....

...the doctor had run the proper diagnostic tests to determine if that were really true? Additionally, an epileptic is legally impaired 100% of the time because you never know when he or she might have a seizure.

Likewise, a patient cannot be determined to be an alcohol abuser until certain tests are performed on that individual. Additionally, an alcoholic is only deemed impaired by law when they are actually drunk.

Were those tests run on the patient in question? If not, this action sets a dangerous precedent in terms of circumventing legal due process.

What is of even more interest to me is exactly how the authorities were notified. Did the doctor's office actually report him, or was this information gleaned from the TIA, Poindexter's central clearinghouse for all data on all individuals?

[Speed8098]

91. Epilepsy and Alcohol Use

Apples and Oranges. But nice try.

So you think it's ok for him to have his license suspended, even though he hasn't been charged with DWI/DUI, or even driving while impaired.

I guess you call that pre-emptive policing.

I call it bullsh*t.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. Guilty until proven innocent?

"Note, he's never been told that he can never drive again. He has been asked to prove his competency."

Shouldnt it be up to the government to first prove that he is "incompetent" to drive before they just take away his license.

I mean cmon even if he was caught drunk driving, wouldnt they still have to prove that he was guilty first in a court of law?

So what just because a Doctor says something about you then the government can just screw you over and not give you due process?

[Spentastic]

20. What's happening now

IS due process. The doctor has a concern the individual is unfit to drive. This has been reported as required by the law. He is now going through the process.

[truthspeaker]

22. No, due process would be investigating him BEFORE suspending his license

[Spentastic]

23. What?

Like getting a doctors report you mean?

[truthspeaker]

30. No, you'd need actual evidence he was driving drunk

A doctor's report that he has a drinking problem is NOT evidence that he was likely to drive drunk.

[Spentastic]

35. Here's the law for those that are interested

Here we go

§ 83.5. Other physical and medical standards.
(a) General. A person afflicted by any of the following conditions may not drive if, in the opinion of the examining physician, the conditions are likely to interfere with the ability to control and safely operate a motor vehicle:
(1) Loss or impairment of the use of a foot, leg, finger, thumb, hand or arm, as a functional defect or limitation.
(2) Unstable or brittle diabetes or hypoglycemia, unless there has been a continuous period of at least 6 months freedom from a related syncopal attack.
(3) Cerebral vascular insufficiency or cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, with accompanying signs and symptoms.
(4) Periodic loss of consciousness, attention or awareness from whatever cause.
(5) Rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular or neuromuscular disease.
(6) Mental deficiency or marked mental retardation in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases. For diagnostic categories, terminology and concepts to be used in classification, the physician should refer to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association and the Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Retardation of the American Association on Mental Deficiency.
(7) Mental or emotional disorder, whether organic or functional.
(8) Use of any drug or substance, including alcohol, known to impair skill or functions, regardless whether the drug or substance is medically prescribed.
(9) Another condition which, in the opinion of the examining licensed physician, could interfere with the ability to control and safely operate a motor vehicle.
(b) Special driving examination. A person afflicted by any of the conditions enumerated in subsection (a)(1), (5) or (9) may be required to undergo a special driving examination. The person may be restricted to driving a vehicle equipped in a manner prescribed by the examining licensed physician or by the Department.

So the law is wrong? Then change it. Personally, it seems sensible to me. As noted before the guy has a prior DUI he claims to drink a more than six pack a day. If the Doctor believes he's an alcoholic the law requires he report it.

[truthspeaker]

38. "USE" of any substance? That's got to be wrong

That would mean anyone who uses alcohol, at any time, would have to be reported.

Even if the doctor was required to report his alcoholism, the DoT was wrong to suspend his license without further evidence.

[Spentastic]

40. Don't blame the messenger.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter83/chap83toc.html

Actually now we're in limbo. The Dr acted lawfully. Did the DoT?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. "The Dr acted lawfully"? Where's the documentation to back-up....

...his assertion that the man was an alcoholic? Merely suspecting that someone MAY be impaired for whatever reason, even if the patient states that to be the case, is not the same as knowing from a medical standpoint that the man is indeed impaired.

No reasonable doctor is going to make ANY claim about a patient to ANY organization unless documentation exists to back up that claim. Where is the documentation in this case?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Other than what the doctor was TOLD by the patient, how was the...

...the doctor able to ascertain that what was being stated by the patient was true? Did the doctor perform any tests? Was any factual documentation noted in the patient's record? What was used to form the basis for the doctor's medical opinion that was passed on law enforcement?

Quoting the law is a very handy smokescreen when you personally know nothing of the events that took place in the doctor's office. Yes, the law requires that a doctor report someone who exhibits one or more of the conditions noted on the list you posted...but, it has to be proven by medical testing that such a condition actually exists. If I were to walk into a doctor's office and claim that I had cancer, would that doctor immediately put me on radiation treatments, or would the doctor perform a series of tests to determine if I actually had cancer?

Additionally, I doubt seriously that the doctor knew anything about any prior DUI unless that information was volunteered by the patient. I don't believe that any patient would volunteer anything of that nature to any doctor unless closely questioned.

[demoman123]

77. n/t

nt

[demoman123]

78. n/t

nt

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. A "doctor's report" based on what factual evidence? Was any mentioned?

[leesa]

25. But he's NOT been proved incompetent! What are you talking about?

[Spentastic]

26. A doctor

Has made a determination based on the law that the man in question drinks enough for his ability to drive to be compromised. Are you his doctor?

Can you prove that an epeleptic is incompetent? Can you prove that someone actually over the DUI limit is incompetent? It's the law.

[Mandate My Ass]

28. Where's the law that says a sxi-pack renders you incompetent?

the roads would be a lot less crowded if every six-pack drinker got his license yanked.

There is no such law and what happened to him is far from due process.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. And just how did the doctor make that decision? Was it based...

...purely on what the patient TOLD the doctor? Were any blood or breath tests done to verify what the patient stated?

It's not up to the doctor to make decisions based on undocumented data.

[Spentastic]

36. Come now

You reckon the doctor just thought it would be funny to revoke his license?

The doctor is merely acting in accordance with the law.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. You failed to answer my questions, didn't you? What documentation...

...was used by the doctor to make his decision?

Which specific law are you citing in your post that requires a doctor to report ANY patient to the legal system based ONLY on what that patient told the doctor?

[Spentastic]

45. I don't know

But here's the law

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter83/chap83t...

Sorry, nothing about what constitutes a valid test there. It's now being tested in court.

[truthspeaker]

32. Epileptics are impaired all the time. Alcoholics are not.

Alcoholics are only impaired when they are under the influence.

[Spentastic]

37. Which would be

How often? Since it involves uncontrolled drinking, i would wager quite a lot. In fact if the "more than one six pack a day" was for example four or five then the doctor determined that at no time would Mr drinksalot be incapable of driving, why should he retain his license?

Oh yeah anyone want to place bets on this being the diagnosis?

"Drinking alcohol in excessive quantities has a directly toxic effect on heart muscle cells. Alcoholic cardiomyopathy is a form of dilated cardiomyopathy caused by habitual alcohol abuse."

[truthspeaker]

41. so he drives to work, drives home, starts drinking

What's so hard to understand? There is no evidence that he was impaired all the time. Drinking 6 beers in 3 hours is not hard to do.

[Spentastic]

42. Which part of

"more than" is causing you difficulty? The only people who know how much he said he was drinking are the Doctor and Mr Emerich.

[truthspeaker]

46. so what? 12 beers? 18? There is no evidence he was driving while drunk

I've had 12 drinks in one day before. I didn't drive afterwards. Hell, I've done acid which incapacitated me for 12 hours. What is the big deal?

[Spentastic]

48. It depends

Can you imaginge this conversation

How much do you drink?

"More than a six pack a day"

How much more

X number per day

Everyday?

Most days

Do you drive on these days?

Yes.

The Dr has made a determination in accordance with the law. If he was wrong, Mr Emerich will have his driving priviledges reinstated. However if the Dr proves he is a hazard due to alcoholism, he won't.

[sendero]

79. Opinions like yours...

... are why it is so easy to discredit the left. In your rush to PC anti-DUI, you are willing to abrogate someone's rights based on nothing at fucking all.

I could easily drink a six pack every night at home after work. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with my driving.

I hope some hysterical do-gooder takes away your rights based on a supposition someday. You simply don't have a leg to stand on. Give it up.

[Spentastic]

87. Right to drive?

Well since your understanding goes exactly not far enough I suggest yoiu examine your own legs before questioning mine.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. Sorry, but your assumption is faulty at best....

Did you know that some alcoholics are known as "closet alcoholics"? My guess is that your answer would be a flat "no" based on the fact that you've chosen to lump ALL alcoholics into the same broad category.

"Closet alcoholics" are people who are extremely compentent over-achievers at work during the day, but drink to excess AFTER work. These people are very secretive about their personal life and very few people ever suspect that they even drink. For example, I know of an individual who was a school teacher for 30 years and never missed a day of work. In the evenings, this same person would drink until she passed out every single evening. None of her fellow teachers suspected a thing, and neither did her friends. Only her immediate family knew that this kind of behavior was taking place. They tried to get her professional help over the years, to no avail. She eventually died of a massive heart attack.

And even though your quote as to the effects of alcohol on the heart, commonly known as "enlarged heart", is accurate, I doubt very seriously that the doctor was concerned for the patient's personal health. IMHO, the doctor was much more concerned that the driver might get into an alcohol-induced wreck involving fatalities, for which the doctor might possibly be found liable and subject to one or more large lawsuits.

[Spentastic]

54. State law

There's precedent. Doctors not liable if DMV not told.

As for the teacher, if she drank enough to pass out, she was probably impaired the following morning. That's what this law is supposed to prevent.

[Spentastic]

51. That's bollocks too

epeleptics are only impaired whilst having a fit. Some of them are denied the right to drive due to the probablitity of them having a fit.

[havocmom]

60. It's called a seizure, not a fit.

A fit is what I have when I think about the pResident of the US allowed to drive the ship of state even though he is a known substance abuser.

[dsc]

65. In Britian they are called fits

and the poster is clearly from Britian.

[havocmom]

69. My friend the british nurse calls them siezures

So not all Brits use the term 'fit'.

[Spentastic]

89. You're probably right

"Fit" is the word I grew up with. It does have negative connatations. Seizures is accurate. I'll bear that in mind.

[shanti]

53. i knew an epileptic who drove

and he'd have occasional blackouts...one was when he was driving. luckily, he had a *feeling* it was happening and pulled to the side of the road before it happened. as far as i know, he still drives.

[Fovea]

67. Incorrect.

Severe ETOH abuse also leads to non-intoxicated black outs, seizures, and a variety of other conditions unrelated to current ETOH level.

[Fovea]

64. Yes, I do presume that it is right that someone else

determines if I am safe to operate a motor vehicle.
I also think it is ok for a flight surgeon to determine if my pilot is fit to fly, an orthopedic surgeon to determine if I can march 20 miles a day in the military, and all sorts of other medical decisions.

The doctor is supposed to make these judgements for the good of both the individual or society. Consuming one or more sixpacks of beer every night is probably not a healthy thing all by itself. Does it mean that the person was impared... maybe. That is a decision the doctor had to make, and you and the patient disagree.

There is no right to drive a motor vechicle.

[Snoggera]

14. Do you require another chip for balance?

Never mind.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Did the doctor do a blood test? How about a breath test? Was he...

...intoxicated in the doctor's office? Where's the documented evidence other than the statements made to the doctor that he was dringking at all? What if he actually drank less than what he stated to the doctor?

And before you go off on the "PC" kick, there are more important issues here that involve due process under the law that protect all of us.

First off, did the doctor's office actually report him, or was this a bit of information processed through Poindexter's TIA and then forwarded to the state's driver's license department? How was this information made known outside the doctor's office?

Once the legal folks are allowed to do this to a guy who may or may not be a problem, where does one draw the line? Do they "pick" your name one day because you're a Democrat posting on DU and declare that you've told a doctor you were a drug abuser when you haven't seen a doctor in the last five years?

Once this kind of thing is allowed to happen WITHOUT due legal process, that's when we all need to become a lot more concerned.

[oldcoot]

81. You are absolutely correct

One question I had after reading this article is how does one define excessive drinking and who decides? Are 4 drinks a day excessive? What about 3 drinks? Does the doctor decide what is excessive or does the state?

[Ripley]

29. Well, now folks will lie even more to their doctors...

at risk to their own health. Hell, I wouldn't tell my doctor if I drank a six pack every night, just because I bet he got a lecture.

If people don't tell the truth about how much alcohol or recreational drugs, or whatever they use and the doctor prescribes a prescription drug that could be exacerbated by the other drug, it could be deadly.

This doctor was an asshole. Unless the guy was drunk in his office, it was wrong.

[Spentastic]

39. Agreed

But it's not unlawful and it's not without precedent.

[havocmom]

61. People may stop seeking medical care. Hey, medical insurance crisis

solved!

Seriously, this threatens us all. If those who need medical care don't get it, how many people, impaired for any number of reasons, will be out there driving instead of getting the help they need?

And what about doctors who might let their own personal feelings on a subject start influencing how they react to patients problems, needs? Are we gonna let doctors start imposing their personal moral/political standards on the public like the pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills are doing?

Let the doctors suggest to law enforcement that there may be a problem, but yes, due process is required before punishment. If the guy was never pulled over for DUI, this is a slippery slope indeed.

I figure anyone driving a vehicle larger than our car is a threat on the highway; can I have the highway patrol pull them all off the road? How about those who make calls on cell phones while driving? They are surly impaired.

You are right, people will now just keep their problems to themselves and the society will be more threatened because of it.

[shanti]

47. as more of these cases pop up

less and less people are going to be honest about their habits. why say anything if you're going to be penalized for it? :shrug:

[trof]

55. Pre-emptive strike?

Hey, it works for dumbya*.

[Bozita]

62. Sent this article to a beer-drinking freeper

Told him to watch his mouth.

[dsc]

68. This is a tough case

In may states alcoholism is enough to cause removal of licence. When I got mine recently I had to answer questions about alcholism. It appears the doctor had little choice under the law. The law may well be stupid but it is pretty clear. It is not a great idea to chip away at doctor patient priviledge.

[bemildred]

70. I certainly hope Emerich let's the public know who his physician was. nt

[Born Free]

90. doctor would be OK with me

I lived in Lebanon, still pretty close to Lebanon, would not hold this against any doctor. As I posted previously, this has more to do with legal liabilty than any kind of "PC" . ALL the doctors in Pennsylvania are taking every measure they can to prevent any possible lawsuits. Currently, there is a political move in Pennsylvania by the doctors to reduce malpractie insurance costs.

[bemildred]

92. Fine, it's your money.

If you want to pay a MD to rat on you and play games so he
can reduce his insurance, great. I'll pass.

[Born Free]

96. Would you leave the state for a doctor?

"If you want to pay a MD to rat on you and play games so he
can reduce his insurance, great. I'll pass."


Pennsylvania is tough on drunk drivers. All the doctors are the same in this respect, the only way to be sure is to drive to another state, perhaps you would enjoy going to another state, but I don't like driving several hours to see a doctor. It has nothing to do with "PC" just a reality of the way things are here in Pennsylvania, I am sure there are others that have lost their licenses until they were treated but have not made a big issue about it.

[bemildred]

98. Would you give up your driver's license?

Would you PAY someone to fuck you out of your driver's license?
Nobody has even asserted that this man is a drunk driver.
He has one DUI twenty years ago.

What is asserted is that he has modest beer habit. This does not
warrant extra-judicial intervention. To be consistent you would
have to take the driver's licenses away from half the blue-collar
population of the country. The fact that Pennsylvania is brain-
damaged on this subject does not somehow make it right.

[fishnfla]

72. Anyone who drinks more than 6 beers everyday has a disease

alcoholism is a disease that requires treatment. This is more than a legal issue, it is a public health and safety issue. This man's heart problems are only the begining of chronic medical problems he will face without intrevention. What are the social effects of chronic alcoholism? Ask any co-dependant. Age 44 is too young to have a heart condition.

If the tables were turned, would this man trust a doctor who drank too much every day? Would that Dr. even have a license to practice?

If the individual is having health problems related to his drinking and the Dr. does not take measures to correct them, and the patient strokes out before he is 50, is that medical malpractice?

If the patient informs the physician he drinks that much, the Dr does nothing, and the man plows into a schoolbus with a BAC of .15%,who is liable?

I am not concerned about the man's driver's license nor his freedom to drive. He is imprisoned and enslaved by alcohol. He needs help, he doesnt need to drive.

I am concerned with folks here defending excessive consumption of alcohol and the privelege to drive like they are some sort of god-given right. Priorities folks. Its beer. Its a car. Or its health and life.

Christ, we already got a drunk in the White House with this sort of enabling...

[bemildred]

75. What a bunch of fascist bullshit that is.

This fellow has a perfect right to drink himself to death
if he likes, and if he does not drive while incapable there
is no reason to take his license away. The lack of due
process and imposition of penalties on the basis of hearsay
and speculation is far more dangerous that a guy with a six-pack
a day habit.

The government does not worry about our health enough to provide
public health care to every one, so it is hard to see where they
get this sort of intrusive right to meddle in the health care
decisions of private persons. Are we going to go after people that
are habituated to a pound of chocolate a day next?

[fishnfla]

85. fascist bullshit, yes, you may be on to something

the scenario I described above, where the dr is liable for nonfeance (you know what lawyers and insurance companies do, right?), instead of the state being liable (they issue the licenses).

Pay attention, my friend. Do you know the difference between a static visual field and a kinetic visual field? Every driver, and their doctor in this state at least , now should.

I see what the state is up to. Pretty fucking clever.

I predict we will see more and more cases like this.

[bemildred]

86. Glad we agree.

I have no sympathy with the medical professions, as a class anyway,
they fought tooth and nail to bring about the present disfunctional
situation in "health care" in the USA.

[fishnfla]

93. you have no idea what you are talking about

but I can forgive your ignorance

Look, I deal with this shit everyday(dont worry, the ignorance part, too), as a health care professional. These days we have to err on the side of caution for fear of lawsuits

and now the state. after reading and discussing this case here on DU, I did some personal research because I recalled Tallahassee had just changed the form I sign for people to renew their driver's licenses. I fill these things out several times, previously it was cookie cutter, pass or fail.

I hadn't paid much attention to the new form, until just now, as I say. They have altered the requirement for a certain part, and require documentation, an archaic, expensive, and time consuming test, which nobody has the instrumentation for, and which alot of people will fail outright because it is a bullshit test. I cant believe they did this, its down in the small print on the form. I talked to several colleagues, they were like, WTF?

The state is placing the onus upon the physician in a pretty clever way. Once you sign the form, you are responsible for that person's driving. For a whole sector of individuals, they will face a very good chance of getting their license revoked. My hands will be tied, if they fail this requirement, and many will....shit for them.

Right now, we are scrambling, pulling charts, trying to find out how many new forms we have signed, trying to cover our asses. fortunately, I still have a stack of the old forms which i can use to loophole this thing until we get a grip. and I suppose i'll have to spend another 3 mos organizing and another 5 grand of office time and untold tens of thousands of dollars to grease the skids of common sense up at the capitol. Now thats how democracy works!

Its ironic, you bringing up fascism, in our mad scramble, we pull the chart of Gunther S, whom I had just seen on Monday to fill out this form. He failed miserably, he knew it and was in the pleading and bargaining stage ( I have had people wave $100 dollar bills in my face to sign the damned thing) He was telling me all the great things he was doing ( he's a volunteer) and all the great prowess he was once capable of, he's 90 with a heavy german accent, so i enjoy hearing his tales, I had been seeing him for years and he is very engaging to talk to. So on Monday he lets out he was a Luftwaffe pilot for 5 years! My eyes must have bugged out of my head, I know my jaw dropped. He realized what he just said and spit out in a enraged bitter voice "It vas Hitler's stoopid var!" I have officially now heard it all.

Oh well, got alot of work to do. Like I said before, I think you'll see alot more DL's revoked for medical reasons of all kinds. Lawyers know you cant sue the state, but Drs are fair game and well insured.

[bemildred]

95. Well, it's nice you decided to try being coherent.

But perhaps the incoherence was unintentional.

I wish you well with your little mess, but it is illustrates very
well my point, so I will thank you for that. It appears to me
that it is you that has a narrow and narcissistic view of the
world. You seem to think that dumping the blame on the state and
the legal profession somehow resolves the issue from the point
of view of us great-unwashed-masses out here. It does not. It
just looks like an internal dispute among the folks that munged
up the "health care" system in this country in pursuit of their
fantasies of wealth and power.

[classics]

74. The moral of this story is.

Dont tell your 'doctor' anything, they are state snitches.

Do not seek treatment, do not try to get better, or you will get fucked by the state for doing the right thing.

Having chest pains? Remember to think first if you can live without a job and income before calling 911!

[bemildred]

76. Indeed, that is the primary lesson.

Candor will be punished. And what good is a physician
you cannot be honest with?

[sendero]

80. Oh and one more thing....

.... people seem to have the mistaken notion that a doctor is like a lawyer and cannot share information you give them with law enforcement.

Who knows where this absurd notion came from, I can tell you flat out it is simply not true.

Never tell a doctor ANYTHING s/he does not need to know to treat you. You might find out that s/he can tell plenty of people stuff you would not want them to know, and it is quite legal for him/her to do so, or even worse, it is sometimes mandatory for him/her to.

[hightime]

82. All alcohol / drug users, handicapped, ADD or other diagnosed mental

handicap...including dyslexia, and anyone under 100 IQ (as tested by a standardized test) should be prohibited from even taking a driving test. OH, and anyone over the age of retirement...no...anyone who does not reach a predetermined optimal level of both mental and physical performance should have their license yanked.

Only blond haired, blue eyed perfect physical and mental specimens between the ages of 18-25 should be on the road.

After all, we progressives want it that way...RIGHT?????

[Swamp Rat]

88. Sounds like you do...

And what do you mean by "we progressives want it that way...RIGHT?????"

When have you EVER said anything on DU that could be called progressive?