From: Brian Symonds <[log in to unmask]> There has been so much on this list recently that it is hard to find the time to comment, however, K's recent experience re his driver's licence, and a lawyer's response begs some comment. In British Columbia, any examination requested by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (SMV) who has licensing authority, has to be signed by the patient before it is sent to the SMV. It is not clear to me how most doctors would respond to a request "out of the blue" for medical information about a patient. My understanding is that the SMV has legal authority to request such a report, but I don't know if that has been tested in court or not. Usually a family doctor would inform the patient that a report has been requested, and I at least would have the patient in for an exam, and make them aware of what I was putting in a report. If told not to send it, I would have to get a legal opinion as to whether or not I was legally bound to even without the patients consent. The patient's lawyer and the government's lawyer and my lawyer would then have to battle it out in court. Was the family doctors report a new report, or one that had previously been sent in as part of a previous driver's examination report? Doctors are legally obliged to keep copies of reports and information about patients on their chart, and I would think that K could make an appointment to see the doctor, and at that time request his chart to read. If the doctor refused, my understanding is that the doctor would be legally liable unless the doctor could prove to a court that there was some information on the chart, that unless kept confidential, would be seriously detrimental to K's health. I believe K's lawyer would have greater success getting access to the doctor's report from K's chart than through the governmental agency, and could obtain if necessary a court order to have access to the chart, or a complete copy of the chart. My understanding also is that a doctor cannot discharge or fire a patient from their practice without the patients consent. So if your doctor tells you that they no longer wish to see you as a patient, and that you should find another doctor, they are still responsible for your care until you see another doctor and that doctor formally assumes your care by notifying the previous doctor of the transfer of care (usually by asking for a copy of the person's previous records). Thus, if K still wishes to see the doctor who did up the medical report, he cannot refuse to see K, and if he does refuse, K should tell him that if he does not see K, K will call up the College of Physicians and Surgeons of that Province and log a complaint and ask for a review. It is uncertain what the College would do in such a circumstance, but I would be surprized if they did not direct the doctor to continue seeing K until K finds another doctor who is to K's satisfaction. Most people would not want to go on seeing a doctor who does not want to look after them for whatever reason, but these types of situations sometimes develop in small towns where there are a limited number of doctors, and people cannot easily find another doctor who is willing to assume their care. It would be of interest to ask the doctor why they no longer wish to look after K. If they feel that K might be angry with them for their part in all this trouble, and if in fact K is not angry, they may be agreeable to continuing on with K's care if K has been happy with their service over the years. In British Columbia, and I believe across Canada, doctors are legally obliged to report patients who have medical conditions that may make it dangerous for them to drive. This includes people with seizure disorders, alcoholics, those at risk for strokes, heart attacks or irregular heart beatrs, people who are developing dementias, and so on. I don't know if this has been challenged in court, and whether or not it applies only to people seen in a doctor's office or at the hospital. I presume that outside of a doctor's normal work, doctor's are expected to act as any other citizen in reporting dangerous or potentially dangerous behaviour. I do not know for sure if any doctors have been charged for not reporting dangerous behaviour in or out of the office, although I believe there was a case of a doctor charged a few years ago in Ontario. I believe that the laws governing access to information provided to motor vehicle licensing bodies are in place to protect people (such as doctors) from abuse by the people who are being reported, and thus to encourage them to report information for the public good. This is similar to the intent of programs like Crime Stoppers where you can report information (and even get rewarded) and stay anonymous. Doctors and their families and of course all sorts of other people have be shot and threatened about all sorts of things, and this generally makes people reluctant to get involved. Since motor vehicle accidents kill a lot of people, and since many are thought to be preventable, the government and society are understandably politically sensitive to the prevention of needless accidents. However, everyone recognizes that the good of society has to be balanced with the good of the individuals in it. It is easy for me to be philosophical about what happened to K, but I don't know how I would have reacted had it happened to me. Telling people that they can no longer drive ranks right up there with disclosing news of untreatable cancer in terms of how emotionally laden these issues are. I personally have been threatened by people whom I have told that they cannot drive and that I was reporting them to the Motor Vehicle Branch, and I have had people leave my medical practice over this. And I have reported someone (an alcoholic) to the motor vehicle branch, who was not my patient, whom I'd never seen behind a wheel, but whom I knew on reliable authority was drinking and driving in the morning in a neighbourhood where there were school children walking. This circumstance is of course different from K's, but I think the principal is the same. This individual had been confronted by othersm and still continued to drive until I reported him to the Motor Vehicle Branch, without telling them (I believed at the time that this person would have believed that his wife had given me the information and would have taken out his anger on her and I did not tell him that I reported him). Should he have had the right to know that it was me that reported him? I don't know. The phrase, "We are afraid that one day...." in the excerpt from the letter to the Motor Vehicle licensing body suggests to me at least that whoever sent in the letter was not acting maliciously, but rather in a well intended albeit misinformed way. We see this happening in other circumstances as well, eg, someone swatting their kid in public and being reported for child abuse. These instances have to be balanced with the opposite side of the coin, ie, no one in society reporting life threatening incidences, eg, drunk drivers, the child who died from starvation in Nova Scotia that no one reported, child and person abuse that goes unreported, etc. It is unfortunately not clear why the Motor Vehicle Branch acted as they did. It is possible that upon receiving the information, that they pulled out the last medical report they had on K, looked at the medications, thought "holy cow, K should be dead", and suspended his licence, or they may have asked the last doctor who had sent them a medical report to send another report, and that was the report that had the incorrect dose of medication, and acted on that, or, the incorrect dose of the medication may have had nothing to do with their decision, and they may have suspended K's licence for some other reason. They may have acted hastily, or they may have acted upon false information. The only way I know of to try to get them to review their process would be to ask K's Member of the Legislative Assembly to ask whichever government minister is responsible for that department to conduct a review of their procedures, something that might or might not happen (it never hurts to complain to your MLA or the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister, they are sensitive to political pressure, and are always looking for something to make themselves look good, or avoid looking bad). Only a lawyer could tell K if a legal action could bring the same thing about. As for K, I would hope that he has faith that the majority of his fellow citizens are not malicious, and though well intentioned, may be misinformed about Parkinson's. It would be very easy to direct anger and frustration at whoever it was. Lawyers might well like to sink their teeth into all the legal issues that are unclear about what happened, but would the expense, and time, and aggravation for everyone best serve K and society, if this is indeed the case? However, how can K redress this issue? K can speak to his MP and ask for an investigation asnoted above. Will the Motor Vehicle Licensing agency agree to send a letter to the complaintants outlining the outcome of their complaint, and directing them to get more information about the stages of Parkinson's? Can K go to a newspaper or TV station, and try to create some publicity about Parkinson's, to try to better inform the average citizen about the disease, and how it affects people, and how doctors and the Motor Vehicle Licensing people decide who can drive and who can't? There certainly are people with Parinkson's who get to the point where they can't drive. Our family was fortunate. My father voluntarily gave up his driver's licence when he felt it was unsafe for him to drive, and our family, and in particular my mother did not have to go through the trauma of having the licence taken away involuntarily. Others on this list may have other ideas. I will read with interest the other comments that come on the list about K and these events. Parkinson's seems so unfair, it makes me angry when other indignities are added to it. But it is good to reward those who try to make society safe for us all, even if the reward turns out to be a big helping of information about Parkinson's, and the Motor Vehicle people having to take time to examine their processes of how they suspend an individual's licence!