‘Law must force medics to turn in dangerous drivers’
Government adviser says system relies far too much on honesty of patients and the discretion of GPs
MEDICS should be legally obliged to tell the DVLA when patients are no longer fit to drive, the Government’s senior medical adviser has said.
Daniel Sokol, the medical ethicist and barrister who has advised the De- fence and Justice ministries, said health workers should be allowed to breach patient confidentiality in order to highlight dangerous motorists.
His comments come after the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke when John Place, 73, ran a red light at a pedestrian crossing and ploughed into her and her mother.
Place had ignored an optician’s warning not to drive and was not even wearing his glasses at the time.
After Place was jailed for four years at Birmingham Crown Court, Poppy’s parents called for the law to be changed requiring medical professionals to tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of those unfit to drive.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Mr Sokol said it was crucial doctors be forced to warn when patients were no longer fit for the roads. “Motor vehicles are lethal objects,” he said. “They maim and kill innocent people just as efficiently as infectious diseases or terrorist attacks.
“Doctors, in the public interest, are required by law to report patients who have certain infectious diseases or who may commit terrorist acts, but not patients who may cause serious harm through their unfitness to drive.”
General Medical Council (GMC) guidance says doctors should explain to patients deemed unfit to drive that they have a legal obligation to inform the DVLA. If the patient continues to drive, the GMC advises “you should make every reasonable effort to persuade them to stop”.
If persuasion fails, the doctor should then contact the DVLA, Mr Sokol says.
He said the current system relies too heavily on the honesty of the patient. However, many patients will lie to avoid the loss of their driving licence. They will falsely promise to stop driving, but the chance of the doctor discovering a lie are usually quite slim.
“To rely on the assurances of patients, in the knowledge that they, like most of us, lie to please others and to get out of trouble, is naive and irresponsible,” said Mr Sokol.
This new law would not erode doctor-patient confidentiality, he concludes. “It offers a solution to the reluctance of impaired drivers to appreciate the danger they pose to others, as well as the recognition that some pa- tients will deceive to continue driving.”
Charlie Massey, GMC chief executive, said doctors should disclose information to protect the public and that updated advice, which comes into force next month, says they should inform the DVLA if others may be at risk, even if the patient does not agree.
But he added: “We don’t agree that reporting should be made mandatory. There is a clear public good in having a confidential medical service and we would be concerned about the wider implications if the trust between a doctor and their patient was eroded.”