www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15790030
A driver with a history of epilepsy caused the death of a woman by playing "Russian roulette" with his condition, police have said.
Philip Chapman, 56, from Rayleigh, Essex, was jailed for six years after crashing into four cars in Southend while having an epileptic seizure.
|
The rules are absolutely black and white.
He gets everything he deserves.
I hope whatever doctors he has seen made a note of their advice regarding driving or they might be in for some stick too.
|
The problem, as with diabetic hypo attacks, is that the rules specify one year free from incidents. But that always involves a risk, because a year is an arbitrary period and someone might follow all the rules yet have an attack after 13 months.
Clearly however this man was way outside any reasonable behaviour and deserves his punishment. I know I have often argued against the pointlessness of exemplary prison sentences, but I think this is one of those rarer cases where the exemplary value of the punishment over-rides any sympathetic consideration of the individual.
|
I'm afraid that I have very little sympathy for him.
I live about a mile from where this happened in a narrow country type lane, I had travelled down that road 5 minutes before this incident; one of those 'by the Grace of God' occasions.
In the local paper it was made clear that he was fully aware of his condition and his duty to report to DVLA and that he has frequent attacks. Basically it would appear to be a case of not if but when.
I'm not sure what the current position is but surely it would make sense to make it a statutory duty for any doctor who has advised someone that they should not drive for medical reasons to also inform the DVLA. I know that this opens up the doctor/patient confidentiality issue but surely if it helps to save lives we should really look at it. We have had several cases locally where deaths and serious injuries have occured after being caused by people who had been advised not to drive by medical professionals, one was a well respected local GP who chose not to inform DVLA even after he had been advised to do so by his opthalmic specialist due to a degenerative eyesight condition; he knocked down and killed a local grandmother who he did not see crossing the road. If his specialist had been required to inform DVLA then this woman would still be alive, unless of course he'd still chosen to drive despite his licence being suspended.
I think there is more danger on the roads from people driving while unfit than there is from probably anything else at the moment, I am continually seeing people driving who are being so 'careful' that they are obviously not aware of what they are doing and I do wonder about their fitness to be on the road.
|
The onus is on the patient to advise the DVLA of the condition, as it is with all medical conditions.
If a GP or hospital doctor knows the patient is still driving despite being advised not to, then the doctor's responsibility to society is greater than doctor-patient confidentiality and the doctor should inform DVLA.
|
Is that still the case with HGV drivers Lygonos? I always thought the Doctor informed DVLA but I'm probably wrong.
If I am, I certainly agree they should do so.
Pat
|
|
I don't think doctors are allowed to inform anybody about a patient.What about people who have severe migraine attacks can cause lost vision.
|
"It is the responsibility of the driver to inform the DVLA. It is the responsibility of doctors to advise patients that medical conditions (and drugs) may affect their ability to drive and for which conditions patients should inform the DVLA.
Drivers should also inform their insurance company of any condition disclosed to the DVLA."
|
I'm aware of that clause CGN but I also know of many HGV drivers who have heart attacks or strokes and not been well enough to inform DVLA instantly, but who have had a letter from them saying their licence has been taken away until certain tests and examinations have been completed.
Where did that information come from?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 21 Nov 11 at 11:29
|
I'm sure that doctors do inform the DVLA about their patients, whether they're supposed to or not. Certainly my partner, who's diabetic, has first hand experience of a doctor passing information, which was later proved to be inaccurate, to the DVLA resulting in his licence being revoked.
It took court action to get the DVLA to accept that the information, provided maliciously by a consultant from his local hospital following a complaint against him, was inaccurate. He still has to renew his licence every three years though, which involves his GP signing off that he his fit to drive.
There seems to be an insurance loading too, which seems entirely sensible though I'm not sure how it reconciles with the rise in anti-discrimination legislation for any manner of things?
Peter
|
I'm aware of what should happen CGN, but like PeterS I'm also very aware of what actually does happen.
Pat
|
Just to clarify, he had a three year licence to start with which was revoked early following intervention by a consultant (not even his regular consultant). It seems almost impossible to reverse a revokation based on 'evidence' supplied by a doctor, regardless of the accuracy of it.
The DVLA's position was that they were in possession of 'information' that indicated that he was not fit to drive so the licence was revoked, and that they did not need to verifying that the information was correct. Even the intervention of his GP and fact based medical reports would not sway them.
The only route of appeal is then through the Magistrates Court, who were not impressed by the DVLAs position and evidence so over-turned the decison. But it took many months, and was stress than we could have quite done without. The damages claim against the hospital was scant compensation for the time, stress and hassle caused, but hopefully it'll make at least one doctor think more carefully before atttempting that again.
Peter
|
I'm sure they do especially in cases of mental illness or dementia although this is a very tricky area as far as patient confidentiality. My own feelings are that Doctors should be obliged to advise the DVLA in case of certain illnesses, certainly in the case under discusson.
Sometimes we care too much about individual rights and not enough about responsibility to other members of the public.
|
I don't actually have an issue with doctors informing the DVLA. What I have a problem with is the DVLA acting without checking the accuracy of the information received. There should be a clearly defined process for revoking a licence, which should include a formal record of the reason, and third party validation of it.
In some respects if there was a more formal process for doctors informing them then there'd be more accountability I think, which should help weed out the malicious reporting of non existant conditions or exageration of risks. It might also encourage those who really shouldn't be driving to give up sooner...
Peter
|
|
What you say seems perfectly reasonable. I'm just concerned that at the moment there are thousands of drivers out there who should not be on the road. The individuals concerned won't tell the DVLA and the doctors won't either. It only comes to light when there is an accident, sometimes fatal, as in this case.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 21 Nov 11 at 12:35
|
I fully agree that it would be better if a persons own Doctor had the responsibility of informing DVLA, just as long as DVLA will listen to them when told by the same Doctor that they are now fit to drive again.
I was surprised to hear they don't already do this because fron an HGV licence point of view, they certainly seem to.
Pat
|
www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx
Here are the DVLA medical guidelines issued to medical professionals. As far a notification by the doctor is concerned here is the relevant info.
Notification to DVLA It is the duty of the licence holder or licence applicant to notify DVLA of any medical condition, which may affect safe driving. On occasions however, there are circumstances in which the licence holder cannot, or will not do so.
The GMC has issued clear guidelines* applicable to such circumstances, which state:
•
“1. The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA about such a condition or treatment. However, if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive (if the patient is incapable of understanding this advice, for example, because of dementia, you should inform the DVLA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA about the condition.
2. If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis, or the effect of the condition on their ability to drive, you can suggest that they seek a second opinion, and help arrange for them to do so. You should advise the patient not to drive in the meantime.
3. If a patient continues to drive when they may not be fit to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. As long as the patient agrees, you may discuss your concerns with their relatives, friends or carers.
4. If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should contact the DVLA immediately and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
5. Before contacting the DVLA you should try to inform the patient of your decision to disclose personal information. You should then also inform the patient in writing once you have done so.”
(*Reproduced with kind permission of the General Medical Council) -Full information on GMC guidelines can be viewed on www.gmc-uk.org
Application of the Medical Standards
|
I'm not at all sure of the rules, but something I've got, I asked the doctor if I needed to tell Swansea and "no" was the answer. However the GP went on to say, it was a 'remark' point when they did an age related medical. So there is a mechanism for the GP talking to Swansea. (I did since tell Swansea anyway).
Mind you, as in all things reported, one doesn't get the full picture. I wonder if he was even up to date with his treatment?
|
>> Mind you, as in all things reported, one doesn't get the full picture. I wonder
>> if he was even up to date with his treatment?
>>
From tonight's local paper:-
'Chapman, who has a history of epilepsy, didn't want to lose his licence so he didn't tell the DVLA he had suffered at least three serious fits. He claimed his condition was 'under control'.'
'The self-employed electrician knew he was capable of blacking out at any time when he got behind the wheel of his van and caused the tragedy in Sutton Road, Southend, on September 15 last year.
He ploughed into the back of a Vauxhall Vectra and pushed it head on into the path of Mrs Brook's Fiat Punto, which was then sent spinning off the road and into a ditch.
As well as her grandson, Alfie, the Vectra motorists Carol and Michel Guiness were badly injured.'
'Basildon Crown Court heard Chapman appeared to be driving with his 'eyes closed' as he passed the carnage, still driving at about 40mph.
He then veered onto the footpath, struck a lamppost, went back onto the footpath again before coming to rest in a layby.
He then told officers at the scene 'sometimes I have these fits', however he later alleged he never said this.'
Admittedly it's a report in the local paper but I think that sounds pretty damning as to his culpability and, as far as I'm aware, he has not voiced any regret over the incident.
Since 2006 there have been five deaths caused to other people by drivers who should not have been behind the wheel in South East Essex. Three caused by epileptics and two by drivers with heavily impaired eyesight, all were aware of their condition. One of the epileptics had also kept it from his employer; HE WAS A TRAIN DRIVER ON OUR LOCAL COMMUTER SERVICE INTO LONDON!!!!
|
A couple of hip replacement patients told me their licence was suspended.
Presumably either their GP or consultant informed the DVLA.
Nothing has happened in my case, so it seems there are no hard and fast rules.
The consultant told me to see how I felt and suggested most people in my position feel able to drive after about six weeks.
The advice sheets mention short or essential journeys after a month.
I reckon I could drive now if I had to, but I won't be.
The op was early November, so I might break motoring cover early next month.
|
Doctors don't, as a rule, contact DVLA - they warn patients when this is appropriate.
Indeed, informing the DVLA and not telling a patient you have done so risks censure from the GMC unless you can give a reasonable explanation.
I can't imagine any doctor wasting their own time to inform about hip replacements.
My suspicion is either some doctor doesn't know the rules, or the patients aren't giving all the details to you.
|
Driver with epilepsy jailed over death crash - Lygonos
