Abstract
After 9 years, Austroads has published new guidelines for fitness to drive. The guidelines have a preamble, which includes a legal disclaimer denying any culpability for those who designed the guidelines. They also warn of the legal responsibility for health professionals to satisfy their obligations, the need to be current with both relevant medical and legal expectations and if in doubt to seek guidance from Medical Defence Organisations. The guidelines are divided into Parts A and B, with A providing broad overview and background information while B deals with specific entities, such as blackouts, epilepsy or sleep disorders. This paper examines the guidelines and offers an appraisal of their content, their relevance to health practitioners and an assessment of their role in assisting to improve road safety.
Highlights
Patients consider driving a right, not a privilege
The disclaimer remains, “...Neither Austroads nor the authors accept responsibility for any consequences arising from their application
Health professionals should maintain an awareness of any changes in health care ... that may affect their assessment ... ... maintain an awareness of changes in the law ...”
Summary
Patients consider driving a right, not a privilege. Preventing driving is traumatic[1] provoking potential conflict. Case law has generated concern[5]. Without mandatory reporting, “...physicians can still be found liable if they fail to report a patient who is later determined to have caused harm to others as a result of a medical impairment behind the wheel...”[6]. Guidelines must be sensitive and responsive to latest developments. The disclaimer remains, “...Neither Austroads nor the authors accept responsibility for any consequences arising from their (guidelines) application. Health professionals should maintain an awareness of any changes in health care ... Maintain an awareness of changes in the law ...”. The latest guidelines, while endorsed by seven professional bodies, named additional organisations, which contributed but did not endorse them, raising questions concerning legitimacy. The guidelines state: “...Where there are concerns ... advice may be sought from the professional’s Medical Defence Organisation or legal advisor...”, suggesting potential vulnerability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
