Citation

Juhl M. J. Traffic Med. 1980; 8(4): 52-54.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1980, International Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The legal responsibility for physicians in reporting impaired drivers varies in different countries and some examples are shown, such as arguments for and against reporting. Results from an analysis of 300 cases reported to the Medical Officers of Health Headquarters in Denmark in 1977 and 1978 are given. Neurological diseases with or without paroxysm most often cause a physician to report (45%), and most often reporting is done by a general practitioner (33.7), an internist (16.7%) or a neurologist (13.7%), whereas psychiatrists seldom report (3.3%). In only 1 per cent of the cases the Medical Officer of Health Headquarters decides at once that it was unnecessary to restrict or withdraw the driver's license. The patient-doctor relationship is not impaired in the majority of cases, perhaps because unnecessary reports are not done. On the contrary, reporting makes some patients follow their physician's advice concerning treatment. In Denmark no physicians have been sued either for having reporting an impaired driver or not having done so. A non-reporting physician may judge a patient stricter than on who reports, and the necessity of reporting at once, when a persisting impairment is detected is emphasized.