And THEY get to drive? RIDICULOUS!

[qtowngirl]

"Comparison of the impacts of alcohol and epilepsy, the medical condition most commonly reported to driving licensing authorities, reveals that of every 10,000 individuals killed in motor vehicle accidents, 4000 deaths are due to excess alcohol, 6 to natural causes, and only 1 to epilepsy. It is strange that all states in the United States carefully advise physicians to report to licensing authorities any driver with uncontrolled epilepsy, but none mandate reporting of drivers with alcoholism." -from medscape

We really are troopers for the b.s. we put up with guys.

 

[Trinity]

Well, I don't see what is wrong with it. Alcoholism doesn't mean a person is going to drink and drive. If there is cause for concern about that person driving because perhaps they have being driving under the influence of alcohol before that is a different scenario. I would care to bet there are many people who have a problem with alcohol but don't drink and drive. Plus, being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily mean that you drink everyday. There are many who will binge drink on weekends etc and quite fine to drive during the week and also many who may not be strictly alcoholic - perhaps they had a wild night and did something stupid they'll regret and which they wouldn't have ordinarily done.
Uncontrolled seizures however, especially if you don't have auras like myself are likely to happen at any time. If there weren't strict regulations i'm sure there would be far more accidents due to E.

 

[Endless]

Where I live people who are convicted of driving while under the influence lose their license for a specified period of time. Usually more than we lose ours for epilepsy.

 

[qtowngirl]

OK, the title would have been more fitting to be 'And THEY get to go unreported?'
Not that I feel driving with uncontrolled seizures isn't dangerous, it scares the shit out of me, but so do the mass of drinking drivers. There would be nothing wrong for the safety of society (it is a disease after all) for physicians with patients that are alcoholic and drive to have to report excess risks.
I'm simply saying when the death ratio due to alcoholics compared to epileptics behind the wheel is 4,000 to 1... it's worth thinking about.

 

[Trinity]

Yes, but unless they drive whilst under the influence their alcoholism is not a risk to others. If they drive on the occasions they are not under the influence then their alcoholism has no bearing on it - unless they have another condition secondary to and caused by their alcoholism. In that case they would be assessed based on that condition.

 

[huskymom]

Let's face it.....just because you have your license taken doesn't mean you won't drive. You should ask your self next time you are on the road, how many of these people are driving with suspended licenses? My guess is the number is too scary to think about!

 

[BigWill]

Just because someone drinks on the weekends doesnt mean they are an alcoholic. An alcohlic is usually always drunk, thats why they are called alcoholics. Their bodies are dependent on alcohol. Alcohol definitely alters your ability to make right decisions and choices. If they drink all their alcohol dont you think they would drive to the store to get more? There are ALOT more people that drink and drive than you might think, especially if you live in a college town or a big city (more people=more drunk drivers). Underage drinking is also becoming a bigger and bigger problem. When teenagers go out and get drunk at a party they arent going to call their parents and tell them they are drunk and cant drive (they will get in trouble), they are going to hop in their vehicle and drive home (wrong decision). And like huskymom said, just because your license is suspended, its not like its gonna stop someone from driving a car.

 

[lovemyladybug]

Just because someone drinks on the weekends doesnt mean they are an alcoholic. An alcohlic is usually always drunk, thats why they are called alcoholics. Their bodies are dependent on alcohol. Alcohol definitely alters your ability to make right decisions and choices. If they drink all their alcohol dont you think they would drive to the store to get more? There are ALOT more people that drink and drive than you might think, especially if you live in a college town or a big city (more people=more drunk drivers). Underage drinking is also becoming a bigger and bigger problem. When teenagers go out and get drunk at a party they arent going to call their parents and tell them they are drunk and cant drive (they will get in trouble), they are going to hop in their vehicle and drive home (wrong decision). And like huskymom said, just because your license is suspended, its not like its gonna stop someone from driving a car.

i think you laid it out perfectly

 

[Trinity]

Just because someone drinks on the weekends doesnt mean they are an alcoholic. An alcohlic is usually always drunk, thats why they are called alcoholics.

I disagree - my father is an alcoholic and he hasn't had a drink in over 35 years. Alcoholics come in all different forms. Regular binge drinking is also considered a form of alcohol addiction so a person could definitely drink on the weekends only. Of course having a bit of a social drink is not what I mean. In fact how often you drink doesn't really have any bearing on whether you are 'alcoholic' what matters is whether you are able to have any control over subsequent drinks once you have the first one - even just the first sip. My Dad says that if he took a sip he wouldn't be able to stop at just that one sip.

http://www.brighteyecounselling.co.uk/alcohol-drugs/binge-drinking-is-alcoholism-too/

 

[DayDreamer]

a person who no longer drinks is a controlled alcoholic, just like a person who no longer has the symptoms of seizures still has epilepsy but is under control

 

[qtowngirl]

Getting a little off topic here - the intention of this thread was to show the imbalance and fairness issues behind driving, not what people go through with alcoholism. I'll post it again... "of every 10,000 individuals killed in motor vehicle accidents, 4000 deaths are due to excess alcohol, 6 to natural causes, and only 1 to epilepsy."
IT IS STRANGE (and damn straight, unfair!) that that '1' is the only one reported to authorities. Those who drink and drive (and BigWill said it, alcoholics "Their bodies are dependent on alcohol. Alcohol definitely alters your ability to make right decisions and choices. If they drink all their alcohol don't you think they would drive to the store to get more?") put people way more at risk than we do. WAY MORE.

 

[Trinity]

It's not getting off topic. You're saying that people who are alcoholic should be reported and i'm saying that I don't think that all alcoholics need to be reported - it should be based on what risk they carry. The fact that some alcoholics are binge drinkers rather than the type that many think of that drink day in day out means that not all alcoholics are a danger to society. I don't know about the laws where you live but if someone drinks and drives here they will lose their licence and for much longer than if they had a seizure or other medical condition. The reason being, they were breaking the law by just being under the influence. That is why I can't really see what the issue is, but again if the laws are different where you come from then perhaps I could.
As for a person who no longer drinks being a controlled alcoholic I understand that - they are still an alcoholic though. Still, that aside unless you are talking about an alcoholic as someone who drinks every day, which as I said many do not, alcoholism is not necessarily a risk to the community at large when driving.

 

[Nakamova]

The law can be awkward and unfair, applied broadly in some cases and less-so in others, in part due to the way "predictive" factors are weighted (risk assessment), and in part due to liability issues.

Having a phone and knowing how to text aren't predictors for which individual might have an accident while texting/phoning. However being a teenager is -- so teens under 18 are prohibited from using a phone while driving (at least in Massachusetts). If you've had a car accident while texting that becomes predictive up to a point. They can't take away your phone, but they can suspend your license (the length of time increases for a first, second or third offense).

Knowing how to drink -- even to excess -- isn't enough of a predictor for who will have an accident while drinking and driving. But once you have DUI accident, that is predictive, and driving privileges are restricted. (And the bartender who sends you to your car knowing that you are intoxicated can be found liable as well.)

Having lost consciousness due to a disorder in which losing consciousness is a key symptom -- well, that seems to be more predictive in terms of risk assessment and, more importantly -- liability. Higher risk and liability means that it's easier to put legislative restrictions on.

That said, the laws do vary -- my neurologist is not required to tell the Department of Motor vehicles that I've had a seizure. It's been up to me.

 

[BigWill]

My last doctor would report them like it was his sworn duty. In Florida if you get a DUI your license is gone for 6 months (1st offense). When you have a seizure while driving, its gone for 6 months as well.

 

[gigi]

a person who no longer drinks is a controlled alcoholic, just like a person who no longer has the symptoms of seizures still has epilepsy but is under control

I think that is referred to as being in recovery. The point of recovery is that the alcoholic has no control over drinking, if they did they would not be an alcoholic. Therein lies the difference between social drinkers and alcoholics, the former knows when to quit, the latter does not because of the lack of control.

So back to the original discussion, statistics show that we are a non threat. People that get DWI/DUIs can buy their way out of losing a license, depending on the circumstances. Thanks to MADD, we have much stricter laws now. No doubt, people with E. get frustrated if they can not drive, and may drive w/o a license, but maybe they are clear headed when they make the choice?? Unless they have both E. and Alcoholism. I have been driving for almost 40 years, and I have been in zero accidents attributed to my E., a few fender benders with only 2 my fault. I live in a very congested area! (my seizures are when I sleep) I have to admit, the few individuals that know about my E are surprised that I drive. My first question to them is, are you more comfortable with me on the road , or the people about to get into their cars and drive off from the many clubs in the area after "having a few". I rest my case. :bigsmile:

 

[DayDreamer]

I can imagine many people no longer talking openly to their doctors about alcohol if doctors were required to report this. I assume this already occurs. I wonder how many people report to their doctors that their seizure was possibly caused by consuming three drinks of alchohol, an action of their own. Who knows. It is important to try and keep an open and honest relationship with that person who is going to give major suggestions on your health.
Laws many places take away your license if you have been driving under the influence of alcohol whether or not an accident has occurred. I support that. It's possible that not all alcoholics don't drive when they are drunk. Maybe the same as all alcoholics don't beat their spouses and children. I would like it if everyone legally allowed to drive, was of adult age, so if they committed a crime they themselves were held responsible. I hate the fact that children drive and kill others while drunk but cannot be held responsible for their actions.
If epilepsy does not interfere with your consciousness or is controlled, I don't think your license should be affected. Nightime seizures don't seem to affect driving unless you have very abnormal abilities. That would be movie material.