by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
July 26, 2004
No, this is not another column about Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Remember the headline says it "doesn’t" pay to tell the truth. For Dalton it paid--if he had had told the truth during last year’s election campaign he would be leader of the Official Opposition and trying to fend off a leadership review. No, this is about an ordinary person, Keith Emerich of Lebanon, Pennsylvania.
Last winter the 44-year-old was being treated by doctors for an irregular heartbeat. Like we are all taught to do, Emerich was truthful with his physicians. He told them that he consumed between six and 10 bottles of beer a day. Then in april, Emerich was informed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transport (PennDOT) that his driver’s licence was being suspended. The suspension had nothing to do with the condition of his heart--the reason that was given was substance abuse. Emerich is appealing that decision and the matter is set for a hearing before a Pennsylvania court on July 29.
Back when he was 21, Emerich was convicted for driving while under the influence. But he stated that in the ensuing 23 years he did not drink and drive and his clean driving record seems to bear this out. His employer of 15 years told the media that Emerich had never appeared for work in an intoxicated state nor with alcohol on his breath.
PennDOT’s policy is not to reveal the source of their information, but the only conclusion that Emerich could draw from the finding of substance abuse was that one of the doctors treating him for his heart condition had made the report. according to a PennDOT spokeswoman, there need not be a connection between the substance abuse and driving for a licence to be suspended. If the decision is not reversed by the courts, Keith Emerich will be unable to legally drive unless he successfully completes treatment for substance abuse.
Pennsylvania is far from being the only jurisdiction where a person’s licence to operate a motor vehicle can be suspended or revoked for medical reasons. The requirement that a medical practitioner report a patient’s medical condition to the licencing authorities if that condition "might" result in a danger to the public is a valid one. It nevertheless puts doctors in a difficult position. The danger that the patient may pose is often tenuous at best and the doctor, in effect is informing on his or her patient and the doctor’s duty can result in serious consequences to the patient. So it is surprising that a doctor would report a man who describes himself as a regular Joe Six-pack when there is no suggestion that he drives while his ability is impaired by alcohol.
The danger of the actions of Emerich’s doctors is that patients like Emerich will think twice before revealing behaviour that is important to their medical treatment, but that might result in their losing their licence to drive. If Emerich does not drive after drinking and is able to hold down stable employment, what right does the government have of preventing him from driving? Is he any more dangerous than someone who drinks three or four times a year and "might" drive?
This is scary. It is an unwarranted intrusion into the life of a citizen that no one other than a Mother against Drunk Driving could love. It will only be a matter of time until someone tells a doctor that they are a little stressed out and will see their driver’s licence taken away.
PennDOT, like many others, believe in this notion that driving is a privilege and not a right. That may have been acceptable in the early 1890s while a few of the rich drove while everyone else used a horse and buggy. But today driving an automobile is a necessity. Much like the freedom to walk around freely or to practice a profession, driving is a right although like other rights, one that can be taken away after the application of strict safeguards.
If something like this can happen in the United States, there is a good chance that it will happen in Canada where there is a single payer of medical services that gives the government more impetus to regulate the conduct of individuals.
It would be in everyone’s best interest if this travesty is reversed and Emerich’s right to drive is restored.
The Toronto Star, if nothing else, is predictable.