Licence Revoked

by Jinxer Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Be very careful on what you tell your Doctor. A friend of mine's daughter was at the Doctors the other week and one of the questions the Doctor asked her was if she drank much alcohol and her mum like a twat told the doctor that her daughter binge drinks at the weekend. The Doctor has only gone and wrote to DVLA telling them she has a problem with alcohol and they have revoked her licence for 6 months with no evidence apart from the doctors letter. I really can't believe how this has happened, the young girl is like any other young girl and probably goes out once a month and lets her hair down a bit so to speak. She will now have to give her job up as she works in a rural place with no direct bus service. This is just so wrong.
So just be careful what you tell your Doctor.

by Little D Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:15 pm

I agree that everyone should be very cautious about what they tell their doctor as this end of the medical system is being perverted to fit a bigger 'agenda'.

That said though, and based upon the information you have shared this doctor has crossed the line of 'The common law duty of confidentiality'.

What I don't get though is why her mom was even in the room at all.

by petesomething Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:31 pm

has the doctor told them she is a alcoholic , we work all week very hard for pennies , what is wrong enjoying ourselves at the weekend,
dont drink
dont smoke
be in bed at 8 pm each night
dont eat chips
if you go on holiday keep out of the sun
and the list goes on .
bed sleep work bed sleep work , this is good for you
why, they want us to work until 80 years of age,
2 glasses of wine we binge drinking

by Jinxer Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:43 pm

A lot of kids will take one of their parents to the doctors with them for support. On confidentiality I can't find any law that say's doctors have to keep your stuff private, only guidelines from the medical council and they have this bit in them

Disclosures required by statute

Legislation provides for the obligatory disclosure of information, under particular circumstances. Examples include the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

by **daveiron** Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:03 pm

Surely, unless the girl agreed .The doctor has acted upon hearsay only & as we all know hearsay counts for nothing.

by petesomething Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:19 pm

We dont know what the mother told the doctor , we want our kids save and other people but like daveiron said its hearsay , it does not mean she was drink driving.or would

by Little D Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:45 pm

It is 'common law' Wink

.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_5803173

Common law is not written out in one document like an Act of Parliament. It is a form of law based on previous court cases decided by judges; hence, it is also referred to as 'judge-made' or case law. The law is applied by reference to those previous cases, so common law is also said to be based on precedent.

The general position is that if information is given in circumstances where it is expected that a duty of confidence applies, that information cannot normally be disclosed without the information provider's consent.

In practice, this means that all patient information, whether held on paper, computer, visually or audio recorded, or held in the memory of the professional, must not normally be disclosed without the consent of the patient. It is irrelevant how old the patient is or what the state of their mental health is; the duty still applies.

by Jinxer Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:51 pm

I will admit the mother is the type who believes anything a Doctor would tell her and takes the kids to A & E at the drop of a hat, but from reading on the net this is happening quite a lot. In effect your being banned from driving without even committing an offence, just on the word of a Doctor with no other proof.

by Jinxer Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:57 pm

actinglikeabanker wrote:It is 'common law' .

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_5803173

Common law is not written out in one document like an Act of Parliament. It is a form of law based on previous court cases decided by judges; hence, it is also referred to as 'judge-made' or case law. The law is applied by reference to those previous cases, so common law is also said to be based on precedent.

The general position is that if information is given in circumstances where it is expected that a duty of confidence applies, that information cannot normally be disclosed without the information provider's consent.

In practice, this means that all patient information, whether held on paper, computer, visually or audio recorded, or held in the memory of the professional, must not normally be disclosed without the consent of the patient. It is irrelevant how old the patient is or what the state of their mental health is; the duty still applies.

Thanks for that but I think where that case law falls flat is with the word normally being used. Normally you wouldn't expect your Doctor to disclose information about you, but as the guidelines state one of the reasons the doctor can break confidentiality is under the road traffic act.

by Little D Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:25 pm

Many arguments can be put forward to try to circumvent the 'common law duty of confidentiality' but!, very few hold water in the eyes of the law.

Public interest, public safety, general interest, wellbeing etc etc etc etc. It is a long list, and is constantly being added to by social engineers, sociopaths, politicians etc etc etc etc.

The simple matter of fact of 'common law duty of confidentiality' is that anything shared in confidence attains a level of legal protection. There are similar attained 'un-written' protections under employment law such as 'breach of trust'.

If you were to go into the doctors stating that you have the intent to commit harm to the general public then the doctor has a duty of care towards the general public also. If you were to go into the doctors stating you like to drink alcohol then the doctor would be totally breaching your rights to confidentiality by sharing that information.

Based upon the details you have shared, your friends daughter has a very strong 'common law' legal recourse for this gp's lack of confidentiality.

by Jinxer Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:52 pm

You are probably right about her having a good case under common law, but all she want's is her licence so she can go to work Monday morning. It just seems so unfair, she hasn't even ever had a speeding ticket nor never broke the law in any way in the past either.

by midnight Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:50 am

Opticians will also inform DVLA of any concerns that they may have regarding your eyesight.

by max2000 Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:30 am

I find it rather strange when a person of driving age takes a Parent to the Doctors with them.

I think the thread is pure poo.

Opticians do not inform the DVLA of Jack Squit.

Your Doctor Informs the DVLA of Jack Squit. But can recommend they revoke a licence due to Illness.

But your Doctor will advise you. Ignore him at your Peril.

Doctors are to advise the Police regarding Firearms and Explosives Re depression and Mental Health problems.

by **daveiron** Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:36 am

Max 2000

On what basis have you decided this thread is poo ? Are you suggesting the OP has made it up ,if so for what possible reason?

by max2000 Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:57 am

"A Friends Daughter" gives it away to start with.

The rest is a total Crock.

by badvoc Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:15 am

max , your doc's records can be read by an large number of people , an to believe other wise is very naive , you must be very new to this info keep read info and the experiences of others , if you was to tell the average man or woman they would think your mad , thats because they are extremely naive , its ok for people to comment without any experience but in an court that is known as hearsay - b.......it ,

by max2000 Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:21 am

I have lots of experience of many subjects. English is one of them. Might help if you try and speak in it.

by petesomething Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:33 am

MAYBE THE MOTHER WORRIED ABOUT HER DAUGHTERS DRINKING this why she went with her

A old friend of mine, her 20 year old daughter died because of binge drinking

but this does not mean this girl was ,

max 2000 your post is crock

by max2000 Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:40 am

This site just isn't the same as GOODF.

Petesomething you are full of shit just like the OP

Bye Bye.

by **Lopsum** Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:19 pm

They do and will inform others of any potential crime they feel may be taking place.
Then others take it as fact because the doctor raised concerns.They will inform police , childrens services etc on a whim sometimes to protect themselves . They would be in trouble if something happened and they had cause for concern but didnt say anything. So they WILL.Even if they are not 100% sure.
Unfortunately they are often wrong and it causes untold amounts of stress for those innocent to be accused of something .
I think the problem is this kind of information is regarded too highly as it holds more weight than normal hearsay .

by Jinxer Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:47 pm

Wow what went on there, I have no reason other to warn others what has happened and to be very careful what your Doctor is told. I obviously only know what they have told me, but they are both adamant the comment on binge drinking was just a casual comment and the Doctor has took it out of context and reported her to DVLA as having a drink problem. This is something I would of found hard to believe if it wasn't for the fact I know the family really well and have read the letter from DVLA stating her licence is revoked and she has to be tested for 6 months to prove she hasn't got a drink problem before she can get it back.
I have had a search on google and can see this happening quite a bit to people, some may have a drink problem, but I know plenty of people who like a good drink but would never dream of drinking and driving. I just think it's so wrong how something like this can happen when no offence has ever taken place. It's basically saying anyone who has a drink can have their licence took off them just for enjoying a pint.
By the way I'm not a drinker myself, if I drink 10 pints in a year that would be excessive for me. I drink coca cola which is probably worse.

by badvoc Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:55 pm

their is an way to stop these little lamb's from bleating but thats for Private consumption as they have an oath an acting against you is contrary to that oath , which they just did an which they receive public funds for ,

by Guest Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:46 pm

Hi jinxer

Is she over 18? Does the DVLA letter state which Act and Section they have employed? Has she signed power of attorney to Dr ? Did she specifically consent to the disclosure? Is there another Dr in the area she can switch to? How far is she willing/able to take this?

To represent a breach of confidentiality info must: - be disclosed without the permission and to the detriment of the 'person' (interesting in itself!) communicating it.

Re: RTA 1991 - requests medical practitioners to give patient details to the police when a driver is alleged to have committed an offence.

Cheers!

by Jinxer Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:21 pm

Yes she is 25 and I can't remember if an act was mentioned in the letter but will look later on. She won't have any interest in pursuing this any further all she want's is her licence back so she can get to work. A bit more info about the doctors visit, she was there as she has had 2 abnormal smear tests and has now been refereed on to a specialist. One of the questions the doctor asked was if she drank much to which she replied no and her mum pipped in with you do binge drink at the weekend sometimes to which she said don't everyone who's my age do that, and this is the result of that.

by Guest Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:23 pm

Hi jinxer

i don't think she can 'just get her licence back' fella, it's going to be a bit tougher than that. To challenge the system in any way takes courage, even with template stuff. No-one can do it for her unfortunately, she's going to have to start learning. This is a new one on me, i'm pretty sure there are no template solutions.

There's a possibility of having to sue the Dr, the CEO of the DVLA or both. At the very least she's got a few lettrrs/notices to write, and once she starts the Dr will remove her from his practice list, hence the question if she has an alternate surgery in the area. She'll have to do that first as another Dr might refuse to take her on when they discover she is suing her current Dr.

Cheers!

by Sponsored content

Licence Revoked

Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked

Re: Licence Revoked