Picking on Cripples?

[Broomstick]

A drunk can "demonstrate actual ability to control the vehicle" too.

What's your point Wong?

That you're a stupid bitch who can't read, perhaps?

Funny, I thought it was more along the lines of "cripples shouldn't be allowed to drive".

He passed his damn driving test, why should the standard be higher for him than for anyone else?

He's impaired, fucktard. Driving requirements are deliberately set far too low precisely because of what I said before: that driving is considered a "right", and so anybody who can barely drive in a straight line can pass. The tests are made easy so that people who really shouldn't be driving (like this guy) can do so anyway. The fact is that there are plenty of people in this country who could probably blow the legal limit for blood alcohol and still pass the driving test, it's so goddamned easy.

On what basis do you determine that his particular impairment - which clearly impairs his ability to walk - impairs his driving? It does not require fine and delicate finger motions to operate a car. We're not talking about a respirator dependent quad operating a car with a stick between his teeth, from seeing the man in video over the past few days he clearly retains quite a bit of control over his arms and hands. I can understand the question of whether or not he should drive coming up, but if he can demonstrate the ability to do so to the same level as others I can't in good conscience deny him the license.

Although I would be the first to say overall standards for drivers DO need to be improved. Raise the bar for everyone.

Attitudes like yours are why situations like this persist on our roads.

I see - let's look at this part:

Alcoholism was the most common underlying reportable condition, yet the least likely to be disclosed.

But researchers also found doctors had failed to report cardiac conditions, such as unstable angina, or strokes, as well as neurological disorders, such as dementia, seizures, or active psychiatric disorders.

Funny, I don't see quadraplegia mentioned there... granted, such people are a very small minority.

I also note this article is about the situation in Canada. Given that in the US a doctor who fails to report a medically unsafe driver can be held legally liable failure to report these things may be less of an issue here.

Whenever someone speaks of getting medically unfit people off the road, he is viewed as some sort of tyrant. I know you like to stick up for the disabled, but this is fucking ridiculous. Driving is not a right; it is a responsibility: a responsibility to every other person on the road.

You know, I am one of the first people to stick up for higher standards for drivers around here, what I'm objecting to is the knee-jerk "he's got paralysis, he shouldn't be driving". I would even agree that the default for quadraplegia should be an assumption of inability BUT if the person is able to demonstrate an ability to operate a motor vehicle safely they should be allowed to do so.

This individual has imparied motor skills constantly, therefore that makes him a very real danger to people around him when he's supposed to be responsible for controlling a heavy and fast moving vehicle.

He's a pretty high functioning quad, we're not talking about Christopher Reeve or someone like Stephen Hawking - both nice people but no way in hell should either attempt to drive. Driving a car safely does not take great great physical effort or ability - if it did we wouldn't permit one-armed people to drive, would we?

I suppose the real way to settle this would be to find stats on the accidents rate for drivers with a similar level of paralysis but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Or perhaps trying to find out if auto insurance companies charge extra to people with that sort of disability - the rates are based on accident rates for various groups after all. If auto insurers don't see this guy as more risky than someone else of his age I'm not sure why we should. But of course, there's no way to know what he's paying for insurance.

I was slightly surprised to learn that deaf people can legally drive, at least in the U.S.

Why? How does not being able to hear so severly impact the ability to operate a motor vehicle? The volume at which some people listen to their radio or CD player they might as well be deaf (and probably will be eventually). Arguably, a deaf driver has fewer distractions. You certainly won't find them talking on a cellphone while driving, hands-free or otherwise.

Having known some deaf drivers, including several in high school, I am also aware that there are often additional requirements such as larger than usual rear view mirrors and requirements for additional mirrors on the sides (practically standard this days anyway for a lot of vehicles) to compensate for the lack of their ability to hear sirens. The high school kids who were deaf had to go to a separate driver's ed than the hearing kids both for communication reasons and to concentrate on proper safety in regards to their limitations. Insurance came up once with a deaf woman I worked with and her rates were comparable with everyone else's.

If they can operate as safely as everyone else they should be allowed to drive.

Tell you what - I'll try to find out some actual facts regarding what, if any, requirements there are for drivers with paralysis to see if, in fact, people are screened (at to what extent) prior to being handed the controls. If there's no screening yeah, that could definitely be a problem. If there is some sort of screening or requirements maybe this isn't a problem.

It is possible that the deputy believed the guy to have more mobility than he really does because he was able to drive. Often when people in wheelchairs are able to stand, they won't tell you that for what ever reason.

I can certainly understanding asking someone to stand, but if they say "no, I am unable" the default should not an assumption of lying on the part of the person being asked to stand. I also realize that police officers often have to deal with lying, uncooperative, sometimes hostile people who don't give a flying fuck about the officer in question. It can be a hard job some days, no question about it.

However, this case seems rather over the top.

Does that mean you can dump them out of their chair? no. Unfortunately most departments don't have policies on how to search and handle wheelchair bound prisoners. Policies and facilities should be in place (or be made) to handle paralyzed prisoners.

Agreed

[Glocksman]

I also realize that police officers often have to deal with lying, uncooperative, sometimes hostile people who don't give a flying fuck about the officer in question. It can be a hard job some days, no question about it.

However, this case seems rather over the top.

Agreed.
IMHO, one of the problems with being a cop is to not let the mistrust that develops when dealing with the criminal element overrule your common sense and compassion.

Yet, if you are too compassionate and/or trusting you can easily wind up dead.

It's not an easy job and in a lot of cases I'd favor the cop.
But in this case, the person who dumped the guy out of his wheelchair should both be fired and face civil and criminal liability for their multiple failures in judgment.

[FSTargetDrone]

Why? How does not being able to hear so severly impact the ability to operate a motor vehicle? The volume at which some people listen to their radio or CD player they might as well be deaf (and probably will be eventually). Arguably, a deaf driver has fewer distractions. You certainly won't find them talking on a cellphone while driving, hands-free or otherwise.

Having known some deaf drivers, including several in high school, I am also aware that there are often additional requirements such as larger than usual rear view mirrors and requirements for additional mirrors on the sides (practically standard this days anyway for a lot of vehicles) to compensate for the lack of their ability to hear sirens. The high school kids who were deaf had to go to a separate driver's ed than the hearing kids both for communication reasons and to concentrate on proper safety in regards to their limitations. Insurance came up once with a deaf woman I worked with and her rates were comparable with everyone else's.

If they can operate as safely as everyone else they should be allowed to drive.

At first blush I was surprised and I guess I was wondering more along the lines of deaf people not being able to respond to emergency vehicle sirens and such. Many times one will hear the siren before actually seeing the vehicle or its lights (if it's coming around a turn) but I did do a little research and it seems there is equipment deaf drivers can use to see that an emergency vehicle is approaching.

[Broomstick]

Well, if every other car on the road starts to slow down and/or pull over to the side a deaf driver might well cue on that and also do the same even before he or she sees the flashing lights. At my former employer we have a person designated to make sure the deaf manager in accounting responded to fire drills but half the time it wasn't necessary because he noticed everyone else getting up and heading to the exit. Likewise, although he couldn't hear the "ding" when the elevator arrived at our floor he often knew the ding had sounded based on the reaction of those around him. It's not unusual for deaf people to pick up on that sort of visual cue, which the hearing might easily miss.

On a slightly different note, I used to work with a blind man at a clinic where for awhile we kept blowing fuses. One day he shouted "Will you fix the damn lights?" which was puzzling because he was completely and totally blind. We asked him how he knew the lights had gone out again. He said it was because he could hear his dog crashing into things in the dark.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Also, emergency vehicles have flashing lights on them.

[Broomstick]

Oh - as far as those driver road test requirements I said I was looking for... my Google-fu resulted in not much, so I went to another board that I know has disabled people on it. So far, none of the paralyzed have weighed in. I did get a second-hand report from a person who drove a paralyzed friend to the DMV for his license (he had to drive the van to get there since his friend didn't have a license until after the test). The location was Chicago.

Said his friend had to provide a vehicle he could drive (in other words, all adaptive equipment in place) and the road test included such items as parallel parking and yes, emergency stops. So at least in one state that much is tested prior to issuing a license to anyone, including the disabled.

(I'm able-bodied and still have trouble parallel parking - then again, if I used wheels instead of feet I might be better at tight maneuvering using a machine - practice makes perfect.)

Utah has something like 12 categories of disabilities with requirements/limitations for each, but I have not been able to get detailed information on what the specifics are on the web, just the information they exist.

On the other hand - when I got my license in Michigan I only needed proof I had passed a driver's ed course and I was excused from the road test entirely. Which, frankly, strikes me as absurd these days although at 16 I was delighted. That was quite some time ago, however, and I understand the current requirements are much more substantial.

[FSTargetDrone]

Also, emergency vehicles have flashing lights on them.

I know, I mentioned that in my post above, but I was thinking of an instance when an ambulance or something is coming around a bend and the lights cannot be seen as quickly as the siren as heard. Additionally...

Well, if every other car on the road starts to slow down and/or pull over to the side a deaf driver might well cue on that and also do the same even before he or she sees the flashing lights.

True, but there are also times when there is no other traffic. I'm thinking of smaller, secondary roads, especially narrower, twisting ones where there isn't necessarily such obvious cues.

But in any case, there seems to be a technological solution to that for deaf drivers, as I understand it.

[FSTargetDrone]

Oh - as far as those driver road test requirements I said I was looking for... my Google-fu resulted in not much, so I went to another board that I know has disabled people on it.

I happened to run across a board for law enforcement types and one of them posted about dealing with deaf drivers during a traffic stop. Sometimes deaf drivers will carry a card or placard showing they cannot hear, in which case the officers will merely use a pencil and pad to communicate (especially if they don't know sign language).

[redmagister]

my first question is how did this evolve from the discussion on police abuse I tuned in on into the question of whether or not a quadriplegic can drive? To which the answer seems obvious, yes, if they can demonstrate control over the car then give them the license they are no more a danger than the sixteen year old who took the test ahead of them and since they might have already been through a traumatic near fatal accident they might be more careful to begin with. in Europe there are amateur racing drivers in wheelchairs, it all comes down to whether or not they have enough control over their arms. oh and police ad, I think she should be strapped in a wheelchair for a month as "sensitivity classes" after she gets fired of course.

[FSTargetDrone]

my first question is how did this evolve from the discussion on police abuse I tuned in on into the question of whether or not a quadriplegic can drive?

You must be new here.



Threads spawn tangential discussion all of the time, especially when they generate lots of follow-up postings.

[redmagister]

yep brand new but I think I'm catching on

[Broomstick]

Now that I had a chance to talk to my Other Half I have a little more information regarding the disabled driving.

In Illinois, up until 1976 if you had any "neurological disorder" (which is a pretty broad basket), no matter how minor, you were not permitted to drive. After that year, a person who was disabled had to obtain a letter from a doctor stating that they were physically capable of driving. After they went through a driver's ed course they would take a standard road test (with adaptive stuff on the vehicle if needed) which included parallel parking, emergency stops, dealing with road hazards, etc. Basically, a disabled person had to demonstrate the ability to handle the vehicle.

When the Other Half went to work in the UK for awhile he passed the UK driving requirements without any problem, although he tells me there were some restrictions on that license, none of which he found onerous. He said he didn't find the process in the UK any more difficult than the one he went through in Chicago, but then, we're talking about someone who took a defensive driving course on his own even before he got his US license. He's a bit gonzo on safety.

So, at least in Illinois, they aren't just handing cripples the keys.

[Darth Wong]

What's your point Wong?

That you're a stupid bitch who can't read, perhaps?

Funny, I thought it was more along the lines of "cripples shouldn't be allowed to drive".

I never said anything about lumping all levels of disability together, you lying shitwad. You have been doing this increasingly lately; reading imaginary things into what people say, because you think you've found an excuse to vent your moral outrage. Get over yourself.

On what basis do you determine that his particular impairment - which clearly impairs his ability to walk - impairs his driving? It does not require fine and delicate finger motions to operate a car. We're not talking about a respirator dependent quad operating a car with a stick between his teeth, from seeing the man in video over the past few days he clearly retains quite a bit of control over his arms and hands. I can understand the question of whether or not he should drive coming up, but if he can demonstrate the ability to do so to the same level as others I can't in good conscience deny him the license.

So? A drunk meets your criteria too. He has control over his arms and hands. He can operate a motor vehicle. He can probably do so well enough to pass a driving test. What he can't do is possess reaction speed equal to that of a normal unimpaired person. The fact is that we have a pretty harsh standard for metabolic function when it comes to drunkenness, but we are afraid to make the same declarations for any other kind of disability.

Despite your attempts to turn this into yet another one of your moral diatribes, the fact is that I don't harbour hostility for cripples. One of the members of my wedding party in 1992 had CP; she couldn't walk straight, although she could control her arms well enough to get a license. She met the requirements, and passed the test. I like her; she's a nice girl. But she absolutely should not be driving, because while she can theoretically do all of the things necessary to operate a car, she can't react quickly enough if something goes wrong.

Although I would be the first to say overall standards for drivers DO need to be improved. Raise the bar for everyone.

Attitudes like yours are why situations like this persist on our roads.

I see - let's look at this part:

Alcoholism was the most common underlying reportable condition, yet the least likely to be disclosed.

But researchers also found doctors had failed to report cardiac conditions, such as unstable angina, or strokes, as well as neurological disorders, such as dementia, seizures, or active psychiatric disorders.

Funny, I don't see quadraplegia mentioned there... granted, such people are a very small minority.

Did my point make a swishing sound as it zoomed over your head? Because you appear to have absolutely no idea what I was saying, judging by your idiotic assumption that I thought this article was specifically about quadriplegics.

I also note this article is about the situation in Canada. Given that in the US a doctor who fails to report a medically unsafe driver can be held legally liable failure to report these things may be less of an issue here.

Oh right, because we have no such thing as legal accountability, lawsuits, or medical malpractice here, right? We all live in igloos too, right?

You know, I am one of the first people to stick up for higher standards for drivers around here, what I'm objecting to is the knee-jerk "he's got paralysis, he shouldn't be driving". I would even agree that the default for quadraplegia should be an assumption of inability BUT if the person is able to demonstrate an ability to operate a motor vehicle safely they should be allowed to do so.

Almost anybody can operate a motor vehicle safely ... when nothing unexpected happens.

[Broomstick]

OK, let me make my question absolutely clear: on what basis are determining that the gentleman in the OP does not have sufficient capability to safely drive a car? The fact he is a quadriplegic? Quadriplegia can range from a minimal affect on the hands/arms to being dependent on a respirator. This man might well have a reaction time better than your hypothetical drunk when it comes to using the adaptive controls on his vehicle. Or he may not. I don't think any of us in this thread are in a position to make that determination one way or the other.

As far as the woman with CP that you know - well, presumably you have observed her and can determine that she can't react fast enough. I can't argue with that because you have actually been a situation to truly observe her. That doesn't mean the same applies to someone else with CP because it's such a variable condition - some people are more affected than others. You haven't observed the man in the OP other than on a crude video tape. It struck me as a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

Personally, I'd be very much in favor of a driving test that is on par with what is required to get a pilot's license. Of course, that would mean at least half (as a WAG) of the driver's on the road today would have to park their car until they actually fucking learned how to drive (including some who are very much convinced they know what they're doing - but they don't). Most of the driving road test is normal driving - most of the flight test is demonstrating you know what to do when things go wrong. Unfortunately, I don't ever envision that happening.

[Broomstick]

I also note this article is about the situation in Canada. Given that in the US a doctor who fails to report a medically unsafe driver can be held legally liable failure to report these things may be less of an issue here.

Oh right, because we have no such thing as legal accountability, lawsuits, or medical malpractice here, right? We all live in igloos too, right?

Oh, please - you know damn well I don't believe you live in igloos.

People in the US are far more likely to sue than just about anywhere else, and jury awards also tend to be much higher. The article mentioned a lack of consequences for doctors failing to report in Canada (for whatever reason). I suggest that the greater likelihood of being sued in the US might have an effect on the reporting rates.

And I'm not sure that it would fall under medical malpractice here - it may be under the criminal statutes, as it is for people like teachers and such who fail to report child abuse.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let me make my question absolutely clear: on what basis are determining that the gentleman in the OP does not have sufficient capability to safely drive a car? The fact he is a quadriplegic? Quadriplegia can range from a minimal affect on the hands/arms to being dependent on a respirator. This man might well have a reaction time better than your hypothetical drunk when it comes to using the adaptive controls on his vehicle. Or he may not. I don't think any of us in this thread are in a position to make that determination one way or the other.

I'm basing it on the fact that he couldn't use his hands to keep his head from bouncing off the floor in the video. One hand weakly and ineffectually flailed out in front of him, while the other hand trailed uselessly behind him and didn't even hit the floor until after the rest of him did. If he had normal reaction times with his hands and arms, that shouldn't have happened.

As far as the woman with CP that you know - well, presumably you have observed her and can determine that she can't react fast enough. I can't argue with that because you have actually been a situation to truly observe her. That doesn't mean the same applies to someone else with CP because it's such a variable condition - some people are more affected than others. You haven't observed the man in the OP other than on a crude video tape. It struck me as a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

Admittedly, I saw only a crude video tape. But in that video tape, I saw a guy who couldn't even get his hands out in front of his face before hitting the floor. If a drunk demonstrated such a lack of co-ordination when tipped out of a chair, I doubt you would hesitate to say that he was too sloshed to be operating a motor vehicle.

Personally, I'd be very much in favor of a driving test that is on par with what is required to get a pilot's license. Of course, that would mean at least half (as a WAG) of the driver's on the road today would have to park their car until they actually fucking learned how to drive (including some who are very much convinced they know what they're doing - but they don't). Most of the driving road test is normal driving - most of the flight test is demonstrating you know what to do when things go wrong. Unfortunately, I don't ever envision that happening.

Agreed.

Oh, please - you know damn well I don't believe you live in igloos.

People in the US are far more likely to sue than just about anywhere else, and jury awards also tend to be much higher. The article mentioned a lack of consequences for doctors failing to report in Canada (for whatever reason). I suggest that the greater likelihood of being sued in the US might have an effect on the reporting rates.

How do you know that people in the US are statistically far more likely to sue medical providers than anywhere else? I'm curious if there are any sources on this.

But how would you go about suing the doctor anyway? If some guy hits you and it turns out that he had a health condition which made him an unfit driver, are you going to find out who his family doctor is and then sue him for failing to proactively notify the Ministry of Transportation that the driver had a serious health problem which made him unfit to drive? Would that even occur to you, and would you have any chance of success if the doctor could simply point out that he didn't even know whether his patient was a licensed driver?

[Broomstick]

How do you know that people in the US are statistically far more likely to sue medical providers than anywhere else? I'm curious if there are any sources on this.

We certainly have that reputation, don't we? Everyone "knows" the US is sue happy, right?

Because of our liability laws, when someone sues they tend to go after anyone who has even the remotest responsibility for whatever occurred.

But how would you go about suing the doctor anyway? If some guy hits you and it turns out that he had a health condition which made him an unfit driver, are you going to find out who his family doctor is and then sue him for failing to proactively notify the Ministry of Transportation that the driver had a serious health problem which made him unfit to drive?

It is certainly possible. If, hypothetically I was suing Joe Blow for hitting me in traffic and I suspected he was medically unfit I'm pretty sure my lawyer could ask the judge to subpeona his doctor to appear in court or supply relevant information. If the doctor documented informing the patient of unfitness to drive and he's on record as reporting it to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the state in question he's off the hook - if there's no such record but the medical problem is documented the doc is in deep doo-doo.

In a criminal case arising from a traffic accident the prosecution most certainly could demand such information.

Would that even occur to you

Well, yeah - it did occur to me, here in this thread.

and would you have any chance of success if the doctor could simply point out that he didn't even know whether his patient was a licensed driver?

In the US the driver's license is also the default ID. Whether you have insurance or not, medical providers will ask for your ID and make a copy of it. The idea that someone would treat an adult and not have any way to know whether or not that person is a licensed driver in the US is ludicrous.

(Of course, if the patient doesn't have a license there are alternative forms of ID that can be used)

[Darth Wong]

How do you know that people in the US are statistically far more likely to sue medical providers than anywhere else? I'm curious if there are any sources on this.

We certainly have that reputation, don't we? Everyone "knows" the US is sue happy, right?

Because of our liability laws, when someone sues they tend to go after anyone who has even the remotest responsibility for whatever occurred.

Yes, I know that's the reputation. But again, how do you actually know this to be the case? It behooves insurance companies to give everyone the impression that they're utterly swamped in frivolous medical lawsuits; that way, they can justify exorbitant premiums.

It is certainly possible. If, hypothetically I was suing Joe Blow for hitting me in traffic and I suspected he was medically unfit I'm pretty sure my lawyer could ask the judge to subpeona his doctor to appear in court or supply relevant information. If the doctor documented informing the patient of unfitness to drive and he's on record as reporting it to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the state in question he's off the hook - if there's no such record but the medical problem is documented the doc is in deep doo-doo.

Only if doctors are expected to proactively notify the DMV if they feel that a patient is an unfit driver. If that is not an expectation in the industry, then it would be very hard to assign blame. The only way to nail him would be if he knowingly submitted false information to the DMV.

In a criminal case arising from a traffic accident the prosecution most certainly could demand such information.

Would that even occur to you

Well, yeah - it did occur to me, here in this thread.

Of course it did, because you read an article that basically suggested it.

and would you have any chance of success if the doctor could simply point out that he didn't even know whether his patient was a licensed driver?

In the US the driver's license is also the default ID.

Ah yes, I forgot that you people don't have health cards.

[Broomstick]

How do you know that people in the US are statistically far more likely to sue medical providers than anywhere else? I'm curious if there are any sources on this.

We certainly have that reputation, don't we? Everyone "knows" the US is sue happy, right?

Because of our liability laws, when someone sues they tend to go after anyone who has even the remotest responsibility for whatever occurred.

Yes, I know that's the reputation. But again, how do you actually know this to be the case? It behooves insurance companies to give everyone the impression that they're utterly swamped in frivolous medical lawsuits; that way, they can justify exorbitant premiums.

Well, it's not just that - I was on a jury for a trial that was one citizen suing another for a traffic accident and one of the parties had to submit proof of having been to an eye doctor, her eyeglass prescription, and other documentation when the other party accused her of not being able to see well enough to drive safely. Won't speak for other nations since (thankfully) I've never encountered legal problems when abroad, but in the US you can basically sue anyone for anything. Wasn't even thinking of insurance companies when I made that statement.

It is certainly possible. If, hypothetically I was suing Joe Blow for hitting me in traffic and I suspected he was medically unfit I'm pretty sure my lawyer could ask the judge to subpeona his doctor to appear in court or supply relevant information. If the doctor documented informing the patient of unfitness to drive and he's on record as reporting it to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the state in question he's off the hook - if there's no such record but the medical problem is documented the doc is in deep doo-doo.

Only if doctors are expected to proactively notify the DMV if they feel that a patient is an unfit driver.

Well, my mother's doctor reported her in Michigan, and my mother-in-law's doctor reported her to not only the DMV but also the local police in Tennessee (he knew her well enough to know she'd try to drive regardless, so if/when the cops pulled her over she couldn't bullshit them). I don't know for sure as I have not studied the matter intensively but there is certainly some sort of obligation to report. Given this is the US, that likely varies from state to state so while I can discuss the situation for the states in which this has come up in my family I can't definitively say that that is the case for the entire US.

In a criminal case arising from a traffic accident the prosecution most certainly could demand such information.

Would that even occur to you

Well, yeah - it did occur to me, here in this thread.

Of course it did, because you read an article that basically suggested it.

See above comment about my jury duty.

and would you have any chance of success if the doctor could simply point out that he didn't even know whether his patient was a licensed driver?

In the US the driver's license is also the default ID.

Ah yes, I forgot that you people don't have health cards.

If you have insurance you have a health card of sorts... but you need your ID to prove you're the person listed on the card.

[Darth Wong]

Well, it's not just that - I was on a jury for a trial that was one citizen suing another for a traffic accident and one of the parties had to submit proof of having been to an eye doctor, her eyeglass prescription, and other documentation when the other party accused her of not being able to see well enough to drive safely. Won't speak for other nations since (thankfully) I've never encountered legal problems when abroad, but in the US you can basically sue anyone for anything. Wasn't even thinking of insurance companies when I made that statement.

Well, as long as we're trading anecdotes, I went to the Shouldice Clinic in 2004 for repair of an inguinal hernia on my left side. When I was there, I ran into a surprisingly large number of Americans; I didn't realize until later that Shouldice is considered one of the best hernia treatment clinics in the world, and perhaps the best. Anyway, it was amazing how many of them were there because their doctors fucked up, and not one of them said he had any intention of suing. One guy had a huge bulging abdominal hernia from where a previous doctor had carelessly sliced his muscle tissue on the way out after removing his gallbladder. He shrugged and said "people make mistakes". I honestly don't recall how many Americans I ran into at the clinic who were there because somebody else had failed in some way, and not one of them had any intention of suing anyone.

Perhaps I'm giving ordinary people too much credit, but isn't it possible that the lawsuit problem in the US has been exaggerated by people with a vested interest in maintaining that impression? Are there numbers for this?

Well, my mother's doctor reported her in Michigan, and my mother-in-law's doctor reported her to not only the DMV but also the local police in Tennessee (he knew her well enough to know she'd try to drive regardless, so if/when the cops pulled her over she couldn't bullshit them).

What was her medical condition?

If you have insurance you have a health card of sorts... but you need your ID to prove you're the person listed on the card.

It must be hard as hell to function in the US if you don't have a driver's license.

[Flagg]

I couldn't get a lawyer to save my life after I found out I had been hospitalized for 6 weeks and had unnecessary open abdominal surgery for something that was dealt with in an outpatient procedure a year and a half later after it reemerged. I had a damned solid case for malpractice, too.

When you go to a doctor who literally is laughing at your initial diagnosis, you know something really fucking horrible happened. But because I wasn't missing a limb or had some permanent deformity or disability, I couldn't get a lawyer to take the case.

[FSTargetDrone]

If you have insurance you have a health card of sorts... but you need your ID to prove you're the person listed on the card.

It must be hard as hell to function in the US if you don't have a driver's license.

I don't know about most US states, but a Photo ID Card issued by Pennsylvania can be had for $10 (if one is 18 years of age or older), 2 separate proofs of identification (birth certificate/passport/etc.) and a Social Security card.

It looks almost exactly like a standard PA driver's license card. I had one before I got a driver's license. Presumably most, if not all, other states have such a card.

[Havok]

It must be hard as hell to function in the US if you don't have a driver's license.

California issues ID cards and Driver's licenses separately. IIRC, there is some funky law that says you can't carry them both on your person at the same time. Anyway, I think most other states do this as well.

[Broomstick]

Well, as long as we're trading anecdotes, I went to the Shouldice Clinic in 2004 for repair of an inguinal hernia on my left side. When I was there, I ran into a surprisingly large number of Americans; I didn't realize until later that Shouldice is considered one of the best hernia treatment clinics in the world, and perhaps the best.

No qualifier needed - it really is THE best.

Anyway, it was amazing how many of them were there because their doctors fucked up, and not one of them said he had any intention of suing. One guy had a huge bulging abdominal hernia from where a previous doctor had carelessly sliced his muscle tissue on the way out after removing his gallbladder. He shrugged and said "people make mistakes". I honestly don't recall how many Americans I ran into at the clinic who were there because somebody else had failed in some way, and not one of them had any intention of suing anyone.

Perhaps I'm giving ordinary people too much credit, but isn't it possible that the lawsuit problem in the US has been exaggerated by people with a vested interest in maintaining that impression? Are there numbers for this?

There might be - I do know that there have been some studies done showing that whether or not a malpractice case is brought against a doctor often has little to do with whether or not malpractice occurred. (Winning a lawsuit might also have little to do with whether or not malpractice actually occurred, either). This was of concern with my former employer because health insurance companies actually do want genuine fuck ups minimized because it costs money to treatment the resulting problems, but they didn't want frivolous or baseless cases clogging the courts and driving up costs.

It's a funny thing - there are people such as my family who have never sued or been sued and would be unlikely to bring a lawsuit unless something really egregious happened, and others who seem to make suing people into a hobby if not a profession.

I also wonder if there are instances of out-of-court settlements, which might explain an American being able to afford to go to Shouldice. THAT I certainly have no way to find numbers on, but it's not inconceivable that some hospitals might do that to avoid a lawsuit if someone obviously fucked up.

So yes, it's possible the lawsuit problem is exaggerated, although I don't believe that it is I could be wrong on that.

Well, my mother's doctor reported her in Michigan, and my mother-in-law's doctor reported her to not only the DMV but also the local police in Tennessee (he knew her well enough to know she'd try to drive regardless, so if/when the cops pulled her over she couldn't bullshit them).

What was her medical condition?

My mom had a stroke that left her unable to speak intelligibly or read. In that case it wasn't so much an inability to move and react (her movement was unaffected) as issues with information processing and concerns about the stability of her condition. After 18 months and rehab the doctor said she was cleared to drive again but mom elected to turn in the car keys herself (she's weird for an American - she never liked driving in the first place)

My mother-in-law has congestive heart failure that leaves her at definite risk of abruptly dropping dead (though she has managed to avoid that so far) as well as steadily advancing Parkinson's, the latter of which definitely is affecting her ability to move.

If you have insurance you have a health card of sorts... but you need your ID to prove you're the person listed on the card.

It must be hard as hell to function in the US if you don't have a driver's license.

Yes. It certainly is.

As havokeff mentioned there are also state ID cards issued for those who don't drive - which are, in every state I've lived in, issued at the DMV. For ID purposes they are the legal equivalent.

This "driver's license as ID", by the way, is a huge factor in why there is a push by some people to permit issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens - it's not just about driving, it's about needing an ID to function in the US. But that's getting way off topic.

[[R_H]]

She's been charged (BBC)

A US sheriff's deputy who dumped a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair has been charged with felony abuse.

Charlette Marshall-Jones was booked at the same police station where the incident happened - in Tampa, Florida.

She is accused of tipping Brian Sterner out of his wheelchair onto the floor of the police station after he was arrested for a driving offence.

Dep Marshall-Jones was charged with felony abuse of a disabled person and bailed for $3,500 (£1,800).

The 29 January incident was caught on a CCTV camera at the jail in Hillsborough County, which incorporates Tampa, and the video has since been widely circulated.

Unable to break fall

Mr Sterner, 32, who is able to drive, had been arrested at his home by officers acting on a traffic violation warrant.

Unable to walk since a 1994 accident, he has only partial use of his arms and no feeling below the sternum.

But Mr Sterner said that when he arrived at the booking office Dep Marshall-Jones, 44, told him to stand up.

When he told her he was unable to do so because he was paralysed, she grew agitated, he said. The surveillance video, released by the sheriff's office, shows Dep Marshall-Jones walking behind Mr Sterner's chair to tip it forwards until he falls to the floor.

Unable to brace his fall, Mr Sterner lands heavily and rolls onto his back, at which point Dep Marshall-Jones starts searching his pockets.

A fellow officer joins her, helping to roll Mr Sterner over and search his back pockets.

The pair then attempt to get Mr Sterner back into his chair, but finding they are unable to do so they call over to other deputies who help lift him into place.

Dep Marshall-Jones was suspended without pay after the incident and fellow officers Sgt Gary Hinson, Cpl Steven Dickey and Cpl Decondra Williams have been put on administrative leave until an investigation can be completed.

Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee has apologised to Mr Sterner.

I can't believe she dumped him out of his wheelchair in front of a bloody surveillance camera.
[/quote]