Response

I believe Dr Laycock missed my point entirely. He says that my example “does not alter the validity of simulated or on-road driving tests remaining the criterion standard for testing driving ability.” He believes that the “test should come first; if it is failed and there is a possibility that an extant medical condition is, in part or in whole, a factor in that failure, then it should be addressed in a way that considers the patient’s autonomy and the collective community’s safety.”1 What good is a criterion standard test when, as in my husband’s case, it can be passed because the patient is given the option of upgrading? Had I accepted this, my husband would have continued to drive, putting himself and others in potential danger. Had it been mandatory for our FP to provide details on my husband’s condition to the Ministry, the instructor would have gone into the test with the realization that my husband’s condition was going to deteriorate, and, when he made several mistakes along the way, that his skills couldn’t be upgraded. This might bias the instructor, but I’d rather err on the side of caution so that an informed and safe decision can be made. I stand by my conclusion that the “FP should not be able to opt out of the decision-making process.”2

• Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada