76 pages, mailed June 13, 2008, Response to "Application to Dismiss Complaint"; BC Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination Complaint #5791

Dave Jenkins
3107 Tanglewood Way
Nanaimo, BC, V9T 5A5


June 13, 2008


Registrar
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St.,
Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5J3
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844

Re:
Dave Jenkins (Complainant) v.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Solicitor General: Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (Respondents)

(Case Number: 5791)



Dear Registrar;

The following three presentations are my Response to the “Application to Dismiss Complaint,” dated June 9, 2008 submitted by Nitya Iyer, Heenan Blaikie for the Respondents.

There are three presentations within the application to dismiss that need to be responded to; the “Affidavit of Bonnie M. Dobbs,” the “Affidavit of Lisa Howie”, and Iyer’s presentation, “Application to Dismiss Complaint” consisting of sixty-five paragraphs, #1-65.

This response reviews Dobbs’ presentation. This response should be read First, as then the information does not need to be copied and placed within Howie and Iyer’s presentations.
The Response to Howie should be read second. This order will allow the necessary facts about Class 4 licensing, type 2 diabetes, hypoglycemia, and my real complaint to be understood more fully before attending to Iyer’s presentation.


Regards,



Dave Jenkins





Cc: Nitya Iyer
Heenan Blaikie
2200-1055 W. Hastings St.,
Vancouver, B. C., V6E 2E9
604-891-1195
CONTENTS

p 4 OPENING

p 8 PREAMBLE

p 12 Diabetes in Context of the Social Want
p 13 So what has society, with the help of government bodies such as the OSMV, constructed about me, the diabetic?
P 17 Degree of Risk
p 18 My Aim
p 18 My Purpose
p 21 Pertinent Information
p 21 Science



p 24 INTRODUCTION

p 24 SIX Components are needed to justify the Diabetic DME Policy; a bunch of Published Material not related to Class 4 type 2 diabetes is not Good enough
p 27 The Want of the Medical Examination, Unjustified Consequences
p 30 Risk
p 32 Weight of the Presentations
p 34 Persuasive Presentations Defined
p 36 Who am I?



P 38 RESPONSE to DOBBS’ Presentation by a PERSON with type 2 DIABETES

p 40 Reference Material
p 42 Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, Scientific Authority and Intent
p 43 Scientific Authority Explained; its Relevance to the Published Material and the diabetic
policy
p 44 A Review of the Published Material
p 46 OSMV’ Referenced Material about type 2 diabetes
p 48 OSMV’ Referenced Material about type 1 and type 2 diabetes
p 50 Putting things into Context and Relevance
p 50 Expert Opinion Relevant to this case




p 53 My CONCLUSION

p 53 Reject the ‘Application to Dismiss Complaint’ for the following reasons
p 56 Consequences of the Medical Policy
p 57 The Numbers that Change Medical Availability and Over-Crowding in Emergency Facilities
p 58 The Numbers that Bring Change
p 59 Material Harm verses Human Harm
p 60 Dollar Cost of the Medical Policy
p 61 Impact on Medical Services (test kit negativism and loss of Hope)
p 62 Impact on Medical Services (financial)
p 63 Non-medical Necessity has magically been changed to a Medical Necessity
p 63 The Other
p 64 Evaluation of Dobbs’ Presentation
p 66 Grade of Dobbs’ Presentation
p 67 Observations, Recommendations, Timelines, (Timeline of Work), Redundancy of Policy
p 71 Timelines
p 72 Expert Hats



p 73 This CASE of DISCRIMINATION and THINGS to THINK ABOUT

p 73 Rationale verses Rationalization
p 74 Toxic Work Place
p 74 International Consequences
p 75 Drivers At Risk
p 76 Goodbye



OPENING
Dear Reader;

The Respondents have presented Referenced Material, Dobbs’ Presentation, to justify its demand that Class 4 type 2 diabetics fulfill a bi-annual medical examination in order to drive. The Referenced Material is really being used to justify the diabetic drivers’ medical policy as no documents have previously been presented to justify the policy.
Firstly, the OSMV has stated that the policy is in place because in their “view” it is ok to do.
I’ve challenged that view as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Code, and the Motor Vehicle Act demand government fulfill the needs of these instruments of a democratic state before they implement policy or demands upon society.
Not only do these instruments protect the public from arbitrary policy and an authoritarian government they also protect the government from outsiders’ demands that are not supported with facts that can be read and criticized as to the value or worth and whether or not there should be policy.
I am not challenging the Charter, HRC, and the MVA just demanding the government fulfill the demands of these instruments to prove there is a bona fide need, not just some arbitrary want based upon the Fear of diabetes.

Just a reminder Reader, my complaint is about type 2 diabetes and Class 4 licensing, which allows the holder to drive a taxi, ambulance, school bus, or a small multi-passenger vehicle.
My license is not about Larger Trucks. It is not about Class 1, 2, or 3 licenses, which allows the holder to drive a tractor-trailer, tractor-trailer with pup, dump truck, dump truck with pup, fire trucks, giant mine and oil excavation machines, logging equipment, moving vans, buses, or any air-brake vehicles. My license and complaint are not about long-haul vehicles or off-highway vehicles as Dobbs (#19) and Iyer (#49) state,
“The road safety risk due to hypoglycemia posed by a driver with diabetes is greater for commercially licensed drivers than for privately licensed drivers because they drive larger vehicles, are likely to drive more frequently and for longer distances.”

In other words Dobbs and Iyer are presenting an argument for the wrong license category.
Categories have been constructed because the ‘vehicles’ are different, the driving ‘frequencies’ are different, and the ‘distances’ could be different.
Also, the skills and abilities are different and the lifestyle is different.
However, large trucks in open pit mines just go around and around Monday-Friday; no distance and regular time schedules. Cement trucks go around and around in cities where most of the people in Canada live. We are an urban society therefore we move within cityscapes and urban landscapes.

My point is, if they cannot acknowledge the correct license in question why should we continue?

My point is, diabetes is also Categorized into type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes. Diabetes is categorized because there is a real need to do so as they are very different aspects of the disease. My complaint is about type 2 diabetes not diabetes in general, not type 1, or gestational diabetes.

My point is, we need to Deconstruct all that is presented by the Respondents, which includes Dobbs’ presentation, the OSMV material, and Iyer’s presentation as you have just been informed they do not attend to my complaint; they are presenting material about diabetes in general which has nothing do to with my type 2 condition and larger vehicles which has nothing to do with Class 4 licensing.

My point is, as Iyer’s 49 is the same as Dobbs’ 19, Iyer’s 44 is almost the same as Dobbs’16, the last sentence is left off. 45 is almost the same as 14, first sentence is changed. 47 is the same as 15 only with the last sentence inserted after the first sentence, the old reversal to make it seem something that it isn’t. 48 is almost the same as 18, the last part of the first sentence has been dropped.
To me this is padding. Say enough things enough times and people will start to believe. This is why the whole presentation must be deconstruct as #19 and #49 exemplify, the information given is not about my complaint, it is out of Context therefore not Relevant to the matter at hand.
Reader, strike out all that is written about type 1 and large vehicles, as they have nothing to do with my complaint. This includes Dobbs’ Referenced Material and all Iyer’s statements about type 1 and large vehicles.
Reader, you are not going to have very much left as type 2 diabetes does not warrant the research little lone Class 4 licensing.



I began my inquiry into the diabetic policy in 2002 and it is now 2008 and the OSMV is just now offering Referenced Material to justify their policy. However, this is not public material is it? The Risk of presenting this material publicly is too Great, it is Negative High Risk.
There are consequences to presenting this material in the public realm; Copyright infractions, Intellectual Property Rights infractions, Intent of use, Webmaster Copyright, Webmaster Property Rights, etc.
When the OSMV needs to address consequence they do, such as just noted, and when it does not suit their needs the don’t, consequences of the policy.
Also, this is problematic as the Referenced Material is being presented after the fact.

Dobbs offers 174 Referenced Materials, or studies, or articles to justify the policy.
Some Material offered is dated after my diagnosis of diabetes in 1999. Some material is after my original complaint of 2004.
Some material has nothing to do with diabetes.
Some material has nothing to do with hypoglycemia.
Approximately fifty articles are about type 1 diabetes; my complaint is about type 2 diabetes.
Approximately seventeen are about type 2 diabetes and approximately seven include both types such as Cox, 2003, which debunks the idea of differences in driver mishaps between type 2 diabetic drivers and non-diabetics.

One article, 2002, Kennedy, R. L., et al, “Accidents in patients with insulin-treated diabetes: Increased risk of low-impact falls but not motor vehicle crashes—a prospective register-based study. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care.” The title is too juicy not to investigate.
The Journal is about the care of the critically ill as was the study but a second discovery of the study showed that,
“The number of car crashes involving drivers with insulin-dependent diabetes is small, and the rate is not significantly greater than that of the background population.” (Abstract)

This is the kind of study I was reviewing and learning that type 1 diabetics were not the problem I was
being led to believe. This discovery is about type 1 diabetics, which states volumes about type 2 diabetic drivers as they are not for the most part insulin users, which means the experience of moderate, severe, or hypoglycemia unawareness is probably a non-event.
Type 2 diabetics do not have the same risk of hypoglycemia as most type 2 diabetics manage their diabetes without medication. This means type 2 drivers or incidents of driver mishaps are smaller, much smaller, than ‘not significant.’ (above quote)
And now Dobbs presents this article as an instrument against me but how is it a Negative, how is it a Risk, even a Low Risk?

On the scale of Risk, as that is what is stated about the diabetic driver, what Category of Risk is ‘not significant’?
The OSMV has not defined Risk as to High, Medium, and Low. Risk, when concerning the diabetic, is always presented as something High, whether type 1 or type 2. Why?
It is a social norm to differentiate. Something that is “not significant” is really lower than Low Risk.
Therefore, type 2 drivers are substantially below Low Risk. The 2003 Cox study proves this as they found no difference in driver mishaps between non-diabetics and type 2s whether on oral medication or insulin or “those taking two or more insulin injections/day.”
They discovered and proved a lack of difference therefore no Risk. This Risk is in the minds of the anti-diabetic lobby not science.
This is why I questioned the policy and I still do. Everybody should, especially when the policy is based upon the supposed consequences of diabetes and yet the OSMV will not acknowledging the consequences of the policy which impacts society and the diabetic.

Risk is also differentiated into Positive and Negative Risk.
For the Respondents not to mention the Cox study would be a huge Negative, a Negative High Risk.
However, as it is now Referenced by them, it has been acknowledged, which, some believe, decreases the Risk of the High Negativism coming from the Results and Conclusion of the Cox study.
Some believe this acknowledgement, though not even talked about, is a Positive Risk used to diminish a Negative High Risk.
Reader, you will need to read the Results and Conclusion of the Cox study to evaluate the presentation of the Cox study by the Respondents. The Respondents ‘needed’ to acknowledge the Cox study as they know I would be referencing it myself.
The Cox study is a very powerful discovery, which challenges the social construct of the ‘At Risk Diabetic Driver” and the penalties placed upon the type 2 diabetic, whether using insulin or not, or as a Commercial driver.

Again, my complaint is about Commercial Class 4 driving, which has a Timeline attached to it; “Retirement.” The average Canadian retires at 61, unless the diabetic driver is not allowed to establish this fact of retirement.
Reader, in all my communications with the OSMV and now the correspondence with Heenan Blaikie the Timelines associated with this complaint are never mentioned;
a reasonable time to prove the policy is bona fide and reasonably justified,
the timeline associated with the development of diabetes,
the timeline of retirement age,
and the timeline for other medical conditions associated with diabetes to express themselves
These timelines are never mentioned. Why?

My point is, Timelines put things into Context, which brings Relevance to diabetes and driving.

Timelines are not acknowledged because it is too High a Risk to define diabetes and driving as to what it really encompasses. Having unknowns allows for the increase of Fear. Fearful language increases Fear. Fear increases Risk, which leads to the Fear/Risk Factor, which this policy is based upon.
Why has Dobbs included all the material on older drivers? The studies on older drivers do not offer any Relevance to the argument at hand as Commercial drivers will be retired by the Timeline needed for these conditions to express themselves, if they really do and they will managed if and when they do.
The numerous articles on age related conditions are out of Context to my Commercial license. All those articles or References are just padding. They need to be stuck from the Referenced Material.
Again, all those articles on type 1 diabetes are not Relevant to my complaint. They are just padding.
As for the 17 articles mentioning type 2 diabetes, compare
“American Diabetes Association. (2004). Medical management of type 2 diabetes (5th ed.). Alexandria, Va.: American Diabetes Association” and
“Burant, C. F. (2004). Medical management of type 2 diabetes (5th Edition). Alexandria, Va: American Diabetes Association.”

They are the same article? This just more padding.
For a second doubling see Diller, E. and Vernon, D. D.
The third repeat is the copied material of Dobbs and Iyer.
Reader, what is going on here?

My point is, how can we trust what has been presented as bona fide when I have discovered the above. Reader, the above exemplifies what diabetics are fighting, a Social Construct that allows non-diabetics to do whatever they want when concerning diabetics.
Reader, whoever you are, you really need to Deconstruct everything presented by the Respondents.

Social Contract that have been confronted and still need work are the policy and beliefs that women cannot vote, cannot go to university, cannot be lawyers, doctors, administrators, etc, etc.
First nations people cannot be human and must be integrated is/was a social construct.
Children can be treated as adults and beaten if wanted is not acceptable anymore.
The glass ceiling to women, the visible minority, and the disabled is a social construct. These social constructs have/are being deconstructed and the ‘sky has not fallen’. The unproven, unjustified policy against the Class 4 type 2 diabetic driver has not been proven, demonstrably justified (Charter), bona fide and reasonably justified, (HRC), and fulfilled the demands of the MVA. This policy is just another game of the ‘Emperor Wears No Clothes’ and we do not need to follow along, to be complacent. We don’t need to and this is why we must challenge this policy, publicly not behind closed doors.
If the above is all the Respondents have to offer then the policy is not worthwhile.

The OSMV has had 18 years to document the policy, since Hines, or since the Charter of 1982, which is 26 years, and they haven’t. According to the Hines case in Nova Scotia, 1990, written up in the “Law Commission of Canada,”
“The evidence advanced by the respondents, for the most part, addressed highway safety in general but the real issue is whether the operation of large commercial vehicles on our highways by insulin-dependent diabetics constitutes a pressing and substantial concern. To determine the answer to this question, it was imperative for the court to have before it medical evidence on the effects of diabetes on the operators of large trucks as those effects relate to the safe operation of vehicles.”

This demand has not been fulfilled as nothing was offered to me at anytime until now. Is the Dobbs Referenced material supposed to be the medical evidence to justify the policy against insulin-dependent diabetic large trucks licensees?
Is the type 2 material supposed to justify the policy against type 2 large truck licensees?
Is the type 2 material supposed to justify the policy against Class 4 licensees?

My point is, the OSMV has had more than adequate time to document the policy and they have not. Only now, that my complaint has been accepted by the HRT has material magically appeared. Why wasn’t it presented in 2002 when I began my inquiry?
The quote states that “it was imperative for the courts to have before it medical evidence…”
Reader, if I understand the position of my complaint right now we are in a private space not in the public space. Will these documents be presented in the public space.
Will the owners of the Cox and Kennedy studies allow the OSMV to use their studies against diabetics when it is clear the studies debunk the Social Construct of the Diabetic at Risk?
How many of the type 2 studies do not even attend to diabetes within the Class 4 drivers’ Timeline of work.
The OSMV website demands users to fill a permission form out for use of their material. The permission form also demands the hopeful user to declare the Intent of the use. The idea is to protect the OSMV from any liabilities and the Risk of a liability.
Will the owners of Dobbs’ Referenced material allow her and the OSMV to use their material to support a foreign countries’ social policy?
The consequences of the policy will need to be acknowledged and that the policy has not been proved to offer any Good to society little lone the diabetic.
Will the owners give permission after they discover the consequences of the policy?
Will they give permission after they discover the instruments of the Canadian democracy, the Charter, the Human Rights Code, and the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act, have never justified the policy?

Dobbs’ does not offer any Permission Forms from the owners, concerning Intellectual Property Rights, concerning permission for Intent, or from the Webmaster if taken offline, or the forms from the Webmaster concerning Intellectual Property Rights and Intent.
Dobbs’ protects herself with the Footnote, “For internal distribution only,” on pages 61-76, which means the Referenced material is not for the public space.
In other words she doesn’t have permission to use it publicly neither does the OSMV.


Again, it is interesting that when the consequences of their actions need to be considered the OSMV will acknowledge them to defer the High Risk of a liability but it refuses to acknowledge the consequences of their actions when a diabetic makes an inquiry.
The OSMV has not mentioned or offered any permission forms, which means the whole policy is something that is not a pressing and substantial concern or all the permission demands would have been fulfilled.
Reader, this means the liabilities of this policy are so great no researchers want to be associated with it.

My point is, the Risk of liability associate for the use is far greater than the Risk of the diabetic driver so no researches have allowed the OSMV to use their material.
If the OSMV is using Risk to justify the policy then it should acknowledge the Risk of the policy, which the OSMV has been steadfast in not doing so. Of course the Risk of the policy is not Risk, not an abstract thing. It is a very concrete thing, the change to the availability of basic health care which I have describe in detail in previous letters.

The Cox study states,
“Thus, the findings of the present survey cannot be used to restrict driving of individuals with type 1 diabetes but should serve to indicate the potential need for preventive steps to be taken to reduce the risk of possible crashes for drivers with type 1 diabetes.”

However, there is nothing to say I cannot use the survey to help debunk the anti-diabetic policy. The owners of the survey have put the whole study online because of its importance. Too many studies only have the Abstract available or one may need to buy into the website to gain access to the study or even the abstract. The free publication of the study goes worldwide to let the whole world know about the discovery of type 2 diabetic drivers.
The study uses diabetics and their partners, on a one to one evaluation, not something manipulated through statistics. If one then works the percent of diabetics to the population, 5 diabetics v 95 non-diabetics, the study infers the diabetic driver is much safer driver than the non-diabetic even with all the horrific language used to define diabetes and hypoglycemia. Even with all the Fear/Risk Factor language no difference in driving mishaps were discovered. It’s an interesting study. This study and others are the reasons why I and others, such as all the people within the study and all the people that have read the study, know the type 2 driver is not a liability.
The Social Construct and government bureaucracy have entrenched this policy not science and fact.





PREAMBLE

About thirty years ago two men were sitting on a doorstep and talking. One man was Caucasian American and the other African American. The Caucasian said that he didn’t understand what the lifestyle problem was with African Americans; they got a fair shake in America.
The African American replied that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. It’s too bad you couldn’t be black for a month or two because you’d see the world through different eyes.
After thinking about what his friend said, the Caucasian man stained himself black. He immediately experienced the Discrimination and Fear of people of difference. He saw the fear within those who discriminated. He later wrote a book about his experiences and discovery, hoping to make the world a better place; John H. Griffin, “Black Like Me”.
People fear the unknown, the unseen, and difference.
People fear diabetes and the diabetic.
Remember this as you read my response to the unjustified want of the OSMV’ Medical Policy.

Reader, I would like you to wear my shoes for the next couple of hours or however long it takes you to read this essay.
I ask this because I don’t know if you’re a diabetic. Dobbs is not a diabetic. Not one of the Respondents or anyone associated with them has declared they are diabetic. The opinion of the Diabetic must also be heard.
All I know is that the opinion and perspective of the Class 4 type 2 diabetic driver must be read into this inquiry to balance off the three documents offered by the Respondents, who are not Class 4 drivers or diabetics.
As my previous letters were deemed worthwhile enough to warrant a review of my discrimination complaint hopefully this essay will demonstrate how I am treated differently simply due to my condition, type 2 diabetes and the Class 4 driving designation which really warrants a public review of the policy.
A public review, as studies such as the Cox study debunk the policy but the Respondents have Referenced it themselves. Do you now wonder if they have even read the survey?

Also, the OSMV has not responded to my inquiry of, can the medical examination really do what it is alleged to be able to do; predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia?
Again, where is the proven Good?
Questions about the redundancy of the policy have not been responded to.
Can the penalties really be managed?
Is a two-year medical examination really of worth? Does it really do anything?
Diabetics using oral medications or insulin must visit a doctor to renew subscriptions which is usually every three months. Why doesn’t the OSMV acknowledge this fact that I visit the doctor eight times vs. the one time with their two-year visit. Doesn’t this make the policy redundant?

The OSMV has had six years to answer these questions and they have not. Another letter from me is not going to force the OSMV to answer the questions.
Someone with power needs to ask these questions about the policy in public space where the OSMV will need to respond on record.
If the policy has worth, if the need of a diabetic policy really is a pressing and substantial concern, then the policy would have been document beyond the bona fide and reasonably justified demand of the HRC, and it hasn’t.
As a diabetic I have been placed, as a liability in the public space therefore the OSMV should be able to defend itself in the public space.



Reader, my essay is to let you know how it feels to be a diabetic in a world that has stained me different, a sickness within society, a pariah, the Other, a real Monster. I feel the fear of difference, I’ve been turned into the Monster, that thing in the closet, that thing under the bed, something to fear, something to keep underfoot.
My essay is a critical review of Dobbs’ presentation from the perspective of a person with diabetes.
Dobbs does not have Diabetes. She’s speaking from without, she has no idea of the world that I’ve lived in since my diagnosis in February 1999. None.
So, always remember I’m speaking from within, watching those on the outside doing things to me. These things have been Constructed because of Fear, the Unknown, and unjustified beliefs.
This is the world that I’ll live in for the rest of my life. The Bio-chemical change called diabetes does not go away or at least that’s what we believe today.
My essay will shine a little light into that closet and under the bed in order to make the world a better place. Any time we can shed some light on Fear and the Unknown it makes the world a better place.
We have a social duty; a social responsibility to improve our lives even if it means criticizing accepted policy and especially government policy based upon beliefs and not facts.

How am I stained? How am I turned into the Other, the Monster in this case? It’s done with words and how they’re used; Negativisms, Negative Stereotypes, Assumptions, Analogies, and the padding of documents. Once established the government does not need to fulfill the Charter, HRC, or the MVA as the Other does not have Rights.
So, my focus will be on the language used within Dobbs’ listed paragraphs, language to create Fear and to escalate the assumption of Risk to raise the Degree of Risk, all done to justify the unjustified policy against diabetics. I must also add to the information to offer balanced knowledge base of type 2 diabetes.
The science and scientific terms used within Dobbs’ essay are acceptable, they’re not new, it’s what’s done to the science, through language, that we must become critical of.
Also, it’s the language of the social norm that’s woven within the essay that must be criticized. That’s another conundrum we’ve been presented with. A perceived Risk because I have type 2 diabetes and yet the OSMV does not define Risk or acknowledge the Risk associated with the policy. They are government and beyond criticism as what they say must be true.

Society and individuals can create Fear through Language. Fear impacts our idea and understanding of Risk.
Fear also influences the Degree of Risk. The government has intervened into my life through the idea of perceived Risk, as they’ve never had on hand any documents to justify the medical policy.
Risk and the Degree of Risk are being explored within my essay because the OSMV has not defined Risk.
The question is,
When is the Degree of Risk sufficient enough for the government to intervene within our lives without bona fide documentation to justify their wants?
This leads to,
Is the mandatory medical exam “demonstrably justifiable”(from the Charter) and can it really do what it is alleged to be able to do? (“bona fide and reasonable justified” from the HR Code)
and
Why does the OSMV refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their own actions, where the medical policy is based upon the supposed consequences of diabetes?
Why doesn’t Dobbs acknowledge the consequences of the policy?
Why doesn’t Dobbs acknowledge Class 4 driving? Paragraph 19 talks about large vehicles and longer distances. This is not Class 4 driving. Reader you have been misinformed about the license.
Why doesn’t Dobbs inform the reader that type 2 diabetics comprise approximately only 5% of society and most manage their diabetes through intervention of exercise and food management. This means that only one type 2 diabetic of the five may use medication and most use metformin, not insulin or secretagogues.

My point is, what is the real number of type 2 diabetics at risk, which is again decrease by driving and again by commercial driving and again by Class 4 license. Where is the risk.

My point is, context and relevance must be brought into the argument. Dobbs does not attend to my real Complaint, Class 4 driving. I’m bundled in with Classes 1, 2, and 3. Why? Where and what is the risk associated with acknowledging my Class of license.

My point is, Dobbs does not state that hypoglycemia unawareness and severe hypoglycemia are rare events. This is again from one of her References; Harsch, I. A. et al. What is the real risk of these conditions expressing to a type 2 diabetic while driving?

My point is, take a pencil and draw lines through all the references to type 1 diabetes and insulin and the references to type 2 diabetes insulin use as it is not a significant factor as insulin is used by less that 1% of type 2 diabetics. Type 2 diabetics using insulin supplements do so at night, or their sleeping time, so they are not within a situation where they may experience hypoglycemia and certainly not within the driving scene as they are sleeping.
So, the Risk of a type 2 diabetic experiencing hypoglycemia while driving is almost unheard of as he or she will be sleeping.
Why don’t Dobbs and Iyer inform you of this. Where is the risk?

The above is in response to Dobbs’ paragraphs 15, 16 , 17 and 18.
Dobbs’ has a focus upon perceived Risk. The essay states that these Risks are dependent upon conditions that ‘may’ result from diabetes, and that these conditions and their complications ‘may’ affect driving competency, paragraph 14.
However, these conditions ‘may’ only express fifteen to twenty years after the original diagnosis of diabetes. I’m penalized for assumed future events? That’s against the law in Canada to penalize someone for events two or three events away from the original event little lone fifteen or twenty years. There are Timelines present that must be understood, then connected to these conditions, and then connected to a working Timeline of the diabetic driver.
Dobbs doesn’t acknowledge these Timelines. Why?
Other medical conditions are monitored if and when they express not twenty years before because someone thinks they may express.

Don’t forget, each ‘may’ diminish the degree of Risk; it does not increase the degree of Risk as Dobbs and the OSMV would like you to imagine or believe.
What’s really being said within Dobbs’ presentation and the OSMV beliefs is that there ‘may’ be a degree of difficulty with diabetes, which ‘may’ impact a type 2 diabetic’s abilities and skills, and that this degree of difficulty ‘may’ happen while a driver with diabetes ‘may’ be driving and it ‘may’ be the cause of an accident, and this accident ‘may’ be an accident which ‘may’ cause harm to a vehicle or ‘may’ cause harm to a human. The above exemplifies less risk, and less risk, and less risk, and less risk, etc, etc, etc, not an increase in risk. The real Risk is below Low Risk.

Dobbs’ presentation is a Persuasive argument. Within a Persuasive essay there are Constructed scenarios to hopefully increase the unknown, to increase fear; this is all done in order to hopefully increase the degree of Risk.
Horrific language is also used as a tool to instil Fear of diabetics hoping to increase the Risk factor again.
The Fear/Risk factor is an important covert tool used within Dobbs’ presentation and the OSMV’ presentation of diabetes and diabetic driving.

My point is, a constructed Degree of Risk that may happen four or five Degrees of Risk away from the original event, having type 2 diabetes, and fifteen or twenty years into the future are used to penalize me. And yet, the Cox study discovered there is no increase in accident rates due to these Degrees of Risk or any increased Risk due to type 2 diabetes.
Dobbs uses the Cox study that states there is no difference in accident rates and yet she still supports the policy? Does this means she is in denial of the facts and supports the policy on her beliefs only.
In a democratic state is belief really good enough to base policy upon? No, that is why we invented the Charter, HRC, and the MVA.

Reader, fellow diabetic, hopefully you’re starting to pose the question, “What’s really going on here?”

As stated in my previous letters to the OSMV I questioned the legality to penalize someone for what someone else thinks may happen four or five events and decades away from the original event. The question was never responded to.
These questions are too Risky to even acknowledge as having been asked. This is a noteworthy component of discrimination; non-response to bona fide questions.

Also as the policy is unjustified there are also unjustifiable penalties imposed upon the diabetic driver.
Reader, are you, a non-diabetic, penalized for these same medical conditions that may express themselves to you only if you live long enough? No you’re not. So, why me?
Why is this rationalization of the policy relevant to my life today?

My point is, there is also Risk associated with government intervention in our lives and the OSMV does not want to acknowledge nor respond to Risk associated with its policies. And yet it penalizes me for believed Risk. Their Risk is immediate as it actually changes our availability to health care today not in the future. It is also something that is concrete not something abstract like risk.

So, what’s really driving the need for the policy, the need for the Medical Examination and penalties?
It’s clearly not a physical need as the science states there isn’t an increased accident rate or even a significant increase in accident rate due to hypoglycemia or future events.
Secondly, the future conditions supposed to manifest due to diabetes and responsible for accidents are not dependent upon diabetes as the OSMV pretends and will be monitored by a doctor if and when they present to non-diabetics as well.
Interesting enough the Cox study also states that the future medical conditions associated with diabetes do not influence the diabetic driver; this statement is Referenced with studies. I have not read any material to reject this statement of Cox et al or the referenced material.
Why hasn’t Dobbs informed you of this, it’s in her Referenced material?

If the policy is not a physical need or a real demonstrably justified need it clearly must be a personal or social want, the social construct?
A social want based upon Risk? Risk increased through fear, the unknown, and dated thinking?
Nevertheless, we have a Charter that demands government explain itself with facts not beliefs.
An old way of thinking is being criticized here, taken to task, and those that dreamed it up, supported it, and iconized the policy are still here supporting the policy based upon their personal beliefs.
Reader, Welcome to the world that I live in.

I really must be some kind of Monster as the policy is personally or socially driven by imagination, belief, and fear and not fact.
Welcome to the world of diabetes. Remember you have type 2 diabetes for this essay.



Diabetes in Context of the Social Want

The want, the medical policy, is socially driven, as there was not any science or a body of documents offered to me throughout my three-year inquiry about the need for the Medical Exam, 2002-2004. Not until the HRT was contacted and they agreed that my inquiry was worth further investigation did a body of work materialize. Remember that my letters poised questions about the need for the Medical Examination, questioned whether the physical exam could actually do what it is alleged to be able to do, posed questions about positive and negative consequences of the exam, and that no Good has been realized from the policy, and how I am penalized or treated differently due to type 2 diabetes.
When you review the Published Documents you will notice that many were published after I was diagnosed with diabetes and some after I began my inquiry. Interesting isn’t it. Government doing things to people and then years later presenting present day research to justify their past behaviour. Iyer’s presentation of the Gramaglia case is also after the fact. The date of the Court of Appeal of Alberta is “20070328” eight years after my initial inquiry of 2002, three years after my first complaint of 2004, and after the out of court settlement date of August 2006. The Draft due date of November 2006 was breached, voiding the contract.
Reader, don’t forget the contract concerning the Draft was breached and no documents were offered to me to make an amendment to that breach to bring it back into legal context. This means there is no contract for the OSMV to fall back upon to demand that I have pre-complained.

My point is, there never has been a body of work to document the Perceived Risk in order to base the governments’ want upon, the intervention into my life because I’m a Class 4 type 2 driver.
Without a body of work the decision was based upon what?
Without written documents, such as this, so you and I can review them with due diligence, the policy must have been based upon Oral Conversations; in their “view.” It can’t be anything else because there were no documents.
Therefore, the policy is based upon undocumented conversations. However, we’re not a society based upon Oral Tradition.
We’re a society based upon the Written Word. We shun societies based upon oral tradition. And yet, the OSMV medical policy, is based upon oral conversation, something we give no worth to.
This kind of decision-making may be acceptable for a privately owned company that will rise and fall on its decisions.
However, this is a government body and there is no excuse for not documenting and proving the want beyond a reasonable doubt and within an acceptable Timeline; to make the policy a bona fide need. The government has had thirty or so years to document their want, to prove it’s a real, bona fide need. They haven’t done so. In other words it is not important enough to document.

The only reasonable reason not to document the want is that the want is such a small and insignificant want that it was not worth the trouble and cost to document. There’s been twenty or thirty years to do so, which demonstrates the want for the policy was not a “pressing and substantial concern.” (This is in reference to Hines v Nova Scotia (registrar of Motor Vehicles) NSSC. Hines was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes and was banned from a commercial drivers’ licence. The court concluded:

“The court was not satisfied it had such evidence, and declared that the regulation in question was null and void. Mr. Hines’ commercial license was restored.”
(Web page: Law Commission of Canada::About Us::Reports::Research Paper::page 3 and 4 of 9 lcc.gc.ca/research_project)

Again, the Hines case was in 1990 so government has known for years that there have been no documents to support the policy and yet they have continued to administer the policy as if it is bona fide.
So, the OSMV has had no medical evidence or scientific evidence to support the policy until the HRT supported my inquiry and it now seems as if someone ran around and put some stuff together and called it supportive medical evidence under the guise of Referenced Material.
Don’t forget many of the Respondents’ documents, on type 1 and type 2 diabetes state there is no difference in the accident rate even with all the supposed negative, scary, frightening, creepy, terrifying, bloodcurdling, menacing conditions that are said to accompany type 2 diabetes.

Without a written record there never has been any proof justifying the want.
Without a written record we don’t know what was used to justify the want.
Without a written record we know some kind of risk was assumed and fear increased the degree of risk.
So, an oral story about Class 4 type 2 drivers was constructed, an instrument was devised to address the contrived Risk, the Medical Policy, and no one was the wiser as the policy was government sanctioned. The unknown, the pariah, the Other, the Monster was dealt with quietly and unjustly.
A scapegoat was offered to quench the Fear of the unknown, the ‘diabetic’ driver was offered up.
I recommend Rene Girard’s book about the Scapegoat and the Other; “The Scapegoat.” His books are about how we invent instruments to help us, protect us, from the unknown, from fear, and the fall of society.
Who has really fallen here? Have diabetics really taken us to the edge of the cliff?
There’s an enormous amount of fear and loathing associated with diabetes and its entrenched within society through unjustified policy such as the diabetic drivers’ program.
Don’t forget, diabetics can be fat, obese, and use needles; things that are socially repugnant within our society, these people are shunned within our society and this policy adds to this negativism.

Without a written record society constructs a story about what it wants to remember, what it believes worthwhile. It creates myths about good things that it deems worthwhile. It also creates stories about the bad things. The bad things are fearful things and the unknown and are remembered and passed along through concepts such as the Other. Once the Other is constructed it has a place within that society that can become an Untouchable, it’s almost impossible to discredit, as the diabetic driver or diabetic knows.
Negatives stereotypes can be loaded upon the Other simply because they deserve it, because they are the Other. It’s a constructed idea based upon the Unknown, Fear, and Risk.



So what has society, with the help of government bodies such as the OSMV, constructed about me, the diabetic?

Diabetes is a disease, you can’t see it, we don’t know why I happens, and it kills.
Diabetes kills and it kills quickly. We don’t like this. It promotes fear therefore risk.
We don’t like things that we can’t see. It scares us. It promotes fear.
Other diseases disclose themselves physically and emotionally so we can alienate those afflicted. We can protect ourselves by alienating those with disease, but not those with diabetes. Those with it will not disclose because they know how they will be treated. People with diabetes are not honest to society. They keep hidden. They are sneaky, untrustworthy, unmanageable, irresponsible, and unaccountable. They are amoral. They are the Other.

Diabetics use needles.
We know what those needle users are like. They lay in the alleyways of our major cities with needles in their arms with their companion drinking out of a mud puddle. Needle use is analogous to illegal drug use. Needle users are the poor, disenfranchised, demented, prostitutes, lazy, and out of control people. They are to be feared and are dangerous. They are amoral. They are the Other.

Diabetics are fat and obese. Fat and obese people are shunned in our society. Fat and obese people are lazy and irresponsible and deserve what they get, diabetes. The nice thing about the fat and obese is that we can see them and protect ourselves. They are amoral. They are the Other.

Diabetes creates more diseases.
Hundreds of diseases are dependant upon diabetes. Diabetics drain our medical resources. Diabetics are walking dead people. They need to be controlled. They are amoral. They are the Other.

This is the ‘new social negative stereotype’ of diabetics.
All fat and obese children have diabetes. Their parents are probably fat and obese and lazy and irresponsible. All of them deserve what they get. They are amoral. They are the Other.
(Listen and read the news, all the fat and obese children of today are being labelled as potential diabetics. Has anyone offered studies to prove these statements? What are we saying and doing to our children by labelling then as such? Do the people that are promoting this not understand that children listen?
It’s just fear and ignorance of the unknown. It’s irresponsible and it’s child abuse. Another excellent example of the scapegoat.) (Who defends our children from such ignorance?)

Lastly government statements of indifference. (I believe Iyer is asking for the names of these two people as I didn’t mention them in my Complaint letter. I made a mistake in not giving their names as I didn’t want the people to be used as a scapegoat, they represent government policy and that is what I wanted to focus upon not the individual. I have since realized that the names are important for reference. I apologize for any misunderstanding.)
Gary Martin, an Assistant Deputy Minister, Compliance and Consumer Services Branch, in his March 22, 2004 response to my inquiry with the OSMV stated, with reference to the medical policy, that “Most importantly, it saves lives.”
I enquired about the studies that proved diabetic driver’s killed people and the statement that the policy decreases that killing and No documents were or have been offered to substantiate the killing.
Secondly, No documents have ever been offered to prove that the medical exam decreases accident rates little lone deaths.
One doesn’t respond to a civil servant that states such things. I wrote the Solicitor General, as that office manages the CCSB, and Tony Heemskerk, Assistant Deputy to the Solicitor General, who’s letter of May 14, 2004 reviewed Martin’s letter and my response to that letter stated that he was, “satisfied that his letter was appropriate.”

Reader, how can such a thing be said about anyone?
For government to state someone is a killer is the worst thing we can say about anyone. Life is our basic Human Right and they’re stating I’m taking it away from people.
So, reader, fellow traveller, and fellow diabetic how does it feel to be labelled a killer by government?
Those two individuals are part of the reason why I sent my inquiry to the Human Rights Tribunal. I was pleased when I learned other people thought my inquiry worthwhile.
Stating diabetics are killers, is the height of the Fear/Risk factor. The Deconstruction of the Other cannot rise above the Fear associated with that of a Killer, especially when government sanctioned. These comments need to be challenged in any society. Who do these people think they are? What kind of society do they really want?
My point is, horrific statements are said about diabetics from government and when asked to explain themselves they don’t respond and believe there actions are appropriate. It exemplifies the fact that they don’t need to explain themselves, as I’m the Other.
Don’t forget that once the Other is sincerely responded to, given Equality and Humanized, the Other designation begins to crumble as the fear and unknown are diminished.
The government has not responded to me.

So, what are diabetics?
They are needle users, diseased, fat, obese, disease creators, manufacturers of fat children, and killers, amoral, immoral, and socially irresponsible.
And you wonder why I started asking questions about the validity of the policy and the Medical Examination’s worth, little lone the penalties.
In Canada, the supposed criminal must go to court and be found wanting before he or she is penalized.

Reader, there’s something else you need to remember.
I’m classified, labelled, given a number, forced to take a medical exam that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, and will be kept track of all my life because I have type 2 diabetes.
Additionally, since corresponding with the OSMV I’ve been labelled as a killer.
Additionally, the out of court contract with the OSMV was breached. I discovered an amendment to the breach was contrived and implemented. I only discovered the phoney amendment had been contrived and implemented because I complained to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles about the breach. If I were involved it would be described as composed. This was done without my knowledge and participation and Iyer was involved in this. I signed no documents legalizing the amendment, which means the contract does not hold any worth or value; the breach cancels the contract.
(My inquiry into this matter is included to exemplify how diabetics are treated different than non-diabetics. Would the OSMV and Iyer not include non-diabetics in an amendment to a contract that they breached? I don’t believe they would or do, as no documents were sent to me exemplifying this.
Secondly, the breach cancels the contract so Iyer’s presentation that I am not allowed to complain about the policy, until the Draft proposal comes about, does not apply to me. The government broke the contract by not delivering the Draft on the due date and did not rectify the breached contract. Every thing possible should have been done to include me in any changes to the contract or any changes done to amend the contract.
The whole process happened as if I did not exist. In other words I was turned Invisible.)
So, here we are with Iyer stating I am wrong in doing this.
Let me be very clear, I did not break the contract. I have done nothing wrong.
I fulfilled my commitment to respond to the Draft because I said I would. I responded under duress of the Timeline that was given to me to respond because I knew, because of the way I’m treated, that if I did not respond within that Timeline the opportunity would be taken away from me. I can only do so many things at once and the response was the priority. My response does not make the breached contract alive again.
I then inquired about the breach only to discover a phoney amendment had been contrived and implemented.
Here we are, almost two years later, and I have not received any documents to justify the amendment, which would give life to the contract and make Iyer’s presentation relevant. Iyer is now telling me that I do not have the right to complain because I won’t comply with a breached contract.

My point is, maybe, the OSMV and their lawyers should have taken the time and effort to rectify the breached contract of November 15, 2006 and I would still have been bound to it.
Why hasn’t Iyer and the OSMV informed you that they breached the contract making it invalid or of no value and I am not bound by it.
Howie’s presentation mentions the Draft is late, #11and 12, but does not state that the breach made the contract invalid. The day the Draft didn’t arrive the OSMV phoned me because they knew the contract was breached and that it needed to be rectified.
Again, this breach is presented as if it is self-evident that it was rectified and it wasn’t. There are legal standards that must be attended to and this is one of those events. Would the government not rectify a breached contract with a Olympic contractor, or Skytrain contract, or bridge builder.
It must be remembered that government did cancel the Health Care Workers’ contract and were taken to court for it and found wanting. I’m supposed to go to court for this and spend the next five years in court. At least the Health Care Workers had a union to fund the challenge. The OSMV breached the contract not me and it wasn’t rectified.
My essay to the Ombudsman gives a good account of the affair from the diabetic point of view and from the position of one of the parties in a two party contract.

I could have spent the Time inquiring about the breach and phoney amendment before responding but then I would have given up the offered opportunity from the OSVM to comment on the Draft, which they accepted. I am still inquiring into the breached contract and what happened to me; this is almost two years now.
My inquiry about what has happened to me concerning this phoney amendment is now before the Ombudsman and I’ve been informed that we are to review their interpretation of events as to where we want to go; this will be done in July 2008.

Reader, has the breached contract been too High a Negative Risk to bring forward by the OSMV?
Is Iyer’s presentation supposed to direct the reader to view me as someone that breaks contracts?
That is how I understand the presentation of the old contract.
If I hadn’t informed you of the breached contract and phoney amendment what would you have thought of me.
What do you think of me now, now that you know I fulfilled my obligation even if others broke the contract. Obligations are personal not public contracts with government or anyone else. I had the right to send the review of the Draft to the OSMV whether under contract or not. The OSMV did not need to accept it after the breach but they did. The reasons are unknown but they surely knew I would criticize the Draft as I owe no one and it didn’t cost them anything. Maybe that is why they asked me if I wanted to review the second draft.
Reader, you now know, I do not break contracts. The government does. So, the picture Iyer has painted of me is not correct. It’s just another affront to the diabetic.

Lastly, there is also the implication that I am socially irresponsible because I fail to accept all the science that is supposed to be there, justifying the policy. (Iyer #60 and #61.) As you now know most of the Referenced material has nothing to do with type 2 diabetes, some articles have been referenced twice, and some of their own articles, presented as ammunition against me, inform us that there is no difference in driver mishaps between non-diabetic and diabetic drivers, and that hypoglycemia is not a significant factor in the type 2 experience little lone hypoglycemia unawareness that can lead to severe hypoglycemia.
Contrary to established beliefs I am right in my “assertions” and I just don’t believe. (Iyer #61)

Reader, the Social Construct, all the above, is really here.
The policy is based upon Fear and estimated Risk all done without acknowledging the consequences of their actions. Something they do not need to acknowledge as the Other does not need to be responded to.
However, the consequences of the government actions are not Risk, they are a real direct consequences of the policy and Dobbs, Iyer, and the OSMV never mention them.
They never mention that the OSMV has not offered any documentation to prove there is any Good resulting from this policy. Just in case everyone has forgotten, medical intervention is not allowed if there is no Good resulting from the intervention and it harms.

My point is, if I’ve ‘woken’ you up a little bit I’m pleased. This is the world that I walked into in 1999 when it was discovered that I had the condition type 2 diabetes and it has worsened each time I become involved with the OSMV. I can guarantee you that my sensibilities have also been pushed.

The above is not old stuff from a different time and place. It’s in this time and place. The above are things are constructed about diabetes. We do these to each other and never think about them until they impact us personally. This is the world that’s been created by society and I live it today. Some of it’s within government correspondence, as noted above, and some of it’s in the Dobbs and Iyer’s presentations.
It never stops.

Don’t forget, Persuasive essays, articles, or presentations do not investigate the “whys” in life as the presentation’s Aim is to persuade you to visualize the subject as a negative, irresponsible, out of control person in order to justify the Medical Examination policy. (The Persuasive presentation is described below.)




Degree of Risk

Why hasn’t Risk been defined. We all know risk is Categorized into High, Medium, and Low. The Cox study exemplifies this. The Risk associated with hypoglycemia and the diabetic driver is not attended to which leaves the reader to believe, to assume, the worst, a High Risk as government is involved and government would not intervene into our lives unless there was a High Risk of something which infers the government has/can really prove the High Risk; not fact just Risk. The expectation is that the instruments of democracy have been fulfilled that is why they are there.

As mentioned above there is also Negative and Positive Risk.

Also, there are things below and above Risk, the real concrete world. Things such as real accidents, as just accidents not a driver that is accident prone, real consequences to the policy, real consequences to using Copyright and protected Intellectual Property without permission (these are things above High Risk) and events related to diabetes that are labelled as ‘not significant’ (something below Low Risk).
These are events that override Risk and yet they are not acknowledged or defined by the OSMV’s argument in support of the policy.
In other words, it is too High a Negative Risk to define Risk as to its real place within the diabetic policy; all Risk is presented as a Negative High Risk.
This instils Fear, which increases Risk, which establishes and entrenches the Fear/Risk Factor.


There’s no proof of an accident rate difference or of such magnitude that government can justify the policy; no proof of deaths caused by type 2 diabetic drivers or Class 4 type 2 diabetic drivers; no proof of severe hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness impacting type 2 driving; no proof of other medical conditions being dependent upon Class 4 type 2 diabetes causing accidents; no proof that other conditions manifesting themselves due to diabetes are causing accidents; no proof of a scientific need for the medical exam; no proof that the medical exam can do what it is alleged to be able to do, predict, prevent, or managed; no proof that the medical exam has offered any Good to society; and no proof the medical examination decreases the supposed difference in accident rates and killing.
All the above is done under the idea of undefined Risk not concrete Facts. The three instruments of democracy, the Charter, HRC, and the MVA demand Facts not beliefs. Risk is based upon belief.

As to the medical conditions that a diabetic may encounter in the future being used to justify the policy; what is the real risk of these conditions expressing themselves within the type 2s lifetime little lone the working Timeline of the Class 4 driver?
Aren’t these other medical conditions be evaluated as they impact people when they actually have the condition?
Why am I penalized because someone says I may encounter a condition in the future?

Lastly, there’s an Analogous Argument always pressing and trying to persuade the reader that there’s an association with type 1 diabetes conditions and consequences that must overlay the conditions and consequences of type 2 diabetes plus the future conditions and their consequences. Risk from one condition being transferred or dumped upon another condition is apparent here.
This is an example of Positive Risk on the OSMV part. Take the risk of transferring language and complications of one condition, type 1, to another condition, type 2, even if the latter condition does not warrant the transfer. Take the risk that the reader will not know the difference. This is an interesting risk.
I know the difference and hope to inform readers of the difference so that type 2 diabetes is really understood as to what it is; it is diabetes but it really is something different than type 1 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes does not guarantee that one will become type 1. Did you know that? It may only express itself if I live long enough, which will certainly put me past any commercial driving or private driving.
There is a Negative High Risk of informing readers of this isn’t there. Negative High Risk also applies to the OSVM presentation so it must be managed at all costs and risk.

My point is, there is risk involved in this argument but not every thing is High Risk or Negative Risk against the diabetic.
Secondly, concrete information is more powerful than risk and must be acknowledged.
The Degree of Risk is not acknowledged within the OSMV presentation which means the OSMV knows the argument is Low Risk or below, therefore it is too Risky to acknowledge and define Risk. The unknown itself creates Risk, which enhances their Fear/Risk Factor.




My Aim

My Aim is to Deconstruct the Persuasive presentations by posing questions, asking why certain things were not investigated or explained fully, by giving a diabetics’ interpretation of the presentation, and by offering as much information as possible to better construct a whole picture of the events surrounding the question of why I believe I’ve been treated differently for no bona fide and reasonable reasons.
This will allow you to make an informed, balanced interpretation of the Persuasive presentation’s worth as to justifying the medical examination policy concerning Class 4 type 2 diabetic drivers.




Purpose

The purpose of this Informative essay is to offer facts and thoughts in order to balance off the negativism and omissions presented within Persuasive presentations offered by the Respondents. (I’ll address the three documents that I received from Dobbs’, the OSMV, and Iyer as presentations as they are not really essays.)
There’s an old adage: optimism grows on positive thinking while pessimism grows stronger on negative thinking. Persuasive essays are based upon negative thinking, used in order to persuade. Pessimism is a focus of the persuasive essay.

I’ll also address the other parts of the bi-annual medical examination policy; the Physical Medical Exam and Form, as to its validity, the omitted Timelines (it is unbelievable that they were accidentally omitted), and the Consequences of the examination upon society and myself (it is unbelievable that the Consequences were accidentally omitted), and the lack of Good coming from the policy (it is unbelievable that Good was accidentally omitted).

My inquiry began when I was informed that I must undergo in a mandatory medical examination because I have type 2 diabetes. The reason given was that there is a difference in accident rates between non-diabetic drivers and type 2 diabetic drivers and that a certain condition that a type 2 diabetic may encounter, hypoglycemia, is the reason for the difference in accident rates.
I didn’t believe what was being said to me so I inquired about the proof that was used to justify the policy against diabetics. I was never given any proof. So, the demand is just a want not a need.
Therefore, this policy was an arbitrary decision, which seemed out of touch with the MVA.
I accessed the Motor Vehicle Act and discovered the OSMV must fulfill demands before it imposes policy upon drivers. There are choices to be made, which means we should be able to review what was used to make decisions.
No documents were offered.
I accessed the Constitution of Canada to see if I had any protection from government policy based upon an arbitrary decision. Part 1, Section 1, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitutional Act, 1982, seemed to give me protection from arbitrary decisions,

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

My focus was on “reasonable limits” and “demonstrably justified.”
I then discovered that the government must also fulfill the demands of the Human Rights Code. The policy must be bona fide and reasonably justified.

These presentations are to justify the past behaviour of the OSMV because they never had demonstrated, through documents, the need for the program. Imagine that, in all those years, from 1982 or the Hines case, 1990, they never justified the program. They never offered any definition defining reasonable limits or proved within reasonable limits there is a need for the policy. It wasn’t done because the diabetic driver is not a “substantial and pressing concern.” (Hines)

My purpose is to clarify if there really is a demonstrably justified need, which is really difficult as the OSMV has never defined what defines reasonable limits, as to when government intervenes into our lives.
How many more accidents are considered the limit as to when government unjustifiably intervenes into our lives? Are diabetics not allowed to have accidents as non-diabetics are. We need to ask this question because the OSMV has never offered any documents that prove the policy decreases the supposed difference in driver mishaps.
Won’t accident-prone diabetic drivers be managed as non-diabetic accident-prone drivers will be? The police and the insurance companies will immediately managed these accident-prone drivers whereas the OSMV policy will not intervene for years.
The OSMV never addresses these points or questions. It’s as if the intervention limit is self-evident.
Self-evidence and oral conversations are not good enough for government intervention.
It’s like the consequences of the medical policy and lack of Good that the OSMV, Dobbs, and Iyer steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that even exist.
Who made the decision to intervene and what number above the acceptable accident rate was used compared to the harm caused by the medical policy?
My purpose is bring forward these things that are never addressed but immensely important to the matter at hand, really evaluating the policy for its worth and value and is it reasonably justified or just entrenched bureaucracy and defended through fear and ignorance of diabetes, the invisible disease.

Double Think, my purpose is to bring forward the double speak that is used to justify the policy.
The presentations state there are studies that present differences in driver mishap rates so government policy is justified.
However, we now know the actual studies are very few as the type 2 diabetic is not a pressing and substantial concern within the research community, little lone the Class 4 driver.

My point is, even Dobbs has not researched diabetes in seniors. She has thirty pages of research, presentations, etc, etc and nothing on diabetes and hypoglycemia with seniors. Seniors still drive. I’ve been led to believe that seniors, as our bodies break down, are susceptible to diabetes, both kinds. If this is true then why hasn’t an expert such as Dobbs researched this as we are lead to believe all diabetes is a disabling condition with medical conditions that also disable the person again. (Future medical conditions are used within the Draft to rationalize the policy against the diabetic.) Studies haven’t been done because it is not a pressing and substantial concern. Not because seniors are in the last stages of life and don’t warrant help but because there really isn’t the problem.

Reader, in general, the differences in driver mishaps are defined as ratios, for example, 1.3 higher.
However, the numbers include fender benders and other insurance claims not only accidents involving vehicles with human harm. There is also the mechanical harm but that is not acknowledged in these rates that list just accidents.
This is another Double Think that is not addressed.
So, in accident rates there is human harm and mechanical harm compared to the harm from the policy, which is just human harm.
The OSMV, nor Dobbs, nor Iyer’s presentation attend to this fact.
This fact decreases the ratios of harm significantly. The policy is about protecting society due to believed harm. What happens if this fact causes the Risk of harm to decrease by half again. What degree of Low Risk have we dropped to with this fact that is never mentioned?

In the real world the ratio means a non-diabetic must have four accidents before there is a real difference between driver mishaps; so if the non-diabetic has three accidents then the diabetic will have 3.9 accidents but the number must be four to make a whole accident. This then means the diabetic will have 4 x 1.3 = 5.2 accidents whereas the non-diabetic will have had 4.
As silly as this presentation seems it is no worse than the statistical presentations that do not deal with the human factor. Nonetheless, after two or possible three real accidents, not just driver mishaps, none of us will have any kind of licence to drive. We’ll never get to the third or fourth real accident to realize the difference of the ratio, as we won’t have a license due to the past accidents.
This is the Double Think that Readers must confront within the policy and from those that support the policy.
Drivers at risk, whether diabetic or not are managed by drivers themselves, doctors, the police, and the insurance companies, such as ICBC, before the influence of the medical policy of every two years.
Why haven’t the presentations of Dobbs, Iyer, and the OSMV acknowledged and addressed this fact?

My point is, when the Beliefs about diabetes and the Statistics are given Human form, the real world we live in, the statistics really are found not only wanting but a ridiculous argument that cannot be realized.

My point is, there are already bona fide programs that monitor and restrict accident-prone drivers. How convenient of the OSMV, Dobbs, and Iyer not to have acknowledged and addressed this fact; this is another fact that has been consciously Omitted. It is not believable that the OSMV does not know these events. Dobbs and the OSMV are the car industry and yet they forget to mention that individuals and society already manage at-risk-drivers with proved and immediate intervention?
Also, Doctors already monitor diabetics as to their health and abilities because they are doctors not because the government mandates them to comply.

My point is, why should we believe their idea of Risk is worthy if they will not acknowledge and address their actions?
Don’t forget the presentations are Persuasive presentations and that is all they are.
If the essays were Scientific Research papers the criteria of research papers mandates consequences be acknowledged, potential consequences be contemplated, the research Results be reviewed for consequences, and Good be proven if the research is to be acted upon. This is especially important if the research is used to support a social policy, or make policy, or to justify past policy.
This is an important fact in that we are not only evaluating the perceived Risk believed to be associated with type 2 diabetic drivers but also the Risk of the intervention into my life, what it states about diabetics, and the consequences of the medical exam policy upon society.
Don’t forget the medical exam policy changes primary health care availability, impacts emergency care at hospitals, and is responsible for allowing private clinics into the medical system.
So, what harm is caused by the consequences associated with this policy?
If there is harm, is there more harm than the believed accident rate harm? Is this what the government is afraid of in not acknowledging the consequences of their policy?
How or who decided where the “reasonable limits” were as to when intervention was decided and they discussed the consequences of the policy and its good and harm?
Who defined the level of Risk as to when we change the medical system availability for an undocumented policy?
How did they balance the harm caused by changing the medical system to the supposed harm caused by type 2 diabetic drivers or Class 4 type 2 drivers?
Where are the minutes of the meetings that define these things or are they again just Oral Conversations making policy?

My point is, no one has defined these limits so I’m treated differently for no bona fide reason. It’s discrimination because the consequences of the medical policy are not acknowledged whereas the supposed consequences of diabetes are not only not proven but also acted upon. This is not reasonable policy.
My purpose is to Deconstruct, debunk, the construct of the Other, which has been constructed by the government and the anti-diabetic lobby in order to justify their diabetic drivers’ policy.



Pertinent Information

Three presentations that have been offered by the Respondents to “demonstrably justify” the Medical Examination Policy of the OSMV. The presentations are just three works with a very focused Aim, to persuade the reader into doing something or believing a point of view.
The presentations are called Persuasive works, or essays, or presentations and they’ve been constructed to persuade you to think a certain way, they’re selling something.
These presentations are not Scientific essays, or Scientific research, or a Scientific work to prove a Theory or Hypothesis, or a Scientific study, or anything Scientific to be reviewed by the scientific community. They are just Persuasive presentations that review some Science stuff.

With Dobbs, every scientific credential listed is part of the criteria of a Persuasive presentation. It’s done to impress and awe the reader, just standard criteria for a Persuasive presentation. Read Dobbs’ “Curriculum Vitae” to discover what she really is an Expert in and then try and make the connection to Class 4 commercial driving and type 2 diabetes in context to commercial driving or just driving in order to bring relevance to their argument and the points they focus upon and do not focus upon. Take nothing for granted with the Persuasive Presentation.
Reader, Dobbs offers the first thirty-two pages to tell us who she is. It is most impressive. However, she is not diabetic, has not written on diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, has not written on hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia unawareness, or severe hypoglycemia or Class 4 drivers. All the events that make my complaint.
Dobbs is an expert in old age . This is years after the working Timeline of a commercial driver. The material offered on old age has nothing to do with commercial Timeline as commercial drivers will be retired years before they meet Dobbs and her research and presentations.
Iyer has not stated she is a diabetic. As I pointed out above it seems Iyer has just copied the diabetic stuff Dobbs has gleaned from some resources.
The OSMV’ presentation is mostly about things that have already happened. I will address some of the new comments within the first ten pages and the Settlement Agreement.



Science

We need to talk about Science. Too many people are afraid of Science. I worry about this problem within this Human Rights Discrimination Complaint.
Science explores the world around us, that’s all. It should be available to everyone.
Science should never be put on a pedestal with the belief that only a selected few can understand and be moved by it and the rest must follow.
You, the reader, can never let yourself be intimidated by the politics of science and think that you and I cannot criticize it or partake in it. Good science demands we Criticize it.

Secondly, the OSMV offers Published Material as part of a scheme to establish ‘Scientific Authority’ for the material they have offered, which is supposed to justify the Drivers’ Medical Examination Policy against diabetic driver’s. Scientific Authority is hard to come by and cannot be established by the OSMV simply by putting together some material about diabetes.

Third, not all Good science is published in peer reviewed journals. Good science involves all people; we’ll make the world of science better by criticizing these presentations for their worth. The language of fear, emotional motivation, manipulation, anxiety, and Persuasion do not represent Good science.

Lastly, I worry about this problem in our society and its influence upon the readers of the presentations and the decision makers involved in this Discrimination Complaint. The offering of 174 articles exemplifies my worry better than anything I could have asked for; it exemplifies one of the Persuasive essay’s needs, to control the reader from the very beginning of the dialogue that will commence. Readers see 174 articles and believe. However, I’ve debunked that idea.
If I hadn’t just pointed out the inconsistencies in the mass of material, the legal demands, and doubling up would you really have confronted 174 articles as to their validity and relevance to my case of Class 4 driving and type 2 diabetes or would you just have believed that criticism is forbidden because of Dobbs’ status and support from the government and the status of the “Affidavit?” I really don’t understand what the affidavit means but it does not mean it is untouchable and beyond criticism.

The Aim of the Persuasive presentation is to find the oppositions weakness and exploit it; it starts with the words Experts. This implying Science is beyond you and me and you and I need Scientists to talk for us.

“I have extensive academic and professional expertise and experience on medical conditions that affect driving, both within Canadian jurisdictions and internationally.” Dobbs, page 1

There is nothing on diabetes or hypoglycemia.


My point is, there is the social construct and a societal response to science that has power over any criticism especially when confront with 30 pages of a resume coming from the Science Community.
However, the presentations are Not Scientific Essays, Not Formal Scientific Studies, Not Scientific Research, and Not Scientific Surveys to be reviewed by their peers or published to make the world a better place through credible science.
They are just Persuasive Essays. Simple. Dobbs was paid to write an essay supporting the OSMV policy.
The presentation uses scientific terms, definitions of facts, and opinions of things that may happen.

I also worry because of the label ‘expert’ as it can also carry the societal response that the public, non-experts, are lead to believe that the experts’ opinion is not questionable or beyond criticism. Criticizing the experts’ opinion makes science better, experts writing a non–scientific report are certainly not above criticism.
Remember, the Persuasive presentation must use everyday language to persuade the Reader to buy into something, to make you believe something, and in these presentation the language is Fear associated with perceived Risk; the establishment of the Fear/Risk factor is mandatory for the Persuasive Essay.

Criticizing the experts’ opinions only leads to better essays the next time they write.

Readers, criticize all you want, it’s only science presented in a Persuasive presentation. Good science will stand-alone, you’ve heard that before, and its true. Science doesn’t need a persuasive essay to be sound.
The use of language within the presentations is important due how many times certain ideas are stated. State certain things enough times and we believe because it’s science, said by an expert, and Iyer and the Drafts and the repetition drives it into our thinking.
To counter this criterion of the Persuasive presentation I will also state things numerous times. You will become nauseated by the number of times I will remind you of the Consequences and lack of Good and by the statement “why doesn’t Dobbs or the OSMV mention this?”
The real problem with this parroting is why do I really need to say these things this many times? I need to as it really informs you of what is and what is not stated.

So, read on and pose lots of questions and you’ll discover the Sky is Not Falling and the Emperor Wear’s No Clothes.
Grade the presentation as Dobbs grades or did grade her students’ essays. Don’t put her and her opinion above you. It’s only an presentation that she has written and been paid for.

Don’t forget you’re now a type 2 diabetic, viewed as the Other, a Monster, and discriminated against and if you want to do more than just survive in this circumstance you better learn to have fun or it’ll eat you up and crush you.

So, lighten up and have fun reading my criticism of the Persuasive presentations because we all perform better when we’re having fun.

The complaint is about type 2 diabetes and Class 4 licensing.

INTRODUCTION

My response is an Informative Essay in response to the three Persuasive presentations presented by the Respondents (definition of the Informative essay to follow).
Dobbs, has been hired to persuade you, the reader, to accept her opinion that the Medical Policy for Class 4, type 2 diabetic drivers is a “demonstrably justified” a bona fide government policy (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and that the policy fulfills the demands of the Human Rights Code, Section 8, that the policy is “bona fide and reasonably justified,” and fulfills the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act.
However, if we’re to evaluate whether or not the policy is bona fide the consequences of the governments’ policy must also be evaluated as the supposed consequences of diabetes have been acted upon. There must be balance, equality, or discrimination though arbitrary decisions become the norm.
Lastly, the government has not offered any documents to prove there is Good realized from the policy?


SIX Components are needed to justify the Diabetic DME Policy; two essays and a bunch of Published Material not related to Class 4 type 2 diabetes are not Good enough


The presentations only represent ONE / SIXTH of the Diabetic Drivers’ Medical Examination Policy or 16%.

1) The presentations. 16.66% or 5.5% or about 6% each
Is the presentation’s Worth good enough to justify the medical policy by itself? It really depends on the components of the problem at hand. Do the presentations really attend to all the components that are needed to justify the policy? There are six components that need to be acknowledged and addressed in order to justify the DME policy or it’s just something arbitrary, a discriminatory policy. The presentations should also place the components in context for Relevance to the matter at hand, Class 4 type 2 driving.
A major problem with the presentations is they are being used to justify the policy as the Referenced materials do not mean anything by themselves if not explained and put in context to the real world; Class 4 type 2 driving. The presentations are supposed to make connections between statements and the components so we can make sense of the components as a whole. This means the presenters should address all the components of the policy not just a few selected few.
Believed consequences of diabetes are used to justify the policy which means the presentations should address the consequences of the policy. How are Readers to learn and evaluate the big picture if the connections between the components are not connected?
Government hasn’t justified their policy so they now try to use a mass of current and aged Published Material to justify their past, present behaviour, and their future demands?

What makes experts must also be used in their support of the policy; expertise with the matter being discussed, acknowledgement of consequences, real Good, all Timelines and their connections to each other and to the matter at hand, correct acknowledgement of research if used, correct Intent of material used, and objectivity must be attended to within the essay as these criteria make the ‘science’ expert.
A presentation using scary language, challenging morals and social obligations, the introduction of out of context information, being caught writing a persuasive essay, excessive negativism, and being subjective all question the Worth of the Persuasive presentation.

2) The Published Material. 16%
Is the use of the research material quoted in the Referenced material legal, as it used to justify a social policy already in use? Is the use of the research legal as Dobbs was paid for her essay, which makes the use not personal or for research? As stated above Dobbs protects herself with the “For internal distribution only.” This is a good event.
However, without permission it cannot be used publicly because of the liability and as the Cox study states the research is not to be used against type 1 diabetics.
Are there really actual facts to justify the policy? Does the research presented about type 2 diabetes really attend to driving and within the working Timeline of the commercial driver?
Is the published material relevant? Review the dates of the research to understand this and then compare the dates to when I became diabetic, 1999.
Is the published material really about type 2 diabetes and class 4 driving?
We now know most of the material is not about type 2 diabetes little lone about a Class 4 license. Why have they been included? Isn’t this just Padding? Is this manipulation of those not familiar with diabetes? Is this manipulation of those not familiar with science? Is this manipulation of the Class 4 license? Remember, nothing can be taken for granted; nothing is given to government and the anti-diabetic lobby.

An interesting thing about the Published Material is why hasn’t the insurance companies management of driver mishaps been acknowledged? ICBC has local knowledge of driving mishaps? The OSVM works with ICBC and ICBC has a very real database and management process that immediately responds to driver mishaps? ICBC’ facts about driver mishaps should have been included in the Published Material. Is the Published Material too selective in its presentation and too much of a Risk to include such things as real driver mishaps?
Are connections between the Published Material and Class 4 type 2 driving really established?

3) Drivers’ Medical Examination and Form 16%
What's missing is conversation about the actual DME and Form. Can the exam really predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia, the very thing the DME is supposedly based upon?
Has it proved to be beneficial in decreasing the supposed difference in accident rates, some Good?
Has it proved to decrease the killing, that according to the government, diabetics are doing?
Are we, diabetics and society, really supposed to depend upon the DME to monitor diabetes or any of the supposed future medical conditions that may express themselves due to diabetes; all done under the guise of prudent medical care?
When considering future medical conditions isn’t this the OSMV practicing medicine. Is the OSMV licensed to practice medicine?
Are these questions addressed within the presentations?
Can the DME really do what it is alleged to be able to do? The DME is presented as if it does fulfill the assertion.
However, isn’t this just some more of the self-evident beliefs about the policy? Why should you believe the examination can do what it is alleged to be able to do if it is not addressed and connections made to driving? Are connections made to the other components?
About the examination Form, is it really complete and up to date? Is it reliable to the matter at hand, Class 4 type 2 driving as my doctor has informed me he cannot access the form to update information if he wanted to. There is a two-year Timeline here. With private driving it is five years. We are to believe the information is relevant?

4) Timelines 16%
What’s missing is conversation about Timelines.
The Timelines include the Time needed for diabetes to express itself, ones age; Time for hypoglycemia to express itself, there are different varieties or forms of hypoglycemia expressed at different times and through different types of diabetes; Time needed for believed future medical conditions and their complications to express themselves; the Timeline in which the OSMV has to justify the policy (Hines); all connected to the Timeline of the Working lifetime of a Class 4 type 2.
Because of my age I will be retired from Commercial Driving before any of these conditions and their complications may express themselves. Does Dobbs’ presentation make the connections of the Timelines to the very real world of Age, Work, and Retirement?
Does Iyer’s presentation make connections in order to put things in context, thus Relevance, so the Reader can understand the whole?
Does the OSMV in the presentation of future medical conditions and their complications, that may impact diabetics, acknowledge the Timelines and connect them in order to bring context to their argument against the Class 4 type 2 and the working Timeline and Retirement?

5) Consequences 16%
What’s missing is conversation about the Consequences of the DME. The changes to the availability of basic health care and the harm that event causes are not acknowledged. Why?
Doctors’ availability is changed as they are filling out this form.
Emergency facilities are changed because if one cannot visit the doctor one goes to the Emergency facilities at the hospital with your child or parents and whom do you stand behind? You stand behind me. This is no small matter and the OSMV and the essayists refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their actions. Why haven’t these things been addressed? Can you imagine nurse Dobbs, or PhD Dobbs not acknowledging the consequences of her medical actions? Why not within the Persuasive presentation. Copyright is there because of consequences as the Copyright protected OSMV website exemplifies.
Why doesn’t the OSMV presentation acknowledge consequences?
I don’t know if this applies to Iyer’s presentation as she is just a lawyer.

6) Good 16%
What’s missing is any conversation about Good.
How can such an important criterion not be acknowledged?
I do not know what I am supposed to write about this complete lack of accountability and responsibility?
Reader, you must really try to understand why government, the anti-diabetic lobby, and Dobbs and Iyer have not attended to and presented any Good coming from the policy.



Consequences and lack of Good; Private Practice Medicine
The overcrowding in the Emergency facilities can be explained by this unjustified policy, which makes it interesting in that government has now allowed private entrepreneurship doctors to set up private practice clinics to handle the overcrowding. The overcrowding results from an unjustified government demand which they refuse to acknowledge and now allow private practice clinics to resolve their problem. This is the wedge introducing private practice clinics against the universal medical system.
When I was diagnosed with diabetes, 1999, 5% of society was diabetic. As of late 2006-7 it had risen to 9% according to the Ministry of Health. What is the government going to do when diabetes becomes an epidemic, 25-30%, or 1 in 3 or 1 in 4? How is their unjustified demand going to change our medical system then?
Don’t forget, the OSMV supposedly manages over 100 different conditions.

Lastly, how did a non-medical necessity magically change to a medical necessity in order that the DME could be funded by government, as licensees do not to pay for the DME anymore? How was this done without any documents to prove the OSMV medical policy is legally justified and not discriminatory? How was the Health Act changed if the DME has not been justified. This act of changing what is necessary and what is not sets a precedent as the DME was entrenched within the Health Act as something non-necessary.
This change again exemplifies how the government just does things to diabetics without justification. This change allows the government to make changes to the Health Act for their personal wants? Will they now change things such as sterilization to a medical necessity, which would then allow them to sterilize the disabled without their consent? Where is the government going with this change to the Health Act?
This change definitely helps the poor and financial needy which guarantees doctors some payment for their work but what does it really do in the Context of diabetes, the DME, and society?
Interestingly enough it covertly marries the unjust DME policy to a government Ministry, which gives it an overt declaration of legitimacy. This change has been an interesting happening concerning the DME policy.


The above Components need to be talked about, as they are part of the Medical Examination policy against diabetics. The OSMV has presented only a small part of the argument, which is not good enough.
The perceived consequences of my condition have been acted upon therefore all parts of the policy and all the consequences of the policy must be acknowledged. The OSMV and those who support the policy are pretending there are no consequences to their actions.
Again, the OSMV, Dobbs, and Iyer do not offer any documents to prove any Good has been realized from the DME policy? I cannot state this enough times.

Government has a duty and an obligation to review the whole policy not just certain components of a policy that suits their wants. The policy negatively impacts the primary health care availability, emergency care, ambulatory care, and introduces private health care done in order to resolve a problem the government has created.
If there is harm caused by the medical examination demand, consequences of the exam, we need to evaluate how much harm is caused in order to evaluate if the policy is really a worthwhile, harmless endeavour, which does offer some Good to society.
The government cannot harm society because it believes there may be a harm due to a perceived risk of harm. I have not learned anything positive from the DME. I have learned about diabetes from a doctor, not because he is forced to give the exam, but because he is a doctor.

I’ve mentioned the possible harm caused by the medical examination process, in earlier letters to the OSMV, and am not surprised that the consequences of the medical examination are not formally addressed within the presentations. The Risk is to High as there are negative impacts due to the policy, which would severely diminish the worth of the Persuasive presentations.
It should be noted that I have never been offered any studies to prove the policy is beneficial to society.
I imagine the Risk is too High to actually come to terms with whether or not the policy has been fulfilling its goal and acknowledging any possible harm caused by policy.

The presenters Dobbs and Iyer may not have been asked to address the Medical Physical Exam and Form as to it’s worth, or to address the consequences of the DME policy, or the Timelines, but being a doctor and nurse and researcher and lawyer aren’t they forced to acknowledge the consequences of their actions and if there is any Good? Not attending to these things that make the expert, makes one wonder why they haven’t and who’s going to?




The Want of the Medical Examination, Unjustified Consequences

If the consequences of the want (the impact upon doctor availability, ambulatory care, emergency availability, introduction of private practice) and means to get there (physical medical exam and form) are as harmful or more harmful that the want (supposed difference in accident rates between non-diabetic class 4 drivers and class 4 type 2 drivers) then the want is not worthwhile.
Government, nor you and I, can harm someone for a supposed want or insignificant risk.
Government policy is where we, as society, want to go, and how we want to treat each other. Government, the OSMV, cannot intervene in our lives because they think, or believe in their “view” it’s ok to do so. Their intervention into our lives must outweigh any doubt you and I have about the ‘want’ and its consequences.
It must be a real ‘need’ and something that is substantial.
The want for the Medical Examination is not something that is evaluated by only reviewing the want itself; there are things attached to it. Such as the physical medical exam and form, the consequences of the whole process, the introduction of private medical clinics to respond to the emergency overloads caused by the consequences of the policy, and the requirement for Good.

There’s a Wholeness here that must be reviewed, not just one piece of the whole to justify the policy.
When drugs are tested on subjects, whether insects or humans, the consequences must be documented to make sure the want does not outweigh any harm caused by the drug, or intervention. The want must far outweigh any harm caused. Documenting the consequences is part of the procedure and intervention or policy of intervention.
When Dobbs engages in research, scientific policy demands she document the consequences of her actions.
Reader, you are not informed about the consequences of this want upon society or the consequences or validity of the means to get there, the physical examination.
The presentations only represent one-sixth of the DME policy and the Published Material referred to another one-sixth. Four of the six steps of the procedure of evaluating the policy have not been acknowledged.

Reader, you must ask why? Why are Dobbs and the OSMV only reviewing so little of the whole procedure, some research used to justify the medical examination policy when their experience has trained them to incorporate the Procedure (actual physical exam), the Consequences or Results, and the Conclusion into what they’re testing or examining and any implementation of the policy for Good?

Also, as a researcher Dobbs was paid for her presentation so she knows about funding and the responsibilities that come with it; the demand for accountability to those who hired them, copyright and intellectual property rights, and staying on topic.
Dobbs seems qualified enough to review these criteria demanded by Responsible Science.
To make an informed evaluation, a balanced evaluation of the want, to make it a need, the six components must be fulfilled just like the components of research; the need for the exam, the actual exam, the consequences of the exam, a Timeline for context, implementation of findings, and the study for Good. One can’t be done without the others and all need to be connected for context and Relevance to the problem in hand.
The Respondents presentations evaluate the perceived consequences of diabetes and the assumed impact upon drivers with diabetes, that’s all. How can Dobbs, a scientist, a nurse, a PhD (doctor), and educator not visit the other stages and expect the social kudos or status that travel with the term expert?

My point is, if they’re not fulfilling there scientific training it begs the question,
What kind of presentations have been constructed because they have had to consciously decided not to present on the Consequences and Good and Timelines and Examination Form?

Consequences are part of ‘her being’ as a scientists, educator, and medical person. Howie and Iyer also have positions of influence, status, and education and also know about consequences and Good.

If we don’t balance the need with an evaluation of the consequences of the policy and any Good then we do not have enough Information to make an bona fide evaluation, a balanced evaluation of the want for the medical examination policy little lone compared to the harms it is causing.
I have the right for a balanced presentation and a non-discriminatory environment.


How do we measure the Medical Examination Policy for its worth and whether or not it’s a bona fide policy beyond any doubt as to its validity? We must evaluate the Risk, for and against the policy because there have never been any documents to support the policy.
The OSMV has introduced Risk through the essays. It must be remembered that all this, the essays and the published material have been introduced as something after the fact.
So, how did we get to this position where we are measuring Risk and not Facts?

First of all it must be said that the policy has been institutionalized because of the belief that there’s a difference in the accident rate, driver mishaps, between non-diabetic Class 4 drivers and Class 4 type 2 drivers.

Secondly, it must be remembered that no proof was ever on hand to support the want until I started asking for the documents that supported the mandatory medical examination, costs associated with it, and the harm caused to society due to the impact of the medical exam upon our basic health care system.

Third, without any physical documents to prove a need from a want it must be realized that the belief was based upon Oral Conversations, something we give no worth to. Somewhere within these conversations the idea of Risk must have been introduced.
The Risk that a Class 4 driver with type 2 diabetes may experience conditions that may be associated with type 2 diabetes that may cause an accident introduces the idea of Degrees of Risk.
The perceived risk and the degrees of risk encourages the assumption there is a bona fide need, something different than a want, for a policy to decrease the supposed difference in accident rates between Class 4 non-diabetic drivers and Class 4 type 2 diabetic drivers.
The instrument, the medical policy, is supposed to decrease the difference in the supposed accident rate and yet a study has never been done to see if this goal has been attained? And yet, the OSMV, through Iyer, demands my complaint be dropped because the goal of my complaint does not offer anything to the Human Rights Code.

The point is, this is another example of what the OSMV demands of me they do not demand of themselves. It looks at the supposed Consequences and Good of this case but not the Consequences and Good of the policy?
Is this bias? Is this because diabetics are the pariah, the Other, and do not have the same opportunities and rights as non-diabetics?

Reader, no wonder the presenters do not want to write about the consequences of the Medical Exam policy, there’s never been a starting point for them to study to understand if the policy decreases the harm.

Lastly, there are medical conditions, which can negatively impact All Human Beings’ skills and abilities. Some of these conditions are being associated with diabetes, as if they are dependent upon diabetes, to increase the degree of risk in order to justify the want for the policy. These conditions are not dependent upon diabetes.
Reader, there is a Timeline associated with these conditions that makes their Risk irrelevant to my commercial license, as I’ll be retired by the time they may express themselves.
Again, the presenters do not acknowledge this very real Timeline and its Relevance. Why?

Again, the most important condition, according to the OSMV that is reviewed for its risk is a condition called hypoglycemia, low blood sugar.
The Fear of the Risk of hypoglycemia impacting a Class 4 type 2 diabetic driver is the force behind the OSMV’ want for the Medial Examination policy not science or fact.
Readers of the presentations are not informed that hypoglycemia is not dependent upon diabetes. Why?
Reader, hypoglycemia is presented as if it is something only impacting the diabetic. Mild hypoglycemia is what happens to all people when their bodies need fuel to run on. Mild hypoglycemia is when our bodies feel hungry so we eat. Severe hypoglycemia is usually the conclusion of hypoglycemia unawareness which usually is associated with type 1 diabetes as the body become less conscious of the innate, inherent, or natural mechanisms that are breaking down due to years of type 1 diabetes, which a body is dependent upon insulin which causes long term problems.
The important thing to remember is that these conditions do not express to all type 1 diabetics and certainly are not a High Risk occurrence for type 2 diabetics.
(Apply this to Dobbs’ #14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, as it seems she has forgotten to inform you of these facts. Also apply these to Iyer’s # 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, and 50, as it seems she has forgotten to inform you of these facts. The statements about hypoglycemia and insulin use are just general knowledge. The Canadian Diabetes Association offers easy access to the information especially though their publication “Diabetes Dialogue.” The information is not esoteric only for the educated. It’s available in libraries, online, doctors, nurses, dieticians, diabetic clinics, universities, and numerous journals if you want to pay and of course the American publication “Diabetes Care” run by the American Diabetes Association.

My point is, it is what is done with the science that counts. How is it that the above was not attended too?
Are you less afraid of hypoglycemia now that you have been informed of what it really is and how prevalent it is? Don’t forget type 1 diabetics only represent approximately 0.25-0.50% of society and less for driving and less again for commercial driving. Type 2s are less that 5.0% as the whole population of diabetics is only approximately 5.0% and less for driving and less for commercial driving and 80% or more of type 2 diabetics manage their high sugar levels with exercise and food management which means less than 1 in 5 type 2s use any oral or insulin intervention. And most use Metformin, which is not associated with hypoglycemia, which means the opportunity for hypoglycemia unawareness therefore severe hypoglycemia is below a Low Risk.
So, we have less that 1 in 5 type 2s using medication intervention, or less than 1 person in a 100. Of this 1.0%, at most, 80% use Metformin or other non-hypoglycemic medications. This leaves us with only 20% of 1% using medication that may cause hypoglycemia, which may lead to severe hypoglycemia if the diabetic never learns about what is happening to him or her. Don’t forget these are prescription medications and are talked about with the doctor and pharmacist who are educating the diabetic.
Why is it that the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby never acknowledge this very real Fact?
This 0.20% of a person is then divided into the different users groups of oral or insulin use.
This rare number is then lessened again for driving and then again for a commercial license.

As for moderate hypoglycemia isn’t that what happens to non-diabetics when they don’t eat and don’t eat properly and work-out too much, drink too much, do too many drugs, both legal and non-legal, travel and upset their body balance, and get snarly with their kids, co-workers, partner, and the opposing driver (isn’t this Road Rage).
Reader, events must be put into the Real World. The above happens to non-diabetics probably more that diabetics, especially when considering type 2s as their problem is High Blood Sugar not low blood sugar. More to non-diabetics because they represent 95% of society and have no idea of diabetes and low blood sugar. It must also be stated that low blood sugar is associated with diabetics and ‘that condition does not happen to non-diabetics, it only happens to them (the diabetic), they are not the Other, and it definitely does not happen to us.’
Do you think the cops ever ask the non-diabetic accident driver if she or he is low blood sugar? Of course not as low blood sugar is associated with diabetics and the non-diabetics know they would never experience something that is only associated with diabetics.
Do you ever wonder why starving people just lay about? Low blood sugar, no energy due to low blood sugar among other things but no food is the primary influence.
Do you ever wonder why hungry children and younger ones just lay about? No energy due to low blood sugar, hypoglycemia among other things and they do not know how to tell us.

My point is, the starving and hungry do not have diabetes, which is defined by high blood sugar. They have hypoglycemia as their body fat and body muscles cannot supply them with the carbohydrates, sugar, to survive.
Hypoglycemia is not bound to diabetics. The anti-diabetics only present it as such.

My point is, the language of the above sections really is fearful language, increases Fear/Risk Factor. There is no Context offered, within the diabetes dialogue, increases Fear/Risk Factor. There is no context offered, within the non-diabetic dialogue, increases Fear/Risk Factor. Dobbs’ # 19 and Iyer’s 49 refer to larger vehicles, which the Class 4 license is not about; where is the context of taxi, small passenger vehicles, ambulance, and school bus in all this?

So it seems the OSMV wants to use the measuring tool called Risk to justify the policy. Risk associated with diabetes and no Risk associated with government policy. As if the OSMV is above Risk.
As the government has refused to respond to my questions about the consequences to their actions and Dobbs and Iyer do not discuss the consequences and good we must ask, “Why?”
Why, because the acknowledgement of consequences of the medical policy is too Risky.
It’s more than a High Risk, it is the maximum Negative High Risk and there are liabilities attached to consequences and no good that the OSMV does not want to attend to.




Risk

Dobbs emphasizes Risk. The fact is the three presentations are Persuasive presentations and a criterion for that style of writing is uncertainty, Risk is uncertainty; different levels of risk should be defined.
Uncertainty allows for in-exactitudes, it allows time for the reader to personalize statements and construct places the writer does not need to define.
Uncertainty heightens our awareness of the unknown, diabetes, which begets fear, which increases the Degree of Risk. If the Persuasive presentation defines events exactly then only one-counter statement can make the whole presentation fail.
Persuasive essays are risky adventures if they define the event to well.
So, what you’re told about justification is that the OSMV presentation is now about Risk not fact.
However, every subject in the world has degrees of risk, or degrees of worth, within that subject. We all ask, are things worth the Risk of doing?
There are Degrees of Risk within diabetes as well as for the Medical Examination policy.
Risk can be defined as Low Risk, Medium Risk, and High Risk, Negative and Positive.
However, everything against diabetics seems to be presented as Negative High Risk.

Although, Dobbs does mention “the risk is less” and “very low” in # 18. But as Risk is not defined how do we know what she is talking about. This is just more of the self-evident stuff, nothing defined but we are just supposed to know what risk she is talking about and then decrease it.
For type 2s it is less than a Low Risk or for most of the 5% not at all.
If a type 2s manages their diabetes with exercise and food management the idea is to decrease their high blood sugar, they are always high which defines diabetes, not low blood sugar. Hypoglycemia is due to intervention. Metformin and similar medications do not, do
“not cause weight gain or hypoglycemia and works well in a combination with some other diabetes pills and insulin.” (Your Guide of Diabetes Medications, supplement in Diabetes Dialogue, spring, 2006)

Reader, we always need to be critical of the Persuasive presentations’ language, context, and relevance. For the most part the sections on hypoglycemia present the condition as ever present, expressing all the time, expressing to all diabetics, and that diabetes is more prevalent than the % just mentioned, and that diabetics cannot and do not respond to mild hypoglycemia, moderate hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia. The Cox study debunks this idea.

I must mention that hypoglycemia expressing to non-diabetics would be a Negative High Risk against the proponents of the policy therefore this fact has not been mentioned.

Low Risk stated one hundred times does not mean High risk. It means quiet the opposite. If an apple is cut in two, then the two are cut, then the four are cut, and then the eight are cut we would not have very big pieces would we?
A Low Risk, of a Low Risk, of a Low Risk, of a Low Risk means Lower Risk, it’s an exponential thing, driving the Low Risk to places where the event is not relative, something insignificant.
However, the Persuasive presentations try to reverse this fact.

Risk needs to be defined within this discrimination complaint to establish Relevance with real connections and context to the matter in hand.
High Risk can be defined as places where the Respondents do not want to go, such as reviewing the DME for a real need, acknowledging and reviewing the consequences of the medical policy upon diabetics, Medical Services, and society as a whole. The OMSM also refuses to acknowledge the lack of Good due to the High Risk involved with never proving Good resulting from the policy. High Risk can be associated with the Hines case concerning diabetic policy of not being a pressing and substantial concern, which also introduces the real and pressing concern of Timelines in which the government has to prove their wants.

Low Risk is hard to define for the type 2s. The facts are that for type 2s mild hypoglycemia is not present other than being hungry as non-diabetics become as their problem is high blood sugar.
Moderate hypoglycemia will not impact most, 4 out of 5, type 2s as they manage their diabetes without oral medications or insulin, they are high blood sugar and decrease their high blood sugar through exercise and food management, so the 1 out of 5 type 2s left in, which in reality is only less than 1% of the population. Within that group the type 2 may take the most favourable oral medication Metformin, mentioned above, or insulin supplements, which are taken at sleep time, therefore not driving, therefore no risk at all.
This leaves us with oral medications such as the insulin secretagogues, which can cause hypoglycemia therefore not recommended without critical reflection on the doctors’ behalf.
The real question is, what percent of the diabetic type 2 population takes secretagogues as this type of medication can be liability and the doctors know this? We are now talking about less than 0.10 of 1% of the population with type 2s being less than 5.0% of the population.
Is this really a Low Risk or something not significant. When we diminish the type 2s by secretagogues and again with drivers and then again commercial drivers, and Class 4 again does this insignificant number really define low. It’s below any reasonable idea of Low.
If we banish secretagogues there would be no risk of hypoglycemia to the type 2 diabetic.
Is this why Risk is never defined.

Medium Risk for a type 2 is somewhere in between. Hypoglycemia may be a medium risk for those type 2s when the term of ‘may’ is used when assuming a type 2 may experience hypoglycemia, then when it may express when driving, then it may cause an accident or driver mishap, or it may be an accident causing material harm or human harm.
Actually I believe this is lower than Low Risk.
Reader, when we really try to define Risk in the context of type 2 diabetes it is apparent why the OSMV has not defined Risk.
Is the above really something reasonable to base social policy upon?
Does the risk really outweigh the harm caused by the consequences and lack of Good.
Shouldn’t the risk of severe hypoglycemia be only attached to type 1 diabetics and then that can be defined as Low, Medium, and High risk as to their impact on society and commercial driving as they only represent 0.25-0.50% of society which will be decreased again as to what license they hold.

Undefined Risk is just another strategy of the Persuasive presentation, always presenting the diabetic as a High Risk, while trying to diminish the Respondents own Risk, which is presented as non-existent because the harm is not acknowledged.
Why hasn’t the OSMV defined Risk into the needed rankings of High, Medium, Low and Negative and Positive?




Weight of the Presentations

Not only is Risk not defined but the presentations must also be evaluated as to their influence, their weight within the evaluation process.
How much do they influence the decision that proves beyond a doubt that the policy is demonstrably justified? Their weight must be defined as no one has mentioned this to me. It’s not mentioned as the public is just supposed to know these things?
We are all evaluated all the time. Why not the argument.
Again, this is something that is presented as if the weight is self-evident.
The presentations are only part of the Respondents argument in support of the OSMV policy.

My point is, the Respondents only present what they want you to read, as if the presentations represent the whole justification for the medical policy. They’re presented as if their weight is the only thing we are to evaluate to justify the medical policy. It’s an interesting ploy of the OSMV strategy to infer the presentations are weightier that their actual weight. It’s a High Risk to acknowledge Consequences, Timelines, and lack of Good.

Are the presentations worth 100% of the weight of the Respondents argument?
No.
Different people write each presentation, each with its own focus, so each presentation is evaluated independently. Each presentation will have its own weight as to its influence upon the decision as to whether the policy is valid beyond reproach, if it bona fide and reasonable justified.
As mentioned above, there is also the Referenced Material and its weight. Dobbs presents it and Iyer refers to it. It is a separate presentation to be weighted for its own worth as it tries to justify the OSMV demand.
So, the Respondents have presented two items for review, the presentations and the Referenced Material, to demonstrate the need for the Drivers’ Medical Examination policy.
However, the other four criterion needed to make a bona fide evaluation of the want for the Medical Examination have not been addressed; the Drivers’ Medical Examination and the Form, the Consequences of the policy, any Good, and the Timelines.

Science demands researchers, professors, doctors, and scientists to address the consequences of whatever is being studied especially if the conclusion is acted upon.
Government does review the consequences of their decisions but with diabetes it seems it does not believe it has an obligation or duty to do so.
It does. Whether presented or not. They have made the choice not to.

The Drivers’ Medical Examination Policy has a minimum of six components that need to be reviewed to really determine its worth therefore its justification; the Presentations approximately (16.0%), Published Material (16.0 %), the DME and Form (16.0%), the Timelines (16.0%), the Consequences (16.0%) and the Good of the policy (16.0%). 16x6=96. There are no half marks as each section will be graded as a pass or fail.

Therefore, the weight of the policy has really changed from the Respondents offer of three presentations and the Referenced Material representing the complete argument.
The 100% is now divided into six parts, 16.0% each. The presentations’ weight is again diminished, as there are three of them within that criterion.
So, the 16.0% is now divided by three giving each presentation a weight of only 6.0%. That means each presentations Real Value or Worth of only 6.0% of the whole presentation trying to justify the policy.
Why so little?
Just because the Respondents and their hired help do not mention the criterion does not mean they are not there in order to justify the Diabetic Policy.
The criteria are within the experts making, ‘what makes them, they must use’ and must be used always or there are no standards. This is really problematic as the presenters do not acknowledge Consequences, Good, the real worth of the DME and Form, and the connections between Timelines little lone all the Timelines. Nurses, doctors, researcher, lawyers always have their ‘hats’ on. They are never allowed to take them off. It is what makes them, it is part of their being as professionals within our society.
So, if the presenters do not use ‘what makes them’ what is the Real Worth of their presentations from the so-called Expert opinion?
What makes them is not really here so the presentations are just presentations from people that have been paid to write them.

The Respondents did not address four major criteria within the policy and those four items must be discussed if we are to have a bona fide discussion of the policy, its impact upon society and the diabetic, and whether or not the policy is demonstrably justified.
Also, has the policy really been shown to be a “pressing and substantial concern” when no documents have ever been presented to justify the policy?

The above is important in that it impacts you, the Reader, in how you now read the Persuasive presentations as to what their Worth really is. The inquiry is not based solely upon the support of three presentations. They are only part of this inquiry and must be evaluated as such.
Again, the Respondents have not attended to very important components within their presentation.
Then again, a Persuasive essay does not attend to such matters, as it will diminish their own presentation.
Realizing the presentations are only worth such a small percentage of the whole argument changes how one reads and evaluates the presentations worth and validity compared to the intentions of the Respondents presentation.

Lets talk about one of the presenters, Dobbs. She’s an Associate Professor in four departments and Adjunct professor in four departments at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
If I understand the Credentials correctly Dobbs instructs students and does research and has been hired by the OSMV. She has been hired to write an presentation, a Persuasive presentation, for the Respondents.
Persuasive presentations have one task, to convince the reader of something, to sell something to the reader.
The Aim of Dobbs’ essay is to support government policy. If the presentation does not present a dialogue about the physical exam, or the consequences of the policy or the Timelines, or does not expand upon ideas that would be mandatory in a Scientific Research paper, such as the consequences of the medical policy, it simply means Dobbs may not have been directed to visit these criteria of the medical policy.
However, as Dobbs is a doctor, her Curriculum Vitae (from Howie p 6), an Associate Professor in many departments, and researcher I find it interesting the consequences to the policy have not been addressed as the consequences of the actions of a doctor, an educator, or researcher’s position, or behaviour, or actions are part of the ‘Being’ of those positions within our society.

Reader, there are just too many people that don’t want these components of the policy acknowledged as existing, which makes it especially perplexing as the believed consequences of diabetes are used to justify the want for the policy and yet they refuse to acknowledged consequences of the policy and their positions in life.
Dobbs’ credentials seem to demand more weight than what the presentations are really worth, in fact it is only worth 6% of the whole whether the Respondents want to acknowledge this fact or not.
Reader, what weight of the whole policy were you led to believe the presentations were Worth?

Reader, is it too High a Risk to inform you of the weight of the essays? Was the weight just another self-evident propositions of the Respondents?

Now you know the ‘true weight of the essays’ are you as intimidated by the presentation of science?
Reader, you do not need to be an expert to evaluate the Referenced material as its worth to the matter at hand, Class 4 license and type 2 diabetes. You do not need to be an expert to evaluate Timelines, Good, Consequences, the value of the DME given every two years, or of the Unjustified changes to our universal health care system.




Persuasive Presentations Defined

Reader, fellow diabetic, type 2 diabetic, the above events that are not attended to, or fully explained, or are presented as self-evident are within the scope of the Persuasive Essay. Events such as Copyright Permission, Intellectual Rights Permission, the Weight of the essays, the Consequences, and Good are events that we all take for granted that should have been fulfilled before use or implementation of a policy. However, as you have just been informed, none of these basic demands have been acknowledged as one would believe they should have been. Persuasive presentations do not present a balanced argument; the reader is to be convinced of something, the reader is to be sold something.
Dobbs’ presentation is just that, written by an assistant university professor and we can evaluate her writing as she does her students.
Dobbs’ presentation is not a Scientific Research paper, as it is not structured as such, her peers have not reviewed it, nor is it written for peer review or she would be forced to attend to the consequences and numerous other needed criterion mentioned above. The presentation would never be offered for peer review as it is not scientific or research.

Secondly, it’s not a Scientific paper as the presentation is a review of things with general statements.
It’s not an Exploratory presentation, as it does not explore criterion like the Timelines, the medical exam, the consequences or Good.
It’s not an Informative presentation, as it does not inform, the information is selective, not balanced.
It’s a Persuasive presentation as it uses uncertainty, scary language, lots of credentials to impress, and the Fear/Risk Factor used to justify the policy.
A persuasive presentation must also introduce and balance Risk. There’s Negative Risk involved when the Respondents are discussing too much about a subject. Too much information could diminish the persuasive argument; a balanced argument could be realized and that would not be good.
Persuasive essays try to minimize harm to their argument, as exemplified through the use the Cox study, which is a High Negative Risk for the Respondents. Sometimes the persuasive essay must recognize negatives to their argument, the Cox study, in order to diminish their impact.
If possible the persuasive essay also tries to maximize the Fear/Risk Factor against the opponents’ positive argument; how to complete the definition and risk of hypoglycemia is difficult to do as I’m responding to something that has already been mentioned using repeated negative language. This is one of the reasons Iyer has also included this hypoglycemic stuff in her presentation.

So, there’s High Negative Risk involved when presenting a persuasive work on Risk itself especially with someone like me that just doesn’t believe and accept 174 Researched articles at face value.

A Persuasive essay uses uncertainty to raise the level of Fear therefore Risk. Uncertainty allows for in-exactitudes, it allows time for the reader to personalize the essay’s vague statements and construct places the essayist does not need to define; the idea of protection from the unknown manifests. The readers themselves implant the idea that the subject being discussed is worse than initially believed, which is what the persuasive essayist wants; the reader unknowingly constructing the Other through persuasion.
Uncertainty heightens our awareness of the unknown, which heightens our level of fear, which increases the degree of risk, which the policy is based upon. If the Persuasive presentation wanders from its task and defines the subject exactly or balanced then there is no unknown, and the uncertainty and fear diminish.
Persuasive presentations are risky adventures if they define the subject to well.

A good persuasive essay should convince the reader of something and the reader should not comprehend that anything has taken place, that they have been manipulated.
How do you feel about the 174 Referenced materials.

Dobbs’ essay is no more or no less than what is expected from a third or fourth year university student that Dobbs’ may be instructing. The information she presents is not esoteric, not privileged to only associate professors, researchers, or doctors.
The information can be retrieved online, through your doctor, through the Canadian Diabetes Association, through diabetic clinics, through books and articles written by doctors, nurses, researchers, professors, assistant professors, associate professors, adjunct professors, scientists, libraries, and the information is also available through the diabetic experience. The information is available to all.

Reader, we have a Right and an obligation to criticize and evaluate this presentation just as Dobbs would do to her students or her peers would do to her if the essay were ever offered for peer review.
We have a duty and obligation to question the presentation as it’s a Persuasive work using persuasion within a science and medical setting and we know Good Science needs no persuasion.
I’ll criticize her presentation and give it a mark, pass or fail, so should you. We can use Pass of Fail because it’s only worth 6% and not worth dividing it again into five or six grades as her students receive.

Don’t forget Persuasive presentations do not investigate the “whys” in life as the essay’s Aim is to persuade you to visualize the subject, Class 4 type 2 diabetics, as a risky person in order to justify the Medical Examination policy.
Reader, the presentations never acknowledge that diabetics visit doctors, are under doctors’ care for diabetes. It is just another one of those things, which would decrease the OSMV presentation, it is too High a Negative Risk to do such a thing.
Any medication used by a doctor is monitored by a doctor, which takes me there every three months. Not to mention doctor care implies diabetics do not seek doctor care therefore they are painted as irresponsible and a social pariah and sneaky trying to hide from the OSMV and its unjustified policy and the classifications and registration as a liability.
This sets the diabetic up as the Other.
To me, because Dobbs is all the thing she lists on page 1 of her Curriculum Vitae she has an obligation to inform the readers about diabetic health care especially when concerning hypoglycemia and the medications she talks about; they are all monitored by laws and doctors and pharmacists.
Dobbs informs us she is a doctor. Why hasn’t she informed readers of diabetic doctor care.
Dobbs’ presentation fails just on this point. There are standards to be met as she is not allowed to take her hats off.
Reader, how do you define this? Now add the 174 Referenced materials.

The diabetic is constructed as a liability that is so irresponsible the government does not need to fulfill the demands of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Code, and the Motor Vehicle Act. That’s what Dobbs has been paid to do, persuade you to believe.

Hopefully my information and questions allow you to understand the Aim of the Persuasive presentation as to its lack of information, use of language, and how readers are led to believe things are self-evident. Persuasive essays are also used to protect redundant events as there really is no support for them anymore or maybe there never has been so persuasion is used.


Who Am I?

I’m just Canadian. I live in British Columbia.
I’m a Canadian that discovered, in 1999, he had the condition diabetes, type 2 diabetes.
I was ordered to take a medical exam or I would loose my licence. The medical exam is supposed to measure hypoglycemia, low blood sugar, which is supposed to impact me while driving. This is supposed to produce an elevated accident rate for the diabetic drivers.
From what I had read about diabetes and more specifically type 2 diabetes I questioned the ability of the medical exam to predict and prevent hypoglycemia and more specifically predict and prevent hypoglycemia while I was driving or even if I would experience hypoglycemia driving or not.
In 2002 I questioned the want for the Medical Examination policy as it did not seem to be a bona fide need.

I’ve asked so many excellent questions about the program, the want for the program, the consequences of the program, and if there were any benefits of the program that the B C Human Rights Tribunal agreed to review my inquiry about being treated differently without bona fide reasons.
The HRT reviewed all my letters to the government and all the responses from the government and decided that my questions were important enough that we, as a society, should review the worthiness of the government medical examination policy through my complaint of discrimination.

Some very knowledgeable people deemed my complaint so worthwhile that they agreed to intervene on my part and societies.
It’s my ideas they’re contemplating not me.
The HRT has not personalized this. This is important to remember.
They don’t care if I’m young or old, what colour I am, tall or short, thin or large, male or female, working or not, educated or not. It’s the world of ideas that they’re interested in.
They have no bias or prejudice.
This is the world I’m asking you to experience for a few hours while you read my Response to the Respondents.
Reader, this is important to remember, as the only reason the OSMV gave me as to why the OSMV is doing this to me is that in their “view” it is ok to do.
This means that some people have personalized this demand, as they have no documents to justify their demands.
Civil servants give up their “view” and personal wants when they become civil servants. I believe they sign an oath of conduct for their positions within government. So, what are they doing basing this policy on their “view” or personal wants?

My point is, that for this discussion this is who I am, nothing else is relevant. I’m just someone presenting ideas, excellent ideas that have proven to be worthwhile exploring.
It’s essential to remember that my ideas are so important that what the HRT is stating that the OSMV Medical Program Policy should be reviewed by an agency outside of government influence.
This says volumes for the Credentials of my ideas. And I haven’t been paid for this either.

Reader, remember that the OSMV hired an associate professor, researcher, and doctor when hiring Dobbs. I will not be able to hire a doctor to review and contradict the doctor, as doctors do not speak against their colleagues in such matters.
Secondly, it may be difficult to find an academic to speak against the associate professor in such matters. However, maybe someone with an interest in the ownership of the Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights may like to present.
The nice thing about the above and what follows is that I have no affiliation with doctors and academics and do not owe them anything. I do not owe the OSMV as all the Respondents do. I can ask questions their colleagues will not and cannot.
Lastly, as a Canadian with rights and freedoms I demand ‘they use what makes them’ in their concern with me, which it is clear they have not. They are not naïve bystanders in this Response.



Once again I must remind you.
Have Fun.

Deconstruct my Response as you like, as long as you are as critical with the Respondent as you are with me.

Don’t forget you’re now a type 2 diabetic, presented as a liability, viewed as the Other, a Monster, with no Charter Rights or Human Rights and if you want to do more than just survive in this circumstance you better learn to have fun or you Risk having the Anti-diabetics and discrimination eat you up and crush you.
Ask lots of questions?

So, lighten up and have fun reading this because we all perform better when we’re having fun.



Don’t ever forget, that in 1999 5% of society was diabetic.
By 2006 the Ministry of Health informed me that 9% of society was diabetic. (copy included)
It was previously believed that about as many people probably have diabetes as those that know they have it, thus about 9%. I have used that 9% in some of my correspondence but lately have come to believe the 9% might just be the believed total that was presented to me.

Nevertheless an epidemic is believed to be on the way, which means 1 in 3 or 4 will become diabetic.
This means you or six or more of your extended family of 20 will become diabetic.
Will you just accept this anti-diabetic policy, which turns you into a pariah and makes unjustified demands upon you?
When you take your parents or children to the Emerge and are overcome by the overcrowding and you remember my Discrimination Complaint will you remain quiet?

Reader, during my inquiry about the policy, 2002-2003 I brought forward the consequences of the policy. The policy should have been put on hold until changes were made. Not because I haven’t proved discrimination but because it is only based upon personal beliefs, the policy has never been studied to prove it can do what it is alleged to be able to do, predict, prevent and manage they believed problem of hypoglycemia, and that the policy has never been proved to offer any Good.
All this applies today.
The Drafts do not justify the policy.
They do not prove the Driver’s Medical Examination can predict, prevent, or manage hypoglycemia.
They do not acknowledge the consequences.
They do not offer any proven Good.
They focus upon the penalties.

One must be found guilty of something before one is penalized. This is Canada. As demonstrated in the above there really is no risk of medium or severe hypoglycemia for more than most type 2 diabetics.
Response to Dobbs’ Presentation by a Person with type 2 diabetes




Qualifications and Expertise

First of all, Dobbs is not a diabetic. According to her credentials Dobbs has not published, nor spoken, or presented on diabetes.
She has not published on hypoglycemia.
She has not published on hypoglycemia unawareness.
She has not published on severe hypoglycemia.
Hypoglycemia is the condition used to rationalize the driver’s medical policy against diabetics.
Dobbs is outside the world I live in and she’s looking in.
Dobbs’ presentation must be reviewed through the eyes of a diabetic.

It is clear Dobbs has been a consultant for panels, review processes, and expert witness.
Dobbs uses her own publications to enhance the References. However, those two published materials are about dementia and old age.
My complaint is not about dementia or old age. This is just padding.
As a diabetic I wonder why she has been brought into the argument at this time as her expertise is in the field of “Gerontology, Dementia patients, older adults, older drivers, seniors, cognitively impaired, no longer drive, age-related disease, mental illness.”

My point is, Dobbs is an expert in our later years. This is important to acknowledge, as there is/are Timelines within the condition diabetes. I may only become type 1 diabetic if I live long enough and many of the conditions associated with diabetes may only present themselves later on in life.
The average life span of a Canadian is 85. That means these conditions may present themselves when I’m about 70-75 years old, or later, or if at all.
This means that I will have been retired for 10-15 years as a commercial driver, if I retire at 61, which is when the average Canadian retires.
Additionally, who says I will be driving a car after retirement or any of us in 25 years and what kind of cars will they be?

Secondly, I can’t be penalized for things the OSMV thinks will impact me in 25 years; it’s against the law.
This is another example of why the OSMV does not want to review their policy’s consequences because when we look at the argument it doesn’t make sense nor is it bona fide.
The whole point of using Dobbs and her expertise in Gerontology, Dementia patients, older adults, older drivers, seniors, Cognitively impaired, no longer drive, age-related disease, and mental illness is to increase the Fear/Risk factor as her presentation of future medical conditions.
However, they are not Relevant to Commercial driving.
The Timeline of future medical conditions that may express themselves in the future, diabetic or not, and the Timeline of driving, a Working Timeline, are not connected to each other in order for the reader to bring Context and Relevance to the complaint of discrimination.

What this lack of connections means is that without science and facts the Fear factor of future medical conditions are to be introduced as a Persuasive instrument to support the anti-diabetic DME policy.

A Curriculum Vita should define her expertise, as that’s why she has listed the publications.
What’s glaringly clear is that Dobbs has never published on Diabetes, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia unawareness, severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia and driving, hypoglycemia induced through medication, or Class 4 drivers.

My point is, it’s important to note the above conditions, as they are the focus of what Dobbs is to address. One would think that if the conditions noted above were as detrimental as the OSMV and Dobbs has portrayed them she would have researched and published something to support and prove her point. She hasn’t.
It’s apparent that the detrimental consequences of above conditions, in relation to type 2 diabetes, are not worthwhile researching, as we’ll probably not be driving when they impact us.
The negative impact, upon society, in reference to driving accidents, is such a rare event that it’s not worth her time and resources or anyone else’s to properly research at this Timeline in our society.
The Timelines, concerning diabetes, future complications, and driving, are important to remember as no connection to each other are acknowledge by the Respondents, which would bring the needed Relevance to whole argument.

We must also remember that Dobbs’ References and driving focus is about type 1 diabetes and we must be vigilant as to the conditions of type 1 diabetes are not loaded upon type 2 diabetes.
Today diabetes is really defined as two separate events; type 1 and type 2 and the potential consequences of each are very different. The Dobbs presentation is an Analogous argument presenting type 1 and type 2 as equivalent. It’s such a different condition that even the Drivers’ Medical Examination frequencies are different.

My point is, Dobbs is not an expert in this field of knowledge, she’s not an expert in diabetes, hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia caused by diabetes medication, or hypoglycemia and commercial driving.
As a diabetic I have a great interest in hypoglycemia as it’s supposed to impact me more than non-diabetics and I’m penalized for that belief.
My special interest in hypoglycemia is with type 2 diabetes as my diabetes is here to stay, or that’s what society believes today.
My special interest in hypoglycemia is with type 2 diabetes medication as my diabetes is here to stay, or that’s what society believes today.
My special interest and critical thinking about hypoglycemia and type 2 diabetes has allowed me to gain an understanding of hypoglycemia that’s not mentioned within Dobbs’ presentation.
What I’ve come to understand about hypoglycemia, as it pertains to type 2 diabetes, is that, if all other things are considered equal, a non-diabetic will experience hypoglycemia before I will, not the other way around as that is the nature of the disease; high blood sugar.
Isn’t this interesting that non-diabetics forget to mention this fact.

My point is, Dobbs’ published materials are simply used to enhance her position within this essay.
Her research does not substantiate any claim to expertise in the field of type 2 diabetes by itself, hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia in relation to type 2 diabetes, nor hypoglycemia caused by diabetes medication, or commercial driving.
Don’t forget, Dobbs will just be paraphrasing all the material about diabetes, she never wrote it, as the material is available through numerous resources worldwide. It’s how she uses it and what’s not said that’s important.

My point is, Persuasive presentations do not tell all. Things are not said, as the Aim of the work is to persuade the reader to believe and support a certain subject or buy into something.

The above is an example of the critical thinking needed to review a persuasive presentation. Nothing can be taken for granted, as the presentation is not a scientific research paper, which if published by certain journals, would be criticized by the authors’ peers, which would demand all facts and a balanced argument. Secondly, the response a Persuasive Presentation but can Dobbs really disassociate herself from being an associate professor and present a work that’s so selective in what it offers that the reader must criticize every paragraph as to what is being stated and what isn’t, as demonstrated above?
Surely, there are standards that Dobbs must adhere to because of the privileged position of authority, trust, power, and prestige she holds as an associate professor, researcher, and educator? ‘What makes her she must also use.”

My point is, don’t forget Reader, you’re wearing my shoes for a few hours.
Also, you must remember that the OSMV has Classified you, Labelled you, Given you a number, Forced you to take a medical exam, and they’ll Track you for the rest of your life.
You are also penalized for conditions, associated with diabetes, which may express themselves in the future.
Since being involved with the government, senior civil servants have stated that the medical policy saves lives. In other words, diabetics are killing people and that is more than enough to justify the policy. No proof of accidental deaths was/has been offered. No proof of Good was/has been offered.
The OSMV broke the Out of Court Settlement contract.
An amendment was made to the contract and implemented but I was not involved.

Diabetics and society cannot give up the Right to pose questions as to why people are doing things to us, especially those in privileged positions that do not acknowledge the consequences of their own actions.




Reference Material

My review of the Referenced Material will demonstrated that the medical policy is not “substantiated” or “reasonably justified” as only approximately seventeen of the materials refer to type 2 diabetes and with approximately seven including both type 1 and type 2. The Cox study, 2003, debunks the older studies especially the studies that only look a hypoglycemia and are not about driving or commercial driving.

I must again state the some of the materials are just padding to make the Reference list seem more impressive than it really is.
Additionally, I don’t know why some of the materials are there.
Take the very first article. Abraira, C. It is from 1995 and about type 2 diabetes and insulin use. It was very relevant when I became type 2. It states,
“Severe Hypoglycemia was rare (two events per 100 patients per year) and not significantly different between the groups, nor were changes in weight, blood pressure, or plasma lipids.)

My point is, the very first article used against me actually supports my complaint. If there is no difference then that means there is no difference in mild or moderate hypoglycemia as they pre-empt severe hypoglycemia.

So why has Dobbs used this against me? What does this say about the rest of not only the rest of the Referenced material but the articles on type 2s?
Secondly, this article really exemplifies how insignificant the problem of hypoglycemia is. This study is about non-insulin-dependent use. Two events per 100 patients per year. Risk is defined to the Real World. It is really small.
It is insignificant.
It is less than Low Risk.
Now we need to put non-insulin-dependent into the Real World to exemplify how insignificant the believed problem is.
The following is from the above, pages 29-30, but must be said again.

My point is, it is what is done with the science that counts. How is it that the above was not attended too? (The above I’m referring to is what has not been told of hypoglycemia.)
Are you less afraid of hypoglycemia now that you have been informed of what it really is and how prevalent it is? Don’t forget type 1 diabetics only represent approximately 0.25-0.50% of society and less for driving and less again for commercial driving. Type 2s are less that 5.0% as the whole population of diabetics is only approximately 5.0% and less for driving and less for commercial driving and 80% or more of type 2 diabetics manage their high sugar levels with exercise and food management which means less than 1 in 5 type 2s use any oral or insulin intervention. And most use Metformin, which is not associated with hypoglycemia, which means the opportunity for hypoglycemia unawareness therefore severe hypoglycemia is below a Low Risk.
So, we have less that 1 in 5 type 2s using medication intervention, or less than 1 person in a 100. Of this less than 1.0%, 80% use Metformin or other non-hypoglycemic medications. This leaves us with only 20% of 1% using medication that may cause hypoglycemia, which may lead to severe hypoglycemia if the diabetic never learns about what is happening to him or her. Don’t forget these are prescription medications and are talked about with the doctor and pharmacist who are educating the diabetic.
Why is it that the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby never acknowledge this very real Fact?
This 0.20% or less of a person is then divided into the different users groups of oral or insulin use. I don’t know the split. However, the study is reviewing a very small population or a very insignificant population when considering type 2 diabetes.
This rare number is then lessened again for driving and then again for a commercial license.

As for moderate hypoglycemia isn’t that what happens to non-diabetics when they don’t eat and don’t eat properly and work-out too much, drink too much, do too many drugs, both legal and non-legal, travel and upset their body balance, and get snarly with their kids, co-workers, partner, and the opposing driver (isn’t this Road Rage).
Reader, events must be put into the real world. The above happens to non-diabetics probably more that diabetics, especially when considering type 2s as their problem is High Blood Sugar not low blood sugar. More to non-diabetics because they represent 95% of society and have no idea of diabetes and low blood sugar. It must also be stated that low blood sugar is associated with diabetics and ‘that condition does not happen to non-diabetics, they are not the Other, it only happens to them, and it definitely does not happen to us.’
Do you think the cops ever ask the non-diabetic accident driver if she or he is low blood sugar? Of course not as low blood sugar is associated with diabetics and the non-diabetics know they would never experience something that is only associated with diabetics.
Do you ever wonder why starving people just lay about? Low blood sugar, no energy due to low blood sugar among other things but no food is the primary influence.
Do you ever wonder why hungry children and younger ones just lay about? No energy due to low blood sugar, hypoglycemia among other things and they do not know how to tell us.

Reader, the lack of Referenced Material on Commercial Class 4 drivers exemplifies how rare the incidence of hypoglycemia really is but more importantly how uninterested the scientific community, medical community, and policy makers are in documenting the policy because the research has not been funded over the past fifty years. Therefore articles such as the Abraira research is just listed. The Risk is taken that we may not review it.
So, the positive risk has turned into a High Negative Risk.
Reader, the Abraira example is what I was reading and discovering about diabetes which forces one to challenge the social construct of the Diabetic at Risk.
If there really was or is a substantiated bona fide concern the research would have been done justifying the concern with real medical evidence and statistical analysis pertaining to Class 4 type 2 diabetes.
It hasn’t been done anywhere in the world or the OSMV would have just presented that Published Material.
It hasn’t been done as it hasn’t been deemed worthwhile and only now that the OSMV is before a Human Rights Tribunal were they forced to collect stuff and present it to justify their past behaviour.
It is not “a pressing and substantial concern” or it would have been researched. (Law Commission of Canada, About Us, Reports, Research Paper, pages 3-4.)

Lastly, Reader I don’t know how much you know about diabetes or science or if you need to confirm the talk about hypoglycemia. What has been stated by both Respondents and myself is just general knowledge today, especially through the Internet. The Internet really is doing what it was invented for, giving knowledge to the world. For a review of diabetes go to Diabetes Care or PubMed as they are free and give Abstracts and Full Text. Type in diabetes and you will have millions of hits. The best thing about Diabetes Care is that it offers, “This article has been cited by other articles.” You will see that the article by Abraira has been cited by approximately 42 other articles; approximately because the list are always renewed. You will notice the list offers articles Dobbs has listed herself. The titles inform you what the study is about but you still need to read them if you are going to use them against me otherwise you will list something like the Abraira article that supports my complaint.
Click on those articles and you have other cited articles. I have never found a study on Class 4 driving. There are studies on large vehicles and diabetes but very few of them concern type 2 diabetes, so one just move on as they are not Relevant to my condition and license.
Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, Scientific Authority, and Intent


The following is about Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, Scientific Authority, and the Intent of research papers with reference to the Respondents Referenced Materials that are used to verify and support their past, current, and future demands for the medical exam policy.
There’s also a hidden agenda within the Respondents response, to establish some scientific or medical material verifying the need for the medical exam policy, as there never has been any documentation to support the policy.

Dobbs’ presentation is a business venture, she’s paid for it, which demands documentation of the material used through permission forms for the copyright and intellectual property rights that are attached to the research.
Because Dobbs is using the research for a business venture, she’s paid for the presentation and it’s used in support of government social policy, the protocol of documentation is different than for individual use or the use for scientific research papers.
The authors of the research have the legal Right to know who is using their research and for what, as there’s liability attached to the use of their research, just as the OSMV has Copyright and demands notice of Intent.
There are also responsibilities that accompany the researchers positions. This is why Dobbs has used the footnote, “For internal distribution only.”
There could be universities and companies involved, patents, company shares and options, grants, and research positions in need of protection as to who uses the research and for what.
Also, the authors of the research may not want Dobbs or the OSMV to use their research for support of a foreign governments’ social policy, little lone that government agency using the research to justify their past policy as well as current policy and future policy.
The authors may have diabetes and may reject the use of their research for restrictive government policy.
The authors may have a moral restrictions with the OSMV using their research, as they may not support the OSMV’ opinions about diabetes and diabetics.

Government is also aware of copyright and intellectual property demands and protocol.
The OSMV has copyright on all the material published on their Internet web page. If someone wants to use their material the web page directs the reader to a web page explaining copyright protocol and offers a link to the Permission Form.
Additionally, the completion of the permission form does not guarantee the OSMV will give permission to use the material, as they want to know the Intended use. They may refuse for liability purposes, moral reasons, wrong intentions, or for unknown reasons as they own it.

Some/most copyright protected material allows the reader to use the material for personal use or scientific use but the OSMV and Dobbs’ use is neither. The material is being used, privately right now, to justify a government’s social policy; for past policy, current policy, as well as for the future. Copyright protocols and Intellectual Property Rights protocol will need to be addressed if the Referenced material is moved from the “internal distribution only” to the public world, the Real World that is demanded of me.
If the Researched material was taken from an online source some websites demand copyright permission from the website owners as well as permission from the journal and owners of the material.

My point is, the Referenced Material offered by the Respondents does not include Copyright or Intellectual Property Rights permission forms. Imagine if I presented material from the OSMV website or from one of Dobbs’ research papers and did not have permission. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the full weight of the law would be applied to me, from Dobbs, the OSMV, as well as the owners of the research if Dobbs was contracted to someone to produce something. One can only imagine what would happen to me when put in context of what has/is happening to me.

Lastly, as to the hidden agenda within the Respondents Referenced Material; the OSMV is trying to use the Referenced Material to justify the medical exam policy, as there never has been any documentation to support the policy. To the best of my knowledge the OSMV has not publicly offered any scientific documents to verify the need for the medical examination policy, I’ve been inquiring since 2002. Therefore, any supporting material should be beyond any controversy as to the legality of its use and the actual intent of the scientific research.

My point is, the lack of material to justify the medical exam is what drove me to my complaint of discrimination; I’m treated differently for no demonstrably justifiable reason and the want for the medical policy has not been proven to be a pressing and substantial concern. Events conceived behind closed doors are not good enough. This is not a state secret or national defence. It is public social policy and should be able to stand-alone under public scrutiny.

My point is, the legal use of the Referenced material must be confirmed if used as the materials will be on record as accepted as bona fide documents that the government will refer to the next time someone questions the medical policy.
This is the hidden agenda within my discrimination complaint concerning medical proof, which was demanded in the Hines case. The Charter, HRC, and the MVA all demand real bona fide proof.
The legal, scientific, and social worth of the documents must be evaluated if the documents are to be used as the principal documents justifying the governments’ demands upon diabetics or society as to the want for the medical policy.
Lastly, since the research has not been established as legally given has the government really offered any “medical evidence on the effects of diabetes” on the operators of Class 4 type 2 drivers “as those effects relate to the safe operation of vehicles.” (Law Commission of Canada, p 4, concerning the Hines case.)



A review of Scientific Authority is also offered as the Referenced Materials are being offered as a bona fide seminal body of work as there never has been a body of work to justify the medical examination policy; just beliefs and the “view” that it is ok to do.



Scientific Authority Explained; its Relevance to the Published Material and the Diabetic Policy

Scientific Authority is given when research has passed scientific protocols and standards. This is done when the research is reviewed and criticized by the researcher’s peers. Evidence must also be relevant to the subject being investigated. It can’t be musings or statements about something. Researchers know this. They specifically ask their peers to review their work for this very public and scientific acknowledgement. The Respondents can’t take Published Material, mostly material that has nothing to do with Class 4 driving, nothing to do with the Timeline of Commercial driving, and type 1 materials and just arbitrarily give it Scientific Authority and then transfer that arbitrary authority over type 2 diabetes.

The best example I can give defining Scientific Authority is what Banting and his colleagues did when they presented their work on Diabetes. Their peers, from all over the world, Criticized the work and found the work had indeed meet standards and protocol. It was given Scientific Authority. It still has that designation today. It’s a very serious and prestigious designation. Banting changed the world and made it a better place.
The anti-diabetic lobby has a long way to go before they gain bona fide Scientific Authority. The only way for them to make the world a better place is admit their policy is harmful, lacks any Good, and is outdated therefore cancelling the policy due a lack of bona fide scientific support would be a Good thing. It would also allow doctors to doctor again not fill out useless forms.

A good example of poor science and the seriousness of the peer review have just played out. A researcher in Korea applied for Scientific Authority pertaining to his work on Stem cells. His peers, from all over the world, found that his work did not meet standards and protocol. His work has been dismissed as poor science and he’s lost all accountability in the science community. The same happened with the two researches that published on cold fusion.

For the OSMV to try and claim Scientific Authority for the Published Material is wrong.
My point is, reader do you really know what the OSMV is trying to do with the Published Material? Every other jurisdiction or province in Canada will try and use the Published Material to justify their policy.
What the OSMV is doing here is really wrong. It’s wrong scientifically, legally, and morally.
Reader, that’s why there are review boards, such as the ‘National Research Council Canada’ and the ‘National Academy of Sciences’ in the USA to judge scientific research as to its credibility, to see if it rises to standards and protocol.
It’s also done to stop presentations, such as the Respondents’ collection of Published Material, from claiming Scientific Authority, before the researcher’s published material is misused and to make sure the Intent of the research is used properly.

Not all researchers ask for Scientific Authority, their work is not done with the intention of asking for the review.
The package or document, presented by the Respondents, consisting of research articles, books, and musings of people, the Zimmet P article, has been presented as Scientific Authority for what the OSMV has done to me, is doing to me, and most importantly what they want to do to me in the future.

If the OSMV had any documents with Scientific Authority in this matter they would have presented them to me in 2002 when I was asking for the documents supporting their policy. More importantly, they would have directed me to a Canadian or International body of work similar to what they have presented to us but they did not. They did not, nor can they do so today because no one in the world has ever published a seminal or definitive papers or package, which has Scientific Authority, to support the OSMV medical examination policy and their intrusion into my life.
There’s been fifty years plus of research into this matter, diabetes and driving, and no one has put together a seminal piece of work to justify the restrictive and discriminatory policy against type 1 or type 2 diabetics and now the OSMV is trying to slip the Published Materials in as the seminal work demonstrably justifying their demand.
Again, it’s wrong scientifically, professionally, and ethically.
This is how I’m treated as a diabetic. I am the Other and everything can be done to me without explanation.


A Review of the Referenced Materials

The Referenced materials are from World. The OSMV has gone international in scope. By that I mean they are saying this is a seminal piece of work on their part, I use seminal in the context of first time. Other government offices in Canada and possibly the world will see this as acceptable science for their programs unless this collection of stuff is taken to task and defined for what it is, a poor presentation of science and stuff.
The Respondents have not earned the right to use the material, scientifically nor legally, little lone present the material as the very first work to define government policy restricting Class 4 type 2 diabetic drivers.

Firstly, the choice of the term “Referenced” Material in itself tries to sway the reader that someone or an organization has given authority to the “Referenced” material. This is not true for the individual work little lone pretending that these individual works, put together, represent a definitive body of work, to base government policy on.
Don’t forget the government has not documented that the authors of the published works have given permission to a foreign government or provincial government to use their research to make social policy.
The so-called, “Referenced” material has been assembled to infer Scientific Authority therefore justifying the Respondents behaviour as “demonstrably justified.” The OSMV’ body of work does not have Scientific Authority and the OSMV needs to be challenged on that.

Secondly, the OSMV has never put together a body of work to “demonstrably justify” the need for the medical examination policy.
Why I can say this is that if there were a body of work I would have been referred to this material as I started my inquiry with the OSMV in July 2002.
It must be remembered that all of this material, their collection of material, has only showed up after my enquiry became a Human Rights complaint.
So, what they’re offering is a collection of stuff to demonstrably justify their past, present, and future behaviour.
Again the Respondents must be challenged as to their authority to claim this.

Lastly, as Journal or research articles have Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights attached to them there is also Intent associated with the research. Is the intent of the research specifically for government social policy, business ventures, or what?
Is the research for curiosity and published for the benefit of humanity? Have all requests of the researchers concerning the use of their research been fulfilled before the use of the research?
If the government does not respect the requests of the researchers as to the results of their research what does that say about the governments respect for the researchers copyright and intellectual property rights?
Reader, what does this say about how the OSMV treats the readers of their Referenced material?
If I hadn’t informed you of such wouldn’t you have just believed everything was bona fide and just followed along?

Secondly, Cox, D. J, et al is from 2003 and I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in February 1999. The Cox study is being used as ammunition against me but is four years after the fact.
Not only that the Cox study supports my complaint as it exemplifies that there is no difference in non-diabetic and type 2 drivers whether managing without medication or using oral or insulin supplements.
Using science after the fact is not Good enough to reasonably justify a social policy.

Third, there are approximately 50 articles on type 1 diabetes. My complaint is about type 2 and I may never become type 1 especially within the Timeline of commercial driving and then private driving.

My point is, the Analogous Argument has been introduced through the presentation of the published material; readers are inundated with type 1 articles used to infer that type 1 and type 2 are to be treated equally and that the consequences of type 1 are to be transferred to type 2.
Don’t forget my complaint is about type 2 diabetes not type 1. They are not the same condition with the same Timelines of development of consequences and complications.

Lastly, what is the context of Bergada, L. et al., “Severe hypoglycemia in IDDM children." (1989) IDDM is Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, it’s the old label for type 1. I am not a child. I am not type 1. It has been used for matters other than that which it was Intended. I’m not even going to read it. No one should as it is just padding.

I read nothing within the Published Materials that informs you and I that the Respondents asked for and were given permission to use the research and stuff and to use them as they have,
i.e.; that the work has been combined with other work and used as Scientific Authority to justify restrictive actions done to people with the condition diabetes, specifically type 2 diabetes
i.e.; to be used to make government policy by civil servants of a foreign country (Canada)
i.e.; that most of the published material is about type I diabetes and yet my complaint is about type 2 diabetes, and the OSMV is transferring the believed conditions and consequences of type 1 diabetes to type 2.
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are different conditions with different consequences.


The OSMV materials by title concerning type 2 diabetes are:
Abraira, Allen, American Diabetes Association 2004, Benedetti, Burant, Edelman, Jennings, Miller, Rosenstock, Shichire, Stratton, UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group 1998a, UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group 1998b, Zammitt, Zimmet.

However, American Diabetes Association 2004 seems to be the same as Burant and Diller and Vernon are also the same article.

There are a few articles that study both type 1 and type 2, such as the Cox study.

There are also articles such as the American College of Endocrinology 2004, which may attend to type 2 but “intensive diabetes self-management usually refers to insulin use for those that are having problems managing their (hypo)glycemia, high blood sugar.
I’m sure the Canadian Diabetes Association’s articles mention type 2 and hypoglycemia but I have not received anything from the CDA on Class 4 driving and hypoglycemia and the OSMV has not sent me anything from the CDA that justifies the policy, proves the examination can do what it is alleged to be able to do, predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia, nothing to justify the consequences of the policy little lone compared to the believe harm of the diabetic drivers, nor anything that proves the policy offers any Good to society little lone the diabetic.
The CDA is a great organization but it does not attend to any of the above. I do not believe they have a mandate to challenge government in such a way. I wonder what would happen if they did? Do you think funding would disappear if they did?

The other items are included to pad the report, to make it seem more Official and Weighted than it really is.

We need to ask the question, “So what?” about a great many of the published materials as to the relevance to my Class 4 type 2 diabetes complaint.

My point is, the Referenced material will not stand up as Scientific Authority as the research articles may not have been peer reviewed or the authors did not intend to publish for Scientific Authority and some are just government publications.
Secondly, how many authors did not do their research to support a foreign countries’ social policy or this would have been stated. The Cox study declares the study is not to used against type 1 diabetics. In other words I can use their study because I’m type 2 and it is for personal use. I am not making social policy, foreign social policy, and I am being paid to write this.

Why have they offered so few articles on type 2 diabetes and hypoglycemia to support their argument and some state there is no difference in accident rates between diabetics and non-diabetic drivers?

Why have the Respondents included type 1 and type 2 articles even though some of the type 1 and type 2 articles state there is no difference in driving accident rates between type 2 diabetics and non-diabetic drivers?

Why are there no articles on Class 4 drivers, which is the focus of my complaint?

Counter productive isn’t it, to have your own argument prove there is no difference in driving accidents between diabetics and non-diabetic drivers?



OSMV’ Referenced Material about type 2 diabetes

Abraira, supports me

Allen, so what, about the elderly, therefore not Relevant

American Diabetes Association 2004, so what. This is the same as Burant. Will this really acknowledge the copyright, intellectual property rights, lack consequences, lack of good, and that their medical examination is bona fide?

Benedetti, so what. This is about nighttime type 2 insulin use and hypoglycemia. The commercial or any driver will be sleeping.
Burant, so what. This is the same as the above American Diabetes Association 2004. This is a book.
This is the book review from Barns and Noble, “More than 18 million people are living with diabetes, and the majority are type 2--a group particularly at risk for cardiovascular complications. Health care practitioners will find this comprehensive resource for type 2 indispensable, providing the most up-to-date guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, glucose control, and cardiovascular disease risk factor control as well as nutrition and exercise. Professionals will find the array of treatment options for all stages in the progression of type 2 diabetes particularly useful in self-management and behavior modification strategies.
This reference is divided into five parts:
Diagnosis and classification
Pathogenesis
Tools of therapy: nutrition, physical activity, pharmacology
Strategies for behavior change
Complications

Edelman, so what. This is a book. This is not Relevant to commercial driving or hypoglycemia.
This is a review from the publisher,
Practical management of glucose intolerance is discussed from nonpharmacologic techniques to various pharmacological therapies. Current prescribing guidelines for oral agents are included, along with information on the various insulin regimens. Guidance is provided on analyzing home glucose monitoring results.

Jennings, against me. Study on Glyburide, an insulin secretagogues, no mention of driving, no mention of percent of diabetic population using the secretagogues which are a very small percent of diabetic population as mentioned above; no mention of risk. But how relevant is an 1989 study today with new medications and knowledge of the adverse reaction to this medication?

Miller, supports me. “Conclusion. Mild hypoglycemia is common in patients with type 2 diabetes but severe hypoglycemia is rare. Concerns about hypoglycemia should not deter efforts to achieve tight glycemic control in most patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Rosenstock, supports me. A study of the new insulin, LANTUS and how it has decreased the incidents of hypoglycemia. Why it supports me is because as I have defined how low the percent of diabetics use insulin this new insulin will decrease that already insignificant number.

Shichire, so what. “Conclusion. Intensive glycemic control can delay the onset and progression of the early stages of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.”
These complications if expressed will be managed if and when they express. If they do express it takes years, which means after the Timeline of a commercial driver.

Stratton, so what. This study is about Hyper glycemia not hypo glycemia.

UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group 1998a, so what. Not Relevant to this Timeline. This study is about future medical conditions not hypoglycemia or driving.

UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group 1998b, so what. Not Relevant to this Timeline. This study is about future medical conditions not hypoglycemia or driving.

Zammitt, so what. This is not relevant to the Timeline of type 2 commercial driving.
This is a review of publications from PubMed, 1984-2005. A focus upon “age-related changes will be relevant to many people with type 2 diabetes.” The review is to say we should attend to hypoglycemia in the elderly because of the changes that come with age and we should not just believe the incidence of hypoglycemia is the same for young and middle aged.

Zimmet, so what. Just a well-meaning letter about social policy for diabetics. I should send Zimmet et al a copy of my complaint.

Reader, the review of the articles on type 2 diabetes is as follows,

Against me; 1
Supports me; 3
So what; 11
Class 4 license; 0

“So What” means they are not Relevant to my complaint, which is about type 2 diabetes and hypoglycemia and Class 4 driving.




OSMV’ Referenced Materials about type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Cox (2003), supports me. No difference in the driver mishaps between non-diabetics to type 2 diabetic drivers. Conclusion” states,
“Patients with type 2 diabetes, which is not associated with frequent hypoglycemia (13), had no increased incidence of driving mishaps compared with spouse control subjects, whether using insulin treatment or taking oral medications.”

The concluding sentence to the paragraph containing the above states,
“These findings may have implications for lifting current driving restrictions for interstate commercial license for drivers with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment.”

States future medical conditions “have not been associated with increased risk of driving mishaps.”

“Results” states, diabetics do manage hypoglycemia, recognize event and help themselves; stop driving and eat a carbohydrate, sugar. There is a lack of information about diabetics visiting doctors, learning about diabetes, and actually practicing safe driving.
The whole presentation against me does not acknowledge diabetics are visiting doctors especially those diabetics that use medications. This is important, as they are the ones that are supposed to be the Diabetic Driver at Risk even though they are less than 0.20 of 1 % of the population.
This a very powerful study and that is why the full text is available from Diabetes Care. Cox et al is also very important in the Research of Diabetes as I accessed material back to 1985. When I review the body of research on diabetes is seems they are published more and longer that any other group of researchers. The continuity and history allows them to challenge the entrenched social construct of banning “interstate commercial license for drivers with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment.”
Cox et al are referring to Large Trucks as well as the small Class 4 vehicles. It is an interesting proposal and that was in 2003.
This begs the question of, why are there restrictions against private drivers and commercial driving for diabetics not using oral medications.

Diller, so what. Not listed under Accident Analysis & Prevention as Vernon is. No journal to reference article to.

Harsch, supports me. 2002. It’s about hypoglycemia and the impact on driving for type 1 and type 2. Not commercial.
“Conclusion; Hypoglycemias during driving are rare events, their occurrence is significantly influenced by the treatment regimen and type of diabetes. Hypoglycemia-induced accidents are extremely rare, presumably as a positive effect of patient education in our group.
My doctor is educating me because he is a doctor not because he is forced to comply with legislation to perform the examination. American health care system not the same as Canadian, which inhibits doctor visitation due to cost.

Kovatchev, so what. This study is about self-monitoring blood glucose devices. It is not about driving or hypoglycemia or commercial driving.

Leese, so what. This is about the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic incidents in a town or city in Scotland. It is not about driving or commercial driving. It does not compare incidents of other medical conditions to diabetes. It doesn’t even compare the cost of the other, non-diabetics in the study. What is the Relevance of the study. I imagine NHS, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School are looking for additional funding.

Songer, so what. This is estimated risk. I wonder if the new drivers are having accidents because they are new or is it because the old drivers don’t know the new routes. I find it hard to believe that the imagined border between states causes accidents. Songer et al must have needed to make use of some grant money or maybe a need to publish.
I need to pay for the study so this is from the abstract. The study is from 1993 so what is the relevance today as diabetic drivers are still banned from interstate driving in the USA and medications and education of diabetes have greatly improved and so has the world of trucking.
This is not about Class 4 driving but Trucking.

Reader, the review of the articles on type 2 diabetes is as follows,

Against me; 0
Supports me; 2
So what; 4
Class 4 license; 0

“So What” means they are not Relevant to my complaint, which is about type 2 diabetes and hypoglycemia and Class 4 driving.



Reader, it is time again to as why has the OSMV used so many type 1 diabetes research articles?
Why has the OSMV used so many “So What” articles?
Why has the OSMV used so many other articles that are not related to type 2, Class 4, and hypoglycemia? There is approximately ninety, 90, of these articles.

I really don’t know. Are padding and deception part of Persuasive essays? Not really.
However, Dobbs has not researched so we must believe she and her cohorts have not found it worthwhile to research type 2 diabetes for itself nor have other researchers, as the research is not available for the OSMV to use, otherwise the body of work they have presented would have presented it.
It’s clear there isn’t the research to justify the policy and the body of work presented by the OSMV states there is no difference in accident rates between non-diabetic and diabetic drivers.

So, this leads one to understand the OSMV is trying to make an Analogous argument between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes because they don’t have the necessary or sufficient research to justify their policy.
In the Real World type 2 diabetes, concerning driving, commercial driving, Class 4 driving is just not a “pressing and substantial concern.”
The Respondents are trying to persuade the reader to believe that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are so similar that the consequences of one condition are the same as the consequences of the other and that both should be treated equally.
However, the difference in DME examination frequencies exemplifies the difference, as does the labelling of each into different types, as does research, and the CDA as does the American Diabetes Association.
The Analogy argument should be challenged as to the truthfulness and factuality.

Lastly, if the OSMV wants readers to review all their Referenced material maybe they should have anecdote each as I have done as the OSMV has a legal obligation to inform us of the medical evidence it uses to justify the policy. It is not the readers responsibility to debunk the Referenced material.




Putting things into Context and Relevance


My point is, disregard the padding and what have the Respondents really offered to justify the policy?

Opening Pages 1-3 are about Dobbs.
Page 3 and one paragraph on page 4 give some information about hypoglycemia.
Curriculum Vitae, pages 1-32, are about Dobbs.
One page about how to write a guide to something, a generic thing.
Referenced material, pages 61-75, 14 pages.
Thyroid Disease, pages 75-76?
We have 35 pages about Dobbs. We have approximately 1 page on hypoglycemia, which I have had to add too.
We have 14 pages of Referenced material but if we debunk the stuff and list the type 2 and hypoglycemic material Relevant to my complaint there would be less that 1 page. Of that 1 page only one article is “against me.”

My point is, it really would be silly to offer one, (1), document to justify the policy wouldn’t it.




Expert Opinion Relevant to this Case

Dobbs states, # 20, page 5 of the Opening,
“My review of the scientific and medical evidence demonstrates the nature and magnitude of the risks of the road safety of hypoglycemia in the various groups of diabetic drivers, as well as what factors increase the likelihood of hypoglycemia while driving. The restrictions on diabetic drivers in the draft policy on diabetes and driving prepared by the project team reflect and are supported by my research.”



Firstly, Dobbs uses the Cox study only because it is such a powerful statement against the anti-diabetic lobby, against diabetic driving policy, and what is believed about diabetic hypoglycemia and driving that it must be acknowledged for its worth or value to be diminished at all cost. As it is Referenced readers just believe it is against the diabetic but in fact is really is for the diabetic.
The cost is the Negative High Risk of me explained why the Cox study is being used by the Respondents, as it is not a supportive document for their defence.
What is interesting with the Cox study is that it completely debunks Dobbs presentation of future medical conditions impacting diabetic drivers. Cox et al ‘Reference’ the studies used to prove their statement.

My point is, other researchers support Cox’s statement concerning the non-impact of future medical conditions associated with diabetes. Dobbs doesn’t even acknowledge this, or criticize, or challenge, or denounce the statement with science. She just doesn’t acknowledge the statement at all. Why?

Dobbs offers no studies to prove her support, that the future medical conditions she refers to actually impact the diabetic driver little lone the commercial driver, little lone the Class 4 type 2 driver.

Dobbs has been too narrow in her presentation of commercial driving with the documentation of Large Truck studies and nothing on Class 4 driving. Large trucks, class 1, 2, and 3 are not equivalent to Class 4 in any kind of similarity.
Dobbs brings the Analogous Argument into play trying to transfer or dump the life experiences of Large Truck operators; air break equipment such as tractor trailer, tractor trailer with pups, dump trucks, dump trucks with pups, cement trucks, large construction equipment, moving trucks, logging trucks, fire trucks, and off highway trucks, onto Class 4 drivers which are non-air break equipment such as taxi, ambulance, small capacity vehicles, and school buses.
The world of large trucks cannot just be transferred or dumped upon taxi drivers.


Dobbs offers nothing on Class 4 driving. This means the believed problem of Class 4 and Class 4 type 2 is such a minor event in the world of driving it has been determined that it is not worth studying other wise Dobbs would have presented the studies?

Not only does the Cox study challenge the penalties for insulin treatment but informs us that commercial type 2 drivers should be treated as equal to non-diabetics, insulin users or not.
Dobbs certainly does not inform you of Cox et al’s Conclusion does she?

Dobbs does not acknowledge any Good from the policy. Why?

Dobbs does not acknowledge any change in the believed difference in the accident rate resulting from the policy and yet the OSMV has had since 1982, the year of the Constitution, which demands government demonstrably justify itself before it intrudes into our lives, or longer, to justify the policy and its Good and benefits.

Dobbs does not establish any Timeline, giving context to the conditions and diabetes, therefore Relevance to these conditions within the commercial drivers’ Timelines of diabetes and work.

If the policy is ‘so good’ at managing future conditions for diabetics, that may have these conditions express in 10-20 years after the diagnosis of diabetes, shouldn’t the medical policy be forced upon all people as the OSMV is implying its medical policy is prudent medical care? And yet these conditions are not dependent upon diabetes and are monitored only when non-diabetics may experience them.
Don’t forget, these conditions do not express to all diabetics and diabetics at most only represent five percent, 5%, of society. In other words the greater number of people with these conditions will come from the non-diabetic population and yet they are not forced to undergo this medical examination for future conditions.

My point is, this defines ‘Discrimination’ as diabetics have been selected to undergo a medical process that the rest of society is not forced to undergo. The OSMV has not even presented anything that proves the policy offers any Good or has decreased the believed problem of future medical conditions impacting diabetic drivers. If Dobbs is such an expert why doesn’t she know it is against the law in Canada to penalize people for events two or three or four events away from the original event, little lone 10-20 or more years into the future.

Dobbs does not acknowledge the demands of the Charter, HRC, and the MVA, which come before any demands of the anti-diabetic lobby and personal wants of civil servants. Don’t forget, the OSMV stated that this policy against the diabetic is in their “view” ok to do; no legal proof that you and I can read and review, just that in their “view” it is ok to do.

Again, Dobbs does not acknowledge the Consequences of the policy and bases her support on the supposed consequences of diabetes. If she bases her support on consequences then she must also acknowledge the consequences of her support.

Dobbs wears different Hats to validate her position.
How is it that she doesn’t wear these hats while writing this essay? All the above should have been
attended to. All the above should have been attended to no matter what her employer asked of her.
Her expertise demands she wear the Hats all the time or she is just writing. Lawyers, doctors, and educators cannot take their hats off. If they do then they are not those professionals anymore.
What makes Dobbs must be used all the time otherwise she is not the expert.

The following demonstrates why the medical examination should be found null and void.
It should be cancelled because it is also redundant as well as discriminatory. Of course Dobbs does not know the following as she is not diabetic nor has she told us she has talked to a diabetic about what is really going on with diabetes care?

What’s not acknowledged within the OSMV want or correspondence, or Dobbs’ presentation is that as a diabetic I visit a doctor four (4) times a year for blood work, urine analysis, and we also talk about diabetes and medications.
Medications are not given out for more than three-months, which ties into the three-month blood work program, which allows the doctor and myself to realize my average blood glucose level, A1C, which allows us to better manage diabetes.
That means I visit the doctor eight (8) times as compared to the OSMV demands of once (1) every two years for a Class 4 license, type 2 diabetic.
To say the least the OSMV’ demand is redundant. It is also unneeded duplication.

A private license means I would visit the doctor twenty (20) times as compared to the medical policy examination of once (1) every five years.
To say the least the OSMV’ demand is redundant. It is also unneeded duplication.

A type 1 or someone insulin dependent would have visited the doctor four (4) times a year as compared to the OSMV demand of once (1) a year.
To say the least the OSMV’ demand is redundant. It is also unneeded duplication.

It’s interesting that as Dobbs is a researcher she has not attended to this fact of doctor visitation.
It’s interesting that as Dobbs is a doctor she has not attended to this fact of doctor visitation.
Why haven’t Dobbs, the OSMV, and anti-diabetic lobby attend to this fact?
All this leads to, how biased are the presentations from the OSMV?

How is it the Dobbs does not inform us that doctors have the self-determined ethical/moral requirement to challenge the driver at risk and revoke licenses, whether obligated by the OSVM or not.
To say the least the OSMV’ demand is redundant. It is also unneeded duplication.

How is it that Dobbs has not informed readers that insurance companies, such as ICBC, already monitor and manage Drivers At Risk.
To say the least the OSMV’ demand is redundant. It is also unneeded duplication.

Don’t forget, Dobbs is not diabetic nor has she ever published anything about diabetes or hypoglycemia. She’s just been paid to write an expensive Persuasive presentation about something she has no expertise in. All researchers, doctors, assistant, associate, and adjunct professors, and senior civil servants and almost everyone in the world know there are consequences to actions and yet within this medical policy they have never been attended to. Why?
“Why?” Because the Risk is too High a Negative Risk to acknowledge the harm.

Reader, I have not been informed that the OSMV has yet to commission studies to prove the need, prove the examination can do what it is alleged to be able to do, prove any Good coming from the policy, and
prove the consequences of the policy are less harmful than the believed harm caused by the unproved difference in diabetic driver mishaps compared to a non-diabetic driver.
This is Constructed harm compare to accidental harm and this is not discrimination?
My Conclusion

‘Reject the Application to Dismiss Complaint for the following reasons’

Reader, from the time I became diabetic and was forced to comply to the Driver’s Medical Examination I thought the OSMV had documents of verify their policy. I therefore based my inquiry upon Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Code, and the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act as these instruments demand government to fulfill the needs.
We have learned the OSMV never had/has any documents to prove, to demonstrably justify, the medical policy. It has not fulfilled the legal demands set by these instruments, upon diabetic drivers.
Secondly, if I understand, “subject only to such reasonable limits” correctly the statement means something must be available for all to read and within a reasonable Timeline. (Charter)
“Reasonable limits” also include the consequences of the policy. We cannot intervene into something and not acknowledge the consequences especially when the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby uses the believed consequences of diabetes as something to justify their wants.
I brought these consequences forward into the public space during my inquiry about the policy 2002-2004. Someone must have made evaluations of the harm caused by the policy and that is why the OSMV does not acknowledge the consequences whether physical harm through the changes to the availability of the health care or the social harm of turning diabetics into a pariah. Causing harm for an unjustified policy is not within “reasonable limits.”

“A free and democratic society” is what Canada still is. I have NOT given my Charter Rights and Freedoms, my Human Rights, and my rights attached to the Motor Vehicle Act over to the government, the OSMV, or the anti-diabetic lobby in order that they can treat me as they do.
The above instruments of democracy are there for the OSMV to fulfill before it makes demands upon society and implements them, not after or not at all.
The people that are doing this to me just pretend that they have fulfilled the above. The instruments are there so government does not run amuck, does not do things to people because in their “view” it is ok to do.

My point is, I am NOT challenging the Charter. I am challenging the government as to why they have not fulfilled the demands the Charter makes of it.
This really is different than the Court of Appeal of Alberta case, Gramaglia, brought forward by Iyer, where he challenged the Charter.
I respect the Charter and its demands. The OSMV does not respect the Charter as it has had the necessary and sufficient Time to fulfill the demands and it has not.
Gramaglia and my complaints are not the same. They are worlds apart.

Also, the Hines case introduces an interpretation of the Charter that supports my idea of demonstrably justified.
Additionally, the Hines case demands we look at whether the operation of certain types of vehicles driven by a certain type of diabetic “constitutes a pressing and substantial concern.”

(Law Commission of Canada :: About Us :: Reports :: Research Paper. Section 111. CHALLENGES UNDER THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, p 4 of 9, paragraph 2.)

“The evidence advanced by the respondents, for the most part, addressed highway safety in general but the real issue is whether the operation of large commercial vehicles on our highways by insulin-dependent diabetics constitutes a pressing and substantial concern. To determine the answer to this question, it was imperative for the court to have before it medical evidence on the effects of diabetes on the operation of large trucks as those effects relate to the safe operation of vehicles.”
(149) See, for example: Hines v. Nova Scotia (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) (1990), 73 D. L. R. (4th) 491 (N.S.S.C. (T.D.)) and British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868.

I understand this decision to have two meanings. That there should be medical evidence on the affects of diabetes on the operation of large trucks or in my case Class 4 licensed vehicles; school buses, ambulances, taxi, and small passenger vehicles.
Secondly, I understand that if the operation of vehicles “constitutes a pressing and substantial concern” it also refers to a Timeline; such as the Timelines I mentioned above.
If things are a “pressing and substantial concern” there must be a Timeline attached to it or the matter would not be a pressing and substantial concern. Over the past fourteen years, since my original complaint of 2004, and since the Hines case of 1990, no documents, “medical evidence” have been assembled to support the policy against diabetic drivers therefore there is no pressing and substantial concern about any type of diabetes or any type of driving Class.
The anti-diabetic lobby knows of the Hines case, as the blanket demand for banning commercial insulin-dependent diabetic drivers was found Null and Void.
The decision is the reason behind the fact that individual diabetic drivers must be evaluated personally. This fact is not acknowledged within the correspondence from the OSMV. Within my Response to the Draft concerning changes to the diabetic drivers’ policy, part of the out of court settlement agreement concerning my discrimination complaint, I informed the OSMV that I did not need to be beholden to it for the individual evaluations, as law has demanded it.

This is again something that the anti-diabetic lobby does not inform diabetics of; one is led to believe the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby offer equality through fair play.
However, you now know someone had to take the OSMV, or equivalent in Nova Scotia, and the anti-diabetic lobby to court for equality and fair play.

Additionally, this diabetic policy could be older than the Hines case, which means the OSMV has had twenty or thirty years to document a need and they haven’t done it; the policy against diabetics is not a pressing and substantial concern nor has it been demonstrably justified.
It is just a Social Construct that was accepted and is now being challenged just as the Social Constructs against women, the visible minority, disabled, children, and the First Nations has been, is still.

My point is, the Hines case was 1990. My first Human Rights case was accepted in 2004, Dobbs has been employed with the OSMV since February 21, 2006, and her presentation was presented in June 2008.
In no way can the matter at hand be considered a pressing and substantial concern or the OSMV would have documented the need for the policy or their want for control over diabetics. They’ve had a minimum of eighteen years to do so.
This is simple procrastination on the governments’ behalf until someone such as me challenges the medical policy. It’s a government agency playing games with our Constitution, Human Rights, and the MVA.
For the OSMV to deny the direction of the Hines case is not acceptable, as the Hines case is about diabetes and driving, especially large trucks, the focus of the presentation of Dobbs, Howie and Iyer’s presentations.
The Supreme Court Hines case demanded medical evidence and none was offered, just like my case, so why hasn’t the government shown responsibility and accountability and documented their demands against diabetics?
Additionally, the provincial Supreme Court decision against a provincial Motor Vehicle agency impacted all diabetics across Canada and all Motor Vehicle agencies’ policies so some government agency should have documented the need for the policy and they haven’t.
Why not? Because, in the real world it is not does not constitute a real pressing and substantial concern.
Furthermore, the Hines case demands a Timeline be acknowledged within the argument and the presentations have not acknowledged this fact.
As I have pointed out there are Timelines within my case and the Respondents have not acknowledged all of them nor the needed connections. Of course this would only exemplify the redundancy of the policy.


The OSMV knows these provincial cases impact national licensing policy therefore they knew the medical policy was not a bona fide policy due to the Timeline and lack of documentation to justify the policy.
They knew it was an arbitrary policy supported only through their position of authority and the threat of licence cancellation held against the diabetic driver.
Even doctors are forced to comply with the DME. They are legislated to comply with the threat of loosing their license if they do not comply.
The medical policy is based upon arbitrary decisions and an authoritarian attitude and fear of the diabetic.
The Motor Vehicle Act was crafted to stop arbitrary decisions and authoritarian people from having their way.
The MVA was crafted to suppress such attitudes and mind-sets.
The BC Human Rights Code demands the government have bona fide and reasonable justification for its demands upon society.

My point is, I am not challenging the Right to demands but challenging why the demands of these instruments have not been fulfilled.

Civil servants give up their personal beliefs when they become public employees. The Charter, HRC, and the MVA give all the legal support need when making policy.
The statutes within the MVA and the Charter give civil servants and others involved in this argument all the law and protection they need to stand up to the anti-diabetics. If the anti-diabetics can’t deliver the proper documents within a reasonable limit, to support their beliefs, then the OSMV does not need to conform to their wants as it has. The Charter, HRC, and the MVA will support their rejection of the anti-diabetics wants or lobby.


No evidence has been offered on the effects of diabetes on the operation of Class 4 licence vehicles as those effects relate to the safe operation of vehicles. There are generalities about type 1 and type 2 with type 1 conditions and complications transferred or dumped upon the type 2 and Class 4 diabetic drivers.

The Cox study is not about commercial drivers and yet it’s Conclusion states,
“These findings may have implications for lifting current driving restrictions for interstate commercial license for drivers with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment.”

The study not only discovered that there is no difference between non-diabetic and diabetic driver mishaps but neither did the use of insulin or oral medication increase the incidence of driving mishap.
The Cox Conclusion is confronting the anti-diabetic lobby as to what they are doing as there is no difference in non-diabetic and diabetic drivers whether they are commercial drivers or not.

Reader, hypoglycemia is the condition that is in question here not medical conditions and their complications that may express in the future after a diabetic driver retires from commercial driving. Hypoglycemia does impact drivers. It impacts all of us. With ninety-five percent, 95%, of the population being non-diabetic there certainly is enough variables, lack of food, stress, exercise, drugs, alcohol, and medications, within that population to have some of that population experience hypoglycemia.
It is interesting how Dobbs and the OSMV never mention this fact. It is always a diabetic problem.

Hypoglycemia is not something assigned only to diabetics as Dobbs, OSMV, and Iyer’s presentations promote.
As the Cox study explains diabetics do learn about and respond to hypoglycemia.
Are non-diabetics as Knowledgeable and Responsive to low blood sugar?
Are non-diabetics having accidents and experiencing Road Rage due to hypoglycemia? Something, which is not documented as the misinformation about hypoglycemia is only directed toward diabetics with the presentation of non-diabetics beyond something designated as the diabetic experience?

Reader, my essay confronts the Risk associated with diabetes and hypoglycemia.
I hope I have exposed, deflated, demystified, debunked and thrown some light on the inequities that government has constructed against diabetes and the supposed difference in driver mishaps.
I’ve challenged the idea of Risk by offering information to demystify the language of Fear, the most influential and manipulative force behind Risk.
The Risk factor of the Diabetic at Risk does not even meet a Low Risk measure before the review of the medical examination, the Examination Form, the Consequences of the policy, the lack of Good, and lack of the Timeline(s).
If the Risk was really a pressing and substantial concern the OSMV would have documented the fact especially after the Hines case changed how government must behave toward, act toward, and consider diabetics, private diabetic drivers, and commercial diabetic drivers.

If the risk really is a pressing and substantial concern the OSMV would address the Consequences of the policy and the lack of Good because they could then prove a Construct harm out weighs an Accidental harm.

Lastly, in consideration of Risk; a diabetic may experience mild hypoglycemia; not influential. A diabetic may experience moderate hypoglycemia; something that is corrected by something as small as one piece of real sugar gum or a single candy. A diabetic may experience severe hypoglycemia; a very real thing especially for type 1 diabetics. But doesn’t Dobbs’ own Referenced material state the incidence of severe hypoglycemia for type 2s is extremely rare and less so for driving?

So, we have something that is rare for all diabetics as type 1s are only 0.25-0.50% of society to begin with, less for driving and less for commercial driving. As to type 2s the percent using medication that may express hypoglycemia is less the 0.20 of 1.0 %. Both groups really are insignificant within society.
Severe hypoglycemia is just a subsection of hypoglycemia, a condition may happen when sleeping or awake, it may happen when one is driving or not, it may impact the driver, it may impact the driver to have a driver mishap, (skateboard or garbage can or dumpster, or bumper to bumper) or it may be an accident, it may be an accident that causes human harm, or it may be an accident causing material harm, or the driver may stop driving and ask for assistance(this is never mentioned as it would diminish the Risk Factor and prove the diabetic is responsible therefore something more than the Other.

My point is, a May of something, that May happen, that May happen, that May happen, that May happen diminishes Risk, it does not increase it, as the Respondents would want you to believe.




Consequences of the Medical Policy;

Physical examination
I touch my toes and nose and have my knees knocked. I present my blood sugar logbook for the doctor to review. We talk about my exercise program, my eating habits, my medication, and holidays.
I couldn’t then and cannot today understand how this examination predicts, prevents, and manages hypoglycemia. During the examination I came to realize the whole examination is a charade in order to try and justify the Rationalization of the medical policy.
Moments later I truly knew that the examination had no validity as to diabetes and hypoglycemia when I was asked to take my pants off. I do not know what my genitals have to do with an examination that is supposed to predict, prevent, and manage the condition hypoglycemia, low blood sugar.
Is it done to debase me a human being?
Is it done to keep me in my place as the Other?
There is nothing like humiliation to keep people in their place.
I’d really like to know why this procedure is within the medical examination, as it has nothing to do with low blood sugar.
This anti-diabetic policy tries to manage an OSMV belief about diabetic drivers through fear, fear of loosing one’s licence and public humiliation.
Or, are the negative consequences of this genital inspection and the diminishing of my character supposed to be a teaching tool that manages me?
The medical examination cannot predict, prevent, or manage hypoglycemia. A doctor will manage my health, as to the supposed conditions that my present or express themselves, from having diabetes or just from life, at the appropriate time.
The consequences of this unjustified policy sets the diabetic up as a liability as the population believes the examination has been justified and that it can do what it is alleged to be able to do; predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia which it certainly has not been proven to be able to do.

Medical Form
How is the form supposed to be Relevant if it is only presented every two years for Class 4 licensing?
The doctor that I visit told me that once the form is sent-in he cannot retrieve it in order to make changes if he wanted. That means no changes for two years.
This is Relevant to prudent medical care. This is what the OSVM pretends the drivers’ that experience the medical examination are receiving especially when concerning the demand that diabetics comply with the policy for future medical conditions. This is not prudent medical care or any care.
Besides is the OSMV licensed to practice medicine? Maybe it is licensed to do the examination but to force medical examinations for future medical conditions? I don’t think so.

Impact on availability of doctors
This policy has changed our availability to our basic medical services. It changes the availability to doctors. The OSMV has not declared how many drivers are diabetics, which makes the determination of doctors removed from the MSP, to fulfill the medical examination and form, awkward to determine.
If 36 doctors are needed to fulfill the diabetic drivers’ medical examination does this mean 36 doctors x 100 conditions is the number of doctors needed to fulfill the demands of the OSMV?
If the policy for diabetics has/is so unprofessionally managed why should be believe any of the other conditions have been justified? 100 conditions x only 10 doctors needed for each condition = 1 000 doctors needed just to fill out forms. This is approximately 25% of the available General Practioners in BC.
We wonder why GPs are leaving the profession. We wonder why Emergency facilities are overloaded.
Doctors know the medical examination does not do what it is alleged to be able to; that why they are legislated to do the medical examinations?
This forced compliance or loose your license protects the doctors from the ethical stance doctors take in not causing harm. They are forced to do the examination, which puts the harm on another party.
And we wonder why the OSMV does not acknowledge consequences of the OSMV driving examination policy.



The Numbers that Change Medical Availability and Over-Crowding in Emergency Facilities

The following is about the foremost influence upon the change of availability to medical and emergency care and the introduction of private health care into our public health care system.
The following is a sound argument that should be worked through with current facts about medical examination times, doctors work schedules, and the number of diabetic drivers, which I’m not privy to.
I’ve used the 9% as that is what the Ministry of Health gave me but if the percentage is still 5% as I have used above we really only divide by 2.
The population of BC is approximately 4.2 million with approximately 9% diabetics = 378 000 diabetics.
Type 1s are approximately 0.45% - 0.9% and type 2s are 8.1 - 8.55% of the population, according to the OSMV Review Draft I received in November 2006. We’re a driving society so I’ve said all diabetics are drivers especially since type 2 diagnoses is approximately 40 yrs of age.
378 000 diabetics x 1hr medical exam = 378 000 hrs of General Practioners time / 2080 hrs a year of a GP time (52 weeks x 40 hrs a clinic week) (no weeks off as another doctor would take her place.) = 181 doctors are forced to perform the exam.
However, there’s a cycle here, there’s the first examination, then at years’ end, then again on the fifth year. So, let’s say a five-year cycle for convenience and minimums, as Commercial type 1and private type 1are really insignificant, and everyone does it twice in the first year and type 2 commercial every two years but most diabetics are type 2s and private drivers.
Therefore, there’s the equivalent of 36 doctors needed per year; 181/5 years = 36 doctors a year.
My point is made. And this is just for Diabetes. The OSMV monitors over 100 different medical conditions. The OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby can really justify the harm?
Why doesn’t Dobbs inform the reader of this unjustified demand upon the health care system?
The numbers that bring change.

36 doctors x 52 weeks of work x 40 hrs a week x 8 clients per hour = 599 040 clients a year.
That’s how many clients have their availability to basic medical care changed due to the OSMV’ medical policy against diabetic drivers.
If it takes longer than one (1) hr to complete the Examination and Form or more than eight (8) clients per hour just imagine the number of clients that have their availability to health care changed. Where do they go for health care if the availability is not reasonable? That’s right, they go to Emergency Facilities.
If we divide 599 040 by the number of major hospitals that are experiencing over-crowding, that is 10, we realize that the major hospitals in BC could have as many as 599 040/10 = 59 904 more clients per year visit them because clients cannot access their GP within a reasonable time because she is filling out forms.
59 904/365 = an extra 164 clients a day and this goes on 24/7/52 and we wonder where over half the people in the emergency facilities come from.
No wonder the OSMV does not want to respond to my questions about the consequences of their unjustified medical policy against diabetic drivers.

We therefore have approximately an extra 164 clients a day that could visit the emergency facilities for their needs. This would be for each of the ten (10) busiest hospitals, 24/7/365.
This number sounds very similar to the number of extra people visiting emergency care facilities according to BCTV news program the second week of February 2007.
I realize that not all people will attend an emergency facility but I did with my kids and my wife’s parents and mine in their time of need. We stood behind people such as ourselves and you stood behind me.
Don’t forget, approximately 55-65% of the users of the medical system are responsible for approximately 80-85% of the use. This means that the people that use the medical system are the people that will use the emergency facilities when their availability to health care changes or is not reasonable to them.
Also, these numbers are for diabetes only. What is the number for all the conditions the OSMV supposedly manages? Lets look at the 100 different conditions the OSMV pretends to manage. Lets minimize the doctors per condition.
100 conditions x 5 doctors per condition needed per year to do the examinations = 500 doctors just doing forms.
From above, 36 doctors = 164 clients therefore 500 doctors/36 = 13 times the number of displaced clients that need care. 13 x 164 clients a day = 2132 clients a day that could visit the emergency facilities for their needs.
This explains why the government does not acknowledge the consequences of the medical policy and all the while they know that doctors are managing the very conditions the people have in the first place, which again exemplifies the redundancy of the policy.

Reader, aren’t doctors monitoring future medical conditions already with bona fide power to rescind driving privileges as well as ICBC managing driving mishaps with bona fide consequences? Does society really need this phoney medical policy to manage the Risk of hypoglycemia?

Lastly, when you listen to the government explain the demands upon the medical system they always blame the Public. You will never hear them inform you of their demands, which are many, think of how many
people you know that are forced to take medical exams for something.
However, in the Real World there are only TWO user groups making demands upon the medical system; the Public and the Government.
My complaint exposes the governments’ demands upon the medical system. It also brings to light what they have covertly done to rectify their problem with overcrowding the Emerge facilities; private health care.
The government has let private industry into the medical system to rectify a problem they have created; the overloads in the emergency facilities due to the OSMV medical examination policy and other conditions.

No wonder the OSMV and anti-diabetics refuse to acknowledge there are consequences to their driver’s medical policy.
Dobbs does not acknowledge the consequences of the policy she supports and yet ‘what makes her,’ educator, researcher, and doctor demands she acknowledge and respond to consequences.
The diabetic drivers’ policy sees 599 040 doctors’ clients that have their health care availability changed for no Good reason and the policy has not offered any Good to society.

I wonder about the Real harm caused by this change in availability compared to the Risk of harm by the diabetic driver; the undocumented harm believed to be here by the supposed difference in driver mishap rates between non-diabetics and diabetic drivers?
Real harm verses Risk of harm. Constructed harm vs. Accidental harm. The policy is based upon Risk, which produces Real Harm to society.
The above is something else the OSMV and the anti-diabetics do not want to acknowledge and talk about.



Material Harm verses Human Harm

Accidents or as the Cox study states, driving mishaps, include harm to Material things, the vehicle, and harm to Humans.
Whereas, the Harm associated with the consequences of the medical policy relates only to Humans.

The medical policy Risk is based upon harm to humans and yet the accident rate has not been classified into the different harms so they can be understood as to their real impact upon the Fear/Risk factor or just life.
When differentiated into Material and Human harm these groupings could then be compared to the Human harm of the medical policy. This would then allow us to realize an increase in the proportion of harm caused by the medical policy compared to the believed harm of the diabetic driver as some harm of the diabetic driving mishap or accident is only to material things; cars, garbage cans, garages, car ports, kids toys, skateboards, dumpsters, loading platforms, side mirrors in alleyways or loading platforms, etc, etc.

No one mentions this fact as it vastly decreases the believed difference in harm caused by the believed difference in accident rates therefore decreasing the Fear/Risk factor.
Does this fact reduce the estimated harm/Fear, the estimated crash harm/Fear, the estimated driver mishap/Fear/Risk, by thirty, fifty, seventy percent or more?
No one mentions the percent breakdown of vehicle damage to human damage. Why?

Because it diminishes their argument, that’s why. However, it does not diminish the harm caused by the medical policy.
What does this realization do to the ratios and statistical data that have been presented to justify the medical policy?
The ratios, and statistics, and beliefs, and discrimination are based upon harm to humans not the harm to vehicles, which really is just aluminium and plastic. It is not based on fender benders in malls, or me running over your child’s skateboard, or garbage can or backing into the loading platform; all insurance claims, this is why they are known to us to use as accidents rates.
The language of the anti-diabetics is the language of Fear based upon human harm and yet you now know the harm also involves material harm. This changes how we view Risk.
How small is the diabetic driver mishap if we decrease the number by the harm to Material things?
Reader, this is an extremely difficult thing to do as the Cox and other Published Materials prove there really isn’t a difference to begin with. So, it’s all just make-believe on the part of the anti-diabetics.

As I stated above The Sky is Not Falling and the Emperor Wears No Clothes.
The disinformation is enormous within the anti-diabetic argument and lobby.
It is just a Social Construct against a disease that used to be really nasty and uncontrollable. We cannot say that today as type 1 diabetics live a long life and other medical conditions express because they are seventy, eighty, and ninety.
I’ve never been told what this real difference is. Its only given in academic terms; the estimated Risk, or the estimated ratio, or estimated crash Risk. Is the difference in accident rates 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, or 0.5, or 0.7, or 1.0, accidents per Class 4 type 2 diver/year more, within British Columbia?
No, the numbers are always brought forward as a Non-Human form because it doesn’t make sense driver to driver or in real terms of ninety-five non-diabetic drivers to five type 2 drivers.
However, the Cox study is about one-on-one and look what they discovered.

How small is this number really if we define accidents into their real groupings; human and material?
Reader, you know what’s happening here? It is something called “Group Think.”
It doesn’t matter how small the number is the non-diabetics want their way no matter what the number is or the harm their own behaviour causes.
As the Other designation is troublesome to correct so to is the Group Think associated with the numbers game that is offered as justification of the medical policy.
That’s why something such as the Human Rights Tribunal was invented, something on the Outside that can evaluate the group think without bias, prejudice, ignorance, power, self-interest and all the other nasty things associated with the construction of the Other and discrimination.

My point is:
This medical policy is worth disrupting the medical availability of 600 000 client visits a year?
This medical policy is based upon ‘what real difference’ in harm to humans? (vehicle vs. human)
This medical policy is based upon ‘what real difference’ in harm to humans compared to the harm caused by the disruption of doctor availability, emergency services, and now the introduction of private practice into the medical service
Where is the Good for society as well as the diabetic?




Dollar Cost of the Medical Policy

What is the cost to run the diabetic program? Four or five million dollars a year? 378 000diabetics/5 years = 75 600 diabetics x $75 a visit (government paid now) = $5 670 000 a year. That is just for diabetics. We need to multiply that number by the 100 other conditions the OSMV monitors and supposedly manages.

Lets visualize the DME as non-existent.
That’s a lot of people visiting a doctor in a reasonable Timeline, which would stop the overcrowding in the emergency facilities. That’s a lot of General Practitioners back doctoring. That’s a lot of Emerge staff back doctoring and nursing.
That’s a lot of new beds, nurses, and doctors in emerge facilities as the funds being used to pay for the DME would be designated to health care where Good could be measured.
How does the OSVM justify this debit to the tax base when they have never proved any Good from their own program?
Do the Medical Services Plan managers know the OSMV medical policy is not justified?
Do the MSP managers know the OSMV has never studied their policy to prove its worth or goodness?
Have the MSP managers been told the truth about the medical policy?
How do the managers of the MSP justify this new harm to medical services? (introduction of private practice)
Does the Ministry of Health know the above? Have they been told the truth about the policy?
Are the people that offer health care afraid of those in the car industry, OSMV, therefore our health care service is subservient to the car industry? Life givers (health care givers) afraid of the testosterone boys with big toys (the auto industry)? Life givers afraid of the life takers?

What is the cost (just financial in this section) of running the whole program, for every disability examined by the OSMV and has any Good come out of it?

Emergency doctors state that fifty, 50, to seventy, 70, percent of the people in emergency wards should not be there. They say people are dying in the emergency wards due to the overcrowding and lack of funding.

We know that not all of the overcrowding is from the OSMV’ diabetic medical policy but it’s part of the problem especially when you add the other 100 conditions monitored by the OSMV.

The doctor I visit did not charge full cost for the examination when I had to pay for the exam, only 50%. That is why the remuneration the government paid me in the Settlement Agreement is so low. As he is a partner in a clinic his partners know this about him. What does this say about this doctor’s belief of the medical examination and its value or worth?
It’s a strong statement of disbelief isn’t it. It makes one wonder how many other doctors do the same.
Doesn’t it make you wonder what General Practioners really think about this program?
Is this why doctors are legislated to comply with this unjustified medical examination and policy?
Not charging the full fee is civil disobedience, isn’t it.
Doesn’t it make you wonder if this medical policy is morally/ethically correct?




Impact on Medical Services (test kit negativism and loss of Hope)

Testing kit. What is it? It’s a spring-loaded thumbtack or lance and a piece of paper that a drop of blood is placed upon and then electricity is sent through it. It measures my blood glucose level.
One does not now need a doctors’ prescription but I was forced to take a lesson to operate the tool.
The pharmacist that I visit for my diabetic needs said that it’s not required by law, anymore, to have a prescription for the testing kit, only that it is strongly recommended that the prescription be sought and a visit to the Diabetic Centre at the hospital be attended.
One must ask why it’s not available to the general public that are interested in managing their health. It would be their cost. It’s proactive health care.
However, it has the restrictions because of the government constructed, reinforced, and sponsored Negativism about diabetes and needles.
The testing kit is viewed as a tool with a needle and there are enormous negatives attached to needle use. And yet this is not a needle, it’s a lance, a pin with a plastic end just like the pins used to hold paper to a corkboard.

Do you really need to have a lesson to prick your finger and place a drop of blood on a piece of paper? The directions for a coffee maker demand more reading.
It’s all part of the construction of the Negativism toward people with diabetes.
What’s really being said is that people with diabetes are not smart enough to read the directions and make this two-step tool work and that they’re needle users, which must be managed at all costs.
This condescending attitude toward diabetics is not warranted or justified, its just more Fear of diabetics.
This policy stigmatizes diabetics as needle users and all the derogatory assumptions that accompany that designation are transferred to diabetics.
This demand or restriction impacts our Primary Health Care availability by demanding hospital resources, Diabetic Centres, for no good reason. It’s patriarchal, condescending, and beyond understanding within our society today.

Secondly, if one cannot visit a doctor within a reasonable time, it is now a three to five day wait to see a doctor in the clinic I visit, one takes himself or their children, or their parents, or companion to the emergency facilities at a hospital.
And whom do you stand behind in the line-up?
You stand behind me because I couldn’t get my one of my parents in to see their doctor within a reasonable time. Both my parents would go to the emergency ward because one is afraid the other is going to die and they want to be with each other at this time in their life’s Timeline.

Lastly, as my father aged and needed increasing doctor care it came about that he started to ask why he couldn’t visit his doctor. He could visit his doctor but not within his understanding of doctor availability, as things such as the OSMV’ medical policy have changed that accessibility Timeline.
The times have changed and my dad had trouble understanding this fact. I didn’t know what to say to him as he had supported the medical services plan all his life and I didn’t have a bona fide response for him.

However, I became a diabetic and began to understand the experience and the consequences of the medical policy, one being the loss of doctors due to the forced compliance of doctors to fulfill the drivers’ medical examination and forms; the consequences of the policy change the availability of doctors to attend to clients. A second realization was the overcrowding of the emergency facilities.

So, I told my father about the policy and its impact upon him and me. As the unknown/unseen disease of diabetes creates Fear within the anti-diabetic lobby so did the unknown change in the availability of health care create in my father. I explained the unknown to him, which of course helped diminished some of the fear, but he then knew the changes were arbitrary and entrenched and would not be reversed in his life’s Timeline.

What I discovered about my father, a senior citizen, was that his ideal/concept of his personal health kept him alive more than I understood. He was critically aware of this fact and the influence of his doctor’s care. To have this care interrupted for no good reason impacted him Negatively. I watched Hope change in my father. When we give up Hope we die.
I know there are other reasons for death, especially when he was eighty-seven when he passed away, but Hope is the prime force behind our struggle through life.
This policy impacts thousands of seniors in similar situations as my father. It impacts needy people more than I understand. Do emergency doctors and nurses know that the OSMV policy impacts their work place and that the medical policy has never been justified or proved to be a Needy or Worthwhile or to offer any Good?
No wonder the OSMV does not want to acknowledge the consequences to the medical policy.

What’s the Risk of harm when that many people have their medical needs delayed due this medical policy?
It was a High Risk to my dad.
Dobbs must know of these things as she specializes in old age.
The above are real not just beliefs as the drivers’ medical policy is based upon.
Who’s made these decisions that there is Less Harm caused by such things, as noted above, than the belief about harm caused by the unproven differences in accident rates?
In a civilized state, a democratic state such as we have in Canada we cannot cause harm because of a perceived harm. That’s a Crime Against Humanity.




Impact on Medical Services (financial)

The cost of the medical examination has recently been transferred to the government. I believe the MSP pays the doctor for the clients’ examination and then is reimbursed.
As stated above this cost could be five million dollars a year plus the cost of all the other medical conditions that are forced to undergo the DME,
$5 000 000 + 100 conditions = $5 000 000 + (100 conditions x $1 000 000 a condition) 100 000 000 = $105 000 000.
This is an extraordinary cost to the tax base for things not justified. How many nurses, doctors, health care workers, hospital beds, and other facilities are disrupted due to this unjustified demand upon the medical system?

Imagine the benefit to society if the policy against diabetics was found null and void; doctors would be doctoring again, emerge facilities would be manageable, and the funds could be used for bona fide health care, which could be measured for Good.
Doctor diabetic care would improve which the policy does not offer.
Imagine the benefit to society if we used the funds for the medical system instead of against it?
Never forget that my doctor monitors my condition many more times than the forced medical examinations of the OSMV and there is Good.




Non-medical Necessity has magically been changed to a Medical Necessity

The Driver’s Medical Examination was classified as a Non-medical Necessity and I had to pay for the examinations.
However, during my human rights complaint of 2004 a change to the classification came about. The DME was changed from an institutionalized non-medical examination to a medical necessity?
An institutionalized Non-medical Necessity has magically been changed to a Medical Necessity because for some reason, maybe through my discrimination complaint, change was ‘needed’ to justify this medical policy. Disabled drivers do not pay for the medical examination anymore.
Changes to the Health Act must have been done for this happen. If not changing the medical policy examination to a Medical Necessity means the whole process of classification of what is necessary and what is not is just an arbitrary decision by some civil servants.
That is not what government informs the public when someone asks for financing of a certain drug, HIV/AIDS medications, or help with a condition such as Autism.
The public is informed that non-medical necessities are entrenched within bureaucracy and cannot be changed at the whim of the public’s demands or the whim of civil servants as changes to the Health Act are necessary, which involves the legislature. Will we discover the minutes of those meetings and legislature process?
Reader, fellow type 2 diabetic, does this action remind you of the policy itself? No documentation for justification, only that civil servants, in their ‘view’ think it ok to do.

My point is, what this move on the governments’ behalf does is ‘marry’ the unjustified DME to a government Ministry in order to transfer, invent, and pretend legitimacy for the policy, to justify the policy through the Association with a bona fide government ministry.
I believe the Solicitor General’s office has taken this debt on as when I complained to the Ministry of Finance about this charade of using my taxes for an unjustified policy that offers no Good my complaint was re-directed by the Minister to the Solicitor Generals’ office. The Solicitor Generals’ office has not responded to my inquiry about this.




The Other

It’s difficult to define the Other. However, it is a Constructed event and something that needs reinforcing, renewing, and updating all the time.
Dobbs’ presentation certainly portrays diabetics in need of government care even though the demands of the Charter, HRC, and the MVA have not justified the policy.
Dobbs lists the Cox study, used as ammunition against the diabetic driver, used as a Negative instead of the Positive it really is.
How many sentences have I underlined concerning Dobbs’ presentation of diabetes and driving?
I should never have had to pose as many questions as I have nor offer the amount of additional information for the Reader to really understand diabetes and the unjust policy.
The OSMV is not medically licensed to care for me nor have they proved that, as a diabetic, I’m in need of their care.
What the OSMV demands must also be demanded of it; consequences.
The Construction of the Analogous argument is formed with these social negatives.

An assistant deputy minister stated that most important the policy saves lives and another senior assistant deputy stated the first assistant deputy’s comment was acceptable. This is government policy. The statement is not acceptable. I have not been proved to be a killer. No evidence was offered to substantiate the claim. No evidence was offered to prove the policy decreases the killing. These statements denigrate the diabetic creating and reinforcing the social construct of the Other.
The policy is also based upon the governments’ “view” that it is ok to do.
These things are said because diabetics are constructed to be the Other and explanations are not needed when dealing with the Other. These statements have not been retracted, its government policy now.

Most important, I have not forfeited or given my Charter Rights and Freedoms, my Human Rights, or my Rights attached to the Motor Vehicle Act in order for the government to treat me like they do.
They act like I have. Reader, you will not read that the government acknowledges these democratic instruments or that they have fulfilled their demands. The government just pretends they have been fulfilled and you are led to believe this.
The demands of the Charter, HRC, and MVA should have been met before the implementation of policy. I should have been given the documents in 2002 when I began my inquiry into why I am treated like I am.

The OSMV is trying to persuade the reader and the public that diabetics need controlling whether or not science confirms their want. The demands of the Charter, HRC, and the MVA have not been fulfilled as the diabetic is the Other, who do not have the Rights and Opportunities afforded them as does the rest of society.

Interesting enough, I was reimbursed the funds I paid out for my examinations through 1999 until my discrimination complaint of 2004. This was government directed not a request of mine in the settlement agreement.
Other diabetics have not been refunded their expenses. I asked the OSMV if it was going to reimburse other disabled people that have been forced to undergo the unjustified drivers’ medical examination? I’ve had no response from the OSMV in this matter. The Other does not have equal opportunities.




Grade of Dobbs’ Presentation

I list the six components of this argument that the Respondents must address to justify the policy; has Dobbs’ presentation really attended to these components in order that Readers can make an informed, bona fide and reasonably justified evaluation of what the policy really is, does, and what diabetes is, especially when connected to Class 4 driving and type 2 diabetes?
Or, do Readers need my information and questions about what was presented and what was not in order to make a bona fide evaluation of diabetes and driving?

All six components should be addressed by themselves and yet they all overlap and influence each other, which means the connections between each should be attended to as I have had to do with the Timelines in order to put diabetes and driving in context to the Real World, which brings Relevance to such things as future conditions and working Timelines.
I’ve had to acknowledge the Timelines.
I’ve had to make the Connections to the Timelines in order for the Reader to put Timelines in Context as to diabetes and driving, which then allows Relevance to commercial driving and retirement.
How is it that Timelines are not addressed especially when future conditions are mentioned?
Dobbs does not acknowledge the Consequences of the OSMV’s medical policy and yet bases her support for the policy upon the unproved consequences of diabetes?
Dobbs does not acknowledge the lack of any Good resulting from the policy. How could she forget to address such a major event.
A good Persuasive essay should persuade the reader and the reader should not know it. As you have just realized, through my response, this has not happened.
The support for the policy is not supported as the debunking of the Referenced material demonstrates.
I’ve had to use the “My point is” too many times in a presentation which is supposed to be subtle.
I’ve had to use the “My point is” too many times in a presentation which is supposed to be expert driven.
I’ve had to poise to many questions in a paper, which is supposed to be expert driven.
I’ve had to offer too much additional information about diabetes, type 2 diabetes, hypoglycemia and Class 4 licensing in order that the Reader can fully understand diabetes, hypoglycemia, and Class 4 driving.

Referenced material should have been on task, type 2 diabetes, Class 4, within the Timeline of the expression of type 2 diabetes, 40 years of age, and the Timeline of Retirement, which is approximately 61.
Reader, too many people believe type 1 and type 2 diabetes as equivalent and the consequences of type 1 can be transferred to type 2. The use of the Published Material exemplifies this strategy. This is one of the reasons why Cox et al make this disclaimer about the use of their study.
Reader, do not visualize both types as the same event. My complaint involves type 2 diabetes and the Cox study really changes what we know about type 2 diabetes and driving.
Secondly, the Referenced material should have been essay access; one should not need to dig into it to discover if it really is on task. The onus is on the Respondents to present accessible material that is on task.

Dobbs’ # 19, page 5, of the Opening is about the wrong license. Class 4 drivers are not allowed to “drive larger vehicles , are likely to drive more frequently and for longer distances.” This mind set is for large vehicles, Class 1, 2, and 3 not Class 4 driving, which is what my complaint is about.

I practice excellent preventive medicine, so does the doctor I visit and yet doctor care is not mentioned by Dobbs.
I do not practice self-destructive medicine nor would I recommend anyone else to manage their Health Care through the OSMV’ medical policy of doctor visitation every two years.
Doctors manage At Risk Drivers and yet this is not mentioned.
Doctors restrict and cancel drivers that may be at Risk or drivers at risk such as when someone is undergoing Chemotherapy or Radiation for cancers.

Insurance companies manage At Risk Drivers and yet this is not mentioned.
Insurance companies do not charge diabetic drivers more for insurance.
Insurance companies are based upon Risk. If there was Risk they would make the At Risk Driver pay and they don’t.
This Fact debunks the OSMV’ use of Risk to justify the policy.
Why isn’t this fact presented by the OSMV?

The police manage At Risk Drivers and yet this is not mentioned.

Reader, don’t forget the commercial driver must have a medical examination to prove their worth to begin with and have a schedule they must fulfill while commercial driving.
The diabetic examination is on top of this exam. I will book the commercial drivers examination, walk out of the doctor’s office, and walk back in to the office to fulfill the diabetics’ examination, which is the same kind of stuff. Don’t forget I visit the doctor every three months in between these examinations.
Why hasn’t Dobbs informed readers of this?

What Dobbs ‘uses to make her’ does she really use within the presentation?
In medicine she must establish a bona fide need, does the intervention really address the real need, acknowledge and address the consequences of the intervention as appropriate for the need, acknowledge the consequences and review and acknowledge the intervention for Good.
Dobbs’ presentation does not address these criteria within the diabetic driver’s medical examination policy concerning type 2 diabetes and Class 4 driving.

She doesn’t address the criteria that are used to establish her place within this argument; specifically, is there a real, bona fide, proven need for the DME, can it really do what it is alleged to be able to do, address the consequences of the policy, and does the policy offer any Good?
If she doesn’t use the ‘criteria that make her’ do we need to accept the place she has been delegated to?
No we don’t.
Can Dobbs really take off the Hats of Associate Professor, Adjunct Associate Academic Professor, Adjunct Professor, researcher, research, and doctor while she writes this persuasive presentation for the government?
Don’t educators, doctors, lawyers, and all professionals wear their Hats 24/7/365?
With the Hats Dobbs wears why hasn’t she addressed the following?
Why hasn’t Dobbs addressed whether the DME can really predict, prevent, and managed hypoglycemia?
Why hasn’t Dobbs addressed whether the DME can really predict, prevent, and manage the believed future conditions associated with diabetes?
Why hasn’t Dobbs addressed the Consequences of the policy and the lack of Good?
Why hasn’t Dobbs addressed the fact that diabetics do visit doctors?

Lastly, as the government pretends the Charter, HR Code, and the MVA have justified the policy, they pretend the justification is self-evident. Dobbs does not mention the demands of these three instruments of democracy. Why not?


Grade


I failed Dobbs’ presentation. 100 is given to the whole presentation. Each individual presentation is only worth 33.3 %. Therefore, each of the 6 criteria is worth approximately 6 %.
There is a wholeness that needs to be acknowledged and addressed and it is not done. Just because Dobbs will not acknowledge the wholeness does not mean it is not there. It is there for what makes her.
This is the ‘Emperor Wears No Clothes’ game; what makes the OSMV does not apply to this complaint.
She only gleans 3 marks or less out of 6 for the presentation. < 3/100.
Not very impressive is it?


1) Presentation < 3/6 see above for ‘the why of the failing mark’
2) Published Material 0/6 only 21 or so of 174 relate to type 2, only 2 supports policy
3) Drivers’ Medical Examination 0/6 not addressed, cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do
4) Timelines 0/6 no mention, or Connections to establish Context or Reality
5) Consequences 0/6 no mention?
6) Good 0/6 no mention?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/36



















Observations, Recommendations, Timelines, (Timeline of Work), Redundancy of Policy

Unsubstantiated government statements (an element of defining and establishing the Other)

It’s been stated by government that the medical policy saves lives. I asked for the documents to justify the statement and have never been offered anything. What do they mean by stating such things?
To say the least, I don’t like being called a killer
.
So, let me be very clear here.
There’s nothing worse than calling someone a killer. You can call me anything you want but nothing is as bad, derogatory, scary, fear inducing as being called a killer.
Killers take our basic Human Rights away. The Right of Life is a Human Right.
If governments are going to say such things it should be documented beyond any doubt.
The statement by government about the policy saving lives has not been proved, therefore it is used to establish policy about how to treat people they do not like or understand or are fearful of.
The statement establishes the Other and the senior civil servant to that senior civil servant wrote,
that [I] “am satisfied that is letter was appropriate .” (Letters are included.)
The statement entrenches the designation.
As said above, the people are not important, it is the idea, the statements were written and are public documents. Therefore, accepted policy against diabetics because government has written it.

This harmful statement was written not by my neighbour or someone on the street but by government.
What is the public supposed to believe when the government writes such things about anyone or a group of people, such as diabetics or the disabled?
The public believe such statements because it’s such a horrific thing to state about someone. We don’t believe government would state such a horrific thing unless it was supported by unquestionable documents.
Will the government ever retract such a statement. Absolutely Not. They just hide behind indifference and bureaucracy.
What these kind of statements prove is how deep the misunderstanding of diabetes and diabetic drivers really is.

And what’s really wrong with this kind of statement is that 99.9 % of government employees are responsible and accountable for their work. The anti-diabetics and government that support this kind of statements slight all people within our society, not just government employees.


Lets review how I am treated by government.
I’ve been classified, labelled, given a number, forced to take a medical exam that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, and will be tracked for the rest of my life.
A senior government civil servant wrote that the medical policy saves lives, implying that diabetic drivers are killing people; no proof offered. No proof that the policy decreases that killing.
The out of court settlement contract was broken.
An amendment to that contracted without my knowledge and implemented.
Doing this turned me invisible.
Dobbs writes a presentation using future medical conditions as a rationalization for the drivers’ medical examination or policy but never connects their Timeline of expression to the Timeline of expression for type 2 diabetes and then to the Timeline of commercial Class 4 driving?
Dobbs never offers any research on Class 4 driving, never proves the DME can do what it is alleged to be able to do, never acknowledges the consequences of the policy, never proves there is any Good coming from the policy, and never acknowledges that diabetics visit doctors which proves the two years demand of the policy is really a redundant exercise.
To say I’ve been turned into the Other is an understatement. I’ve been turned into a Monster.




Coroner’s Reports, needed medical and policy changes, and ICBC.

Why coroners’ reports? The reports would offer real facts in context to ‘our’ society and support the statements the assistant deputy ministers have put forward, that diabetics are killing.
No coroner’s reports have been offered which would have documented the cause of death. We can only assume there never has been any deaths caused by hypoglycemia little lone hypoglycemia attached to diabetes causing death or the OSMV would have stated so.

This is important as the Coroners Office investigates deaths. If the Coroners Office has had a request from the OSMV to specifically document motor vehicle accident deaths for hypoglycemia pertaining to diabetes, hypoglycemia pertaining to non-diabetic drivers, or just diabetes we should know about it.
The good thing about this kind of inquiry is that if OSMV says ‘No’ to the request then the OSMV is really saying deaths caused by hypoglycemia are such rare events that it is not even worthwhile tracking.
The response will also force the OSMV to retract their statements that rely upon Fear to establish a need for their unjustified policy against diabetics.
If ‘Yes,’ then we will learn how rare an event it really is.

So if accidents involving diabetic drivers are “relatively rare events” because severe hypoglycemia is a rare event imaging how rare deaths are. It’s important to see if the OSMV is interested in the real facts that actually prove a need for their program or are they still relying on making things up because in their view it is ok to do.

Secondly, this program against diabetics is so unprofessionally managed that the Respondents never initiated a Research Project to fully understand the supposed benefits or harms of the program.
Imagine that. No study to justify the medical policy and no study to justify the medical policy as to the Good or Benefits to society.
Reader, you must ask, Why?

Actually, they couldn’t study the policy for Good or benefits because they’ve never had documents to prove there is a need. Without the starting point, which would be defined by the real accidents and driver mishaps, there cannot be a study of benefit of Good because who would know what has changed.
This policy is based on Risk, something abstract but the consequences are real and concrete.
An Aim and Goal should have be defined. A study should have be done to prove a real need and any benefits and if none are realized the policy would be found null and void.
This policy should have been put on hold in 2002 when I brought the consequences forward into the public place or space.
The paradox is that as the Cox study and other studies in the Printed Material state there is no difference in accident rates how will the OSMV find a starting point to see if the accident rate declines therefore demonstrating a Good or a Benefit to society if there is no difference to start with?

Thirdly, the medical examination cannot predict, prevent, or manage hypoglycemia. Why should it be continued if it can’t prove that it has done anything?
Reader, don’t forget the commercial driver must have a medical examination to prove their worth to begin with and have a schedule they must fulfill while commercial driving.
This is a realization that the OSMV cannot accept so I believe a third party will need to intervene on this matter and evaluate the worth of the examination and its use in the rationalization of the medical policy.
Don’t forget, someone must explain why genitals are examined for hypoglycemia and diabetic driving.

Fourth, a study on the Consequences of the medical policy should be done in order to measure the harm caused by the changes in doctor availability.
Additionally, a study of why people visit the emergency ward should be done to see how many are there due to unavailability of their GP.
However, as more citizens are not able to have a long-term relationship with a GP, more drop-in-clinics are available, and the new private clinics established by government to address the consequences of their policies this consequence may be changing and be harder to study.

What is with the copying of hypoglycemia and insulin use within Dobbs and Iyer’s presentation? It is general knowledge but neither is a diabetic or studied hypoglycemia so it makes me wonder if the information was copied from somewhere. The presentations are so similar that it is as one of the two was changed to make it a little different so the similarities would not be noticed.
If the presentation was copied and the second altered it begs the question is this plagiarism?

Sixth, the term accidents must be defined. There is no doubt that the use of “the program saves lives, accidents, crashes, stupor, seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, confusion slurred speech, slow reaction time, poor judgement, and lack of coordination” escalates the realization of “accident” to ‘mind numbing horrific accidents.’
“Accident” is another one of those undefined terms used to denigrate the diabetic and to increase the Fear/Risk factor.
Don’t forget no one has defined what the accident rate is little lone defined an accident; the harm has not been defined as ‘material accident costs’ a ‘damaged car’ or ‘property’ or the ‘actual harm caused to a human being.’ The harm has never been defined for me and yet all accidents or crashes are presented as accidents causing harm to humans and we know all accidents just aren’t that way.
The Cox study introduces “driver mishap” because of this. Driver mishaps include the accident and crash. But, even then not all accidents and crashes involve another vehicle or human.

Are these accidents ever viewed and recorded as non-diabetic accidents are, just accidents?

Seventh, the DME form must be updated or changed somehow.
The information could be two years old for Class 4 type 2 drivers or five for non-commercial diabetic drivers. Even one-year-old information is redundant.

Eighth, I go to a General Practioner to fulfill the examination. One draft suggested the DMV be done by a specialist. For me to visit a specialist I must go through a GP. This means that the cost of the examination is much more than need be as a specialist is not needed to fulfill this form. If I understand the term specialist correctly their costs are more than the cost of a GP. So, to force me to visit a specialist may cost more than double for no good reason for an examination that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do in the first place.
Now that the Solicitor Generals’ office pays for the examination there should be restrictions placed upon the public as to who fulfills the form. If one wants a specialist to fulfill the examination the licensee should pay for the specialist examination or the difference.
However, if other diabetics are as tentative as I am about the genital examination maybe they return to someone, a specialist, as they feel comfortable during this humiliating event.

Additionally, the genital examination should be dropped unless the OSMV can prove a real need related to hypoglycemia otherwise it’s sexual abuse.
Also, the examination criteria should be available for all to see. It should not be an esoteric procedure.
The client should be able to read what has been said about them and given the opportunity to sign the document. This affords me the Right to not sign or ask for changes if I don’t agree with what has been written.
However, this might cause problems with the designation of diabetics as the Other, as it means I’m a reasonable, rational human being, not immoral, not socially dysfunctional, and not a killer.

Ninth, a Report should be commissioned to define the Other, through a Sociologist, and how it’s constructed and supported by and through government and positions of influence and status.
This could be part of governments’ senior civil servants course work and those decision makers behind the scenes that are steering the medical policy and all the negative beliefs about diabetics.
They need to be informed about what has happened to me and why and what they are really doing.
If they disagree with this undertaking ask them to support their believes with documents in order to prove the policy is demonstrably justified and they haven’t turned me into the Other.
There should also be a Report commissioned to define the Harm caused by the policy.
With this in mind maybe the OSMV will not have as many Human Rights cases brought against them because they will be an informed government body.
(Direct the OSMV staff to go to the BCHRT website to see how many cases there are against the OSMV. Additionally, how many complaints are like my case and resolved out of court so the public never reads about them. Over fifty percent of HR cases are resolved out of court.)
No other BC government agency has as many cases against them as the OSMV.
This begs the question, how dysfunctional is the OSMV in respect to Human Rights and management?

Lastly, what happens with accidents?
What I mean here, and this is part of my Informative essay not an opinion, is that there are already five,(5) successful remedies to keep accident-prone drivers off the road.

Don’t forget the medical policy does not prevent, predict, or manage hypoglycemia, it does not prevent accidents, it has not recorded accidents, and the OSMV has not offered any data to demonstrate how many licences have been cancelled through the Fear of a diabetic driver having an accident or a documented accident.
The Respondents have not even acknowledged that the policy is a bona fide program managing driving and accident-prone drivers.
It begs the question as to why haven’t they?

The response to and management of accidents and Drivers’ At Risk is difficult to work through as I don’t really know how it’s done as I’ve haven’t had an accident in forty years. So here’s an example.

My son lost his N licence due to an accident. He had to start over with the N, which meant two more years with his N before he could write his regular license.
He was also fined.
His insurance would have gone up if he owned his own car.
If he had another accident with his N, we, his parents and owners of the car, would have lost our safe driving record.
Another accident and he would have been banned from driving and forced to participate in an ICBC or OSMV driving program. I think he would have also got points.
So, we need to learn what happens to drivers when they have an accident, then two accidents, three accidents, and the forth accident; as Risk is based upon ratios. Remember my silly example of ratios.
The third and forth are necessary as when I review the number of accidents by non-diabetics verses diabetics there are statements that compare one accident to one point three accidents, a ratio.
So, we to need to see what happens to non-diabetic drivers that have three or four accidents to be able to demonstrate the difference in accident rates realized in real terms not just ratios.
However, in Reality, before both drivers had their third and fourth accident they would not be driving because the insurance regulations and possibly the police, and possibly a doctor.
The ban would have nothing to do with the OSMV medical examination policy as it could be two years away whereas the insurance and police are immediate.

My point is, there are already sufficient penalties and learning tools to manage accident-prone drivers; fines, increase in points, restrictions, bans, insurance increases, safe-driving benefits diminished, and safe driving school.
It’s interesting the presenters have forgotten to mention this real management instrument.
There is no need for the diabetic medical program, as it doesn’t do anything positive or in real Time, whereas ICBC intervenes immediately and the penalties impact future events and it offers Good and Benefits to society.

My point is, isn’t it interesting that the presenters and the OSMV never mentioned this fact. It’s real management compared to their beliefs.
My recommendation is that the OSMV, the presenters, and everyone else involved in this discrimination against diabetics be informed that ICBC or insurance companies have real and bona fide programs that manage accidents and accident rates and accident prone drivers, the real Driver at Risk.
The ICBC or equivalent Insurance accident management policies far out weigh anything offered by the OSMV medical policy and there is no harm to anyone and it certainly does not turn diabetics into the Other, nor state that I’m a killer, nor immoral, nor socially dysfunctional nor change the availability to health care for no justifiable reason.

Reader, you now know the diabetic visits doctors for care, which makes the policy redundant.
You now know doctors can revoke a license if needed, because they are doctors.
You now know ICBC manages the driver at Risk in real Time, therefore the policy really is redundant.
You now know the police also manage drivers’ at risk.
Interesting how Dobbs, the OSMV, and the anti-diabetic lobby do not inform you of this.




Timelines

It is believed type 1 diabetes could express from type 2 but that takes Time, measured in decades if at all. A Timeline.
There are different kinds of hypoglycemia, which impact the different types of diabetes in different times of their disease. A Timeline.
Diabetics are penalized for some medical conditions that may express themselves in the future, in decades if at all. A Timeline.
I will be retired from commercial driving by the time I may experience type 1 diabetes.
I may be retired from commercial driving by the time I may experience some types of hypoglycemia.
I may be retired from private driving by the time I may experience type 1 diabetes.
What’s interesting is that I’ll be retired from Commercial driving by the time these conditions may express themselves.
I may also be retired from Personal driving by the time some of these conditions may express themselves.

My point is, there are Timelines involved within diabetes itself.
A Timeline that will include the driving diabetics’ Working lifetime.
A Timeline in which future conditions may express themselves which the government uses as a tool against the diabetic today.
A Timeline that demands the government justify their policy or demands upon society within a Reasonable Time.

The presenters do not acknowledge these Timelines or connect these Timelines to the Working Timeline within their presentations. Why?
It’s important, as the Timeline is very influential concerning my Timeline as a Class 4 driver.
It’s also important to the Timeline of type 2s and the believed future conditions they are penalized for.
It takes time for the conditions and their consequences to express themselves within the Timeline of diabetes, commercial driving, and retirement, and the Connections to these components of diabetes are not attended to.
The Connections are needed to bring the Timelines together in order to bring reality to this argument.
Why haven’t the Connections been attended to which would bring Relevance to Timelines and driving.

Secondly, future conditions are not solely dependent upon diabetes to express themselves. Our old age may be the factor for many of these conditions expressing themselves.
So, the argument that all the future medical conditions and their complications that may express themselves and negatively impact my life while commercial driving is suspect as diabetes does not guarantee the conditions will express within a commercial drivers Working lifetime little lone life.
Reader, why haven’t you been informed of this fact?

Are we really to believe that Dobbs and the OSMV do not know about the Timelines and their influence and that diabetics also retire about sixty-one years of age or earlier?
Are the Timelines are not acknowledged because I’m a diabetic and not afforded the opportunity to retire as non-diabetics are?
Do I not have the same Right to have the reality of retirement acknowledged within this argument.
So, the presentation that other conditions and their complications, mentioned by Dobbs, expressing themselves and negatively impacting a Class 4 type 2 driver, is not valid as I’ll be retired. This Timeline applies to all commercial diabetic drivers.
Imagine such an important component of the diabetic driving policy not being acknowledged by Dobbs and the OSMV.

Reader, you must now ask, how slanted is the whole argument against diabetics?
How can people not acknowledge the Timeline of Work, which is the underpinning of this discrimination complaint?

Work is the matter at hand and the OSMV does not attend to the most important factor and Dobbs does not connect her presentation to it.
Again, you must ask, Why?
Not doing this allows the ‘supposed hypoglycemia’ and ‘hypothetical future conditions’ to be established without any context in a drivers’ Working career or life.
Stuff without Context and Relevance means it is still just stuff.

To recognize the Timeline of Work and Retirement would exclude the presentation of hypoglycemia and other conditions as the tools of justification for the medical policy.
So, if there is no difference in accident rates, and hypoglycemia unawareness is a rare event, and severe hypoglycemia is something more rare, if that is meaningful, and if regular or mild hypoglycemia by itself is not used as a tool against diabetics, and according to the Cox study future conditions do not influence diabetic driving, and future conditions are beyond the commercial driving Timeline, then what does justify the policy?
Why doesn’t Dobbs mention that the Cox study states future medical conditions do not influence diabetic driving?
The Cox study documents the studies used to make this claim, which does not seem to be contested according to the Cox statement.

It seems Fear/Risk of diabetics drives this medical policy as nothing scientific has been offered.
Is Fear good enough to fulfill the needs, the statutes of the Motor Vehicle Act?
Is Fear good enough to fulfill the needs of the Charter?
Is Fear good enough to fulfill the needs of the Human Rights Code?
Is it that diabetics are viewed as amoral, or immoral, and socially dysfunctional and that is why the demands of the above instruments of democracy are not acknowledged or fulfilled?




Expert’s Hats

Dobbs is an instructor at the University of Alberta. She wears a Hat that says she’s within the education system of Alberta.
Dobbs is a doctor. She wears a Hat that says she is a doctor.
Dobbs is a researcher. She wears a Hat that says she is guided by established protocol and process.

My point is, these positions were used to give Dobbs her expertise, her place within society, that place of power, authority, trust, prestige, and status. She can never take these Hats off. If I’m lying in the street before her she cannot walk on by. She has responsibilities to the medical profession and society.
As an educator she has responsibilities to the educational profession and society.
She has responsibilities to her fellow researches, colleagues, and society.

Dobbs is a researcher, educator, and doctor, which begs the question, why the Timelines and their Connections to each other have not been attended to?
Dobbs is a researcher, educator, and doctor, which begs the question, why the Consequences of the policy have not been attended to?
And what about the lack of acknowledgement of any Good?
How can she support a policy without acknowledging and reviewing the consequences of the policy she recommends without Timelines that establish reality to the policy?

How can she make a presentation without acknowledging and responding to these very important factors that researchers, educators and doctors use to establish their own credentials?
Are we to believe the presentations have any worth when the same standards and protocols and process as demanded within the above fields of study are not offered to the diabetic.
Nonetheless, Dobbs does acknowledge and attend to Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights because there are consequences to use without Permission?
Why not same standards to the diabetic?

Expert presentations should include the consequences of the subject they are discussing, as exemplified in research projects, medicine, and education and many government contracts and policies. If the presenters cannot discuss the consequences of things such as the medical policy and the liability associated with doing so and Timelines their presentations should not be accepted as worthwhile.
This would lead to presentation that are more inclusive offering a better understanding of the matter at hand and would help define policies that should not be implemented.
This legal quandary the OSMV has created, the failure to acknowledge Consequences and lack of Good, introduces the Persuasive presentation as the instrument to justify the policy as not all components of the argument at hand need to be told.

Can Dobbs really disregard the Hats she wears, as it is the Hats that are supposed to give the expert opinion?
What makes her, she must use.

The Motor Vehicle Act was crafted to stop arbitrary policy, authoritarian civil servants, and pressure from outside factors manipulating the OSMV. Dobbs never mentions the MVA and its demands and if the OSMV has fulfilled its demands.

The Charter is never mentioned by Dobbs. It has demands that must be fulfilled, that government demands be demonstrably justified.
This is a Human Rights complaint and Dobbs does not address or acknowledge the Human Rights Code and its demands; government policy must be bona fide and reasonably justified. Why?
Dobbs does not attend to the insurance companies, ICBC, management of driver mishaps. This is a real and bona fide management tool that is in place and manages driver mishaps in real time not in two year or five year intervals.

Why doesn’t Dobbs mention ongoing management tools already in place? As an educator, researcher, and doctor it would seem “prudent preventive medicine” that she would need to acknowledge such things to guarantee her work was not redundant.




This Case of Discrimination and Things to Think About


Rationale verses Rationalization

The best example of negative construction is the Rationale that is offered by the government as to why they run the program. The government ran and continues to run this program under the guise of a Rationale.
However their Rationale for the program is really a Rationalization,
“the process of devising acceptable reasons for acts that cannot be creditably justified”

Six years after I instigated my inquiry I have not been offered any bona fide material that would demonstrably justify the program little lone enough facts to offer a bona fide Rationale.
So right from the beginning an image of diabetes has been constructed by government that has no bona fide substance. They contrived the program, and for some unknown reason implemented it, Fear I imagine, and then decided that they better try and explain themselves.


Toxic Work Place

Now that I’ve Deconstructed the Persuasive presentation and you have more facts to truly evaluate my inquiry in a balanced manner you can now understand why I started questioning the government program.
We must ask ‘why’ so many of the things mentioned in my essay were not explained thoroughly.
In short it’s a Defence mechanism used by the Respondents; less information the better their Persuasive presentation.
As we have Toxic Waste Dumps we now acknowledge that the workplace can also be a Toxic Work Place as this discrimination case exemplifies.
Just think of all the things that have been done to me and are still occurring. Think of the fever in which some of the statements have been thrown at me. Some of these statements are really silly and they’re coming from people in positions of power, authority, trust, prestige, and status.
How can someone write that I’m a killer?
How can the Timeline of work not be acknowledged in a work argument?
How can a government policy against diabetics be justified with no supporting documentation?
The Cox study really challenges the restrictions placed upon type 2s and yet Dobbs uses the study to support her position against diabetic drivers.
The Cox study does support education as a tool do lessen the hypoglycemic incidents concerning type 1s and the rare occurrences within the type 2 population. Interestingly enough the education does not come from restrictive government policies. Doctors already educate and if they were not filling out forms for the OSMV there Time could be used for Good.
How can research be presented without permission from the owners? What about Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights. I know this is private space and not public but if we do go public the OSVM will only have one article to present if they gain permission. I can present as I am not making social policy or being paid for the use. It’s an interesting twist here. The OSMV uses it to justify its policy but it is not allowed to use it.
How can experts and the government not attend to the harm realized by the consequences of the policy?
How can experts and government not acknowledge or present any Good coming from the policy?
How can experts support and government continue to run a policy that changes the basic availability to health care knowing of the negative consequences? I brought the consequences into the public realm during 2002-2004 with my initial inquiry. At that time the policy should have been put on hold due to the harm caused and yet the policy has continued on knowing the harm it causes.
What does that say about the mindset of the anti-diabetic lobby and the OSMV.

It’s not that the people are toxic, it’s the environment and their behaviour is a result of working in a Toxic Work Place. How else can we describe what has and is happening to me? It is Group Think that has run amok? How else do these people explain their actions.

International consequences

The research presented is from the world.
Do these countries really know the Canadian diabetic drivers’ policy has never met the demands of our Charter, HRC, and the MVA?
Do these countries really know how this policy changes the basic availability to health care in Canada creating enormous overloads in Emergency facilities?
Do these countries know this policy’s consequences are instigational in allowing private clinics into the public health care system?
Do these countries really know the policy has never been studied to realize any Good?

Drivers At Risk

Drivers at Risk are always here no matter what we do to discourage them for being so.
They are managed by insurance companies, police, and doctors. They are beyond management and just do what they want. There are no restrictions on them as they don’t care. It is only after a crash or accident that restriction may impact them. They still drive without license, drunk, stoned on meds or illegal meds, who knows what kind of street drugs, and are driven by speed, coolness, or whatever. They are part of the non-diabetic driving population that is never really managed. They are just out there. They really are the Driver at Risk.
When I view the studies online this idea comes through in studies. The problem is the above, however it is just alluded to. Researchers, just people, are not making the connections or at least not writing about it. As I’ve talked about the Cox study so much I’ll return to it again, the above is in their study. Some diabetics drive while experiencing hypoglycemia, the researchers mention this and are perplexed.
These are the people that are at Risk, they are the Drivers At Risk except they are wearing a diabetics hat and not the non-diabetics hat.
These people are never going to change.
I have not read a study that incorporates this Driver At Risk into the population of diabetic drivers accident rates or ratios.
It must be acknowledged as they will always be there no matter what kind of diabetic study is done or education or restrictive policy.
Does this decrease the driver mishap ratios, I don’t know.
They need to be acknowledge as the real population of Diabetic Driver At Risk is so insignificant incidents of these kinds of drivers skew ratios and blow the problem out of proportion.



Reader, when you Deconstruct Dobbs’ presentation there is not sufficient nor the necessary material to dismiss my complaint.

Also, I will not copy this response for the Howie and Iyer response as saying once is enough.
Additionally, the grading will be the same as no one has informed me of how these responses are graded. Someone needs to set standards to follow and the six criteria are really what makes this complaint. Everything concerning this complaint can be placed into one or the other.
Goodbye

Well fellow traveller, fellow type 2 diabetic and Class 4 driver, thank you very much for travelling in my shoes for a few hours.
Now I would like my shoes back and you can keep the laces. Why the laces? That’s to keep you tied to diabetes, to me, for the rest of your life.
Journeys such as the one you have just experienced should never be forgotten just in case you actually begin wearing your own diabetic shoes.

One last thing, those in the know state diabetes is really on the rise, it’s supposed to become an epidemic, which means 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 will become diabetic. Reader, you may need this letter for yourself and you have permission to use it against the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby or any other anti-disability lobby.
If diabetes does become epidemic and no changes to government thinking and policies such as the OSMV diabetic policy have been implemented we need to multiply the Consequences of the policy by at least four times; if diabetics are now 9% of society which will increase to 33% in an epidemic, which is approximately four times the harm. Imagine the line-ups in emerge facilities then and the lack of primary health care through GP.

I wonder what style of presentation the proponents of the medical policy will write when they wake up one morning to discover that they’re diabetic? That’s all I did. Woke up to diabetes one morning.

I wonder how they’ll respond as Fear and Ignorance already drives them.


Regards


Dave Jenkins