Dave Jenkins
3107 Tanglewood Way
Nanaimo, BC, V9T 5A5
dwjenkins@shaw.ca
December 21, 2006
Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
PO Box 9254
STN Prov Govt
Victoria, BC, V8W 9J2
Re: BC Human Rights Tribunal Case # 1954,
Settlement Agreement, Review of Draft.
Dear Superintendent of Motor Vehicles,
Thank you for your letter of December 12, 2006.
Let me begin by stating that I received your Registered letter containing the Draft, December 18, 2006, it being written December 12, and mailed December 14, six weeks after the agreed contractual date of November 15, 2006.
The Settlement Agreement states, “the Respondent will prioritize the review of diabetes within this process and, on or before November 15, 2006 will provide the Complainant with a draft driver fitness monitoring policy for drivers with diabetes based on the evidence gathered in this review.”
So, whoever you are you broke a contract, the Settlement Agreement of my Human Rights case of discrimination, and you have not even had the decency to acknowledge the fact.
Whoever you are you should be in front of a judge explaining why you have done so.
This is not something that should be settled out of court as my case was. The public should have a record of your behaviour and lack of respect of the Settlement Agreement.
This inaction again exemplifies the OSMV utter failure to acknowledge, review, and respond to the consequences of their actions, the diabetic medical policy.
Fear/Risk Factor
This is used to justify the medical policy as no documents have been offered to justify the medical policy against diabetic drivers. Without documents Risk is used to justify the policy and Fear is used to increase the Risk factor, thus Fear/Risk factor.
However, Risk is based upon something concrete and then extrapolated from there; no documents equals no Risk.
An Acute effect, such as hypoglycemia, is associated with the irregular and unpredictability, therefore irregular and unpredictable behaviour, something our society will not tolerate. Both terms define the Unknown, which increases the Fear factor due to our fear of the Unknown.
When we deal with the Unknown we do interesting things such as believing the unproven consequences of things such as only diabetics experience hypoglycemia and all diabetic do and all diabetics are therefore harmful and must be controlled.
Sometimes risk is a fine tool to use for our personal lives and personal business but not good enough for government agencies as the Constitution is bigger than whom you people are and whom you represent and what you’re doing.
If you cannot rise to the demands of the Constitution you are protected from all the Anti-diabetics as you have fulfilled the demands of the Constitution and it is bigger than all the Anti-diabetics and their fear and loathing.
If you cannot rise to the demands of the Constitution then your beliefs are null and void, they do not count.
Page 1
1. OVERVIEW
Paragraph 1
The key words here are, “may affect” and “may result.”
It must be remembered that each time “may” or other ‘tentative words and phrases’ are used the Risk Factor decreases not increases as your presentation suggests.
Is the word “impaired” used to draw a relationship to drunk drivers and their problems?
There are many words that could be used to define the different stages and intensities of the condition hypoglycemia but all the negatives associated with drunk drivers are slide in within the first two sentences. Well done.
It’s hard to denigrate the disabled with only two sentences and you’ve certainly given it a good try.
Paragraph 2
The chronic complications that “may” affect fitness ‘should’ be considered later.
Whoever you are, you cannot penalize me for complications that may express themselves twenty or more years in the future. It’s against the law in Canada to penalize people for events two, three, or four or five events away from an earlier event.
This is another example of discrimination and the lack of the OSMV to reflect the consequences of its own actions.
Not only that, a doctor will surely be managing these conditions if and when a condition may express itself.
Or, are you people so afraid of diabetics and doctors that you believe a doctor will not stand to his or her legal and medical commitments and manage a condition appropriately if and when it expresses itself?
You cannot base the diabetic medical policy on things, chronic conditions, that you believe may happen in the future. Especially when most of these conditions apply to Type 1 diabetes and Type 1 diabetics only comprise between 0.25 and 0.50 of one percent of Canadians. Also, it takes years before a condition may express itself and years before the complications associated with a condition may express.
Additionally, these conditions are not dependent upon diabetes in order for them to express themselves.
The above population number decreases significantly when compared to drivers, as not all Canadians are drivers.
This number again decreases when Commercial drivers are considered.
To make matters more insignificant not all diabetics have these conditions express themselves.
This percent again decreases as complications associated with a condition may only express themselves after years of having a condition.
This percent again decreases when Type 2 drivers are considered, as these conditions may never express themselves unless a Type 2 lives “long enough” to move into the Type 1 classification and then only after many years of Type 1 diabetes these conditions may express themselves.
Due to the drivers age will these people even be driving then?
So how small is the percentage of society that you’re talking about?
In my case, Class 4 Type 2 diabetes, what percentage of society are you really talking about?
All this is done on the assumption that things may express themselves in the future?
All this is done and your side of the argument has never offered any documents to prove these chronic conditions, expressed due to diabetes, have increased the accident rate between non-diabetics and diabetics?
Lastly, you must remember that only, “those who live long enough with the disease will eventually become insulin dependent.”
This means that within the Timeline of Life and Driving the Type 2 diabetic driver will not experience the chronic conditions and their complications or the extraordinary incidents of hypoglycemia associated with Type 1 diabetes, which may only express itself after 10-20 years of having Type 1diabetes.
Your own statements should be enough for you to find the policy toward Class 4 Type 2 diabetic drivers null and void.
“About diabetes mellitus and hypoglycemia”
This section seems fine, as it’s material that’s available to all, from many sources.
However, your statement about why hypoglycemia occurs should be expanded upon so the reader learns that hypoglycemia is not only associated with diabetes as it expresses itself to non-diabetics also.
Your paper states, “Hypoglycemia may occur for a number of reasons, including irregular meals, unexpected physical exertion, and changes to medication or a failure to take a scheduled dose.”
However, for a more inclusive definition, hypoglycemia may express itself due to things such as; changing an exercise or meal program, or if one is introduced to a new medication, if one is ill, if one is travelling, if one drinks alcohol, when one eats unusual foods, before/after exercising, when drinking after work and not eating, or when stressed.
Additionally, your definition must also mention all the abuse of medical drugs and illegal drugs that impact our lives in relation to blood sugar levels. You’re too selective in your presentation.
The more complete definition will help educate the non-diabetic and reduce the ignorance surrounding diabetes and hopefully placate the fear of diabetics.
This will allow non-diabetics to understand hypoglycemia is a more common event than they ever believed or understood or have ever been informed of by anti-diabetics.
This will help define and explain some of their behaviour, wife and child abuse, as well as their Road Rage.
However, implementing all this will diminish your argument won’t it?
Don’t forget, non-diabetics comprise 95% of society and considering all things equal, except the insignificant numbers of Type 1diabetics needing insulin and some Type 2 diabetics supplementing their diabetes management strategy with insulin or insulin secretagogues, it’s only logical to understand that non-diabetics represent the greater opportunity for hypoglycemia considering their bodies use their blood sugar whereas Type 2 diabetics have problems accessing their blood sugar.
I worry about non-diabetics and anti-diabetics because they present the idea that they’re above hypoglycemia.
Have non-diabetics ever been investigated for hypoglycemia at the accident scene?
Page 2
“Neurogenic symptoms of hypoglycemia”
This section seems fine, as it’s material that’s available to all, from many sources, and relates to the human condition.
However, it’s not as if diabetics are learning about hypoglycemia for the first time, as if they’ve never responded to the condition before, as they have, as everyone has, every day of their lives. The effects of hypoglycemia are the warning signals that it’s time to eat; it’s time to replenish one’s blood sugar.
This applies to every human with the difference being non-diabetics just eat and are never informed about the experience, as it’s an everyday event. Diabetics are informed what the experience is. It’s also used against them as if hypoglycemia does not affect non-diabetics.
It’s the introduction of medications, the restriction of carbohydrates, and maybe an exercise program that they are now learning to respond to as these kinds of events can lead to low blood sugar.
These three events also apply to non-diabetics and when they become hypoglycemic what do they do? They “respond by consuming sugary liquids or starch foods to increase their blood glucose levels” just as diabetics do.
Or, if they don’t, they get short tempered with their co-workers and on the drive home experience Road Rage or get real nasty with their family and friends.
Or, they go have a few drinks because they’re in a bad mood and think they will improve their disposition with a few drinks but in reality they only make their situation worse. They become drunk and run over a diabetic that’s out walking to keep fit. The non-diabetic is labelled as drunk but I know she’s drunk and hypoglycemic, as she doesn’t eat well and is using over-the-counter stimulants or drugs to loose weight.
Do the anti-diabetics even admit to this very real scenario?
Your statement makes learning seem dirty. Your statement makes diabetics seem mentally dysfunctional or simple.
What’s this Draft really trying to say about the diabetics’ mental or cognitive state of mind?
“Neuroglycopenic symptoms of hypoglycemia”
This section seems fine, as it’s material that’s available to all, from many sources, and relates to the human condition.
“Hypoglycemic unawareness”
This section seems fine, as it’s material that’s available to all, from many sources, and relates to the human condition.
“Prevalence of diabetes”
This section seems fine.
However, you really should inform the readers what the real numbers are and not hide behind percents of percents as most people will not, or cannot work the numbers, or are no just interested.
Then again, if the real whole numbers are listed people will see how small the numbers really are and may also start asking questions as to why you are doing this and at what cost to the medical care system and society.
So, if we take 100 people, or 100%, 5 are diabetic.
That means that there are;
Type 1 Type 2
5-10% of 5 people is 90-95% of 5 people is
0.25 to 0.5 people 4.5 to 4.75 people
So, of 100 people there are approximately only 0.25 to 0.5 Type 1diabetics.
So, of 100 people there are approximately only 4.5 to 4.75 Type 2 diabetics.
This makes it a little easier for all to understand how insignificant the diabetic population is especially Type 1’s.
Doesn’t it make you wonder about what’s wrong with the anti-diabetic people?
THE GRAPH
So, if you really are to be honest and forthright to the public and the functioning illiterate you should make a graph of the above to demonstrate the real numbers. This should be compared to the overall population.
A graph large enough to represent the real percentage of diabetics compared to 100 people. In full length listing the one-quarter and one-half people, Type 1’s.
Additionally, another graph should be offered so the public can realize the percentage of diabetics and diabetic drivers to the overall population.
Additionally, another graph should be offered so the public can realize the percentage of commercial diabetic drivers compared to the overall population, diabetic drivers, and the diabetic population.
Additionally, another graph should be offered so the public can realize the percentage of Class 4 Type 2 diabetic drivers compared to the overall population, diabetic drivers, and the diabetic population.
Additionally, another graph should be offered so the public can realize the percentage of Class 4 Type 2 diabetic drivers compared to the overall population, commercial drivers, Class 4 divers, diabetic drivers, and the diabetic population.
Doing the above will inform the public how small and insignificant the population of diabetic drivers and the commercial diabetic drivers really are.
Secondly, what are you trying to say with this graph?
This graph is used, through the tall columns, to express a large problem just as the large percents were used in the previous paragraph. In this instance large images are used to make things larger than real life as large percents were used to make insignificant numbers larger than real life.
What’s the old adage? Say things enough times and the reader will start to believe; large percents and large pictures equals large problem. And yet, no problem has ever been documented.
Third, in the previous paragraph large percents were used to inflate the insignificant numbers of diabetics into something of magnitude that should be feared and managed.
However, when those percents are looked at closely and translated into real numbers, for what they really are, humans, the numbers are insignificant.
This also applies to your graph. Large percents are used, as are the columns, which in turn imply a large problem.
Additionally, the “Percent” heading only runs to 16%. If it ran to 100% the tall columns would be 6.25 times smaller and the first two columns would clearly express themselves as truly insignificant.
So, if compared to the actual numbers, not percents of percents, and compared to the overall population the columns would be significantly different and less intrusive. If proper scale, a whole scale, is used the graph would inform the reader of the true picture of diabetes.
Additionally, if the diabetics are divided into their proper Types imagine how small the columns would be for Type 1 diabetics. Those tall columns, those skyscrapers, would certainly disappear to become only buildings of insignificance.
Lastly, for those uninformed about skyscrapers there’s always a metaphor associated with the skyscraper, with all buildings actually, but your graph focuses upon tall columns or skyscrapers, buildings of significance.
So, what is the metaphor your graph is trying to instil upon the reader without a statement?
Your graph is telling the reader that there are large problems with diabetics as can be clearly seen.
This is done to increase Fear of the diabetic, which increases the idea of Risk, which is supposed to justify the intrusion into the diabetics’ life even though no documentation has been offered to justify the medical policy.
The presentation within this section is manipulative.
It’s constructed negativism against diabetics.
It’s also constructed to increase the Fear/Risk factor.
Page 3
“Prevalence of hypoglycemia”
In response to the statement that’s a paraphrase from a 1993 study where it was “estimated that the incidence of mild hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia for which a diabetic is able to treat themselves) to be 28 episodes per person per year.”
Mild Hypoglycemia is a term that is new to me, but I’ve only been reading diabetic material for six years now and I certainly do not read all the material.
Let me be very clear here for the uninformed, mild hypoglycemia is the human experience.
Let me be very clear here, mild hypoglycemia is what diabetics call hypoglycemia and they are “able to treat themselves.”
Let me be very clear here, mild hypoglycemia is what non-diabetics call hunger and they are “able to treat themselves” without knowing they are doing something diabetics are chastised for.
I treat myself for hypoglycemia three to six times a day; my eating times. I also make decisions not to eat in order to manage my weight, something I did without having diabetes.
I’ll also have sugar in my tea sometimes to stave off the hunger feeling. Don’t you? Or do you have a cookie, or gum, or candy, or a Timbit to get you to the next meal. Where are you going with this?
I imagine everyone reading this statement does the same thing except that I’m conscious of the fact and those that have not learned “to recognize these symptoms as evidence of hypoglycemia” are just eating and fulfilling their body needs and not thinking about blood sugar levels.
Non-diabetics are not conscious of the term ‘hypoglycemia’ as society does not want to go there for non-diabetics.
In response to, “the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was estimated to be 0.31 episodes per person, per year.”
Here’s the numbers again. In reality, an episode of severe hypoglycemia is once every four years. This doesn’t sound as bad as your statement does it?
Additionally, if one reads the next Section one reads that only 25% of insulin-dependent diabetics have hypoglycemic unawareness. Severe hypoglycemia is not dependent upon hypoglycemic unawareness but is usually related to that condition.
The point is, severe hypoglycemia is not a very common condition as it only expresses itself sometimes and only 25% of Type 1 diabetics have the condition hypoglycemic unawareness that may allow severe hypoglycemia to express itself.
So, it seems that severe hypoglycemia would only express itself less to less than 25% of Type 1 diabetics.
This is important, as we know that Type 1 diabetics only represent 0.25 to 0.50 % of the diabetic population, which is only 5% of the population.
Therefore, we’re talking about, approximately, 25% of 0.25 = 0.0625 to 25% of 0.50 = 0.125 of the diabetic population.
So, if we take one hundred people only 0.0625 of one person may experience hypoglycemic unawareness and she or he may experience severe hypoglycemia due to this condition and this may happen if and when driving.
So, we have a very small number in which something may happen (hypoglycemic unawareness), in which something may happen (severe hypoglycemia), in which something may happen (an accident which is never defined as to mechanical or biological harm, or the degree of harm).
If we apply the same process to Type 2 diabetes which according to your statement, “For Type 2 diabetics, hypoglycemic unawareness is relatively uncommon” there would be very little chance that a Type 2 would experience hypoglycemic unawareness little lone severe hypoglycemia if and when they may be driving.
It’s not a matter that should be even considered.
But then that would diminish your argument wouldn’t it?
Don’t forget my discrimination case is about Type 2 diabetes.
About the “increased therapeutic emphasis on tight glycemic control” and the belief that it has “increased the risk of hypoglycemia by as much as two or three times.”
What study are you paraphrasing?
How conveniently that you have just forgotten that you earlier stated, “diabetics learn to recognize these symptoms as evidence of hypoglycemia and respond by consuming sugary liquids or starchy foods to increase their blood glucose level.”
So, how is it that diabetics are working with their health care workers “which has been shown to significantly reduce the complications of diabetes” and having learned to recognize these symptoms through the knowledge and physical experience of hypoglycemia and yet they are at “risk of hypoglycemia by as much as two or three times.”
Don’t forget hypoglycemia is just low blood sugar or mild hypoglycemia or it would be defined as severe hypoglycemia.
The double think that goes on against diabetics is appalling.
This is part of my discrimination case. The anti-diabetic presentation does not make sense.
What this really suggests is that the belief that the statement, “the estimates of the prevalence of hypoglycemia in Type 1 diabetics may be low” is just noise and constructed to heighten Fear in order to increase Risk, the Fear/Risk factor has been played again.
In reference to,
“ While Type 2 diabetes who are treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues are at risk for hypoglycemia, studies are unclear whether the incidence of hypoglycemia in these type 2 diabetics is the same or lower than type 1 diabetics.”
What studies are you referring to?
I haven’t found a study on this idea. I haven’t found a study on Type 2 diabetes and Class 4 drivers either.
Why not lower than non-diabetics, as Type 2s are educated as to the potential problem and non-diabetics are not.
I suggest the studies are “unclear” as the problem is so trivial, so insignificant, and so inconsequential, that no researchers over the past fifty years have found it of any consequence or significance and studies have not been done because of this.
Remember how insignificant severe hypoglycemia is for Type 1 diabetics and how few Type 1 diabetics there are, what does “relatively uncommon” for Type 2 diabetics really mean?
Page 3
“Prevalence of hypoglycemic unawareness”
This section seems fine, as it’s material that’s available to all, from many sources, and relates to the human condition.
I believe I have balanced off much of this section through Sections on Prevalence of diabetes and Prevalence of hypoglycemia.
However, what must be said is all this relates to driving and when defining Type 2 diabetics, decreased by the insignificant numbers of hypoglycemia unawareness, decreased when associated with drivers, and decreased when associated to Class 4 drivers it begs the question as to, “How many people are we really talking about here and why is this policy relevant?” It has not been proved nor supported by any documents to be appropriate.
Page 3
“Diabetes mellitus and crash risk”
This section is manipulation at it’s best.
Are there inaccurate or false statements?
Are there false statements made with the deliberate intent to deceive?
Because this section is about diabetes and the Risk of a crash a review of my correspondence with the OSMV and the BC Human Rights Commission must be presented to allow the reader, especially the non-diabetic and those uninformed of my case, an overview of what has happened since 2002, when I began corresponding with the OSMV.
I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 1999 and started reading about the disease. With my new knowledge of diabetes I came to understand that diabetes has two different subsets of the disease with Type 1 demanding insulin and Type 2 not demanding insulin. It has also turned out that less than one percent, 0.25-0.50%, of society has Type 1 and approximately 4-5 % of society has Type 2. The percents didn’t seem very intrusive for such draconian measures, which meant that diabetic drivers, compared to their percent of society, must be an enormous risk to the public and yet I had not heard or read they were?
This meant that something was amiss with how diabetes is really portrayed and publicly understood.
As a new diabetic I decided I had better investigate this new world of diabetes and discover what’s really occurring.
I also came to realize that non-diabetics would become hypoglycemic before Type 2 diabetics, as hyperglycemia is the nature of diabetes, and Type 2 diabetics have difficulty accessing their blood sugar whereas non-diabetics do not.
I also came to realize that if Type 2 diabetics use medications to manage their high blood sugar it only puts them on par with non-diabetics, if all other things are considered equal.
I also came to realize the medical examination could not do what it was supposed to be able to do, measure and predict hypoglycemia.
I also had not read or heard that diabetics were such an impediment upon society that a medical examination was deemed mandatory.
I also came to understand the societal negatives associated with governments’ intervention into one’s life.
I also came to understand that this medical examination changes our very basic availability to medical care.
I also came to understand that if our basic Timeline for medical care is changed we attend an Emergency care facility.
I also came to understand that when some people cannot attend their doctor, within a reasonable Timeline, they can give up Hope. Medical care offers Hope to all, not just seniors. Hope is one of the great driving forces in life and when we give up Hope many give up life.
I also came to understand that I had been Classified, Labelled, Given a Number, forced to take a medical exam that could not do what it was supposed to do, and would be tracked for the rest of my life.
I also came to understand that the public views me as something that impacts their health care availability, which is not a good thing. I’m viewed not only as an encumbrance but also something that causes harm to society, the supposed difference in accident rates; otherwise government wouldn’t monitor me.
What all this does is turn me into a pariah within society because the government would not stand up publicly and do this to me, a diabetic; someone that is labelled disabled by the government.
I decided that if I was to manage my type of diabetes and the negative social labels attributed to me by this government program I should read the government documents that support their medical policy and demands.
It seemed a reasonable thing to do as it’s a proactive health management tool.
With the above in mind I began writing the OSMV, 2002, asking why I was forced to undergo the examination.
During the years of 2002, 2003, and 2004 the OSMV did not offer any scientific research to justify their policy against diabetics.
I also wrote the Ministry of Health Planning and Ministry of Health Services asking why they supported this unproven demand upon the medical care system. They replied that, “there is no legal authority for us to investigate this complaint.” (Letter of March 03, 2003)
I also wrote the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC asking why they supported this unproven demand upon the medical care system considering their whole being, Western Medicine, is based upon good science.
They didn’t acknowledge the receipt of the letter little lone respond to my questions about the support they offered.
In a collaborative letter between the OSMV and the Deputy Minister of the MHP and MHS, July 11, 2003, it was stated that,
“The primary concern is hypoglycemia and diabetic coma” and “Although strictly speaking, these testing requirements could be characterized as “discriminatory”, in my view they are reasonable and appropriate as they serve to screen for indications which may have a negative impact on the person’s ability to drive.”
What documents has their “view” been based upon?
The OSMV cannot base a policy upon their “view,” their beliefs, they gave up their beliefs when they became Civil Servants.
It’s not acceptable for government to only say why they do things to citizens and intrude into their lives without proving a bonafide need. According to our Constitution we should be able to examine what the medical policy is based upon.
Secondly, the Motor Vehicle Act was crafted to stop arbitrary decisions and authoritarians and their authoritative decisions impacting our society.
Additionally, in the letter of February 27, 2004, from the OSMV, in response to my request for the documents, it is stated,
“It is my understanding there is no ongoing data gathered on the incidence of accidents caused by or involving diabetic drivers.”
So why is this medical policy even done if the OSMV knows nothing of what is going on?
Also, in the letter of March 24, 2004, the OSMV states,
“We work closely with the British Columbia Medical Association and other stakeholders to ensure that we have sufficient medical information to make informed decisions about fitness to drive while being mindful of the demands on the medical system.”
So, there’s no scientific research, or accident reports, or coroners reports to review in order to understand the medical policy need, or to prove there are any accidents involving diabetic drivers, or accidents caused by diabetes little lone a difference in accident rates between non-diabetics and diabetic drivers.
This means that it’s just a ‘want’ of Anti-diabetics, people that are afraid of diabetics. Why else is this done?
‘Wants’ are just fine for private life and private business but not for government in a democracy with a working Constitution.
Secondly, the declaration of working closely with the BCMA and being conscious of the “demands on the medical system” begs the question as to,
“How much harm is caused by the medical policy (this is a conscious and deliberate harm) and is it really legally and morally acceptable compared to the believed difference in accident rates (this is an accidental harm and the difference in accident rates is only supposed to be there).”
Additionally, in a letter of March 22, 2004, the Compliance and Consumer Services Branch stated,
“It was determined that the medical review program was appropriately part of government’s core services. Most importantly, it saves lives.”
This is important as this states that diabetic drivers are killers.
This is important as this means studies have been done which document how many people diabetic drivers have killed.
This is important as this means studies have been done which document a decrease in the death rate caused by diabetic drivers. This proves that the medical policy decreases the supposed death rate caused by diabetic drivers and the medical policy has some good for society.
This is important as the decrease in deaths can then be compared to a study, to be done, to discover if the medical policy causes any deaths due to the change in medical availability and that impact upon doctor care and Emergency care facilities.
I challenged the CCSB and asked for the scientific research or documents to justify the statement that diabetic drivers are killing people.
No documents were ever offered.
I challenged the CCSB and asked for the scientific research or documents to justify the statement that the medical policy saves lives.
No documents were ever offered.
I didn’t respond to the author of the letter personally.
I did however, write a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General as the CCSB is a subsection of that Ministry. A senior civil servant within the MPS & SG responded, in reference to the author of the letter stated, “that his letter was appropriate.”
Again, no documents were ever offered to support the statement that diabetics are killing people.
The statement about diabetics killing people is misleading and the support for it is unjustified.
The response is just one government agency supporting another government agency.
Doesn’t this make you wonder how deep the misinformation towards diabetics runs in government.
Let me be very clear here. You can say anything you want about me but none of it’s as bad as calling me a killer. Lets say things about me like, “being a drunk, drug addict, wife beater, adulterer, child beater, child molester, pedophile, thief, liar, coward, homosexual, etc, etc, etc.” Take all the religious or cultural things that you hold dear, your values, and say the opposite about me. Put them all together if you like.
None of it’s as bad as calling someone a killer.
This isn’t just my neighbour being rude, nor my co-worker, nor my companion, nor an acquaintance. It’s two government bodies, senior civil servants, of a democratic state stating publicly that I’m a killer.
None of the above is as bad as calling someone a killer because what it really states is that I’m taking someone’s Human Rights away, someone’s Basic Right to Life.
Government should be able to prove this kind of statement.
This establishes government policy towards a minority of the population, not only diabetics but also the disabled, as government labels diabetics, as disabled.
Review committee, whoever you are, you’re influenced by these public statements of senior civil servants.
The statements are not true. They’ve never proved them.
Imagine what’s wrong within those government Ministries to say such things about diabetics?
Imagine what’s wrong within those government Ministries to say such things about not only diabetics, but just people, and not offer any proof to substantiate their statements when ask to.
And whoever you are Review Committee, you’re government staff.
You’re government staff and I and other readers are supposed to trust you?
You’re government staff and I and other readers are supposed to believe the things you write?
Within the years of 2004, 2005, and 2006, while my case was within the BC Human Rights Commission, the OSMV did not offer any research to justify their policy against diabetics.
And yet the harm to society, through the unproven medical policy continues, “ being mindful of the demands on the medical system.”
As of December 12, 2006, the date the DRAFT was sent to me, the OSMV has not offered any research to justify their policy against diabetics.
And yet the harm to society, through the unproven medical policy, continues, “being mindful of the demands on the medical system.”
My point is, you can reference my letters to the OSMV through the Attorney Generals office, as my documents have been returned to me, from CLAS, due to the Settlement Agreement, as to what I have stated is true, it’s factual.
It is not imagined, not made up, not just believed, and not just my view.
Can we say the same for this section of the Draft?
I certainly cannot.
Where is the “clear evidence to show that both private and commercial drivers with diabetes are at an increased risk for motor vehicle crashes.”?
How is it that if there is no factual evidence to demonstrate an increased accident rate between non-diabetic drivers and diabetic drivers the OSMV has moved into the abstract of Risk to justify their medical policy against diabetics?
Risk must be based upon something concrete in the first place in order to move into the abstract world of Risk.
Doesn’t fifty years of research on diabetic drivers offer enough time to document the difference in the supposed accident rate with bonafide scientific documents?
If there aren’t any documents offered, doesn’t that mean the whole belief about diabetic drivers is not justified just as the statements about killer diabetics is not true?
If there aren’t any documents offered, doesn’t that mean the whole belief about diabetic drivers is not deemed a worthwhile endeavour to investigate?
If it was worthwhile the difference in the accident rate would have been documented and it wasn’t.
This is an important point as if there is no starting point, as the letter of February 27, 2004 states, there cannot be anything of compare to in order to understand if the supposed difference in the accident rate has decreased or not.
Imagine that, the policy has never been evaluated to see if there has been any positive impact, to see if there is any Good from the government intervention into our lives.
And yet the demand upon the medical system continues.
And yet the public chastisements and social harm to diabetics continues.
Imagine all the unnecessary harm to society due to the demands upon the medical system?
To institutionalize a medical policy, never offer any research to justify the policy, never have a starting point of the difference in accident rates, and never study the medical policy to understand if there has been any good coming from the policy and knowing there is harm due to the consequences of the medical policy to begin with is beyond the idea of professional behaviour.
As a diabetic this is discrimination.
As a diabetic you have no right to set me up as a pariah within society because of your beliefs.
As a taxpayer I find your behaviour unacceptable, as you have no right to place demands upon the medical system based upon your beliefs.
“Research indicates that decisions about driving by diabetics should be based on an assessment of individual circumstances that may affect functional ability, including:
- incidence of hypoglycemia
- hypoglycemic unawareness
- presence of complications from diabetes.”
I don’t know what the authors of the Draft call research but the decision to evaluate diabetic drivers on an individual case is not based upon research.
It’s based upon the 1990, Hines v Nova Scotia (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision involving a blanked banning of insulin-dependent Commercial drivers. The decision went in favour of Hines and his commercial license was returned to him.
This is why the Canadian Diabetic Association demands individual assessment.
The Registrar of Motor Vehicles regulation was also found null and void.
In other words, the Supreme Court found policies such as the one you’re defending as wrong; policies not based upon fact.
In other words, the Anti-diabetics that put forward the regulation were put in their place by the courts of Canada.
For the very same reasons the NSSC found that regulation null and void the medical policy against Type 2 diabetics should also be found null and void.
It’s been interesting experiencing the stonewalling on the part of the OSMV as I anticipated research to justify the policy only to find that the Draft again has not offered any, just as the RMV in Nova Scotia did not.
Of course the stonewalling, on your part, was anticipated, with the expectation of me discontinuing my complaint.
I’ve already discussed hypoglycemia, hypoglycemic unawareness and the presence of complications from diabetes as concerning diabetes but also Type 2 diabetes as that is the condition I have.
Further discussion about the complications from diabetes will be attended to under the Section Overview of chronic complications of diabetes.
Page 4
Paragraph 2
Again, no research is present to justify your claims.
The important point here is, “Is the harm caused by the elevated risk of crashes more or less than the harm caused by the real demands upon the medical system?”
Don’t forget the harm caused by the elevated risk of crashes can be either material harm, harm to the physical automobile or organic harm, harm to a human. Whereas, the harm caused by the demands upon the medical system is all organic harm, harm to humans.
Why doesn’t the Draft state Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics here?
Aren’t the individuals mentioned here Type 2 diabetics, “Individuals treated with a combination of oral hypoglycemics also have an elevated risk of crash equal to those taking insulin.”?
I’ve never read anything supporting this idea. However, there is so little published on Type 2 diabetes I’ve had problems accumulating a body of research proving Type 2 diabetics are causing more accidents than non-diabetics little lone the unproven statement just mentioned.
It’s fine to say “elevated risk” but what is the elevated risk? Someone must have defined the ‘level of risk’ to have an elevation. The harm to society through the demand upon the medical system must also have been evaluated and defined by someone.
The difference in harm must have been agreed upon with less harm caused by the demand upon the medical system.
However, if none of the harm has been defined and Risk not defined, as to when government steps into our lives, it begs the question, “What is government doing” and “Why?”
If the following sentence is true then why are you penalizing Type 2 diabetic drivers?
“Those treated alone or with one oral hypoglycemic agent have no demonstrated risk for crash.”
This again begs a question about how far above the “no demonstrated risk” is the Type 2 diabetic driver vulnerable to your arbitrary decision to penalize him or her?
If none of the above have been defined, which I don’t believe they have, then your decisions are only arbitrary wants.
Paragraph 3
Why hasn’t the Draft defined these statements as to Type 1 and Type 2 as it has just been stated there are differences in each type of diabetes?
Again, no research is present to justify the Drafts’ claims.
What’s really interesting here is that if the government has found,
“… a number of small studies have shown a relationship between hypoglycemic reactions and motor vehicle crashes.”
the government must also have come across studies stating that there is no difference in accident rates between non-diabetics and Type 2 diabetics, just as I have.
I have also reviewed studies on Type 1 diabetes and within their Abstracts it states there is no difference in non-diabetic drivers and Type 2 diabetic drivers. An interesting fact considering the researchers were studying Type 1 diabetes and discovered something that challenges current beliefs about Type 2 diabetic drivers. These researchers are knowingly challenging the anti-diabetic lobby using the professional standards of science and reported their findings.
I haven’t found any challenges to their studies and the results.
I find this fact interesting in that it seems impossible not to pull these studies up when searching for data on diabetic driving on the Internet as most studies seem to be about Type 1 diabetes.
Paragraph 4
Why hasn’t the Draft defined these statements as to Type 1 and Type 2 as it has just been stated there are differences in each type of diabetes especially when relating to hypoglycemic unawareness and severe hypoglycemia?
Again, no research is present to justify the Drafts’ claims.
Paragraph 5
Why hasn’t the Draft defined these statements as to Type 1 and Type 2 as it has just been stated there are differences in each type of diabetes?
Again, no research is present to justify the Drafts claims.
This is the second time you mention that driving should be based on assessment of individual medical history and circumstance.
The readers should not feel that the diabetic should be beholden to the OSMV for this statement as a diabetic had to take a similar government agency, to the Supreme Court, and that decision defines this statement not the OSMV actions.
I’ll say it again, the wants against diabetics from an organizations such as yours were found inadequate by the courts of Canada.
In conclusion, this Section is the very stuff that I understood to be discriminatory thus my complaint to the BC Human Rights Commission. Just in case you have forgotten they agreed that my complaint had merit and that the medical policy should be reviewed.
To this point in the Review, the Draft offers nothing different than what the OSVM offered during my inquiry of 2002, 2003, and 2004, nor during the time of the actual complaint with the BC HRT, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Secondly, there is no change offered to Type 2 diabetics.
Page 4
2. EFFECT ON FUNCTIONAL ABILITY TO DRIVE
I’m not sure why this section is here as it is a repeat of what has been defined through “Section 1. Overview.”
It is just more of the Fear/Risk factor.
If it really is to be a Section then ‘Condition’, ‘Diabetes mellitus’, should be sub-sectioned into Type 1 and Type 2, as visualized on page 1, as they are different conditions as the Overview delineates, as does the rest of the world.
Secondly, as defined by the Draft, Overview, on page 3, has “mild hypoglycemia, (hypoglycemia for which a diabetic is able to treat themselves)” (your tense not mine) attached to Type 1 diabetics.
However, Section 2 has mild hypoglycemia relating to all diabetics.
Mild hypoglycemia is both Type 1 and Type 2 it is finally being used within the proper context and should be clearly listed as such under each Type.
If “mild hypoglycemia” is to be used against diabetics then a new subsection called Non-diabetics should also be included as mild hypoglycemia impacts all people including non-diabetics.
Mild hypoglycemia is defined correctly. But the reader is led to believe it only applies to diabetics which is wrong and it’s wrong to print such things as all humans experience mild hypoglycemia daily. We respond to it through the condition as defined on page 2 under “Neurogenic symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Additionally, diabetes is defined as high blood sugar, hyperglycemia, and appropriate interventions are used to correct the condition.
In fact, non-diabetics will become low blood sugar before diabetics because their blood sugar is accessed or used up.
In fact, non-diabetics are more problematic than diabetics because they don’t know they could be experiencing hypoglycemia as they think they are above the things that happen to diabetics.
Maybe all drunk drivers are not as drunk as we think they are and are also experiencing some level of hypoglycemia.
Have you never wondered what Road Rage is? It’s people that are experiencing hypoglycemia.
Of course, Anti-diabetics cannot admit any relation to this condition because they’re above conditions attached only to diabetics.
“Hypoglycemia may occur for a number of reasons, including irregular meals, unexpected physical exertion, and changes to medication or a failure to take a medication dose.”
However, it occurs to all people for the same reasons.
The Draft should also inform the readers that factors affecting one’s blood sugar can be such things as changing an exercise or meal program, or if one is introduced to a new medication, if one is ill, if one is travelling, if one drinks alcohol, when one eats unusual foods, before/after exercising, or when stressed.
The failure to mention these everyday common occurrences and imply they only apply to diabetics is not acceptable.
The presentation is one sided and the public reading your presentation, non-diabetics, would not believe that hypoglycemia impacts them as well and they simply rise to the occasion as do people with diabetes.
Don’t forget my discrimination case involves Class 4 Type 2 diabetes and the public reading this section should know there are differences in types of diabetes, the consequences of those differences, and the table does not inform the reader of this fact.
This section exemplifies why I asked for the third party to intervene, BC HRC, and they agreed.
Government should be able to offer a bonafide balanced presentation and be able to offer documents to justify their policy. Something the OSMV has not done for the public or me.
Page 4
3. GUIDELINES
There are three boxes within this Section.
I have no similar material to review in order to offer a comparison, to review for change. However, the OSMV Fact Sheet, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) “The Requirements” presents some material, which can be used for a review and opinion of the Draft Guidelines.
Firstly, this is the third time the Draft mentions that fitness to drive should be based on assessment of the individual. The readers should not feel that diabetics should be beholden to the OSMV for this statement as a diabetic had to take a similar government agency, such as yours, to the Supreme Court, and that decision defines this statement not your actions or benevolence.
I’ll say it again, the wants against diabetics from a government agency such as the OSMV found inadequate to be null and void by the courts of Canada so why hasn’t the BC policy changed?
Page 5
Box 1
This statement seems reasonable. (Similar to part “a” of “The Requirements”)
This statement should apply to all people, all drivers that have these conditions.
Why not just state, “they have no complications of diabetes.” Or, state that, “Individuals may drive if they have no complications of these diseases, ….”
This is just more of the Fear/Risk factor statements.
In the real world, a doctor will manage diabetes and all the other conditions mentioned if and when they do express themselves.
This is a real medical practice and it is not instigated by the OSMV. It goes on every day and doctors respond to the conditions and the protocols demanded by laws, their medical code of ethics, and their professionalism.
Unless the OSMV and the anti-diabetic lobby is insinuating that doctors are not rising to the protocols and their code of ethics and doctors need the OSMV to manage their profession as to their decisions involving diseases and driving?
To use these medical conditions events of the future, as an excuse to intrude into my life and pretend that this is prudent preventive medicine is hypocritical, poor medicine, and against the law.
To restrict driving because of these conditions and their complications is reasonable and acceptable and I do not disagree with this.
I strongly disagree with your idea that forcing a monitoring system upon diabetics for possible future events is acceptable as it’s discriminatory, against the law, and social stereotyping leading to public fear and prejudice against diabetics.
Lastly, the OSMV is not licensed to manage my health unless you truly believe that a forced yearly medical examination, or every two years, or five years is prudent medical preventive medicine.
If the OSMV truly believes this it has problems understanding health care and preventive medicine.
More about this under the Section “Overview of chronic complications of diabetes”
Box 2
This statement seems reasonable. (Similar to part “a” of The Requirements)
Bullets 1-3 should be included in Block 1 as these are preventive medicine procedures.
To restrict driving because of these conditions and their complications is reasonable and acceptable and I do not disagree with this.
Again, I strongly disagree with your idea that forcing a monitoring system upon diabetics for possible future events is acceptable as it’s discriminatory, against the law, and social stereotyping leading to public fear and prejudice against diabetics.
Again, this statement should also apply to all that have the conditions listed under the fourth bullet.
Again, there is no good reason to use possible future medical conditions as an excuse to monitor diabetics.
More about this under the Section “Overview of chronic complications of diabetes”
Bullet 4 is again more of the Fear/Risk factor
Page 5
Box 3
As this block is divided into private and commercial I’ll review the Private guidelines first.
As the “Fact Sheet, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 5-8 Licence) does not offer much for comparison I’ll offer my opinion on the draft as it is more definitive.
Private Vehicles
Individuals may drive if:
Bullets 1-4 seem reasonable.
However, under “Individuals may drive if:”
Bullet 4 refers to “hypoglycemia unawareness or severe hypoglycemia” under the guidance of the CDA monitoring guidelines.
You then state something different under “individuals may not drive if.”
At least it will be read as something different as one is from the CDA and one from the OSMV. The guidelines need to be standardized.
One should not need to read your guidelines and then go online to review the other guidelines.
Or, are the Draft guidelines that different than the guidelines that are presented by a non-governmental organization that represents diabetics?
Bullet 4
The footnote is in reference to the severe hypoglycemia asterisk and the deliberate, constructed, negatives it implies.
FOOTNOTE
Lastly, the Draft has a footnote about severe hypoglycemia and it’s repeated three times within this section and once later on. This is only more Fear/Risk factor gobbledygook.
What’s the old adage, “Say things about something enough times and the uninformed will believe especially when it comes from a place of prestige, status, power, and trust.”
Because the Draft is using the Fear factor as influence I’ll offer some more information in order for the reader to evaluate the whole idea and really come to understand how insignificant the believed problem of diabetic drivers really is and why the asterisk is actually just manipulation of the uninformed reader.
Hypoglycemic unawareness is really associated with Type 1 diabetes. It may happen only after someone has had Type 1 for years, 10-20 years, and the percent of those that experience this condition is uncommon, “estimated that 25% of all insulin-dependent diabetics have hypoglycemic unawareness.” (page 3) Type 1s comprise only, 0.25-0.50 % of 1% of the population. This means only 0.0625-0.125 % of one percent of diabetics or the population may experience hypoglycemia unawareness.
This means this number is again diminished when compared to the percent of Commercial drivers, and then again when compared to Type 1 Commercial drivers, and again decreases for Time Awake, and again decreased for the Time on the Road, and again because it Does Not Express All the Time.
Readers need to know how small the numbers really are. Are the numbers of Type I diabetics that “may” experience hypoglycemic unawareness now as low as 1/1 000 or 1/10 000 or 1/100 000 of one percent of the population?
As severe hypoglycemia does not have a Heading for itself and is only defined under Hypoglycemic Unawareness one is lead to believe severe hypoglycemia is dependent upon hypoglycemic unawareness in order for it to express itself. However, I do not believe that is the case all the time.
Nevertheless, it would seem that severe hypoglycemia is less pervasive than hypoglycemic unawareness, as it is never defined as to how prevalent it is, which means the percentile of the population that may experience severe hypoglycemia is less than the percent listed above for hypoglycemic unawareness.
Lastly, does hypoglycemic unawareness always lead to severe hypoglycemia? No. The number diminishes again.
Have the anti-diabetics explain the real numbers. Where is the good that comes from this?
END of FOOTNOTE
Page 6
Private Vehicles
Individuals may not drive if:
Bullet 1. Is this penalty supposed to decrease the incidence of the episode? The Fact Sheet does not mention any penalty of this kind so why the draconian measure now?
Or, as explained in the Footnote the incidence of this condition is so rare that a “6 months” increment has been added for some reason implying the condition happens to every diabetic treated with insulin. Is there any reason for the increment and what research was done to support the new penalty?
Why is the statement for when one is awake? Does this mean that the diabetic will die if this condition expresses itself when he or she is asleep so we do not need to worry about this diabetic anymore?
I don’t imagine the OSMV can manage something as this so why do it? Will the OSMV have funding to manage this event?
Does the OSMV really believe someone is going to report this to the OSMV?
After dealing with the OSMV during the past six years I can understand the civil disobedience that defines the actions if a diabetic does experience a severe hypoglycemia episode and does not report it. The civil disobedience is certainly warranted.
(see FOOTNOTE)
Bullet 2 reads, “they have any chronic complications of diabetes that may impair their ability to drive …”
Who cares how the “chronic complication” came about. It’s there and if it impairs a drivers’ ability to drive their doctor will implement the appropriate protocols.
The continuous listing of conditions that may express themselves and the complications that then may express themselves while someone may be driving is just more of the Fear/Risk factor.
It doesn’t matter when these conditions appear the OSMV must come to realize that doctors are professional and will manage these conditions if and when they express themselves no matter what caused them if indeed there really is a cause.
Commercial Vehicles
Initial application for a commercial license
Applicants must provide:
Page 5
Bullet 1
As the OSMV has not responded to the consequences of the their actions and forced the unproven consequences of diabetes upon diabetics the medical policy and its consequences must be brought forward again as this is a focus of my discrimination case against the OSMV.
The medical policy changes doctor availability, adds to the wait time, and changes emergency care availability, which in turn impacts the health of all users including diabetics managing their diabetes and those often referred to ‘conditions and complications’ dumped upon diabetes as if the conditions are dependent upon diabetes.
In reality the medical policy inhibits care for diabetics as well as all the medical service users.
My point is that the MV2401 is to be “completed by an Internist or specialist in diabetic care” is unjustifiable, discriminatory, abuse of the medical system, and condescending to General Practioners as they are the doctors that people see first in their request for medical service.
As I cannot find reference to the form in the FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) I’m assuming the demand of an Internist or specialist is a new event.
Even if it’s not a new event there is no proven need for such a demand, medically or socially.
What the demand really means to the public is that the government is stating that Diabetics are so disease ridden and unhealthy the government deems it necessary to bypass the medical protocol of visiting a GP first and if necessary the client can then be referred to an Internist or specialist.
It’s untrue that diabetics are disease ridden and unhealthy and standard and acceptable medical protocols are changed to manage unproven beliefs.
The discriminatory behaviour surrounding diabetics is truly educational.
The new consequences of the changes to the medical policy should be reviewed for their worth.
To access a Specialist one must be referred to that person through a General Practioner, which means greater demands upon the GPs place within medical care. The availability of health care is changed again though the medical policy’s new demand upon a Specialist to complete the form.
It must be remembered that in the first place a GP would diagnose a condition that would then be sent to an Internist. Are you now stating that a GP is not competent to examine a diabetic and make a decision that there may be conditions and/or complications that may impact a diabetic driver which would then demand the GP reference the diabetic to the proper Specialist?
The demand changes the whole protocol of the medical services plan. Is that legal?
Don’t forget, the diabetic will then return to the GP for a review of the internists’ examination.
So, the demands upon the medical services are increased due to the Draft.
A diabetic will be sent to a GP, then referred to an Internist, then report back to the GP.
More doctors will be taken from the medical services to complete the form, more individuals will have their doctor availability decreased, and more individuals will attend the emergency care facilities because the availability to a GP has been once again decreased due to the unproven medical policy against diabetics.
The OSMV demands upon the medical system are beyond acceptance and understanding.
Is that why the OSMV has not responded to my questions about the consequences of the medical policy? And now the Draft will increase the demands upon the medical system once again?
Just in case the OSMV has forgotten the medical services system does have finite sources, which are overburdened and it’s said half the people in the emergency care facilities should not be there. Their conditions should be managed through the GP profession then the specialists if needed.
It’s interesting that in the “Annual medical recertification” within this Section, the diabetic “must undergo an annual medical examination.” A GP will do this. So, if a GP is good enough for this examination for all the supposed conditions and complications now why the Internist or Specialist in the first place?
The visit to the Internist or Specialist is just more Fear/Risk factor.
Bullets 2-5 seem acceptable.
Bullet 6 seems to be more demand upon the medical services resources without any good experienced. What is a “certificate of competency?”
Is this the course I attended to learn how to work my blood glucose meter? My coffee pot has more directions and is more complicated. I’m supposed to have received a certificate for that meeting?
Is this course about how to use a needle and insulin as this section is about insulin treatment. Or, about the use of an insulin pump?
If this bullet is about the above this the demand is beyond understanding and the bureaucracy is for bureaucracy’s sake.
The “certificate of competency” is ridiculous and if it is only demanded every three years it has no worth.
If this “certificate of competency” is for children it’s a great idea. If not, the “certificate of competency” is just another example of ill-advised matriarchal behaviour from government programs trying to justify their existence.
From my point of view it’s just another deliberate demeaning statement toward diabetics.
If the OSMV really believes a “certificate of competency” has any worth compared to the harm caused by the demand upon medical resources it should re-evaluate what this .
A list of the competencies should be offered to the public so they can evaluate the need for its validity and worth and what if really requires to get the “certificate.”
Page 6
Individuals may drive if:
Bullets 1-4 seem acceptable.
Page 6
Individuals may not drive if:
Bullet 1 again goes on about severe hypoglycemia again; this is only more of the Fear/Risk factor gobbledygook.
If the Draft is to continue to use the Fear factor maybe the Draft should be honest and state how insignificant the condition is as it may only happen after someone has had Type 1 for years and how insignificant the Type 1 population really is. (See FOOTNOTE)
Bullet 1.
Is this penalty supposed to improve the incidence of the episode? The Fact Sheet does not mention any penalty of this kind so why the draconian measure?
I don’t imagine the OSMV can manage something as this, so why do it? Will the OSMV have funding to manage this event? Do you really believe someone is going to report this to the OSMV? Why a six month penalty? What does six months do?
The person experiencing the episode must learn the reason for the episode, which will hopefully negate another episode and this bullet is supposed to be the instrument of change?
After dealing with the OSMV during the past six years I can understand the civil disobedience that defines the non-compliance if a diabetic does experience a severe hypoglycemia episode and does not report it. The civil disobedience is certainly warranted.
Bullet 2 is associated with bullet 1, the “severe hypoglycemic” experience. Why isn’t there the same penalty for experiencing this condition? Doesn’t the condition hypoglycemia unawareness preclude severe hypoglycemia for the greater part of this experience?
Or, why is there a penalty for severe hypoglycemia and not hypoglycemia unawareness as the temporary unawareness may lead to severe hypoglycemia.
If those that experience hypoglycemia unawareness are not penalized because of the recovery of warning symptoms at a later date shouldn’t this also apply to the severe hypoglycemic episode as it is only an episode and not a condition.
The penalty does not seem justified and the difference in penalties does not make sense.
Page 7
Bullet 3
You’ve got to be kidding. This person is banned from driving for a change in or this treatment/procedure in diabetes care. A physician will manage the initial insulin requirement and an increase in insulin injections or an increase in insulin units per injection will also be physician managed. Again, the heavy hand of matriarchal government is rising. Does the OSMV really believe this can be managed after the original insulin therapy has been introduced?
Again, this is civil disobedience in the making on the part of the OSMV.
Secondly, this ‘want’ is discriminatory as this is a blanket ban and the Hines Supreme Court decision bans such blanket anti-diabetic behaviour.
What about Type 2 diabetics that use insulin and are not insulin dependent? Where are they in all this? I understand they use insulin before bedtime, will they be banned from driving in their sleep?
Page 7
Bullet 4
This seems reasonable.
Page 7
Annual medical recertification
Bullet 1
This seems reasonable, as the HbA1C tests are physician directed, usually every three-months.
Medications are usually a three-month treatment arrangement which allow the results of the HbA1C test to re-evaluate a drug regime if one is present.
Bullet 2
This seems reasonable.
Bullet 2 demands a “complete physical.” Is this to be done by the GP or the “Internist or specialist” which has been forced to do the original complete physical? (Page 5, Commercial Vehicles, Bullet 1) The inference of this whole Section is that the complete physical is to be done by the GP.
The point is, this section is to be managed by a GP in which you are now stating that a complete physical is acceptable whereas on page 5, I am told the GP is not competent to manage such a complete physical and one must go to an Internist or specialist.
It must be remembered that one must visit a GP to get the reference for the Internist or specialist and then return to the GP for the follow up on the findings of the Internist or specialist.
Bullet 3
The idea is to have the HbA1C test every three-months which informs the doctor and diabetic the average blood sugar levels over the past three months.
All tests are sent to the managing physician.
Bullet 4
This is over management.
My memory-equipped meter does not have a download port for the physician. Does the physician have a program that is compatible if I change meters?
So, as this is a new demand of the Draft is the OSMV going to pay for this extra cost of new meters?
The second Hussey case deals with extra billing and the court did not agree with the extra wants of the OSMV then so why should they now?
Secondly, I do not know how much time it will take the physician to read the memory, in a visit, as time for visits is limited to approximately fifteen minutes or shorter. If longer than the designated time the new demand of the OSMV will need to be paid by someone other than the diabetic/client as the physician cannot keep my meter overnight with the expectation that I will need to return to collect the tool or will it mean another visit.
This will be designated as some kind of special examination as doctors are trying to manage their time in an already overwrought/stressed workplace. The medical policy is again changing the availability of health care.
Most of this Section is equivalent to the material offered by the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence).
Page 7
4. SCREENING and ASSESSMENT
Screening
This section seems reasonable. This Section is equivalent to the material offered by the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence).
Assessment
Once again the public must be informed that diabetics are not beholden to the OSMV for the “assessment of individual circumstances.”
Once again, I don’t know what the OSMV calls research but the decision to evaluate diabetic drivers on an individual case is not based upon research.
It’s based upon the 1990, Hines v Nova Scotia (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision involving a blanked banning of insulin-dependent Commercial drivers. The decision went in favour of Hines and his commercial license was returned to him. This is why the CDA demands individual assessment of individual circumstance.
The regulation of blanked banning was found null and void. The Anti-diabetics were taken to task and their ideas and beliefs found more than wanting.
Secondly, the research the Draft is based upon should be documented in order for the public to believe your statements.
Third, this section should be divided into Type 1 and Type 2, as they are different conditions.
Each type should have the bullets explained as to their Type.
The importance of each will then become apparent to the reader. It will allow the reader to decide about the importance of these screening tools, if they are really bonafide or just part of the unsupported demands upon diabetic drivers.
Take “age” for instance, only if a Type 2 diabetic lives “long enough” and becomes Type 1 will they then maybe experience some of the conditions that may express themselves to a Type 1diabetic that may express within their life-time, little lone their driving life-time.
Or, take “hypoglycemic unawareness” for instance, for Type 2 diabetics, “For Type 2 diabetics, hypoglycemic unawareness is relatively uncommon.” If it is less that common for Type 1 diabetics, as described above, how insignificant is relatively uncommon?
Bullet 1, as I have stated many times before the medical policy cannot measure nor predict hypoglycemia. The medical examination is a farce; it cannot do what it is supposed to be able to do.
Bullet 2, hypoglycemia unawareness has been debunked as to its pervasiveness within the diabetic population and especially the commercial driver. This condition for Type 2 diabetics is really non-existent so why the demand upon the medical system for a relatively uncommon event?
Bullet 3, these are things that will be managed by a doctor if and when they occur. Are you forced to undergo these examinations before they express themselves? If not, it’s discrimination.
Bullets 4-6. Are non-diabetics assessed for hypoglycemia, as they are at Risk more than Type 2 diabetics if all things are considered equal except the condition Type 2 diabetes. Does the public know this about themselves?
As Type 2s represent the majority of diabetics and according to your information this is not a common event for Type 2s why is this even part of the Type 2 assessment?
The real Risk of hypoglycemia unawareness for Type 1 diabetics and should be stated, is it 1/1 000 or 1/10 000 or 1/100 000 of one percent of the population? The real percent of the population must be made public so everyone knows the real risk not just the OSMV stating there is risk. What is the real risk associated with Type 2 diabetics if the real percent affecting Type 1 diabetics is so insignificant?
Again, the medical examination cannot measure the actual events nor predict the risk of these events.
Again, Type 1 and Type 2 should be presented due to the differences in the conditions and actual facts offered the reader.
Bullets 7-11. All these conditions and their complications are managed if and when they express themselves and to penalize diabetics for these conditions that may express themselves in the future is discriminatory.
Again, are you forced to undergo these examinations for these conditions before they express themselves?
This implies that these conditions are dependent upon diabetes and that all diabetics will have these conditions express themselves, which is not the truth.
Even if some of these conditions do express themselves there is a timeline for such events to happen. The diabetic may not even be driving commercially if and when these conditions may express themselves. How convenient of you to not to address this fact for commercial drivers.
This whole section is just more of the Fear/Risk factor.
If this Section is supposed to be an educational tool for diabetics the bias is not acceptable. Do you know that discrimination is not allowed with the educational system in BC? So, if this is an educational the presentation should be more inclusive as to how insignificant conditions are, that the OSMV has never documented accident rates, that no research has been presented to justify the medical policy, and that the OSMV has never acknowledged there are consequences to their actions and yet penalize diabetic drivers for believed consequences of their actions.
This whole section is just noise as all these things are attended to within the section 3.
Page 8
5. COMPENSATION
If this Section is supposed to be an educational tool for diabetics the bias, condescending attitude is not acceptable.
Do you know that discrimination is not allowed within the educational system in BC?
If this is an educational section the presentation should be more inclusive as to how insignificant hypoglycemic conditions really are, that the OSMV has never documented a difference in accident rates, that no research has been presented to justify the medical policy, and that the OSMV has never acknowledged there are consequences to their actions and yet the OSMV penalizes diabetic drivers for believed consequences of their actions.
This table should also have listings as Type 1, Type 2, and Non-Diabetic as all the left hand titles apply to the non-diabetic as well, especially “Experience” and “Treatment.”
“Experience”
Do you mean I need to tell a doctor or a nurse or the “OSMV monitoring agent” that I feel hungry and should have something to eat?
“Training”
This “certificate of competency” is first mentioned on page 6, Bullet 4, under Diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) treated with insulin, Commercial Vehicles. This is why this table should include the different types of diabetes as now the Draft is stating this “Certificate of competency” is now for all diabetics.
Again, I’m not sure what this is. If I understand this correctly this refers to the “training” I received on how to read the blood glucose meter. It was a total waste of my time, the nurses’ time, and a drain on medical services.
Again, the directions for my new coffee maker are more complicated and I did not need any “approved coffee clinic” certificate to run this, nor this computer, nor any other electronic device.
Again, if this is for children they just love certificates so it’s probably a good idea; an expensive idea, both financially and another drain on the medical resources.
But, if I’m correct this is about commercial and private driving.
Doesn’t the OSMV understand there are financial limits to our medical services especially for programs that do not offer any good, or worth, or have not been demonstrated to have a need not just a want? How is this justified.
What’s the OSMV really trying to tell the public about diabetics with this so-called Training?
There are social and educational standards to the word “Training” and this is doesn’t meet any of them. The use of this term is manipulative and deceives the public as to what is really happening.
What’s the OSMV really trying to tell the public about diabetics with the certificate?
Are Type 1and Type 2 diabetics, treated with insulin, Commercial drivers, so stupid and irresponsible that they must attended this clinic for such an inconsequential and worthless certificate?
What makes this demand worthwhile? Are there proven benefits to this “certificate?”
This is just more stereotyping and harassment of diabetics, especially the stereotype blue-collar worker, the truck driver, that is supposed to be illiterate, etc, etc, etc.
What this really means is diabetics cannot read and manage their glucose monitor. Your demand states diabetics need support and direction from government because they have diabetes and are now incapable of reading and doing a very simple, mindless, repetitive task such as reading the directions for a blood glucose meter.
Give me a break. It’s just a very simple hand held device, that’s all.
The self-importance and matriarchal management of the blood glucose metre is really astounding. This also applies to needle use and pump use.
This “current certificate of competency from an approved diabetic clinic” is just abuse of diabetics.
It’s bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. It does nothing positive for anything. Doing this every three years is meaningful?
It again takes more time away from the health system.
It diminishes the character of diabetics adding to the acceptance of discrimination.
It gives the false impression that diabetics need monitoring for even very simple task such as reading simple directions and implementing the task from the directions.
It gives the false impression that the medical policy is justified because it has a “certificate of competency from an approved diabetic clinic” inferring that when anything is give a “certificate of competency” is means worth.
Has the worth of this certificate ever been measured?
Has the OSMV ever surveyed diabetics and asked them what this mandatory compliance really means to them? What this mandatory compliance really says about them?
You have my permission to use my response to this section as the introduction to the questions to be posed.
In fact this “Training” and “Certificate of Competency” is just another derogatory statement that the diabetic must confront and dispute.
The statement that this is Training is so far from any real definition of training that it’s an insult to all that educate or train.
This section really demonstrates the bias and prejudice associated with things done to the disabled or diabetics for no good reason.
This seems to be only another contrivance the anti-diabetic is using to satiate their need for control over those of difference.
“Devices”
Again I do not know what this will do, as one will be reading the glucose monitor. Will noise now enhance the visual reading of the monitoring device? Noise and whistles are the new strategy for “Training”?
Again, as attended to above, “Is the OSMV going to buy these devices?”
Or, is this a new device an intravenous monitor. Is the OSMV now stating that all diabetics must now have an intravenous monitoring machine with an alarm for when their blood glucose decreases below a certain level?
Imagine how many lawsuits the OSMV will have for such an arbitrary and authoritarian demand. Is the OSMV now stating that your organization is now making medical policy?
This is again something that is constructed to denigrate the diabetic.
Is there any worth to this new demand? What is the improvement to the diabetic? Or is this only to satisfy the governments’ fear of diabetics.
Again, this seems to be another contrivance the anti-diabetic is using to satiate their need for control over those of difference. To really demonstrate to the public that those needle users deserve this and are really managed though our Training and Treatments and Devices that actually make warning noises for all to hear.
Lastly, this whole section is just noise as all these things seem to be attended to within the Section 3.
Page 9
6. ACCOMODATION
As this section deals with “public safety” the non-diabetic should be included to demonstrate how their lives and driving can be influenced by hypoglycemia especially when skipping meals, drinking, and all the other things that can bring about hypoglycemia, as mentioned above.
Lets be real about hypoglycemia and the non-diabetic driver for public safety.
Non-diabetics believe they are above hypoglycemia due to information presented by government agencies, the OSMV, and other things government writes about diabetics and they are not.
Again, this section should be divided into Type 1, Type 2, and the non-diabetic as they are different conditions.
Each type should have the bullets and squares appropriate to the type.
The importance of each will then become apparent to the reader. It will allow the reader to decide about the importance of these restrictions and if they are really bonafide or just part of the unsupported demands upon diabetic drivers.
“Restrictions”
This seems reasonable if defined as Type.
This title really seems to define Type 1 diabetes and should be defined as so.
Don’t forget the blood glucose self-monitoring equipment with the “audible alarm.” If this draft is to demand some new tool in the diabetics’ life the demand should be standardized in every section.
Secondly, the “equipment” is the same gobbledygook that the “Training” is. It’s just another false leader to pacify the anti-diabetic.
“Conditions”
This title really seems to define Type 1 diabetes and should be defined as so.
This seems reasonable if defined as Type and is similar to the FACT SHEET.
Again, this is a repeat of earlier information.
Bullet 4
Again there is the severe hypoglycemic episode footnote that must be challenged again.
(See FOOTNOTE)
Bullet 5
Again there is the hypoglycemic unawareness insignificance to Type 1 diabetics and probably a non-experience for Type 2 diabetics.
(See FOOTNOTE)
Page 10
Bullet 6
So what. How does one remedy this change? As has been noted above there’s nothing to support this demand. Where is the reflection upon the demands of the OSMV in order to offer a remedy to this change?
Another visit to the doctor is to remedy this change? This event has probably been doctor initiated in the first place, and a return visit to reflect upon the new blood sugar levels has already been booked?
It’s just another false leader to pacify the anti-diabetic.
This is just another cost to the medical system.
Bullet 7
This seems reasonable if defined as Type and the driver cannot manage the condition they have.
This applies to all conditions so I do not see any differential treatment for diabetics is acceptable.
Page 10
7. REASSESSMENT
Commercial Drivers
Treated with insulin
This seems to be the same protocol as the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and the OSMV FACT SHEET, Commercial Drivers’ Fitness Requirements.
Commercial Drivers
Not treated with insulin
This seems to be the same protocol as the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and the OSMV FACT SHEET, Commercial Drivers’ Fitness Requirements.
Private Drivers
I don’t see any changes to this section. The Reassessment is the same as the previous policy.
Pages 11-12
APPENDIX TO DRAFT 1.1
“The chronic complications of diabetes that may affect fitness to drive are considered in detail in other chapters.”
I image these chronic complications are mentioned in other chapters as they’re conditions that impact the human condition and are monitored if they do express themselves whether driver related or not.
Secondly, this is an interesting section in that it’s used to increase the Fear/Risk factor of diabetes and diabetics.
The medical policy demand is based upon hypoglycemia and its supposed influence upon diabetic drivers.
I do not know if the demand has changed since my complaint and is now based upon the “chronic complications of diabetes” that may express themselves in the future, that may express after one has Type 1 or Type 2 for many years.
The Draft is about hypoglycemia, hypoglycemic unawareness, and severe hypoglycemia.
Third, my Human Rights complaint, case, is based upon Class 4 drivers and Type 2 diabetes. A focus has been that there have been no documents presented to justify the policy. There never has been any mention of chronic conditions being a factor in the medical policy wants.
Are you now saying that the medical policy is based upon these chronic complications associated with diabetes and all life that may express themselves in the future?
Let’s be really clear here for all readers. These conditions can take the opportunity to express themselves to all people. The conditions do not discriminate.
These conditions are presented as if they’re dependent upon diabetes.
These conditions are not dependent upon diabetes to express themselves.
These conditions are presented as if they magically express themselves as a full-blown condition with the maximum impairment or impediment of the complications.
All conditions take time to express themselves and the complications related to a condition do so at different times and with different intensity.
It begs the questions, “Don’t we monitor these conditions when they express themselves to non-diabetics at the time of expression and not before?”
“As a Type 2 diabetic will these conditions and their complications ever express themselves to me?”
“ Isn’t there a Timeline associated with Type 2 diabetes in which these conditions and their complications may express to me?”
“As a Type 2 diabetic will these conditions and their complications ever express themselves while I’m licensed as a Class 4 driver?”
Lastly, the language used within this section is also interesting. All readers must come to terms with the language used, as it’s used to increase the Fear/Risk factor.
Count how many tentative words are used within this section. They’re used to increase the Fear factor when in reality every time tentative words such as,
“ may affect, strongly associated with time, estimated, also estimated, most develop, almost all, more likely, may break down, may be more common, frequently associated, a leading, may result, can lead, and which may”
are used, the Risk decreases due to the tentativeness of the term.
However, within this section these words are used to increase the Fear factor and yet an uncertainty, based upon an uncertainty, based upon an uncertainty decreases Risk factor, it does not increase it.
Reader, you will find this kind of thinking throughout the presentation against diabetics. You really must come to terms with how the language is used to increase the Fear/Risk factor through the language of uncertainty and fear.
“Diabetic retinopathy”
Tentative terms or terms of uncertainty are used twelve times within this paragraph. Some tentative terms are used twice to define something, a double uncertainty. Four tentative words are used within the same sentence,
“It is estimated that about 21 percent of those with Type 2 diabetes have retinopathy on diagnosis of their condition and most develop DR eventually.”
“It is estimated that about 21 percent.”
So, we have an “estimation” of something and the estimation is “about” something and the something is “21percent” which is small number in itself.
So, we have something that is very small, as the tentativeness makes things smaller not larger.
Firstly, if the 21% is an “estimation” of “about” then the real percent is probably less that 21% which has been increased to make a more profound visual statement.
It’s probably below 20% but the teens are not deemed derogatory enough therefore the number has been bumped up a number or two. Don’t forget it’s an estimation of about.
Secondly, lets reverse the percent and make the statement a little more positive and factual. 79% do not have DR.
If we state the real facts we realize that 79% of diabetics do not “have retinopathy on diagnosis.”
If we decrease estimation as it is only an “estimation” and decrease the estimation again as it is only “about” something, we now have over 80% of Type 2 diabetics do not “have retinopathy on diagnosis.”
My point is, this exemplifies the whole draft presentation as sensationalism, negativism, and manipulation in order to increase the Fear/Risk factor.
Every statement of the draft presentation must be evaluated with this in mind especially with the use of percents, numbers, and chronic conditions related to diabetes.
Third, if “Type 2 diabetes usually occurs in individuals over the age of 40” (page 1) and if 4.5-4.75%of society has Type 2 diabetes and “about 21percent” have “retinopathy on diagnosis” this leaves us with another small number, less than 1 in 5 Type 2 diabetics have “retinopathy on diagnosis.”
Only 0.945 to 0.9975 of society or 99% do not have retinopathy due to Type 2 diabetes. Interesting fact isn’t it.
This is important, as the 1% have had forty years of life for this condition express itself and yet Type 2 diabetes is held responsible. Is this a proven fact? Or, is this just more diabetic bashing? It’s just another attack on diabetics.
Most importantly, what has been forgotten in the Draft presentation is “What is the retinopathy percent of non-diabetics at the age of forty? Without this comparison the Draft presentation is meaningless. Is it close to the “estimated that about” number or higher and that is why it has been deliberately not presented.
Without presenting the percent for non-diabetics the whole section is just manipulation and deception.
This exemplifies poor and manipulative science.
“and most develop DR eventually”
Lastly, so what? “Most develop DR eventually” means most Type 2 diabetics will develop DR if they life long enough. If it has taken forty years for some to develop DR, about 21%, as that is the average of diagnosis of Type 2, will it now take the other 79% of Type 2 diabetics forty years to develop DR?
That will make the average Type 2 diabetic eighty years old and past Commercial driving and more than likely past Private driving.
This begs the questions, “What are you doing to me?” and “Why are you doing this to me?”
This is just more Fear/Risk factor.
“DR is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment.”
“A leading” is not ‘the leading’, or ‘major cause’, or ‘the cause’ of DR. It may only be one of the top five leading causes or maybe one of the top ten.
The tentative language is misleading as to the causality and prevalence of this condition.
This sub-section makes every other subsection suspect of the credentials of the Overview and Draft.
“Cardiovascular disease”
“Diabetes is frequently associated with high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol and triglycerides, which increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.”
So what. Do these conditions cause accidents? No one has offered me any research to prove an increase in accident rates or accidents due to these conditions due to diabetes, little lone Type 2 diabetes.
What do these conditions have in common with the focus of hypoglycemia?
Again, don’t doctors monitor these conditions as they express themselves to non-diabetics?
In fact medical doctors monitor these conditions and their complications as they express themselves to all people.
Are you now saying that these conditions are the reason for the assumed difference in accident rates between non-diabetic and Type 2 drivers?
If this is your reason then I would like to see the documents supporting your beliefs about the increased accident rate due to these conditions caused by Type 2 diabetes.
“Recent studies in Australia have shown …”
It’s always great to base our beliefs upon Australia isn’t it; a far away place, the grass is greener over the mountain, and oh the things and life I could have/do there, if only we could live like them.
Australia is a different culture, a different social society, a different economic society, a different geographical place, they have a different Motor Vehicle Act if they have one, different Human Right laws if they have them, they base their politics upon a Monarchy whereas we have our Constitution to stop arbitrary and authoritarian decisions, and they have a different interpretation of life. I have no idea of their Health Care system, which also impacts the health of the citizens, the affects of the medical policy.
If you want to base your health care on such a statement that is your problem but don’t tell me my Health Care should be based upon the far away place.
Don’t tell me that we should base the driver’s medical policy upon the far away place.
“In addition, 73 percent of adults with diabetes have high blood pressure or are treated for hypertension.”
So what. Are these conditions responsible for a difference in accident rates?
What type of diabetes are you talking about as it certainly seems that chronic conditions are associated with the long term Timeline of Type 1 diabetes and my complaint involves Type 2 diabetes. What is the age of the diabetic when these conditions express themselves? Within the Timeline of commercial driving?
Secondly, being a different culture, a different social society, having a different interpretation of life, and a different health care system, etc, etc, etc begs the question, why haven’t you used Canadian facts?
You haven’t used Canadian facts because they’re not sensational enough; they do not increase the Fear/Risk factor enough.
Nephropathy
Again, 79-90% of diabetics do not have these conditions.
Again, what % to what type of diabetes? What is several years and to what type.
I have my urine tested every three months with my blood testing as this is good preventative medicine, it’s proactive. I’ve been led to believe the urine test for kidney problems is just a standard procedure for diabetes management.
With all sarcasm put aside, as so many things are trying to be done to me, I’m surprised that it’s not mandatory for diabetics to have their urine tested for this condition. This is a justified cost to the medial services plan.
Neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease
If this is the most “common complication of diabetes” where is the age factor of expression?
Will the average Type 2 diabetic be eighty years old and past Commercial driving and more than likely past Private driving by the time the complications impact them?
In reality a doctor will manage all the conditions mentioned if and when they do express themselves.
This is a real medical practice and it’s not instigated nor sustained by the OSMV. It goes on every day and doctors respond to the conditions and the protocols demanded by laws and their medical code of ethics.
Unless the OSMV is stating that doctors are not rising to legal protocols and their code of ethics and they need something like the OSMV to manage and direct their profession?
To use these medical conditions, that may express in the future, because someone has diabetes, only reinforces the stereotyping that diabetics need managing beyond everyday occurrences which is far from the truth.
To restrict driving because of these conditions and their complications is reasonable and acceptable and I do not disagree with this.
I strongly disagree with your idea that forcing a monitoring system upon diabetics for possible future events is acceptable and legal and not discriminatory.
It’s against the law and the social stereotyping leads to public fear, disinformation, bias, and prejudice against diabetics, which are the basic underpinnings of discrimination.
Lastly, the OSMV is not licensed to manage my health unless you truly believe that a yearly forced medical examination, or every two years, or five years is prudent medical preventive medicine. If you truly believe this you have problems in understanding health care, preventive medicine, and your own health care.
I see a doctor every three months for my blood and urine checks. The ninety-day window is because we can measure my blood glucose for an average level over that time. This is doctor mandatory. This is me mandatory.
Secondly, as I began a medicinal treatment the timeline for the prescriptions is based upon the ninety-day window.
This means I visit a doctor every three months for testing and conversation about diabetes and health care and the renewal of prescription medications.
To believe I’m special and I’m the only diabetic that is managed this way in not acceptable or believable.
I’ve been led to believe this is standard and good diabetes preventive medicine.
This means for a mandatory two-year visit to the doctor, to fulfill the OSMV medical policy, I’ve already visited the doctor eight (8) times. How does the OSMV justify the two-year mandatory examination on top of these visits?
This means for a mandatory five-year visit to the doctor, to fulfill the OSMV medical policy, I’ve already visited the doctor twenty (20) times. How does the OSMV justify the five-year mandatory examination on top of these visits?
Don’t forget there’s a complete guide that doctors are already committed to, the “Guide for Physicians in Determining Fitness to Drive a Motor Vehicle, a publication of the British Columbia Medical Association.” (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, OSMV, A Guide to Operations, June 2005, page 7)
Does the OSMV really believe a doctor would not report any condition or consequences of that condition to the proper driving regulatory body if and when it happens?
That’s what the OSMV mandatory medical policy really states.
This is just a make work project that is trying to satiate peoples discrimination against diabetics.
The policy cannot be justified unless the OSMV and the anti-diabetics really believe the BCMA is completely inept and corrupt and will not report public safety issues.
I don’t believe our doctors are inept or corrupt. They will report such incidents making the demands of the yearly, two-year, and five-year medical examinations irrelevant and to say the least, excessive.
SELECTIVE DISCRIMINATION
Is this argument used against every other condition in which these conditions may express themselves?
No it isn’t. For some reason the OSMV is very selectively in picking diseases, very selective in their discrimination.
For example, the OSMV does not monitor smokers and the conditions and complications associated with this addiction.
And yet, 16% of society smokes and only 5% of society is diabetic. (tobaccofacts.org)
We all know smokers cause accidents when the smoke gets in their eyes, when they drop their smoke and are fumbling around to find it, when they take their eyes off the road to get a cigarette, take their eyes of the road to open and close the package, take a hand off the wheel to pass the cigarette from hand to mouth to light, take their eyes of the road to push the car lighter in or put the lighter back in, or roll and push up and down in order to pull the out their personal lighter from their pants pocket or fumble around to find their purse and then fumble around in the purse to find the lighter, use their strong hand to click the lid open and roll the striker to light the smoke, leaving the weak hand to driver, lean forward and take their eyes off the road to light the smoke, to smoke the smoke, then redirect their concentration associated with driving in order to blow the smoke out of vision, to open the ashtray for ashes, then to butt out and close the ashtray as the ash blows up into their eyes if a window is opened.
Overview of Chronic Complications of Smoking
Addiction, Wrinkles, Cataracts, Mouth Cancers, Skin Damage, Throat Cancer, Psoriasis, Heart Disease, Lung Disease, Stomach Ulcers, Inhibited Circulation, and Second Hand Smoke just to name a few. (tobaccofacts.org)
Just think of all the complaints against the OSMV if it tried to do all the things it does to diabetics to smokers.
Of course this has been thought out and been discussed as smoking drivers are not discriminated against as the OSMV knows there would be an onslaught of criminal, civil, and human rights complaints.
Just imagine the harm caused to society if 16% of society was forced to undergo the medical policy demands diabetics experience.
The selective discrimination against diabetic drivers is appalling.
CONCLUSION
For those uninformed as to what this draft is supposed to be about.
Email from Aleem Bharmal, Barrister & Solicitor, Community Legal Assistance Society, counsel for me, June 1, 2006.
“We will, of course, clarify that the settlement is premised on your agreed participation in the upcoming review of the medical monitoring procedures in general for those with your medical condition and if you are not satisfied at the end of the day with the process or the final result, this will not preclude you from bringing further human rights proceedings against the OMSV.”
Settlement Agreement, point 1,
“The Respondent will prioritize the review of diabetes within this process and, on or before November 15, 2006 will provide the Complaintant with a draft driver fitness monitoring policy for drivers with diabetes based on the evidence gathered in this review.”
My “medical condition” is Type 2 diabetes in relation to a Class 4 license.
The offer to “provide written comments on the draft” was offered because I agreed to settle my Human Rights case Out of Court.
The Settlement was agreed upon because a review means reviewing not only the Respondents position but also the position of the Complaintant as his/her position was reasoned to have enough merit to cause the Review in the first place. (This determination was through a third party, the BC Human Rights Coalition)
The inference was change to the status quo in favour of the Complaintant, as the medical policy demands, upon all diabetic drivers, had not been supported through documentation in the first place. It had only been based upon the OSMV’ view that it’s ok to do.
That’s not ok when considering the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act or the Constitution.
If there is not new “evidence gathered in this review,” to support the demands, there should be changes to the original demands not increased demands as the Draft presents. The Draft offers no old or new evidence.
The Idea of Change
According to Bharmal and myself the ideas of accommodation and compromise supported our decision to Settle Out of Court.
As the following subsections, “What this Out of Court Settlement meant for the OSMV is:” and “Risk” would not be addressed publicly through a court, it is understood that changes in how diabetics are treated by the OSMV would be addressed through the review process.
However, none of the following has been addressed within the Draft.
Change to the demands upon diabetics, Type 2 diabetic drivers, has not been offered.
The offer of review did not mean superficial changes such as reformatting the Sections, “Why Drivers with Diabetes Submit Medical Reports” and “The Requirements.” (Pages from the online web site the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and Drivers with Diabetes (Class 5-8 Licence) which has been done.
It meant changes to how diabetic drivers are treated by the OSMV not stationery or housekeeping changes.
Let me be very clear here. I would not have agreed to settle out of court if stationery or housekeeping changes were what was being offered. That’s not what was offered.
Aleem Bharmal, the lawyer representing me, would not have recommended the out of court settlement if stationary or housekeeping changes were all that was to happen.
My discrimination complaint is about how the government treats me differently because I’m a diabetic driver, the things that government has said about me as a diabetic driver, how I’m forced to comply to a medical examination that cannot do what it’s said it can do, and how the supposed consequences of diabetes are used against me. And yet not one bona fide paper or scientific paper has been presented to justify the medical policy, as demanded by the Motor Vehicle Act and the Constitution.
Additionally, the government treats me differently because as they force the supposed consequences of diabetes upon me they refuse to even acknowledge I have asked questions about the consequences of their actions.
This is discrimination at its best, “I can do to you but I’m above doing the same to myself.”
The idea of Risk used to justify the medical policy is discriminating as it’s one-sided and does not acknowledge the consequences of using Risk or of not using it. To do something based upon Risk and not address these facts is truly astonishing.
Furthermore, the medical policy changes the availability of the medical care system and yet there have not been any documents to justify this demand.
This is important as somewhere, some body or someone has decided that there’s less harm caused by the consequences of the medical policy than the harm caused by the supposed difference in accident rates between non-diabetics and diabetic drivers.
I posed questions about this fact and a response to this question has not been offered.
As a democratic society we cannot cause harm (the knowing harm caused by the change in availability of medical care which impacts not only immediate doctor care but also impacts emergency care centres) because we believe there may be harm caused by a difference in accident rates between non-diabetics and diabetics (accidental harm caused by an accident).
So we have a constructed harm (consequences of government action) verses accidental harm (supposed consequences of diabetic action).
What’s also interesting is the accident rate has never been measured so we cannot measure the supposed diabetic driver accidental accident rate (harm) compared to the constructed harm of government actions.
Also, the harm caused by the medical policy changing health care is organic harm whereas the accidental harm caused by the diabetic accident is material (the car) and organic harm. Which harm is really the greater?
Lastly, not only has the OSMV has not offered any material to justify the medical policy it has not offered any material to demonstrate any Good coming from this discrimination or a decrease in the supposed accident rates.
What this Out of Court Settlement meant for the OSMV is:
1 - The OSMV did not need to present documents to justify the medical policy.
2 - It meant the consequences of the medical policy would not be addressed. The medial policy is based upon beliefs about the consequences of diabetes and yet the OSMV has yet to acknowledge there are consequences of the medical policy. The negative consequences of the medical policy upon society are very real and not just beliefs.
3 - It meant the medical monitoring of diabetes by doctors, the actual times a diabetic visits a doctor yearly, would not be addressed. The actual demands of the doctors, that manage a persons' diabetes, are more demanding than the medical policy demands pertaining to doctor visits. It’s interesting this fact is not acknowledged by the OSMV as valid intervention and bona fide management of diabetes.
The visits also more than out weighs any argument that future conditions and their complications must be monitored by the OSMV, justifying the medical policy.
4 - It meant the belief that the medical monitoring for hypoglycemia is justified would not be addressed as to its validity. (That the medical examination can really do what it’s supposed to be able to do.)
5 - It meant the belief that the medical monitoring can manage and predict hypoglycemia would not be addressed as to its validity.
6 - It meant the belief that the medical monitoring policy decreases the believed incidents of hypoglycemia, hypoglycemic unawareness, and severe hypoglycemia would not be addressed as to its validity.
7 - It meant, as there are no documents justifying the medical policy based upon the believed difference in accident rates between non-diabetics and diabetics this fact would not be addressed.
8 - It meant as there are no documents proving there is any good realized by this medical policy this fact would not be addressed. Imagine that, there has never been a study to see if the medical policy decreases the believed difference in accident rates.
9 - It meant as ICBC responds to and manages accident-prone drivers through a multi level intervention plan this fact would not be acknowledged. Their intervention is based upon real incidents not the belief of risk.
10 - It meant that the OSMV would not need to define crashes and what it really means as compared to concrete (damaged auto) and organic harm (human) to the organic harm ( the medical policy).
11- It meant the OSMV did not need to define Risk as to when government should step into the publics’ life with unproven demands.
12 - It meant the OSMV did not need to explain why Risk is used to help justify the medical policy when accidents and deaths are very real things that are investigated, recorded, and measured by the police, coroner’s office, and ICBC.
13 - It meant the government did not need to respond to why they are stating the medical policy saves lives when it has never proven that the medical policy saves lives or does any good or that diabetic drivers are killing people.
RISK
Page 3, “Diabetes mellitus and crash risk”
What this Out of Court Settlement meant for the OSMV is:
Risk is based upon something concrete then extrapolated from there. However, the documentation justifying the medical policy and the documentation of the difference in accident rates is missing so where is the concrete data for the underpinnings of the idea of Risk.
As with the consequences of the medical policy no acknowledgment of consequences due to Risk implementation is mentioned. It’s as if people offering Risk, as to why they do things, have put themselves beyond consequences because they view Risk as abstract and they cannot be held accountable for abstract things. It’s a wonderful ploy.
With the implementation of Risk no mention of the consequences of actions is ever mentioned such as; measuring accidental harm (diabetic drivers) verses knowing harm (medical policy) is ever brought forward. The one-sided idea of risk will not be addressed because of this out of court settlement.
With Risk, the fact that diabetic drivers also have “just accidents” is never mentioned whereas non-diabetic accidents are presented as “just accidents.” Diabetic accidents are presented as accidents dependent upon diabetes. This fact is not brought forward in the use of Risk to justify the medical policy. Why aren’t diabetic drivers allowed to have just accidents as non-diabetic drivers are? Why are all accidents that involve a diabetic driver considered dependent upon diabetes, now that’s discrimination?
No mention of Good or the benefits to society is ever offered through the idea of Risk.
No mention of the harm to society is ever offered through the idea of Risk.
If the research to determine Risk is good enough to demand intervention then why is it not used to measure Good or the benefits from the intervention? This is never mentioned or offered by those using Risk to justify their wants.
If the research to determine Risk is good enough to demand intervention then why is it not used to measure harm or the possible negatives from the intervention? This is never mentioned or offered by those using Risk to justify their wants.
It’s easy to proclaim and use Risk if one is not held responsible for the consequences of ones’ actions.
Where are the studies evaluating the Risk of intervention compared to the believed harm? They have not been done with this medical policy as I have not been presented studies demonstrating the Risk associated with intervention or no intervention.
If there are different degrees of discrimination this must be the maximum degree. This policy is not support by any research, it impacts how the public interprets diabetics, the consequences of the policy are not acknowledged, and the policy has not been proved to offer any good.
Is it any wonder the OSMV did not want to go to a public court where they would need to explain their behaviour?
Changes to the FACT SHEET(s)
- The offer of change is not just reformatting the Fact Sheet relating to diabetics and commercial driving.
- The offer of change is not just adding subtitles such as Effect on Functional Ability to Drive, Screening and Assessment, Compensation, and Accomodation (your spelling) to the new FACT SHEET, the Draft.
- The offer of change is not just expanding and padding out the sections “Why Drivers with Diabetes Submit Medical Reports” which is within the OSMV FACT SHEET(s), Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and Drivers with Diabetes (Class 5-8 Licence).
- The offer of change is not just expanding and padding out the section “Requirements” which is within the OSMV FACT SHEET(s), Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and Drivers with Diabetes (Class 5-8 Licence).
- The offer of change is not just reformatting the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 1-4 Licence) and the OSMV FACT SHEET, Drivers with Diabetes (Class 5-8 Licence) to include a graph, a couple tables, and the addition of a few boxes.
Demands of the Draft
There are new demands upon the medical system. The harm increases.
There are new demands upon medical Internists and specialists. The harm increases.
There are new demands upon General Practioners. The harm increases.
There are new demands upon diabetic drivers that cannot be managed by the OSMV.
There are new demands upon the diabetic driver that will lead to civil disobedience.
There are new demands upon the diabetic driver to buy new tools to measure their blood glucose levels. This will only lead to more expenses to the OSMV, ultimately the taxpayer.
There are new demands upon the diabetic driver and yet no solution as how to resolve the problem has been offered.
I fail to realize any change within the review process that attends to my complaint of discrimination.
I fail to realize any decrease in the manner of how diabetics are treated, the constructed negativity supported and implemented by government actions and policy is still here.
The Draft is confrontational not accommodating or compromising.
“The Respondent will prioritize the review of diabetes within this process and, on or before November 15, 2006 will provide the Complaintant with a draft driver fitness monitoring policy for drivers with diabetes based on the evidence gathered in this review.”
In reference to “the evidence gathered in this review” the Draft offers no evidence or new evidence to justify the medical policy towards diabetic or Type 2 diabetic drivers.
As the statements within, “What this Out of Court Settlement meant for the OSMV is:” and “Risk” and my original material accepted by the BC Rights Commission have not been addressed which begs the question, “Why?”
Because this process is a review it is a good time to find the policy null and void as no bona fide information has been offered to justify the policy and no good has been realized.
When the anti-diabetic lobby asks why the policy has been cancelled the fact that none of the above have been addressed means the policy is based upon discriminatory beliefs and until they, the anti-diabetics, fulfill all the above, fulfilling the demands of the MVA and the Constitution, the policy will be cancelled.
When the anti-diabetics can demonstrate a real need they can re-submit their wants, simple.
One last thing, if diabetes is really on the rise, it’s supposed to become an epidemic, 40-50% of the population, I wonder what the anti-diabetics will cry when they wake up one morning to discover that they’re diabetic?
I wonder how they’ll respond as Fear and Ignorance and Discrimination already drives them.
Regards,
Dave Jenkins
