Poll: Should It Be Law That Those With OSA Report It To Gov?

Doesn't our government know enough about us Is it necessary for them to know our medical treatment and compliance to it? I think not. If we have to report on OSA next it will be STDs and Mental illnesses.

Enough liberties are sacrifieced as it is.

In the alternative maybe there should be some kind of criminal liability for knowingly driving while impaired such as there is with DUI and taking prescription medications which advise against driving or operating heavy machinery.

I am not against individual responsibility: just the government knowing any more about me than they do from my W-4, monitoring my phone calls for the word "explode", and so on.

(P.S. This post is jaded by a long time working in the legal field.)

As with many other aspects of personal medical information, there would be unintended consequences to forcing such a notification.

First off, if you suspected that you had moderate (but not severe) OSA and such a law was in effect, would you then opt not to have the test, rather than risking being forever labeled to your insurance agent as an OSA sufferer? I know my own apnea was fairly moderate, and in fact just by sleeping in a different position I seem to sleep much better than I did before the whole trial with the CPAP machine went so badly.

Second, there's more than just sleepiness to dozing off in an automobile. I know some people who find that the droning of the engine just puts them right out regardless of how awake they are. These people are really not safe to be driving (in at least one case, by her own admission). On the other hand, I've on occasion had to drive in an extremely exhausted condition and I have never once, in my entire life, fallen asleep at the wheel (knock on wood that it never does happen). Should I find it hard to get auto insurance, or pay higher rates, just because a test once said I had apnea, a test whose very flaws I've documented (albiet in humorous fashion) in the three essays I wrote about my sleep study?

Third, how many other conditions should we then start making public (because lets face it, whether you like it or not, once a piece of information gets to the DMV, it isn't really private information any more, that's part of why most states stopped using the SS# on driver licenses, there's simply no reason for them to have it.)? Should people with allergies have to be reported, because they're more likely to sneeze at an inappropriate moment, or to be taking Benadryl (a medication which knocks me into next week, sleep-wise, far more than missing a few nights' sleep ever did)? How about people with chronic pain conditions, whose reflexes and attention may not be what it should be? What about migraine headache sufferers, who can go from completely clear to nearly blind with pain in the span of a few short minutes (trust me on this one... ugh!)?

What of other forms of insomnia do we need to look out for? Is it just apnea, or do we start asking doctors to report anyone for whom any prescription sleep aid has been prescribed?

The fact is that although statistically there may be a slight rise in the number of accidents, I'd bet it's quite a bit lower than you might imagine, as people who have had apnea for years have probably learned to cope with it. In all facets of life, there will be those who don't do what they should, but if you're too tired to drive, ask your spouse or a friend to drive. I'd bet that an apnea sufferer, well practiced in the art of operating under deficit conditions, sleep-wise, would be far more able to handle driving while tired than a non-sufferer who just happens to have missed a night's sleep because they were afraid of a flight the next day, or just broke up with their significant other, or have bills they're worried about, or any number of other conditions. Apnea sufferers build up a skill set, and a tolerance, in much the same way that a heavy drinker can have two or three beers and be unimpaired (although I'd still never advise driving), while lightweights like me (alcohol-wise at least) should avoid doing anything complicated (like walking) for at least an hour after walking past the entrance to a particularly noisy bar.

So no, I don't believe this would be a good precedent, and I went to the site and voted to that effect.

Liam, almost made it through an entire post without cracking a single joke, until that damn "walking past the bar" thing got me.

MandoJohnny wrote:What such as law would do is provide an incentive for un-diagnosed sufferers to not get treated. I have seen an estimate that less than 10% of Apnea sufferers ever get diagnosed. What the law should do is encourage the other 90% to get diagnosed and treated. A reporting requirement would go in the opposite direction.

Great minds think alike. I suppose I should have read through everyone else's answers BEFORE I posted mine (to make sure I was actually adding to the debate), but I felt strongly enough about my answer that I wanted to put my thoughts "on paper" before finding out how common they in fact were, rather than how brilliant and insightful I thought they were.

Liam, legend in his own mind.

P.S. Very good points, MandoJohnny, and I'm sure quite a few others whom I'll now be reading as I wade through the rest of this topic.

Anonymous wrote:if an accident like this happened, the person would go to jail for vehicular homicide just like a drunk driver does.

Just like ANY driver does...

[quote="Anonymous"}A drunk chooses to drink and drive; an OSA patient chooses not to use his machine and drive. It's a conscious decision of negligence and endangering others' lives.[/quote]

It's not that simple, though. A "drunk" knows that his or her actions (drinking) impair him or her for driving. How many undiagnosed Apnea sufferers (and remember how few doctors outside of the sleep medicine specialty know anything at all about apnea, how many patients are never diagnosed because no one ever thinks to test them for it) are out there not KNOWING they've "had a few" physically speaking?

And how many others, like me, find ways to cope and even mitigate their symptoms WITHOUT being "compliant". Should I have a black mark on my record, higher insurance rates, and possibly be refused a renewal of my license forever, when (as I will repeat from my earlier post) I have never, not even once, fallen asleep at the wheel, nor had any other incidents or other lapses in driving which might reasonably be attributed to being overtired.

It's not a case of choosing not to have that drink if you're going to drive, for many, it may be a case of "you start out slightly inebriated, and for you, there's no way to sober up. Good luck!"

I honestly don't believe I'm any greater risk on the road than a lot of other people, certainly I'm far safer than anyone who will drive drunk. And I have five children whom I regularly ferry around in our big minivan. If I thought I wasn't safe, I wouldn't put THEM at risk, even if I didn't care at all for the other people on the road (which I do).

Liam, making a habit of not making people laugh since 2:30 this afternoon.

It is already a law in California

Will my doctor report me to the DMV?
Medical doctors (for example, physicians, surgeons and psychiatrists) are required by law to report to a local health office patients who have been diagnosed with certain conditions, depending on the severity of symptoms. However, if the doctor informs the patient of the patient’s condition and the patient states that he or she does not intend to drive, the physician may choose not to report the patient. Conditions that may trigger reporting include Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, seizure disorders, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, vascular dementia, brain tumors, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and abnormal metabolic states (including hypo-glycemia and hyperglycemia associated with diabetes). In addition, if the doctor reasonably and in good faith believes a patient's medical condition will impair safe driving, the doctor may choose to report the patient. Doctors are protected against civil and criminal liability for these confidential reports.

What happens when a doctor reports a patient?
Upon receiving the report, the DMV will provide to the patient a medical evaluation form. A patient who desires to continue driving must have the doctor complete the form, and then the patient must return to the DMV for testing. This is an opportunity for the DMV to evaluate the driving ability of the patient. There are several possible outcomes to this process:


patient keeps license, or
patient keeps license but is required to report changes in medical condition or provide an annual medical examination, or
the license is restricted (for example, to daytime driving only), or
the new license is limited (for example, for a one-year duration), or
the license is suspended or revoked.

What if the DMV refuses to renew or continue the driver's license?
If, after testing, the DMV suspends or revokes the license, the person has the right to request a hearing with the local Driver Safety Office. At the hearing, the person may present additional evidence regarding driving capabilities. The hearing must be requested within 10 days of the revocation or suspension of the license. If the person is denied a license at the initial hearing, he or she has the right to a second hearing with a different driving safety officer. The person may bring an attorney to the hearings.

Sorry,
I need to give credit where credit is due.
I found this at http://www.help4srs.org/driving_older_adults.html

This is appalling. I'm sure the reasons against this could go ad infinitum, but I'll chime in with what everyone has said:

Abso-frickin-lutely NOT!

What Liberal thought up this idea, to report OSA to the government?

Sheesh....

Vader wrote:What Liberal thought up this idea, to report OSA to the government?

Liberal? Sounds a lot more like the current crop of so-called Conservatives (gay marriage ban sound familiar) than anything the Liberals have done.

Not that I want to start a political war here, but I get so sick and tired of twits who have to insert slams at "the other guys" when they have nothing what so ever to do with the situation.

Liam, who wishes people on BOTH sides, but right now especially the Right, would just open their eyes and look at the morons they're idealizing.

Ever google "old people auto accident"?

One of the resulting sites shows that the Number of crashes per mile traveled :
decreases until age 30
starts to increase at age 65

Did you know that after age 85, there are twice as many accidents for 85-year olds than 16 year olds.

After -they- outlaw old drivers they will come after us.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/older_people.html#4

Liam1965 wrote: Not that I want to start a political war here, but I get so sick and tired of twits

LOL
Okay Liam, I agree it's not wise for you to start a political war, but you're not calling me a twit, are you? because I don't think people are allowed to come in here and call other members names. So could you explain that one?

Vader wrote:...you're not calling me a twit, are you? because I don't think people are allowed to come in here and call other members names.

I am not calling you a twit per se, I am speaking of a group of twits who behave that way. So in that manner, your last message was behaving in a manner like unto those twits.

Whether you are, yourself, a twit or have merely made an unfortunate foray down a similar path for a short spell is for you to determine.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing in this thread that remotely justifies attempting to politicize it while using the utterly distasteful tactic of demonizing the world "liberal" by using it as though it were an insult. Conservative and liberal are not good or bad states of being, they are philosophies. And one of the worst elements of American society today is the extent to which we've allowed ourselves to be divided into teams and largely brainwashed into believing the other side is valueless and either evil or stupid and misguided.

Human kind would be far better off if people who had differing opinions RESPECTED each other's opinions and worked to understand the other, so that on most issues, some common ground could be reached. Too far to the left lies communism. Too far to the right lies fascism. Somewhere in the middle lies democracy, which we're supposed to value.

All I'm saying is, let's act like it.

This is the last I'll say on the topic (you're welcome to respond if you like, I'm certainly not trying to shut you out), and I sincerely apologize to the rest of the CPAPTALK community who would much rather be trying to figure out how to get a good night's compliant sleep than reading about the foibles and failings of the average American citizen.

Liam, who finds that a "centrist" is someone almost no one respects, being seen as part of the "other side" by the rabid denizens of each extreme.

DaveMunson wrote:Did you know that after age 85, there are twice as many accidents for 85-year olds than 16 year olds.

I've also read that divorced women have extremely high auto accident rates. Should they be targeted also?

And I mean the question seriously. If one category of people is singled out (no pun intended) then isn't it legitimate to target any other category of people as well? Where's the line?

Regards,
Bill (not at all sure of a right answer for any of these questions)

Liam1965 wrote: I am not calling you a twit per se,

yeah, yeah, okay. Thanks for the apology and the spin....

Vader wrote: What Liberal thought up this idea, to report OSA to the government?

In the interest of being fair, I understand where that sentiment came from when one considers the commonly held belief liberals (i.e. Democrats) are for more government and conservatives (i.e. Republicans) are for less government.

Liam1965 wrote:Not that I want to start a political war here, but I get so sick and tired of twits who have to insert slams at "the other guys" when they have nothing what so ever to do with the situation.

In the interest of being fair, I understand where that sentiment came from (minus the insulting use of the word "twits") when one considers no one knows who was behind this law passing in California.

Liam1965 wrote:Liam, who wishes people on BOTH sides, but right now especially the Right, would just open their eyes and look at the morons they're idealizing.

In the interest of being fair, I wish people on BOTH sides, but right now especially the LEFT, would just open their eyes and look at the morons they're idealizing.

As an independent 2 and in the interest of being fair ... I must agree with Liam on this one. Corporate greed has implanted morons from BOTH sides into our system of government ... but right now especially the Right, currently in control of all three branches and effectively trashing our constitution while a dangerous world-wide Khalifah is being established to bring down the democracy that western civilization has so valued. As Liam stated, it is the overwhelming number of “twits” with political myopia that enable the perilous events unfolding before us.

In response to the topic, the recent trashing of the 4th amendment (among others) makes the question moot because chances are they already know who has OSA … after all, everything we post here and all the personal information we provide others in order to live our daily lives now goes straight into the big brother database for data mining.

- roberto