HUGE IMPLICATIONS OF TESTS FOR DRUGS

Sir, - I read with some disquiet your report (30 January) referring to a
conviction at Perth Sheriff Court. It said the man concerned had been
convicted on blood tests which showed the presence of four "drugs" in his
circulation. I was under the impression that the only drug the police could
at present test for is alcohol. If they have the right to test for other
drugs, the implications are immense.

So far as I am aware, there are no blood level values for any drug other
than alcohol at which an individual commits a crime when he drives. If he
is sufficiently impaired he could be charged under the old Road Traffic
Act, which would require a doctor to examine him and say whether or not he
thought him fit to drive.

If drugs which may impair driving are found in an individual, and this is
an offence, at least 20 per cent of the population would be guilty in any
one year. Drugs which may impair driving include anti-depressants (Prozac,
etc), tranquilisers (Valium, etc), anti-histamines (cold remedies),
painkillers (co-proxamol, etc); lesser groups could also pose problems.

As a rural GP, should I advise my patients that if they take the treatment
I am prescribing, which may or may not impair their driving, and then they
drive, they are breaking the law? Legally, it would appear I am obliged to.
Am I then supposed to advise the police if I see them driving? Will they
take treatment which precludes them from driving even though it is
essential to their health?

If my patient needs treatment, is fit to work, but can't drive because of
his medication, do I give him a medical certificate, as he can't drive to
work? The economic and social consequences, especially for the rural areas
are gigantic.

(Dr) Donald Fraser, Laggan, Newtonmore Inverness-Shire