Section 25(2) of the Coroners Act 1975 empowers me to make recommendations if in my opinion, to do so may or reduce the likelihood of” the recurrence of a “prevent, similar event to Shantel Bednarek’s death. Having regard to Dr Braund’s evidence that here is a of diabetes in our community, it is especially important to “pandemic” consider the implications of Mr Johnson’s driving in this case. Having regard to the ethical dilemma faced by doctors treating patients such as Mr Johnson, particularly in the public hospital system where there is a reduced ability to monitor compliance, a very clear system of monitoring and reporting patients who are not safe to drive is required. At present, the reporting system provided by Section 148, as interpreted by the doctors here, and the process of annual review of patients, as exemplified by Dr Trbovic’s efforts in this matter, are clearly unsatisfactory. Mr Boylan, Counsel for Dr’s Trbovic and Bollen, suggested that the forms which doctors fill out in the annual review should request much more specific information about the patients condition. I agree. Mr Harms agreed, and suggested that the forms should have a section for both patient and doctor to fill in. The patient could be required, for example to report how many doctors he or she had consulted during the year, how many hypoglycaemic attacks he or she had suffered, and could be required to produce records of BSL’s taken over a particular period. The doctor could also be asked to provide details of consultations, and be required to state whether he or she had viewed the patients records, etc. I agree with those suggestions. Such information would give a much better understanding of the patients condition which the Registrar could make use of when considering whether to renew the licence or not. Notification under Section 148 might become less important. Finally, I do not agree with the idea of putting a gloss on legislation in handbooks which is inaccurate. The booklet has obviously been prepared to cover all Australian jurisdictions, and may represent the lowest common denominator between them. If Section 148 was reproduced in the handbook, I am sure that most doctors could read and understand it. Having regard to Dr Braund’s remarks, it seem that a much more consultative approach is called for in designing a system which fulfils the government’s public policy objectives, and with which the medical profession can feel comfortable.
Section 25(2) of the Coroners Act 1975 empowers me to make recommendations if in my opinion, to do so may “prevent, or reduce the likelihood of” the recurrence of a similar event to Shantel Bednarek’s death. Having regard to Dr Braund’s evidence that here is a “pandemic” of diabetes in our community, it is especially important to consider the implications of Mr Johnson’s driving in this case. Having regard to the ethical dilemma faced by doctors treating patients such as Mr Johnson, particularly in the public hospital system where there is a reduced ability to monitor compliance, a very clear system of monitoring and reporting patients who are not safe to drive is required. At present, the reporting system provided by Section 148, as interpreted by the doctors here, and the process of annual review of patients, as exemplified by Dr Trbovic’s efforts in this matter, are clearly unsatisfactory. Mr Boylan, Counsel for Dr’s Trbovic and Bollen, suggested that the forms which doctors fill out in the annual review should request much more specific information about the patients condition. I agree. Mr Harms agreed, and suggested that the forms should have a section for both patient and doctor to fill in. The patient could be required, for example to report how many doctors he or she had consulted during the year, how many hypoglycaemic attacks he or she had suffered, and could be required to produce records of BSL’s taken over a particular period. The doctor could also be asked to provide details of consultations, and be required to state whether he or she had viewed the patients records, etc. I agree with those suggestions. Such information would give a much better understanding of the patients condition which the Registrar could make use of when considering whether to renew the licence or not. Notification under Section 148 might become less important. Finally, I do not agree with the idea of putting a gloss on legislation in handbooks which is inaccurate. The booklet has obviously been prepared to cover all Australian jurisdictions, and may represent the lowest common denominator between them. If Section 148 was reproduced in the handbook, I am sure that most doctors could read and understand it. Having regard to Dr Braund’s remarks, it seem that a much more consultative approach is called for in designing a system which fulfils the government’s public policy objectives, and with which the medical profession can feel comfortable.
BEDNAREK%20Shantel%20Lisa.docx