 |
 |
> These two views are completely contradictory! A compulsory blood alcohol > assessment system would clearly be State authorised, and our departments > would then no longer be seen as independent. With this type of system many > patients would then steer clear of A&E departments leading to the very > compromise in care that you allude to. We are comparing different entities here, individual assaults on the person and driving while not fit. In the UK we are seen as a confidential source of assistance and I would not wish to compromise this, however we are already compelled to provide information regarding motor vehicle accidents on request. Either the public do not know this or accept it. The Australian public hold "drink driving" in a different light to assaults. They are far less sympathetic to the argument frequently offered here that the person injured in a vehicle accident "is not fit" for testing. Everybody, even when not injured, gets blood tested or breathalysed and blood is taken by nurses and doctors in the health care system rather than by Police Surgeons (for later testing). Nobody questions this and we were not aware of anybody staying away or presenting late. The patients were aware that the State fined the medical carers if a sample was not taken. It appeared that we could have our relatively independent cake and eat it, dealing with a Public Health issue and not being seen as a Police source of information. Strange, I accept, but then they ARE Australian ... All is not black and white. We need to find some middle ground. Darren