“Medical Episode” Catchphrase

[Citroënbender]

Maybe someone familiar with case law or more recent years’ prosecutions can comment - I’m seeing this (above expression) cited in social chatter a whole lot more in recent times.

Is it carrying weight in local courts/tribunals where perhaps previously people just appealed to the mental health provisions of law? Or is it simply a transplanted Americanism that means nothing at the pointy end of justice/jurisprudence?

[jaydee]

From my experiences most "medical episodes" are heart attacks, or undiagnosed fits and blackouts.
Anyone involved usually has to get a doctors certificate supporting their case to retain their license.
Otherwise their license gets cancelled on medical grounds.
But this is not always the case.

[Citroënbender]

I remember that from when my father had his first (possibly first diagnosed) stroke 25 years ago. I think it was three or six months of no driving, followed by a full medical going-over.

But what I’m wondering is - whether there are more people with genuine, prevailing conditions bending the rules to keep driving, or more undiagnosed conditions, or more people exploiting this possibility (of undiagnosed conditions or broader scope of admissible conditions) as a way of avoiding serious criminal charges.

I should add, no skin in the game - its interest piqued by how often I see this cited in the comments of DCOA videos.

[marty351]

I've had many a "medical episode" in recent times, though usually I put it down to brain farts and clumsiness.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

I wouldn't take anything stated in social chatter (especially on DCOA socials) as any indication of whats going on in the judicial circles.

From my point of view, I think the use of the term medical episode is possibly more prevelant than it once was because the usage of it to cover both physical and mental issues is now more accepted than the days where it predominantly covered just physical issues. And that's a good thing. IMHO.

Oh, and the socials may be using it to cover episodes that really aren't 'medical', rather they relate to abundant use of substances that can cause people to act strangely. Clinically evaluated cases excluded.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

From my point of view, I think the use of the term medical episode is possibly more prevelant than it once was because the usage of it to cover both physical and mental issues is now more accepted than the days where it predominantly covered just physical issues. And that's a good thing. IMHO.

With the downside being psychological issues are being used to reduce culpability for one's actions. I don't think that's a good thing.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by b0son

With the downside being psychological issues are being used to reduce culpability for one's actions. I don't think that's a good thing.

Agreed. But any claim needs to be genuine. No different to a physical injury. For some reason tho, a lot in the community still treat a mental issue differently to a physical injury.

How many times in the past did we see people fake a physical injury for workers comp claims? Remember the old Today Tonight stories?

Let's not treat mental injuries any different to physical. On account of both the good and bad aspects.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

I remember that from when my father had his first (possibly first diagnosed) stroke 25 years ago. I think it was three or six months of no driving, followed by a full medical going-over.

But what I’m wondering is - whether there are more people with genuine, prevailing conditions bending the rules to keep driving, or more undiagnosed conditions, or more people exploiting this possibility (of undiagnosed conditions or broader scope of admissible conditions) as a way of avoiding serious criminal charges.

I should add, no skin in the game - its interest piqued by how often I see this cited in the comments of DCOA videos.

My answer to your 2nd paragraph is yes to the first part and an absolutely to the 2nd part.
But it's not only driving, how many times do we see a lawyers defence for his client on a killing charge with some abstract undiagnosed mish mash of several conditions.

We had a murder here in WA about 10 years ago, a bloke in his 30s living with mum and dad, bashed them to death in their sleep with a fry pan.
The defence was he was undiagnosed sleep walking. Got convicted.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jaydee

We had a murder here in WA about 10 years ago, a bloke in his 30s living with mum and dad, bashed them to death in their sleep with a fry pan.
The defence was he was undiagnosed sleep walking. Got convicted.

Surgeon Charlie Teo's daughter escaped a conviction for driving onto the wrong side of the road and having a head on collision that left the other party with ongoing injuries/pain. Not only escaped a conviction, but never even stood trial. Her psych report said they intended to use a defence of 'automatism', a fancy way of saying she zoned out and wasnt aware of what she did.

Yet somehow, she still has a licence. I guess it helps having a well known dad and the financial means to concoct a defence. A rule for thee but not for me....