The Epilepsy Association of Calgary

This article is about epilepsy and driving, although unlike some of our previous articles on this topic, it will attempt to get beyond the facts that are generally at the center. The condensed facts that apply to epilepsy and driving, for the record, are: In Alberta, a person with epilepsy must be seizure free for one year to hold a private driver's license. Meeting this requirement includes the submission of a medical report by your physician, which is then reviewed by the Department of Motor Vehicles Medical Review Board in Edmonton. You can appeal decisions of the Medical Review Board if you believe that there are circumstances in your case that may have been overlooked. To ensure that you will have valid insurance and adequate coverage in the case of an accident, your epilepsy should be reported to your insurance carrier; although you may have to do some shopping around to get the best price. These requirements are only a part of the reality of driving for those who have epilepsy. The balance of this article will focus on some of Dan's experiences after an accident forced him to give up his driver's license.

By way of introduction, Dan is a thoughtful and insightful man in his mid thirties. He is a university graduate, and works as a Human Services professional. Dan first learned of his epilepsy at around age twelve, but generally, his seizures have been well controlled, and living with epilepsy had not posed any great barriers. However, early in 1994 he had a seizure while driving in a parkade. Dan suffered serious injuries that resulted in a one month hospitalization. While Dan's injuries would heal, the pain went much deeper. One of the first things Dan recalls being aware of occurred in the ambulance when blood samples were taken to check his blood alcohol level. He described how demoralized he felt. He was aware this was being done, not out of concern for him, but to collect evidence against him. In addition to his own sense of shock and trauma about the accident, he said he felt as if he were a criminal. When the tests proved negative, Dan explained that the next line of investigation centered on testing for illegal drug use, where again, no evidence was found. Despite these findings, Dan said he felt that the police were "ready to jail me," and seemed almost disappointed that they could not charge me with a criminal offense. As time passed, the authorities would learn that there was no alcohol or drugs involved in Dan's accident. They would in fact discover that at the time of the accident Dan was in possession of a valid drivers license, valid insurance, and a spotless driving record. They would also learn of his epilepsy officially, and would further discover that Dan had complied with all necessary disclosure and regulatory requirements concerning his epilepsy and driving.

Five days after the accident, Dan received a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles requesting a medical report, which his physician provided. According to Dan, his physician reported that a seizure may have occurred, but this was not conclusive, since Dan had no memory of the accident, and there were no witnesses. Not surprisingly, however, Dan was asked to surrender his drivers license. In this letter was the stern reminder that, It is an OFFENCE to retain possession of an operator license that has been suspended or cancelled. While understanding intellectually the reason for the statement and the suspension, the impact left Dan feeling like a felon. In addition, he felt terrified and intimidated at the prospect of ever driving again, and decided he would not appeal the decision. On the more practical side, Dan was now without picture identification, although he was informed he could buy it for $18.00.

For the balance of 1994, Dan adjusted to life without driving. He complied with all reporting, which included advising his physician that he may have experienced another seizure. The result - a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles informing him that in addition to the one year suspension, he would now have to pass a driving test before he could be licensed to drive. Prior to this news, Dan had been trying to put the accident, the loss of driving privileges, and his feelings behind him. However, with this news, everything surfaced, compounded by new feelings of inadequacy and a sense of cynicism. From Dan's perspective, he felt he was being punished for his honesty. Prior to reporting the second possible seizure, there had been no requirement of a driving test. While acknowledging the need to be medically sound before driving again, for the safety of himself as well as others, Dan felt his ability to competently carry off the physical act of driving was now in question.

After his seizure free period ended in 1995, Dan decided he would take the driving test and reinstate his license. His first attempt, however, was not successful, in part owing to his own anxiety about having to meet this requirement, and because of his heightened awareness of the assumptions he believes were made as he went through the process. For example, in dealing with registry staff, he reports that not all staff were informed that his suspension was for a medical reason, and not because of a criminal conviction. It is not a stretch to infer that these limited facts may have had an impact on how registry staff reacted to him. Once again, Dan reported feeling as if he were a criminal, particularly as his first driving test was not successful. He passed his second test after meeting with similar reactions. Each test cost him $21.40.

At this time, Dan is driving but not as much as before. He is now considered a high risk driver, and accordingly will pay approximately $1000 every six months for public liability and property damage insurance coverage. These rates will be reduced after three years if he remains accident free. He will also be required to submit yearly medical reports to the Department of Motor Vehicles, at a cost of approximately $100 each. The purpose in sharing Dan's story is not to suggest that regulations around epilepsy and driving are not needed to ensure personal and public safety. It does, however, offer a parallel in the form of a personal perspective, beyond the cold hard facts that are so often the focus. While many of those who dealt with Dan had the facts, it appears the person may have been overlooked.