title: Legal implications of public health guidelines.
abstract: Medical guidelines aim to provide stylised procedures to manage illnesses. Doctors might believe that conforming to guidelines provides protection within legal proceedings. Guidelines were deemed inadmissible evidence in Regina v Ross Gillett, raising some concerns. Gillett was a middle aged man who denied having epilepsy when applying for a driver's licence and was involved in a car crash which killed three people. He had confirmed epilepsy yet expert witnesses testified he was within AUSTROADS Guidelines for fitness to drive. The judge refused to admit these Guidelines into evidence, finding the defendant guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death. The Guidelines were endorsed by all Australian and New Zealand traffic authorities, seven medical colleges, two sub-specialty faculties, seventeen illness-related organisations plus the Australian Medical Association. Their purpose was to achieve "...best practice for the safe and effective management and use of the road system...". The judge rejected them when considering his verdict. Precedence demands the judiciary consider all relevant data although the Guidelines were deemed irrelevant and could not be admitted into evidence. Guidelines cannot bind the court unless enforced by legislation. It is difficult for doctors to comprehend how Guidelines, designed to determine optimal road usage, can be excluded when analysing a road accident. Doctors need to be circumspect about applying Guidelines in the wake of Gillett.
authors.affiliation: Chatswood NSW, Australia.
authors.forename: R G
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Beran
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D001334:Automobile Driving / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004827:Epilepsy; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*