"This is the REAL ADHD tax!"

[cimorene]

The other day I saw a post about American politics on Tumblr that was just a screenshot of someone's tweet that said something like, "Fascism won't make America great. Universal healthcare, universal preschool, housing the homeless, and free higher education would make America great." By this standard, I'm living in utopia! (Or, well, living in Greatness-ia.) Finland has all that.

AND YET...

My efforts to get a driver's licence continue. Basically,

1. Signed up for driving school for lessons in how to drive stick. My US license expired more than ten years ago and I've never driven in Finland.


2. Online information indicates I should have to apply in person, but the customer service rep told me that I can disregard that and just apply for a first licence the normal way.


3. The normal way: a brief online form that will instantly issue a printable and downloadable permit that allows you to take the theory test and to drive with an instructor in a car.


4. But you can't do that if you have any of a list of health conditions which require a doctor's certificate. And the list includes ADHD.


5. There's a new law which seems to say you can't get these certificates from the health center anymore, but I called to check. The booking nurse at the health center thought they didn't do them anymore, but she also agreed that it seemed unfair. But she checked with two people and no, the public health service really aren't issuing certificates for driving for ANYBODY anymore.


6. I called the one private doctor center in town. According to their website, the minimum cost of one of these certificates is over 100€, just like waxjism predicted. Their receptionist didn't even know who to book me with (does ADHD require a specialist)? She'll call me back.


7. If it does, it will be like at least 150€ instead, because that's the base price for specialists.

And even worse, the list of conditions that now require EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has ever been diagnosed with them to get a certificate from a private doctor - which means in most cases also a NEW doctor, not their own GP who has treated them before - is not just ADHD. Everybody with any of these conditions (this is not the entire list either) is now taxed, at minimum, an extra hundred bucks for the privilege of getting a driver's licence in Finland, as of two months ago:

• diabetes


• any cardio issues including hypertension or a heart murmur


• sleep apnea or insomnia or any other sleep disorders


• any past severe depressions or recurrent panic disorders, or personality disorders


• dyslexia


• autism spectrum


• any neurological conditions or injuries including migraines or any past brain or spinal injury

Insane. It's not just the financial burden for all these people, either; a brand-new doctor, a stranger, is at a disadvantage for determining if most of the conditions meant here are a danger or not.

So I'm waiting for a call back and Sipuli really doesn't understand why I won't take her outside in the sunshine.

Comments

[lilysea]

I can see why some of them need a medical cert -

there have been multiple-deaths car accidents in Australia in the last few years due to diabetes (someone driving with very low blood sugar) and cardio issues.

But

a) someone's usual GP should be enough, it shouldn't need a specialist

b) high blood pressure should not need a certificate, that's ridiculous, many many adults over age 35/age 40 have high blood pressure

c) sleep apnoea should just require a dr going "yep, they have a CPAP machine and their sleep apnoea is well managed"

d) autism should not need a certificate

e) dyslexia should not need a certificate

[cimorene]

Totally agreed. The sleep apnea one really SHOULD be from their own GP or doctor who manages their condition. Otherwise the other doctor has to ask them and then trust their info, or has to call or contact their GP to check, which presumably will take up their GP's time anyway.

And the idea of autism needing a certificate is pretty similar to ADHD in my opinion. It's possible for someone to have a degree of autism that would make it hard to drive but they would in that case not be able to take the two driving exams most likely. As for ADHD, I understand that there are studies that show medicating it reduces traffic accidents, so I guess it would be reasonable for the patient's GP to discuss this with them and certify that they have medication for the purpose. But again, any new outside doctor would have to rely on the patient's information or else check it with their own doctor...

[lilysea]

I also think ADHD should not require a cert - if someone with ADHD can drive well enough to pass the in-person driving test, that proves that they can drive safely.

[lilysea]

There was a news article this year or last year - South Australia changed the rules so people with autism have to get medical clearance to drive

as a result, lots of people who suspect they have autism are deliberately avoiding getting a diagnosis to avoid the driving clearance hassle

and other people with autism say they regret getting an autism diagnosis because of the driving clearance hassle

[cimorene]

Yeah, an autism diagnosis can be a problem in various situations anyway - I'm sure that was a real concern for many people already in deciding if they should get a diagnosis. But this is such a real, concrete, and UNIVERSAL inconvenience for them, that on the other hand doesn't seem to offer any logical or practical benefit to the state that I can see!

[princessofgeeks]

This is such a ridiculous development. Hoping you get it all sorted soon.

[cimorene]

Thanks❤️! This is starting to feel like a comedy plot kind of, but it's not funny from the inside.

[lilysea]

The rules in Western Australia are that you are supposed to self report any of a myriad of health conditions when you apply for a driver's licence / renew a drivers licence (and you are also legally supposed to self-report when your licence doesn't yet need renewal if you suddenly develop a new condition) -

but of course, most people don't,

either because they don't know that they are supposed to;

or because they are worried that they'll be refused a licence;

or because they know that they're safe to drive but they don't want the hassle and $$$ expense of getting a doctor's report saying that they're safe to drive.

Technically it is illegal not to self-report - but in practice, you will get away with it unless you are in a crash - but if you ARE in a crash and have a medical condition you were supposed to self report, you may face criminal charges for driving while not fit to drive.

The list is really extensive - you are breaking the law if you have eg osteoarthritis (wear and tear arthritis/old age arthritis) and don't self report and get a certificate - but of course 99% of people are not going to report their osteoarthritis

Conditions you are supposed to self report in Western Australia (and get a medical certificate saying you are okay to drive)

"Some examples may include, but are not limited to:

blackouts

cardiovascular conditions such as heart disease and treatments such as pacemakers and intracardiac devices

diabetes treated with medication

eye conditions including short sightedness, glaucoma, macular degeneration and cataracts

musculoskeletal conditions including physical disabilities such as amputations as well as conditions causing chronic pain and restriction of movement

neurological conditions, including epilepsy, dementia (Alzheimer’s disease), stroke, Parkinson’s disease and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder

mental health conditions such as depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

sleep disorders such as sleep apnoea

substance misuse, including alcohol or drug dependency."

[cimorene]

Hey, that list looks super similar! Right down to similar order of the stuff and the wording of the English translation.

That's interesting... I wonder what they're copying, some kind of study or recommendation, or just some country that made a law about it first...

I actually don't know how likely they are to check and find out here so it could be that it's actually rare. There's a verbal warning on the application page that they will revoke your license if they find out, though, and I didn't want to risk it, in case they do check! It seems like the Finnish citizens in my wife's family, at least, expect that complying with the rule is the normal way to behave... which would match my observations of Finnish culture for the most part. Given that the financial burden seems very unfair to me and I also think the evaluation is not much benefit to the government when it has to be done by a doctor who is a stranger, I guess I would perhaps have considered ignoring it, if it was unlikely to come up and I knew that most people were already ignoring it. But I don't have a broad enough acquaintance to get a lot of opinions easily, unfortunately.

[lilysea]

Yes, Australians often ignore laws

that they don't agree with

or that they think don't make sense

if they don't think that they'll get caught.

Australians are very law abiding ***for laws that they agree with/that they think make sense*** but not otherwise.

[lilysea]

Actually, now that I think about it, Australians obey laws if they are one of the following:

a) the Australian thinks that the law is ethically or safety-wise The Right Thing To Do, and they would do the thing even if there was no law whatsoever about it; OR

b) the law has a stiff penalty and a high perceived risk of getting caught

[cimorene]

That makes perfect sense to me!