Mucular ischemea

[piggylover]

HI

Last week my vision became slightly blurred my right eye it has done this a few times. My understanding is that the above is another word for my background retinopathy. My gp sent me to the eye hospital just to be safe, apparently for blurred vision they also send you to the stroke clinic, they confirmed no tia or stroke. They then added with macular ischema I am not allowed to drive for 4 weeks? The stroke team say it clearly says that but I can't find anything along those lines. I can more than see and meet the dvlas minimum standard so am rather confused. Obviously I wouldnt drive without a drs day so but I'm so not sure

 

[Robin]

HI

Last week my vision became slightly blurred my right eye it has done this a few times. My understanding is that the above is another word for my background retinopathy. My gp sent me to the eye hospital just to be safe, apparently for blurred vision they also send you to the stroke clinic, they confirmed no tia or stroke. They then added with macular ischema I am not allowed to drive for 4 weeks? The stroke team say it clearly says that but I can't find anything along those lines. I can more than see and meet the dvlas minimum standard so am rather confused. Obviously I wouldnt drive without a drs day so but I'm so not sure

When my husband was referred to a TIA clinic following a retinal artery occlusion, they stopped him driving for four weeks, (even though only one eye was affected and you are allowed to drive with one eye). There is a 'catch all' clause in DVLA regulations that says you can't drive if your doctor says you mustn't, which can cover anything, and the TIA clinic seem to issue a four week ban as standard, while they carry out investigations. I think in my husband's case, although no TIA was found to have occurred, his artery occlusion meant that he was potentially at risk of having a stroke, therefore they told him to stop driving for four weeks, while he had all sorts of other tests.

 

[trophywench]

Well the criterion for only having or having the use of, only one eye is that, apart from having good enough eyesight in the good eye, the patient has fully adapted to only having the one. If something has only just happened to the 'bad' eye, then it isn't possible to have fully adapted.

Hence - in those circs, none of us has a leg to stand on!

 

[piggylover]

When my husband was referred to a TIA clinic following a retinal artery occlusion, they stopped him driving for four weeks, (even though only one eye was affected and you are allowed to drive with one eye). There is a 'catch all' clause in DVLA regulations that says you can't drive if your doctor says you mustn't, which can cover anything, and the TIA clinic seem to issue a four week ban as standard, while they carry out investigations. I think in my husband's case, although no TIA was found to have occurred, his artery occlusion meant that he was potentially at risk of having a stroke, therefore they told him to stop driving for four weeks, while he had all sorts of other tests.

They stopped me driving with a suspected tia for 6 weeks a few years ago. It's complicated as I haven't had one this time and all my screenings show background retinopathy