FL Primary Care Docs Battle 'Gun Gag' Law

[jpak]

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/TEC-267274/FL-Primary-Care-Docs-Battle-Gun-Gag-Law

Primary care physicians' associations in Florida have filed a federal lawsuit to strike down a new "physician gun gag" law that they say hinders them from talking about firearms hazards with patients.

"This is not about guns. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms but it infringes upon the First Amendment right to discuss firearms safety," Lisa A. Cosgrove, MD, president of the Florida Pediatric Society/Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told HealthLeaders Media.

"The bottom line is it is interfering with our right to talk to our patients. Inside of my exam room, that is private territory. It is already protected under HIPAA laws. There should be nothing that interferes with that and this does."

The legislation, HB 155 – was signed into law this month by Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Lane Wright, Scott's press secretary, defended the bill. "I think that last part is what some people miss—'if the information is not relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others,'" Wright said in an email to HealthLeaders Media. "The law ensures respect for a patient's right to own or possess a firearm and protects them from potential discrimination and harassment in cases where it is not relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of anyone else in the home."

<more>

[lawodevolution]

1. Get over it Jpak, soon you'll have another pro 2A bill to fight against

and it's going to continue for a long time. This is the backlash

[jpak]

8. Pride goes before the fall

yup

[RSillsbee]

32. No, Pride goes before destruction. A haughty spirit goes before a fall NT

[DrDan]

2. the irrational paranoia surrounding gun confiscation is astounding

[gejohnston]

5. Has more to do with

knowing what they are talking about. I don't go to firearms expert for medical advice and don't go to Catholic priests for marriage counseling.

[DrDan]

10. I agree in general

However, I am sure there are some Catholic priests who have given good advice in the past.

And I am quite confident a physician could give a child some basics as it comes to firearm safety.

Just because one has not had a sunburn doesn't mean that person can't offer advice on how to avoid one. Might be the right person to do so.

[Straw Man]

31. Ask Doctor God.

And I am quite confident a physician could give a child some basics as it comes to firearm safety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests the following:

Advice to parents

The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.

• Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
  
• Remove all guns present in the home.
  
• Talk to your children about the dangers of guns, and tell them to stay away from guns.
  
• Find out if there are guns in the homes where your children play. If so, talk to the adults in the house about the dangers of guns to their families.

For those who know of the dangers of guns but still keep a gun in the home.

• Always keep the gun unloaded and locked up.
  
• Lock and store the bullets in a separate place.
  
• Make sure to hide the keys to the locked boxes.

--http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx

We're not talking about gun safety education here: we're talking about social engineering. The basics? They clearly take a back seat to the abolitionist agenda in the eyes of the AAP. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is unaware of the basics of gun safety, but there will always be those who don't adhere to them for a variety of bad reasons, just as there are people who smoke and use meth and don't wear seatbelts. There's no reason to expect this behavior to change because a pediatrician asks a few questions. The AAP believes that firearms owners are ipso facto bad parents. That's horseshit.

Yes, doctors can refuse to treat patients who won't respond to intrusive and irrelevant questions. Doctors who do so are arrogant douchebags who are less concerned with the patient's well-being than they are with their own godlike self-images.

[DrDan]

50. Gunshot wounds account for one in 25 admissions to pediatric trauma centers in the United States

would the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines not improve that statistic or not?

seems quite obvious to me.

[PavePusher]

60. How many are kids? n/t

[DrDan]

61. I would assume all - "pediatric trauma center"

[PavePusher]

65. Ah, my apology, I read to fast and missed the "pediatric" portion.

May I ask where that statistic comes from?

And are there actual "pediatric" trauma centers, distinct from adult trauma centers? I've never come across that before.

[DrDan]

67. here is the link

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/pediatricians-parents-guns-home/story?id=12770294

[Glassunion]

82. They say 1 in 25...

But I'm seeing conflicting data from the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

They can be adding in adults who are seen by a pediatrician. I do recall that happened to me when I was 19 and was admitted to the hospital with a self inflicted stupidity box cutter accident. I was seen by a pediatrician even though I was an adult.

According to the CDC report if you look at all hospital admissions for <1 to 17 age group in 2007, you will see well over 8 million admissions. There were over 9300 admitted for GSWs in that same year. That works out to about 1 in 860.

Now of course they may be narrowing down the information further, to specific trauma centers and this may very well be the case. If they are only looking at Level 1 TCs then I can absolutely believe that number. They are generally located in larger metro areas and if I'm not mistaken there are only about 15 to 20 in the entire country.

[DrDan]

85. I do not see the conflicting data - can you be more precise in where you are finding it?

[Glassunion]

87. Sure...

From the page I linked, under FATAL and NON-Fatal go to "Learn More and Query (Non)Fatal Data"

From there go to "Fatal Injury Reports 1999-2007" under Fatal and "Nonfatal Injury 2001-2009" under Non Fatal.

From there you can customize the report. All intents, all causes, age group <1 to 17 year 2007. I then ran the same report again and specified firearm to get the totals.

What you will find:
Under fatal total, 11039, firearm, 1520
Under non-fatal total, 8068293, firearm, 7829

So if you combine both fatal and non fatal, there are 8,079,332 admissions total of which 9,349 were firearm related.

[DrDan]

94. the difference could be in the "pediatric trauma center" criteria, I would think, since

the CDC data is probably more broad.

[Glassunion]

104. So, gunshot wounds account for 1 in 860 children's admissions to hospitals in the US overall.

Not one in 25.

It seemed an odd number to me.

[PavePusher]

92. Thank you. A few noteable quotes from that cite (emphasis mine):

1. "In addition, an unknown but large number of children are seriously injured—of­ten irreversibly disabled—by guns but survive."
If it's "unknown" how do you know it's "large", and by what criteria do you determine "large"? Compared to what?

2. "Major urban trauma centers are reporting an increase of 300 percent in the number of children treated for gunshot wounds; in fact, one in every twenty-five admissions to pediatric trauma centers in the United States is due to gunshot wounds.
How many "major urban trauma centers", and where are they located/what is their average/common demographic? High crime areas? Income level? What social dynamics are involved? Note also that they do not seem to cite their source... but link to a sales page for a book about caring for 5-12 year-olds. This is a little problematic...

3. "Parents should realize that a gun in the home is forty-three times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar or other criminal."
This hoary old myth again? Seriously? And interesting that we all know where it comes from, but again no source is cited. This is more than problematical, this is outright mendacious. Not to mention it's an incomplete statistic. The goal is not to kill the criminal, but to stop them. Even if you look at only the documented number of defensive uses (DoJ stats), approx. 108K/year IIRC, and ignore the estimates, that far outweighs the friend/family "argument".

4. "To compound this problem, depressed preteenagers and teenagers commit suicide with guns more frequently than by any other means."
Sorry, this is a mental health problem, not a gun problem. If you want to keep every method of suicide out of the hands of kids (or adults).... well, basically, you can't. Address the root issue, not the existance of the tool.

[Straw Man]

63. Yes -- it's a tautology.

If there were no guns, there would be no gunshot wounds. Please explain how the pursuit of that Utopian fantasy justifies the denial of care in the real world.

[DrDan]

68. those guidelines go beyond "no guns" - but you knew that

[Straw Man]

69. Yes, I do -- it's indicated in the material I quoted.

I also know that they place "no guns" ahead of the common-sense safety rules, indicating what their priorities are. It's clear that all gun owners are substandard parents in the AAP's estimation, an attitude that doesn't do much to establish their credibility with their gun-owning clients.

Again, how do you or they justify the denial of care?

[DrDan]

70. how do you justify not allowing a pediatrician to give gun safety advice to a child?

[Straw Man]

76. I don't have to, because I never advocated that.

If you'll remember, it was the pediatrician in Florida that did the refusing. Safety information can be given regardless of the parent's response to the question.

[DrDan]

77. a doctor can turn away patients, like a patient can move to a new doctor

if a patient objects to the way a doctor handles his practice, they should move on. There should be trust on both sides.

[Straw Man]

79. And a doctor who turns away a patient on this basis...

...is more interested in ideology and power than in the patient's well-being.

[DrDan]

80. or the recognition that the parents of this particular family have priorities higher than

the safety of the children.

If what you say is true (not agreeing with that, however), why would the family object to moving on? A change is warranted if they do not trust their doctor.

[Straw Man]

81. An unfounded and unjust assumption on the doctor's part.

But part and parcel of the "gun owners are lowlifes" mindset promulgated by the AAP.

Let's say they change doctors. Since "no guns" is an AAP position, it's possible that the next doctor subscribes to it as well. It's a not-so-subtle coercion: "Answer our questions or your child will not get health care."

[DrDan]

84. I do not agree it is "unfounded and unjust". If there are guns in the house,

there are safety guidelines the children should be aware of. If sharing those guidelines with children is a lesser concern than privacy with respect to gun ownership, then I suggest your priorities are also skewed.

I doubt I would find a doctor who would not emphasize nutrition and exercise as a prudent way to lead one's life. I hardly find it to be "coercion that approaches blackmail" if my doctor would remind me of that, even if the AMA and all members (to include my future doctors) subscribe to those guidelines.

[Straw Man]

86. No one said it's a "lesser concern." That's YOUR straw man.

If there are guns in the house, there are safety guidelines the children should be aware of. If sharing those guidelines with children is a lesser concern than privacy with respect to gun ownership, then I suggest your priorities are also skewed.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Nothing prevents the doctor from giving the information except his/her arrogance. My priorities are fine, thank you.

I doubt I would find a doctor who would not emphasize nutrition and exercise as a prudent way to lead one's life. I hardly find it to be "coercion that approaches blackmail" if my doctor would remind me of that, even if the AMA and all members (to include my future doctors) subscribe to those guidelines.

Does this doctor ask you if you have potato chips, a recliner, and a television set in the house? Does he/she have a right to? Would the doctor need to know that before advising you on exercise and nutrition? Would you like your doctor to record that information? Would you consider it justified if your doctor refused to treat you based on your refusal to answer questions about the possession of those items?

[gejohnston]

43. I'm sure some priests have but

not being Catholic, It would be awkward.
Some physicians could sure, leave it alone and tell an adult, always assume they are loaded, never point it at anyone. Basic stuff even a non gun person should know.
I would hope a physician would know about sunburns.

[DrDan]

53. seems like a good idea to re-emphasize those gun basics with children

why stifle it? and focus on those who have guns in the house? Seems to make sense to me.

[gejohnston]

106. I would not focus on just gun owners and here is why

The kid's friend's parents leave a loaded one unsecured or finds one discarded (or lost by a Portland police detective in a Wal Mart bathroom) by a thug.

[one-eyed fat man]

78. It is backlash!

One doctor asked a patient about guns in the home and the patient declined to answer.

Dr. Douchebag then said the exam is over, told her to GTFO, find her and her kid a new doctor.

Whether or not there are guns in the home is not germane to a case of diaper rash.

[PavePusher]

95. Actually, IIRC, the doc finished the exam. Otherwise correct, however. n/t

[DrDan]

110. it is germane to the fact that

"Gunshot wounds account for one in 25 admissions to pediatric trauma centers in the United States".

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/pediatricians-parents-guns-home/story?id=12770294

[Hangingon]

14. The doctors lost me when they denied service.

I am sure I will be informed doctors deny service for other reasons too, but in my opinion it is wrong. If the doctors had allowed the patient to decline to answer, there would have been no problem. Though I have to say I am concerned about the record keeping.

[DrDan]

16. a doctor can drop a patient, just as the patient can drop the doctor

if the parents do not want to put their trust in a pediatrician, then they should go elsewhere for service.

[eqfan592]

23. Sounds like the same argument....

....that we hear from those who support pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control.

[DrDan]

49. do you deny it? Is it true or not?

[eqfan592]

100. Deny what?

My statement was not about the liberty to take an action, but ethics of the action. Do I find the actions of pharmacists that refuse to fill certain prescriptions ethical? No. I think that they hold a responsibility to the public to perform their duties no matter what difference in political persuasion they may have with the patient in question. And I view this case in a similar light and find it equally offensive, even if the action was not illegal.

[DrDan]

109. not similar at all

A pharmacist is ignoring the "orders" of a physician - one trained in health care.

That is not the case here at all.

But you knew that.

[rl6214]

24. The irrational paranoia surrounding gun rights is astounding

[gejohnston]

3. things that baffle me

Learning firearms safety from MDs that may not know anything about them and going to a Catholic priest for marriage counseling.

[Hoyt]

17. Do you think moms and dads should listen to folks who can't leave home without a gun.

I don't think they'd get very good advice, certainly not objective.

Heck, I guess you'd be OK with counseling from the gun instructor who was found with 53 guns in his house after a 6 year old girl was killed with one of them.

[eqfan592]

18. If mom and dad have guns...

...or are interested in owning one, then yes, they are far more likely to get very good advice from somebody who is also a gun owner. Compared to somebody such as yourself, who is about as far removed from objectivity as can be on the subject, I would take another gun owner any day.

[Hoyt]

20. You can't be serious.

[eqfan592]

21. lol, of course I am.

Unlike you, I don't view gun ownership as some sort of mental disorder. Most gun owners are generally responsible and can be very knowledgeable about the pros and cons of gun ownership, as well as how to practice safe ownership and use of firearms. I would most certainly trust such people over a non-gun owner, especially one that thought as you do about gun ownership.

[Hoyt]

28. Yea, the instructor with 53 guns and a dead child is proof of that.

[eqfan592]

30. My HS driving instructor...

...lost his job eventually because of a DUI. Does that mean all driving instructors are not to be trusted? Sorry, but calling your line of reasoning flawed would be the understatement of the century.

[Hoyt]

42. Same old BS to protect your access to guns.

[eqfan592]

88. Oh, it's the same old BS alright...

...but from you. I made a perfectly valid point that underscored the hypocrisy of your position, and you just can't stand it.

[PavePusher]

57. The blanket approach. It's Hoyt's favorite tactic.

Unfortunately, he seems to confuse it with blanket party, and that gets him all the respect he deserves....

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Why not? It's not like you can rely on a doctor for accurate advice on guns:

Quoth DUer Euromutt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x426456#426717

The AAP's position is also motivated by ideology, rather than by empirical evidence; witness the fact that organization also advocated a complete ban on private ownership of handguns, despite that fact that handguns are markedly easier to store securely than long guns, and--these days--are routinely equipped with safety features that many long guns are not. For example, most magazine-fed shotguns do not have firing pin block safeties, as a result of which they can discharge when dropped on their butt with a round chambered, whereas most current-production handguns are "drop safe."

Oh, sorry, I forgot- there's also the fact that a gun owner is highly unlikely to give an 'abstinence-only' lecture about guns.

I can see why you might think gun owners aren't qualified to give advice...

[Hoyt]

45. "Empirical evidence" -- what a load of junk. Guns lying around the house are a threat for kids.

I don't need any studies to know that with absolute certainty. Further, I know a pediatrician's reminder could make a difference.

[RSillsbee]

48. You're right and you're wrong

Guns lying around the house are a threat for kids.

Yes they are and I don't think anyone here advocates leaving them around the house.

Further, I know a pediatrician's reminder could make a difference.

I doubt it very seriously because the type of people that do that don't listen when anyone tells them that because they know better.

But if you were right then just having the Dr. hand them an NRA gun safety pamphlet as part of the new patient paperwork should solve the problem right?

[drpepper67]

55. Maybe we should follow Switzerland's example.

Switzerland requires able-bodied male citizens to possess a government provided firearm at home.

Swiss able-bodied males are required to undergo military training, usually beginning at age 20, and are required to keep their firearm at home until the age of 42.

[gejohnston]

105. I would add females to it, plus

have an active duty Air Force and Navy (including USMC) large enough to defend us and dismantle the empire. But, that is just me.

[flamin lib]

4. There's a lot of support here for talking about the violent overthrow

of government as free speech, but none for the Doctor's freedom to talk to his patients in the protected privacy of doctor/patient confidentiality.

[gejohnston]

7. You have a valid point

as long as the doctor mentions the standard firearms safety rules and mentions low cost safes etc. But I don't want to get political propaganda.

[Abq_Sarah]

9. My doctor doesn't need to know

If I own a firearm unless I'm in his office being treated for a self inflicted gunshot wound.

[gejohnston]

15. I think that is where I was going.

Don't ask any questions, just give out pamphlets.

[Hoyt]

22. Doc might want to know if you have one tucked away -- guns mess up some tests, he might stick finger

in it doing a digital rectal exam, you could be looking for drugs, or just be a serial killer.

Hopefully, you don't go to a pediatrician or have your parents taking care of you.

[rl6214]

26. Your posts just keep getting more and more unbelievable

and idiotic.

[RSillsbee]

33. I actually had a Dr. pull a gun out of his pocket while I was treating

a patient on one of the exam rooms she just about shit a brick

[Hoyt]

41. That sounds like an interesting story (for real).

[RSillsbee]

47. Not much to it

The Dr. was an absolute dumb ass he was into english bulldogs and guns and he would sit in the exam rooms w/ certain patients and yap about dogs or guns for up to 45 minutes then bitch at the staff because he was behind all day.

The second week I was there he told me I was authorized to carry a gun at work because we had a lot of chronic opioid dependant patients. I kind of hinted that I would but I knew damn well that if I ever had cause to use my gun to defend his drugs I'd be out of a job before the shell casing hit the floor. So, I left my gun in my car.

I ended up losing my job (coincidentally I'm sure :sarcasm: ) after I pointed out to him that one of his patients had been getting oxycontin and oxycodone from him for chronic for 2 pain years yet showed up completely drug free( a chronic pain patient is supposed to have drugs in his system) on every UA they had given the patient (the patient started making some really weird drug requests and I pulled his chart is how I caught it) and the Dr. had signed off on every single UA. I was out the door a week later because 'it wasn't working out"

Anyway we had a pt in one afternoon for some ear problems and I was examining her ear canal when the Dr. walked into the exam room w/ someone he was trying to sell a gun to (HIPAA violation) and pulled the gun out of his pocket while I had an Ottoscope in the Pt's ear she damn near perforated her eardrum coming off that exam table.

Doctor acted like he didn't even notice it and being the doctor I wasn't in a position to say anything to him
TYPO

[DrDan]

11. self delete

[ileus]

6. can the mods combine dup threads?

[DrDan]

12. like the combining of Weiner threads?

[jpak]

13. or Fukushima threads?

they don't like to hear the bad news about stupid GOP/NRA anti-freedom laws

yup

:hi:

[eqfan592]

27. Do you get paid...

...by the hypocritical, nonsensical statement? I'm beginning to think so.

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Do you go to your doctor for advice on:

Chain saw safety?

Safe driving?

Safe walking?

Safe swimming?

Safety around industrial machinery?

Bicycle safety?

Playground safety?

Then why is he considered an expert of gun safety?

[Hoyt]

25. In a twist, for decades docs have given kids advice to take away their elderly parents keys/car.

And yes, peds council on bicycle safety, playground safety, danger of swimming pools, etc. And they should stress that kids can get into guns, even when in a safe or dad fearing a home invasion passes out drunk with the gun by his side or something.

The fact it offends those who live for their guns, is irrelevant.

[eqfan592]

29. Do they refuse to see patients...

...who's parents own swimming pools on a regular basis?

And seriously man, your bigotry is reaching new heights every single day. It's frankly disgusting coming from somebody who even comes close to calling themselves a progressive. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

[Hoyt]

35. Ever been to county pool, or live near a river? Besides the law makes no sense other than to

punish a doc who gave needed care to child, but refused to put up with some mother's crap over guns. Hell, for all you know the doc's kid brother might have been killed by one. Most moms need to be reminded of the danger their kids face -- because no matter how responsible you might be, there are a lot of fools out their packing or with guns lying around. Just like there are a lot of fools leaving poisons, plastic bags around kids, leaving kids in hot cars, feeding them shit food; etc. These docs should be counseling folks -- just like they should drinking, obsessing over other things, etc.

It really comes down to more crap by politicians to appease those who think we need more guns on the streets, and those who profit from gun proliferation. Might as well be promoting war.

[eqfan592]

36. The doc didn't counsel....

....he refused to accept them as a patient anymore. Bit of a different story to say the least.

This law does literally nothing to prevent doctors from providing safety information to their patients about firearms, it simply restricts their ability make the response of questions about ones personal life that is no business of the doctors a prerequisite for care.

And yes, I have heard of county pools and people living near rivers. The same applies to that as well. "You take your kid to a county pool!?!?! I'm sorry, but you have 30 days to find a new doctor."

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. You don't get it. Merely handing out gun safety information is not enough for our interlocutor.

Apparently, the patients are supposed to meekly listen to and accept the approved American Academy of Pediatrics line of

"Guns are bad, mmmkay?", and if they don't conform they are supposed to go elsewhere for care.



The idea that a physician usually knows about as much about guns as a gunsmith knows about managing blood chloresterol

levels isn't to even enter into consideration- the patient is supposed to just do what they are told.


And THAT is what has certain control freaks upset about this law....

[Hoyt]

40. Don't think it went down like that, try reading the actual accounts before believing NRA BS.

[X_Digger]

54. You should take your own advice

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100723/NEWS/100729867/1402/NEWS

It was a question Amber Ullman least expected Wednesday from her children's pediatrician.

Do you keep a gun in the house?

When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused the answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child's examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn't welcome at Children's Health of Ocala anymore.

[PavePusher]

59. Note his additional misrepresentation:

"refused to put up with some mother's crap over guns"

The crap went the other direction. Part and parcel of Hoyt's mendaciousness.

[lawodevolution]

56. Can you point out the morons or anti-swimming pool group of morons who are trying to ban

swimming pulls in order to save lives or are the lives lost in drownings not worth the lives lost from gun accidents or do you anti-gun folk simply hate guns and the gun culture like bigots?

[oneshooter]

37. As are you, and your personal bigotry. n/t

[Hoyt]

39. When it comes to those who promote public carrying, more guns, etc.- I guess I'm a friggin bigot.

[rl6214]

44. Finally admitting to it

Gonna have to bookmark this one, actually admitting to being a bigot.

Thank You.

[gejohnston]

46. only when you stereotype and call names.

But you do need to find better arguments.

[DrDan]

52. protecting the arsenal is THE priority - all others are secondary, even the safety of

children.

pathetic

[eqfan592]

89. If that were the reality, you may have a point.

Thankfully, it's not the reality, except for inside your own mind.

[DrDan]

108. and as exhibited by many in this thread

[DrDan]

51. smoking, overeating, nutrition, sunburn, stress,

can a doctor issue sound advice on those even though being a thin-non-smoker who has never had a sunburrn?

Of course he/she can.

You need not be an "expert" to issue sound advice on guns. THere are many tips that may save lives. Is that not worth a bit of effort on the part of a pediatrician?

[PavePusher]

58. And those are obviously direct medical issues, studied in medical school.

Gun ownership, in and of itself, not so much.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

[DrDan]

62. gun accidents are direct medical issues, are they not - hence

a viable subject for discussion with children.

or are you denying the occurence of gun accidents in the home?

[Straw Man]

73. Yes, but gun ownership is not.

Do you not see why some people might object to firearms ownership becoming part of their permanent medical record? Not everyone shares your belief that the medico-insurance complex is a benevolent force that has only our best interests at heart.

Making this information a matter of record is not a prerequisite for providing safety information. An effective compromise would be for doctors to ask and then provide safety information if an answer is not forthcoming. Apparently this approach wasn't good enough for some of the demi-gods practicing pediatrics in Florida.

[DrDan]

74. swimming pools are a matter of record in the context of an official

property description as well as with one's insurance company.

They also can be a safety topic with children.


Funny how pool owners are not challenging this public info. Says quite a bit about gun owners, I would say.

[Straw Man]

96. And non-controversial for a reason.

Funny how pool owners are not challenging this public info. Says quite a bit about gun owners, I would say.

AFAIK, there are no organizations dedicated to outlawing private ownership of swimming pools. Gun owners, especially handgun owners, just might have a reason for being somewhat touchy.

[DanTex]

97. What reason would that be?

If guns become outlawed, then they're outlawed. If not, then not.

Why the paranoia about being asked questions by a pediatrician?

[Straw Man]

102. Because this is just one manifestation of a prohibitionist agenda.

If guns become outlawed, then they're outlawed. If not, then not.

Why the paranoia about being asked questions by a pediatrician?

First you stigmatize, by taking a position that gun ownership is ipso facto irresponsible parenting. Then you tag the "irresponsible" parents in their child's medical record. It's emotional blackmail. The goal is to convince parents that there is no such thing as safe gun ownership and shame them into compliance: "Give up your guns: it's for the children."

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx

Before you pooh-pooh the slippery slope, ask yourself whether the Academy of American Pediatrics would support an outright ban on handgun ownership in the US, or even all gun ownership. I think their position is pretty clear. They're just doing their bit to move closer to that goal.

Pediatricians should provide the safety information and leave it at that. The interests of privacy and safety would both be served.

[DanTex]

111. We're talking about pediatricians here, right?

These are not political operatives. They're not engaged in "emotional blackmail", they're trying to help people raise healthy and safe children. Nobody is shaming you into compliance with some sort of left-wing social order. Really, what you're describing is Glenn Beck stuff.

If you want to determine who is pushing a political agenda here, you should look at the people who are using state law to restrict the speech of medical professionals.

Look, I'm what you would call a "prohibitionist": I believe in stronger gun control. If anyone is coming after your guns, its people like me. And I can assure you that using pediatricians for mind control is not part of our agenda.

[Straw Man]

112. I'm not talking about "political operatives" and conspiracies.

I'm talking about people who clearly believe in the elimination of private ownership of firearms and are using the power of their profession inappropriately to further that agenda. Obviously, you approve. One wonders if you would be so vigorous in your defense of the medical establishment's right to intrude if the issue were anything but firearms.

It has nothing to do with right vs. left -- that's merely your projection. The right does love to co-opt any gun issue, and many on the left are happy to hand it to them on a silver platter, as happened in the Florida case. It also has nothing to do with safety, since, as has been stated in this thread many times, no one and no law is preventing physicians from providing safety information to their patients.

Please spare us the Glenn Beck references. It's a rather shabby attempt to delegitimize those who disagree with you on this issue.

[DrDan]

107. thank you - confirms my thoughts

[DanTex]

64. Hopefully, sanity will prevail against this right-wing ideological offensive...

This is a classic example of what Rachel Maddow calls big-government conservatism. Similar to laws requiring doctors to read right-wing propaganda to women seeking abortions. Right-wingers always claim to be all about "freedom", but laws like these show it's not about individual freedom, it's all about ideology.

Guns pose safety risks to children (as has been thoroughly documented and researched), and yet the right wants once again to come between a doctor and a patient and restrict the doctor's speech. Might as well prevent pediatricians from discussing the dangers of secondhand smoke. Or the importance of child car seats. Etc...

[beevul]

66. Bollocks.

A doctor need not know whether one has a gun in the home or poisons or a swimming pool to hand out safety literature without comment.


And thats the extent of any doctors professional interest in such things, as far as I am concerned.


And I'm not alone in holding that view.

Nowhere near it, in fact.

[DanTex]

72. So should the government should ban discussion of other safety topics with doctors?

Why stop at guns? It sounds like you would also support a ban on a doctor asking if parents have a swimming pool, or a staircase in the home, or if they smoke around their child. It's OK for the doctor to hand out literature "without comment", but a verbal discussion is off limits.

The gun gag is nothing short of the government micromanaging doctors based on political ideology. How about we let doctors do their job without a government blacklist of off-limits topics governing a doctor's relationship with a patient?

The vast majority of sane people think its a good thing that doctors take an interest in helping them provide a safe environment for their children.

[Straw Man]

75. A discussion is one thing.

An entry in a medical record is another. I would prefer to see the doctor point to a rack of safety information and say, "Some of these might be useful to you."

[DanTex]

93. You should go to the type of doctor that you prefer, certainly...

...but you don't have a right to prevent my doctor from giving me and other patients in-depth safety advice.

As far as the medical record, if the law only said that patients are allowed to object to having their gun ownership entered into a permanent medical record, that would be different. But that's not at all what it says, which is all the more evidence that this is in fact an ideologically driven attack on the doctor-patient relationship. Preventing all doctors from discussing a known safety risk is certainly not justified.


Actually, I'd be curious to know more details about the control you have over what goes in your medical record. What if I don't want my medical record to reflect the fact that I have a swimming pool, or that I don't wear my seatbelt? At this level it's not really a gun issue at all, it's more of a privacy question.

[Straw Man]

98. It certainly IS a privacy issue.

And furthermore, it is one that doesn't directly impact treatment. I don't believe that a doctor has the right to question me about any legal activity that does not have a direct -- not potential, but direct -- impact on my physical condition.

The doctor may need to know if I smoke because he/she may need to know to look for certain conditions that may be present because of my smoking. The only valid reason I can think of to ask if I own a firearm is to decide whether or not to waste an informational pamphlet on me. When in doubt, hand it out. The idea that the doctor needs this information for any other reason is not supportable.

This kind of behavior-modification approach to public health oversteps when it goes beyond providing safety and health information to the patient. Call me paranoid, but I see no reason to trust doctor/patient privilege in the era of Big Insurance and the Patriot Act.

[DanTex]

99. Like I said, find a doctor you like.

I encourage you to find a doctor whose style suits your expectation of what a doctor should and should not do. If you only want to discuss activities that have direct, not potential impact on your health, good for you.

Not me. I also want my doctor to advise me of potential problems as well as direct problems. And I certainly don't want the government restricting my doctor's speech just because of the fears of a handful of paranoid gun owners.

So how about this. We don't force your doctor by law to question you about guns or seat belts or swimming pools. We also don't prevent my doctor by law from asking about these and other potential safety issues. This type of thing belongs within the confines of the doctor-patient relationship, and not dictated by the government, in either direction.

If you believe your doctor is intentionally asking unnecessary intrusive personal questions to the point of medical malpractice, there are ways of dealing with that.

But gagging all doctors from discussing specific topics by state law is not the way.

[Straw Man]

103. I agree that this is a heavy-handed law.

But it was in response to what I see as a heavy-handed intrusion by a doctor. I would prefer to see a law that prevents doctors from turning patients away simply because they refuse to answer non-medical questions.

[X_Digger]

101. Nothing in this law..

"prevent my doctor from giving me and other patients in-depth safety advice. "

Under this law, doctors can preach whatever flavor of wharrgarble they wish.

It's about the asking / recording, not the advice.

[DrDan]

71. exactly! Gun ownership trumps all else.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

83. These are the same creeps who took away our rights to protest against the bush war.

They have no respect for the First Amendment or other peoples' right to free speech.

[eqfan592]

90. And you have no respect...

...for peoples right to privacy, so exactly how are you any better? Oh, you're not.

End of story.