LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents

fair_warning said:
One 'accidental' death per week is still a tragedy. However, at what age is a child a young adult?

Examining some statistics immediately tells me that 'accidental' death in up to 14 year olds is only about a sixth of all deaths by firearms in this age group.

So, what makes up the several hundred other firearm deaths? Suicides? gang related violence? But more importantly, should any child 14 years or under have access to a firearm?

There is an odd irony in how ferociously some people defend the constitutional right to bear arms but reject the right of others to question the way in which this right might be administered for the safety of juveniles.
Click to expand...

Yup, suicide and gang related activity. In other words, all forms of murder including self-murder. As far as the age is concerned maybe that is best left to the parent to decide. I got my first gun at age 10, but that was a different time and place. Since those years the definition of what age encompasses childhood has steadily crept upwards. According to some proponents it now encompasses children up to 27 years of age, go figure.

And you miss the point. No constitutional right is 'administered.' If it has to be administered then it is not a right, just some boon granted by the lords on high. And there are doctors that are refusing patient care unless detailed questions concerning firearms in the home are answered. And THAT is the reason for the law, the drive to pass this law didn't come to the legislature in some sort of revelation. Why not a detailed questionnaire concerning the child's access to the bathtub, toilet, backyard pool, and/or household cleaning supplies? The agenda at work is not necessarily being driven by concern for the child's safety.

Records concerning the causes of accidental death go way back, back to 1904 to be exact. And in that distant year, when the population was 1/2 what it is today, and gun ownership was 1/5 what it is today, the death rate from accidental discharge of a firearm was about 3.4%, today, with twice the population and 5 times the number of guns that number is 0.2%, a 94% reduction in incidence (for all age groups). Since 1975 there has been an 90% decrease in accidental deaths by firearms among children. Yes, it still is a tragedy, but no less so than any other form of accidental death and certainly not one of growing proportions bordering on an epidemic.

And Byron pretty much has it nailed, any doctor charging $500/hr to lecture anyone on responsible firearms ownership needs to be bitch-slapped. Especially when there are 10's of thousands of trained firearms instructors out there that will provide even better information for free, and do so without sticking their nose in your business.

Ishmael
 
Both of my doctor buddies, the Jew and the Cuban, are armed to the teeth.






:cool:

Especially the Cuban. He's pretty damned serious about his liberty...
 
If I don't want a doctor to ask about or lecture about firearms, can't I just find another? That is the free market solution.

If I am a doctor and I don't want to see patients who use firearms, irrational as that may seem, shouldn't I be free to not do so?
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
Both of my doctor buddies, the Jew and the Cuban, are armed to the teeth.

:cool:

Especially the Cuban. He's pretty damned serious about his liberty...
Click to expand...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

Often misquoted with security replacing safety, the essential thought is still valid and it is that thought that differentiates the free man from the slave.

Ishmael
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
If I don't want a doctor to ask about or lecture about firearms, can't I just find another? That is the free market solution.

If I am a doctor and I don't want to see patients who use firearms, irrational as that may seem, shouldn't I be free to not do so?
Click to expand...

No argument here, up until the point that under Obamacare, we're not actually able to keep our doctors, or insurance plans...

;) ;)

What happens if "gun counseling" becomes part of the payment rubric?

Then, of course, doctors have the option of not practicing pediatrics?

Is a child even allowed to make these decisions?
 
Ishmael said:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

Often misquoted with security replacing safety, the essential thought is still valid and it is that thought that differentiates the free man from the slave.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

:cool:
__________________
The government big enough to give you something is big enough to take it away.
A_J, the Stupid
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
No argument here, up until the point that under Obamacare, we're not actually able to keep our doctors, or insurance plans...

;) ;)

What happens if "gun counseling" becomes part of the payment rubric?

Then, of course, doctors have the option of not practicing pediatrics?

Is a child even allowed to make these decisions?
Click to expand...

Fair observation. Good questions.

Does it make a difference if the payment rubric is private insurance as opposed to some sort of state payment?
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
Fair observation. Good questions.

Does it make a difference if the payment rubric is private insurance as opposed to some sort of state payment?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The private insurer cannot put the physician out of business, just make it clear that THEY won't pay him and he can say no to that plan up front to his patients.

When the State is in charge, choice goes out the window...
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
Yes.

The private insurer cannot put the physician out of business, just make it clear that THEY won't pay him and he can say no to that plan up front to his patients.

When the State is in charge, choice goes out the window...
Click to expand...

It just strikes me as odd that the state can tell a doctor what to or not to talk about in his practice. There have to be some first amendment issues.

If the doctor is in private practice and the procedure is paid for with private insurance, the doc can't violate a patient's second amendment rights. Seems heavy-handed for the government to curtail the physician's right in that instance.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
It just strikes me as odd that the state can tell a doctor what to or not to talk about in his practice. There have to be some first amendment issues.

If the doctor is in private practice and the procedure is paid for with private insurance, the doc can't violate a patient's second amendment rights. Seems heavy-handed for the government to curtail the physician's right in that instance.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree, but again, I have to wonder why the State feels compelled to interfere unless it is to correct another interference...

Does a child have second amendment rights?

Now, are we talking pure private doctors, or mixed practices that see Medicaid patients and thus have to conform to national health care edicts and is this a continuation of the war against the usurpation of state rights?
 
Almost every article I see is driven by NPR's reporting.

The NRA's answer is:


The perception is that the NRA is going after doctors, particularly pediatricians who may have legitimate concerns about children being around firearms. What's your rationale for the bill that you're pushing?

The NRA is not going after anybody. The NRA is trying to protect the privacy rights of gun owners. It's a known fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports banning guns. They also encourage pediatricians to tell families who own guns to get rid of them and to tell families that don't own guns not to buy them. So, it's a political agenda that has invaded medical examination rooms. Parents take their children to see pediatricians and doctors for medical care, not to be lectured on safety, not to be lectured by a physician on firearm safety and how to store firearms. They're simply not qualified to do it. The political agenda needs to stop. They are entering that information into medical records on laptop computers, which greatly concerns parents because anything you put in a medical record they fear can be accessed by insurance companies, or the government, and used against them.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...oface-marionha20110424_1_guns-people-firearms
 
EllieTalbot said:
I agree.

Doctors are supposed to be nosy and lecture us about dangerous, unhealthy things.

What concerns me is that doctors also have law enforcement and social welfare agencies on speed dial, and they use those numbers when they think little Johnny is being abused at home, or at risk of abuse. Suppose some doctor, whose politics lean towards abolishing the right to private gun ownership, thinks that anything less than firearms secured in a hidden safe without ammunition amounts to criminally neglecting the welfare of a child? It's a very subjective thing. Mr. and Mrs. "Our handgun is boxed up in our bedroom closet on a high shelf with the ammo hidden separately in a can of foot powder" could find some busybody social worker removing their tot on the grounds of suspicion of child endangerment.

I'd like to think people have more common sense, but social welfare agencies are notorious for using actions like that to create social precedents according to their own ideology.

At the same time, doctors should be allowed to discuss whatever the hell they want with their patients.

(As an aside... doctors are legally gagged about other things, such as contacting the parents of minors who are seeking birth control, abortions, or a rape kit procedure.)

I can understand why the law was drafted, but it sucks that it was. Right and left, people are throwing away freedom like it's going out of style, and almost always as a knee-jerk reaction to some temporary situation that's not likely to become widespread.

Humbug from Hamburg,
Ellie
Click to expand...

In Florida if a doctor suspects abuse he is legally bound to report it to DCF. A doctor is also legally bound to contact a minor's parent before an abortion.
 
vetteman said:
One could harken to the "state" plan for Boeing for some insight on what it feels it can do.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question in the other thread about that. I assume you can't.
 
I don't ask the range safety officer for advice on hemorrhoids, and I don't ask doctors for firearms safety tips.

It's an established fact that the AMA is anti-gun, so any advice doctors give is biased from the start unless I happen to know the doctor is an avid shooter and actually knows something about the subject.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
Almost every article I see is driven by NPR's reporting.

The NRA's answer is:


The perception is that the NRA is going after doctors, particularly pediatricians who may have legitimate concerns about children being around firearms. What's your rationale for the bill that you're pushing?

The NRA is not going after anybody. The NRA is trying to protect the privacy rights of gun owners. It's a known fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports banning guns. They also encourage pediatricians to tell families who own guns to get rid of them and to tell families that don't own guns not to buy them. So, it's a political agenda that has invaded medical examination rooms. Parents take their children to see pediatricians and doctors for medical care, not to be lectured on safety, not to be lectured by a physician on firearm safety and how to store firearms. They're simply not qualified to do it. The political agenda needs to stop. They are entering that information into medical records on laptop computers, which greatly concerns parents because anything you put in a medical record they fear can be accessed by insurance companies, or the government, and used against them.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...oface-marionha20110424_1_guns-people-firearms
Click to expand...

Your hypocrisy is outright scary.

A doctor is invading no one's privacy by asking a patient a question. Likewise, a patient can up and leave a doctor's care at any time they like and find a new doctor.

What you're suggesting, is a law that tells doctors how to practice medicine, made by people who know nothing about medicine.

If a patient does not like their doctor, switch doctors. The free market will run the bad doctors out of business.
 
I think the key thing here is with the government wanting to seize control of medical records, gun owners fear that their privacy will be invaded, and that it might be an invasion of their privacy for a doctor to ask their kid about gun-ownership and then put it on the record...

.. but, of course, we can trust the government, right?

__________________
The government big enough to give you something is big enough to take it away.
A_J, the Stupid
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
Your hypocrisy is outright scary.

A doctor is invading no one's privacy by asking a patient a question. Likewise, a patient can up and leave a doctor's care at any time they like and find a new doctor.

What you're suggesting, is a law that tells doctors how to practice medicine, made by people who know nothing about medicine.

If a patient does not like their doctor, switch doctors. The free market will run the bad doctors out of business.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
__________________
A_J's corollary #5, “When lacking reason and sound argument, the New Age Liberal charges headlong into ‘debate’ with emotional cries of Hypocrisy. The New Age Liberal is, of course, immune to and incapable of Hypocrisy. That would require hard and fast standards.”
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
I think the key thing here is with the government wanting to seize control of medical records, gun owners fear that their privacy will be invaded, and that it might be an invasion of their privacy for a doctor to ask their kid about gun-ownership and then put it on the record...

.. but, of course, we can trust the government, right?

__________________
The government big enough to give you something is big enough to take it away.
A_J, the Stupid
Click to expand...

Florida law says the state government cannot keep a list of who owns firearms.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
It just strikes me as odd that the state can tell a doctor what to or not to talk about in his practice. There have to be some first amendment issues.

If the doctor is in private practice and the procedure is paid for with private insurance, the doc can't violate a patient's second amendment rights. Seems heavy-handed for the government to curtail the physician's right in that instance.
Click to expand...

You do have a point, perhaps that will come up in a suit filed by the physicians to overturn the law.

The problem was that the physicians in question were using the information, or lack thereof, as a condition for the rendering of services. And in a very real context that was not altogether different than hanging out a sign saying, "Colored need not apply."

Further, this was a path to backdoor recording keeping of information expressly forbidden by congress. Especially when you stop to consider the mandate for digitized medical records (an issue all unto itself) and the eventual consolidation of those records into a national data base administered by the government.

Your 1st amendment argument has validity only in so far as to whether the law can muzzle a professional from asking a question. It has to be balanced against the fact that by extension the first amendment also grants the right to silence, further bolstered by the fifth amendment and whether said professional can withhold services based on the answers, or non-answers given. Especially with those answers are totally unrelated to the services being rendered.

Ishmael
 
off2bed said:
Florida law says the state government cannot keep a list of who owns firearms.
Click to expand...

And for some reason, the Pediatricians, with their national organization and powerful lobby, want those lists...




;) ;)
__________________
The government big enough to do something for you is big enough to do something to you. If you accept the former then you are saddled with the latter, for the two are inseperable; for is generally at the expense of to.
A_J, the Stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top