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

[blunt_trauma]

surely your good old 'don't ask, don't tell' rule would be better than a 'don't you dare even mention!' laws? demanding non-relevant information is an invasion of privacy issue, no?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

When the Feds take control of the medical industry, you'll see a much more robust and invasive interrogation program preceding medical treatment.

It's cheaper than tests...
__________________
"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."
"And it's important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like [gun-free environment A_J]."
"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar

 

[off2bed]

Funny how doctors suddenly have more 1st Amendment rights than Pastor Terry Jones.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Funny how doctors suddenly have more 1st Amendment rights than Pastor Terry Jones.

If they had standards, they'd be HYPOCRITES! *snicker*

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Below is a synopsis of the text of the bill in question;

"Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action."

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

Actually, I don't recall it, but I do understand your need to look the other way here. No problem.

There are two sound arguments, one that supports the company and the other that supports the union. Which argument prevails will depend as much if not more upon the facts than the law.

The difference between you and me is that I understand why that is.

I can argue both sides of the case. You either cannot or refuse to.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Below is a synopsis of the text of the bill in question;

"Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action."

Ishmael

i haven't parsed the language closely.

i have no problems, though, with the notion that medical records can be silent on the issue. i've seen too many times how insurance companies use medical records to screw an insured; knowing that has caused me to be less than candid with my physician.

i do have a problem with this, though: "prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession." why shouldn't a physician be permitted to eliminate from his practice what he perceives, rationally or irrationally, to be a client who partakes in preventable risky behavior?

 

[cjh]

Well now since you are so familiar with the law, maybe you can tell me the last time it was used to prevent a corporation from opening a new plant in a non-union state.

you don't even know what a runaway shop is, justice tweedledumb. had you answered my question earlier, you would.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Non-responsive.

it was.

and you don't have any idea why it was.

all you can do is repeat a chamber of commerce mantra, justice tweedledumb.

 

[Peregrinator]

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?

If a doctor asks me a question I don't want to answer, aren't I free not to answer?

I'm actually disappointed by the knee-jerk hypocrisy of our staunch defenders of liberty in this thread. I guess, as someone else already pointed out, bigger government is the solution when your medical practitioner does something you think is poopyheaded.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

"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

This is great. When you pass a law putting a gag order on physicians, who is giving up liberty? Never saw you as an advocate of government intervention before, Ish.

 

[koalabear]

If a doctor asks me a question I don't want to answer, aren't I free not to answer?

I'm actually disappointed by the knee-jerk hypocrisy of our staunch defenders of liberty in this thread. I guess, as someone else already pointed out, bigger government is the solution when your medical practitioner does something you think is poopyheaded.

No the NRA is the answer.

 

[cjh]

Tell me, how have those unionized employees in Washington been harmed by the proposed opening of the non union plant? What contracts have they lost and how many have been laid off as a result?

arguably they've been penalized for exercising their right to collective bargaining.

maybe they have maybe they have not.

that's a fact issue dependent upon facts that the public does not yet know.

i'd bet on boeing in this case simply because intent is so hard to prove and because they can point to economic reasons for moving the plant.

that said, some spokesman for boeing gave the NLRB a great toehold by suggesting that they were moving, in essence, because of union activity.

 

[cjh]

If a doctor asks me a question I don't want to answer, aren't I free not to answer?

I'm actually disappointed by the knee-jerk hypocrisy of our staunch defenders of liberty in this thread. I guess, as someone else already pointed out, bigger government is the solution when your medical practitioner does something you think is poopyheaded.

sure you are.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

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

Then why not make the law protect those records? Why gag the docs altogether?

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2...ls-now-go-to-governor-1-more-to-ho-ar-203323/

Lmao...it passed after they pulled its teeth. I've seen this happen to a number of enviro laws as well.

 

[cjh]

Maybe you'd like to tell me why a board with three pro union Democrat members representing 7% of the American labor market and one lone Republican, makes decisions in the best interests of the other 93 % of the American labor market.

hmmm.

i wonder how and why administrative agencies do what they do?

maybe we should all take a high school civics class.

 

[Peregrinator]

REALLY??


THAT's your issue of the day? Nanny-state medicine and how imperiled we will be without it?

Hardly issue of the day. I didn't expect this much response, honestly. I posted this yesterday afternoon when it was slow and I saw it linked by a friend on Facebook.

 

[Peregrinator]

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.

Then ignore him. If the range safety officer started giving you unsolicited advice on hemorrhoids, would you compromise your so-called libertarian principles and use the long arm of the state to shut him up?