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

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

Peregrinator said:
<snip>
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.
Click to expand...

it is sort of topsy-turvy, isn't it?

if a patient's second amendment right is paramount to a doc's first amendment right (despite the fact that the doc is not a state actor), does that mean that a patient's constitutional right to an abortion trumps a doctor's moral objection to providing abortions?
 
Ishmael said:
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
Click to expand...

Holy shit. Gun ownership is now genetic? Business owners--doctors--are now required to do business with anyone, and can no longer choose their customers?
 
off2bed said:
Funny how doctors suddenly have more 1st Amendment rights than Pastor Terry Jones. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't even know who Terry Jones is, offhand, but I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and own guns, too, if he wants. He should also be allowed to ignore questions from his pediatrician, and his pediatrician should be allowed to ask whatever questions he wants.

That work for you?
 
micromanaging risk assessments preformed by pediatricians
because the state of florida is such a good parent
 
Ishmael said:
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
Click to expand...

Took from 1730 to 0900 for someone to do this.

I had lost a little faith there for a few hours, Ish.

Hey, Frisco, you see all the flares get tripped up in this bitch?
 
vetteman said:
I doubt that very much as such an announcement would precipitate immediate litigation. The other point I would make is a fact isn't a fact until it actually happens. So according to the above you cannot yet point to any injury, loss of employment, or benefits, cause by the Boeing move.

Now how about telling me the last time this "law" was used to prevent a company from opening a plant in a non union state, especially when it cannot be proved that Boeing is running away from it's union responsibilities in Washington.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem to hinder GM or Chrysler from closing union plants and going non-union.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
it is sort of topsy-turvy, isn't it?

if a patient's second amendment right is paramount to a doc's first amendment right (despite the fact that the doc is not a state actor), does that mean that a patient's constitutional right to an abortion trumps a doctor's moral objection to providing abortions?
Click to expand...

There's so many illogical extensions and contradictions of previously dear positions here it boggles the mind.
 
alright gentlemen, I'm admittedly boggled by this subject.

We get preached to daily about HIPAA. Does the potential use of such information, except to the insurer, violate HIPAA?
 
vetteman said:
I doubt that very much as such an announcement would precipitate immediate litigation. The other point I would make is a fact isn't a fact until it actually happens. So according to the above you cannot yet point to any injury, loss of employment, or benefits, cause by the Boeing move.

Now how about telling me the last time this "law" was used to prevent a company from opening a plant in a non union state, especially when it cannot be proved that Boeing is running away from it's union responsibilities in Washington.
Click to expand...

heh.

you've read neither the complaint nor any articles analyzing the case.

and i am constantly amazed by the way that you demonstrate that you possess the critical thinking skills of mid-C, low-B high school senior.

carry on, justice tweedledumb.
 
JenAltArmy said:
why should a DR ask a family if they own guns? this seems like a round about way for "government" to find out who owns a gun
Click to expand...

Pediatricians regularly perform risk assessment, and they always have. People look to their docs for information about stuff like which household cleaners are safe for kids, which car seats work best, what the latest research is on air bags and kids, what kind of shoes are good, whether greasy food causes acne, etc etc etc ad nauseam. Which gun locks work best?

My question to you is, what is your limit for acceptable state intervention in the doctor-patient relationship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top