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

[koalabear]

Around here we have building permits to buy, codes to follow, and inspectors to please.

I live in town, though. Even if you're off in the woods on your own property I suspect there are still some basic codes about sewage and such to satisfy.

I live in a small town, no inspectors, no codes, no permits and the cops only work 20 hours a month. So much for laws regulating it.

 

[sigh]

the problem with this case is that a doctor refused to treat a patient when the parent of the patient refused to disclose the families gun ownership status. instead of addressing the patient's rights to be seen by a doctor regardless of gun ownership or the insurance companies excuse for higher premiums, they censured all doctors in the state. now it's going to take twice as much time for doctors to see patients when they have to say, "I'm not allowed by law to ask you about gun ownership, but i need to let you know that is you ever buy a gun, this is how you keep it safe from your children."

One doctor? Refusing to treat seems like an issue the state medical board should address. They have regulatory powers and disciplinary measures they can apply, and a medical practice act to enforce. That's why legislatures all over the country established state medical boards in the first place.

Sounds like a good time for a lawsuit too. The NRA could have provided legal counsel and support, and I would have applauded them for it. It would have sent a powerful message to other doctors too.

As for insurance premiums, I'm with Perg. If the actuarial types can show there's increased risk in owning a weapon, then gun owners should pay a higher premium. And if they can show in turn that gun safety classes reduce risk, then they can offer a premium reduction if you can show you've passed a class. Nothing new. Done all the time. I see no reason for the government to create a special class of citizens who are immune from this process.

Most puzzling to me in this whole crazy discussion is that so many conservatives in here seem to think that's a good idea.

 

[Ishmael]

Interesting that you think the state legislature and the NRA are qualified to dictate what doctors should and shouldn't say to their patient's legal guardians.

How's that interventionism working out for you, Ish? Government got enough fingers in private businesses yet for you?

You insist on arguing a false premise. That isn't what the law does no matter what you believe.

Further, regarding you "bullshit" retort to an earlier post I made. I'm not certain whether you think yourself exceedingly clever and I'm stupid, or whether you are truly ignorant of the rules of logic. Regardless, I say "not" and you say "are so," at least by implication. Now as I have taken the "Not" side there is no way that I can prove a negative. It just can't be done Perg., you, on the other hand, by taking the "are so" side of the argument have also taken on the onus of having to prove your side, that side being the 'positive' side. Ironically our justice system follows they same rules.

I suggest you start by calling all the pediatricians in the phone book tomorrow and asking if they have been trained in firearm safety.

Ishmael

 

[sigh]

I live in a small town, no inspectors, no codes, no permits and the cops only work 20 hours a month. So much for laws regulating it.

You can run your sewage into the village pond? or stream? or just let it pool up in your yard? C'mon, you must have some building codes to follow.

 

[Peregrinator]

You're already dangling yourself off the sides of mountains with ropes... you should just go for it and try and max out the old risk-o-meter.

Get a few guns, place them loaded with safeties off on various easy-to-reach open surfaces (coffee or end tables, kitchen counter, etc.), take up skydiving, keeping bees, and flying kites in the rain.

And if your doctor asks you if you engage in any risky activities, tell him you aren't sure because you have a memory problem. He'll do some expensive tests which your insurance will pay for, they'll come back negative, and then it'll be his fault since he couldn't determine the cause of the malady which prevents you from answering his stupid questions.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I don't think we disagree.

 

[koalabear]

You can run your sewage into the village pond? or stream? or just let it pool up in your yard? C'mon, you must have some building codes to follow.

We do have water and sewage like you big time towns. But that has nothing to do with construction codes. So peregs mention of a proper threat assessment is just bull cookies. The only official to drop by was the tax assessor.

 

[Peregrinator]

i don't think i should have used the term risk assessment. when you look at the historical role of doctors, they have always been educators to the community. there is no mandatory education about basic gun safety. not in the schools. not on PBS. maybe a short lecture from someone who has owned a gun. since the beginning of time, we have not only relied on doctors and healers to help us when we are sick, but we have relied on them to pass down the knowledge of what will keep you safe. common sense mandates that if you have a weapon in you home that can kill - be it gun, knife, metal tongs, sharp scissors, broken metal chair - you keep them away from children. guns are high risk. if you get a bullet in you, your chances of blood loss are much greater than cutting off the tip of your finger with the butcher knife. every kid and every parent should know about basic gun safety. even more so if you've never owned a gun. if you go over to a friend's house, and the little boys run off with what they think is a bb gun, the risk is higher than if they decide to go cut a piece of cake. mommy was busy in the kitchen, and daddy is bringing in the deer. if you haven't taught your 7 year old about gun safety, who has? that's why doctors ask the questions. i think my doctor had a check list of possible hazards we went through. everything from lead paint to medicine storage. sometimes they even give out a little handout with home safety information.

the problem with this case is that a doctor refused to treat a patient when the parent of the patient refused to disclose the families gun ownership status. instead of addressing the patient's rights to be seen by a doctor regardless of gun ownership or the insurance companies excuse for higher premiums, they censured all doctors in the state. now it's going to take twice as much time for doctors to see patients when they have to say, "I'm not allowed by law to ask you about gun ownership, but i need to let you know that is you ever buy a gun, this is how you keep it safe from your children."

Agreed. Doctors are and have always been teachers. The word's etymology indicates that, as well as the history of the profession.

I think the AAP overreaches with its anti-gun stance. (FWIW, as an aside, my FIL, who is a pediatric surgeon, agrees with me about this.) I also think that this law is an absurd overreaction.

As far as choosing patients, though, I'm surprised that the board's self-proclaimed small government types aren't in here yelling about the doctor's right as a small businessman to choose his customers. That was the argument we heard against no-smoking-in-restaurants laws. Does the law make exceptions for a single pediatrician in private practice in his own leased or owned office to choose who he wants to see and who he doesn't?

 

[Peregrinator]

You insist on arguing a false premise. That isn't what the law does no matter what you believe.

Further, regarding you "bullshit" retort to an earlier post I made. I'm not certain whether you think yourself exceedingly clever and I'm stupid, or whether you are truly ignorant of the rules of logic. Regardless, I say "not" and you say "are so," at least by implication. Now as I have taken the "Not" side there is no way that I can prove a negative. It just can't be done Perg., you, on the other hand, by taking the "are so" side of the argument have also taken on the onus of having to prove your side, that side being the 'positive' side. Ironically our justice system follows they same rules.

I suggest you start by calling all the pediatricians in the phone book tomorrow and asking if they have been trained in firearm safety.

Ishmael

The law doesn't do this?

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;

That's a law that places limits on a doctor's interaction with his patients. Spin it however you want.

Either way, Ish, if you say they're not all this or that they are all that, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to base an argument on an assertion, then back it up with something. You're the one that wants to make assertions about what "all pediatricians" are or are not. I think the notion is absurd.

Or show me that the NRA and state legislators are somehow qualified to tell doctors what to talk about with their patients' legal guardians.

 

[Peregrinator]

We do have water and sewage like you big time towns. But that has nothing to do with construction codes. So peregs mention of a proper threat assessment is just bull cookies. The only official to drop by was the tax assessor.

The AAP is an advocacy organization that sees itself as working to improve children's health and reduce risk of traumatic injuries. As such, it has decided, based on whatever statistics it's using, that gunshot wounds are a major source of traumatic injury to children, and is working to prevent them. One of the ways it chooses to do this is to educate its members--pediatricians, primarily--about gun safety and children.

So far so good, imho. I see no reason not to have everyone who comes in contact with a gun owner say "Be careful with that thing." Kinda like booze ads saying "Please drink responsibly." I think it's possible that some doctors are just as crazy as some any-other-demographic-you-care-to-mention, and that's what prompted this law. My reaction to the law is a few posts ago.

What's been interesting is the amount of complete reversal of staunchly argued principles by the pro-law people posting in the thread.

 

[sigh]

You insist on arguing a false premise. That isn't what the law does no matter what you believe.

<snipping out a part I don't care to figure out>

I suggest you start by calling all the pediatricians in the phone book tomorrow and asking if they have been trained in firearm safety.

Ishmael

No, Ish, it's you who are arguing a false premise. You're assuming all the pediatricians in the phone book are offering training in firearm safety. I can tell you for certain that they are not. None of them are. They can't possibly have the time. The most they can do in regards to training is suggest basic rules (or, more likely, just hand out a brochure like the downloadable one from the NRA website) and refer them on.

I don't think gun ownership has any business in the medical record, by the way. I can't see any benefit from having it there. That alone in the legislation seems worthwhile to me, though it shouldn't be needed. There are already regulations in place that say what can and can't be in a medical record. Fix it with regulatory law, with mechanisms already in place.

Of course that's sorta boring so I understand that for politicians there's no benefit in that. No glitzy fun and chest-beating to impress the masses.

 

[sigh]

We do have water and sewage like you big time towns. But that has nothing to do with construction codes. So peregs mention of a proper threat assessment is just bull cookies. The only official to drop by was the tax assessor.

Yeah, we big town folks have paved streets and a bowling alley too!

Come to Illinois and enjoy the good life!

 

[coastal-boy]

Who regulates private housing construction?

are you really this stupid?



Oh yea...obviously you are.

 

[koalabear]

The AAP is an advocacy organization that sees itself as working to improve children's health and reduce risk of traumatic injuries. As such, it has decided, based on whatever statistics it's using, that gunshot wounds are a major source of traumatic injury to children, and is working to prevent them. One of the ways it chooses to do this is to educate its members--pediatricians, primarily--about gun safety and children.

So far so good, imho. I see no reason not to have everyone who comes in contact with a gun owner say "Be careful with that thing." Kinda like booze ads saying "Please drink responsibly." I think it's possible that some doctors are just as crazy as some any-other-demographic-you-care-to-mention, and that's what prompted this law. My reaction to the law is a few posts ago.

What's been interesting is the amount of complete reversal of staunchly argued principles by the pro-law people posting in the thread.

But not the major source or even the second major source of traumatic injury to children. Head trauma is the number one cause, so my construction questions are more important than a question about a gun in the house. As Ish stated earlier, the NRA has a free safety program for gun safety for children. Does the APP?

 

[coastal-boy]

I live in a small town, no inspectors, no codes, no permits and the cops only work 20 hours a month. So much for laws regulating it.

I call fucking bullshit. Every county in this nation has building codes. Of course...there are counties where they are not enforced (that would explain your stupidity)

 

[Byron In Exile]

Agreed. Doctors are and have always been teachers.

Not in my lifetime.

As far as choosing patients, though, I'm surprised that the board's self-proclaimed small government types aren't in here yelling about the doctor's right as a small businessman to choose his customers. That was the argument we heard against no-smoking-in-restaurants laws.

To make that analogy work, restaurant owners would have had to forbid customers from smoking outside their restaurants as well. Doctors already disallow smoking in their offices, as well as bringing guns into them. But the bottom line is that doctors must be licensed by the State to practice medicine, and if the State decides that a requirement of holding that license is that doctors must wear clown suits on the job, then they can do that, or find something else to do, like teaching firearm safety.

Does the law make exceptions for a single pediatrician in private practice in his own leased or owned office to choose who he wants to see and who he doesn't?

What if he didn't want to see anyone who ate meat? And what if you couldn't find a doctor who would? Would you go vegetarian, or go without medical care?

 

[koalabear]

are you really this stupid?



Oh yea...obviously you are.

Fuck off dumb-ass, you couldn't answer the question.

 

[koalabear]

I call fucking bullshit. Every county in this nation has building codes. Of course...there are counties where they are not enforced (that would explain your stupidity)

Cities override counties. You are still a stupid SOB.

 

[coastal-boy]

Fuck off dumb-ass, you couldn't answer the question.

I'm saying you are flat out 100% lying. Go to your county website and link me the page that shows you have no building codes.

 

[KRCummings]

Cities override counties. You are still a stupid SOB.

You're full of shit. There are building codes just like anywhere else. You should really try not being stupid.

 

[koalabear]

You're full of shit. There are building codes just like anywhere else. You should really try not being stupid.

Indiana's most worthless architect chimes in.

 

[coastal-boy]

Cities override counties. You are still a stupid SOB.

Link me the website...prove me wrong.

 

[koalabear]

Link me the website...prove me wrong.

Get a government grant and study the situation.

 

[coastal-boy]

Get a government grant and study the situation.

I did a quick Google and found that in Kentucky, anything under 120 sq ft is considered a "farm building" and does not require a permit to build. That means your outhouse out back can be upgraded to a double wide so two people can sit side-by-side and pass the JC Penney catalog back and forth.

 

[koalabear]

I did a quick Google and found that in Kentucky, anything under 120 sq ft is considered a "farm building" and does not require a permit to build. That means your outhouse out back can be upgraded to a double wide so two people can sit side-by-side and pass the JC Penney catalog back and forth.

Cool, if I lived in Kentucky stupid. Codes are a minimum, not a maximum.

 

[coastal-boy]

wow...here is something I didn't know...one room school buildings do not have to follow code