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

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

wow...lookie there...something called the International Residential Code (IRC)....hmmm...wonder what that means?
 
koalabear said:
No you are wrong again stupid. Schools fall under Federal Standards.
Click to expand...

wrong again...I can provide links if you like. But hey...you can get them yourself with Google if you really wanted them. That is where I'm coming up with them
 
so KRC...while your here...let's hear your take on more important things. Will Tressel survive? What is this about cars now?
 
coastal-boy said:
well it appears to be the code that all these tiny homes that are being called "sustainable" are built under. I don't claim to know...I'm learning as I go
Click to expand...

It's the generally accepted building codes for any residential property but they hold very little actual authority unless adopted by your county. Most use them but not all.
 
coastal-boy said:
so KRC...while your here...let's hear your take on more important things. Will Tressel survive? What is this about cars now?
Click to expand...

It looks like the car thing was a reporting mistake and there's nothing right now that shows anything wrong with any car deals.
I think Tressel might still make it if nothing else comes out. If there's anything else then he's gone.
 
coastal-boy said:
wow...here is something I didn't know...one room school buildings do not have to follow code
Click to expand...

Well that certainly cuts down on those damned Socialist teacher unions roonin' this country of ours supported by that damned Socialist Muslim terrorist-killing elitist Marxist in the White House! :mad::mad::mad:

*slams fist down on teak wood table, spilling chai latte*
 
koalabear said:
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?
Click to expand...
It could be the tenth most common cause, and it would still be a legitimate concern, but as I implied with my "whatever statistics they're using," they could be skewed. Or it could be that they see gun safety as an easy one; just lock it up unloaded and it's not a concern. I don't know about construction, but I'm certain that they address common household hazards. How different is any of this from advising you to have your kid wear a helmet while skiing or riding a bike?

Does the APP have a gun safety course? I doubt it. I have no idea. I would hope they'd just tell people to take the NRA or a similar one.
Byron In Exile said:
1)Not in my lifetime.

2)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.

3A)What if he didn't want to see anyone who ate meat? 3B) And what if you couldn't find a doctor who would? Would you go vegetarian, or go without medical care?
Click to expand...

1) Our lifetimes overlap by a fair bit, and I disagree. I think you'll find that better medical schools stress the duty of the physician to educate patients. Your mileage may have differed, but it is still a recognized duty and responsibility of a physician.

2) The analogy is about choosing customers. One of my biggest issues with the law is that it's NOT a medical licensure reg. That would be an entirely different conversation.

3A) Isn't that within his rights? I would think that such a doctor would either find a niche market of vegetarians and vegans or would be driven out of business.

That said, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. A physician should be able to refuse care to, I dunno, a person who does really awful stuff. Maybe drug-seeking is a good example. Maybe not; the Hippocratic Oath should actually mean something, and I know at my level of medicine we're told that we just treat patients, regardless of who they are and what they might have done.

3B) You realize that your hypothetical strains the bounds of reality, right? The situation of there being no doctor anywhere who would treat me because I ate meat? Your question is a false dichotomy; I'd just lie to him if I didn't want to stop eating meat.
 
Last edited:
Peregrinator said:
Flashback to last week:

AJ: But this government intervention is just to protect the privacy of gun-owners. They'll never pass another law gagging physicians.

Do you wear a seatbelt? I do, even in those rare places where it's not required. Know why? Because there was a concerted effort to educate the public about the danger of not wearing one. One of the groups that was involved with that education effort was physicians.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

As I alluded to last week and as I explicitly stated already earlier in this thread, once you begin to use government for your cause and once you begin to vote for cause-oriented politicians hell-bent on "doing good" and engaging in "social justice," then you are going to get groups competing to use government for their cause and you are not always going to like the outcomes, like this one in particular that seems to have your panties in a wad, but as I asked you earlier, how are you going to feel when "Republicans" start directing your precious SCIENCE research in areas you don't approve of just as they are now directing Doctors in a way, you again pretty much don't approve of even though you have already condoned the process and are happy at some of the "good" results, like mandatory seat-belt laws...?

It's an indirect, and intentional, subversion of the right to bear arms by intimidation (with is what Government Health Care is all about in the first place, behavior modification at the whims of moral busybodies); we mean to take over health care and be the sole payer and we mean to eliminate guns, so if you own one, be damned well prepared to provide your own health care, because we are going to deny you all but the most basic of services, and who knows, depending upon how broke we are, maybe all of them, and guess what? you'll still be paying for it. Have fun with your gun.
__________________
When your philosophy of government is based on groups, you must remember that your group can be a favored or disfavored group with equal ease and that neither status is ever permanent any more than the favors government solemnly promised to purchase your group loyalty.

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

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis
 
Last edited:
Peregrinator said:
The law doesn't do this?

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.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't affect his professional interaction with his/her patients at all. The law doesn't address what they discuss on the golf links at all.

You are the prosecutor, you have to do the homework Perg. You can't change the rules of logic based on your whims.

You may also want to inquire from CJ, or any qualified attorney, the difference between the word 'should' and the word 'shall'. Perhaps understanding the difference may uncloud your mind.

Ishmael
 
AJ, did you read my post on what I think of the law?

Ish, you are free to paint with a ridiculously large brush if you wish. Since you have the statistics memorized, what percentage of pediatricians play golf with their patients?
 
Last edited:
How about if pediatricians in California asked if parents keep medical marijuana at home? Then give lectures on safe use and storage of drugs?

Or if they ask same sex parents if they use condoms, and give lectures in front of the kids on how to stop the spread of AIDS?

Free speech? Or invasion of privacy?
 
off2bed said:
How about if pediatricians in California asked if parents keep medical marijuana at home? Then give lectures on safe use and storage of drugs?

Or if they ask same sex parents if they use condoms, and give lectures in front of the kids on how to stop the spread of AIDS?

Free speech? Or invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

In California the pedophiles give out that information.
 
Hey Perg — just to check and make sure we're on the same page here:

Peregrinator said:
An NRA-lobbied bill in Florida will prohibit doctors, especially pediatricians, from asking patients about their gun-safety. The bill is expected to be signed by Governor Rick Scott. Pediatricians routinely advise parents about seatbelts, bike helmets, etc, but this law will make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety unless "it's directly relevant to the patient's care or the safety of others." Comparable legislation is under discussion in North Carolina and Alabama.
Click to expand...

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/0...boing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=FaceBook
Click to expand...
You know that the bolded part of the above is a lie, right?
 
Just a reminder of what HB 155 actually says.

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.
Click to expand...
 
off2bed said:
How about if pediatricians in California asked if parents keep medical marijuana at home? Then give lectures on safe use and storage of drugs?

Or if they ask same sex parents if they use condoms, and give lectures in front of the kids on how to stop the spread of AIDS?

Free speech? Or invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

Doesn't medical marijuana involve treatment of a ... medical condition?

Does a parent's contraceptive choice pose a possible health risk to a child?
 
Peregrinator said:
I agree with you all the way on this. The only time I can see a peditatrician asking a parent about guns is in some sort of initial--possibly even pre-natal--education session about "how to make your home safe for your new kid. I don't claim to be an expert in pediatrics, but if it were me, I'd just hand them a pamphlet and tell them to email the nurse with questions.
Click to expand...

you are operating under the assumption that every parent has internet and every parent can read.

sigh said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/05/florida-law-would-bar-doctors-from-asking-parents-about-guns/

State Rep. Jason Brodeur, a Republican, proposed the bill after a much-publicized incident in which an Ocala, Fla., pediatrician told the mother of a 4-month-old boy to find another doctor when she refused to answer questions about guns in her home. Similar legislation has been proposed in Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama and North Carolina....

The bill has an exception allowing doctors to ask about guns if the information “is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.” But some pediatricians and other doctors say that wording is too vague to provide adequate protection.

Violators of the law can be reported to the state medical board for possible disciplinary action. In the original version of the bill, violations could have been prosecuted as a felony.
Click to expand...

off2bed said:
How about if pediatricians in California asked if parents keep medical marijuana at home? Then give lectures on safe use and storage of drugs?

Or if they ask same sex parents if they use condoms, and give lectures in front of the kids on how to stop the spread of AIDS?

Free speech? Or invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

medical marijuana would fall under keeping medication out of the reach of children.

same sex parents? are you trying to be an idiot, or is this your normal operating mode? normally pediatricians ask children if they are sexually active so they can give the proper STD tests once the child is engaging in that behavior. hopefully if a child states they are sexually active, the doctor will give the appropriate safe sex talk.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
Doesn't medical marijuana involve treatment of a ... medical condition?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? :confused:

CrackerjackHrt said:
Does a parent's contraceptive choice pose a possible health risk to a child?
Click to expand...

An infected person can spread HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, through the exchange of bodily fluids:
*semen;
*vaginal fluid;
*blood;
*other bodily fluids containing blood (for example,menses, bloody saliva);
*breast milk.
 
off2bed said:
How about if pediatricians in California asked if parents keep medical marijuana at home? Then give lectures on safe use and storage of drugs?

Or if they ask same sex parents if they use condoms, and give lectures in front of the kids on how to stop the spread of AIDS?

Free speech? Or invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

Those both seem reasonable to me. Though I would hope that a pharmacist would have talked about storage of pot before the doc did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top