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

[off2bed]

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

Why is that important? I keep hearing that marijuana is harmless.

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.

What kind of parent are you that you let your doctor tell your kids about sex?

I'm talking about gay parents, and the doc asking them if they take precautions against AIDS. Is that any of the doctor's business?

 

[koalabear]

Stfu Miles.

Put down your bag of sunflower seeds drixx.

 

[Peregrinator]

Hey Perg — just to check and make sure we're on the same page here:

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

You know that the bolded part of the above is a lie, right?

Just a reminder of what HB 155 actually says.

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;

prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination;

Sure quacks like a duck.

Did either of you read my response to the law a few posts ago?

 

[kbate]

Doctors do not speak to patients about Firearm safety. My Doctor has on his information sheet, a question, "Do you own any firearms?". I did not answer the question when I was filling out the questionnaire, as my possession of firearms has nothing to do with my reasons for seeing a general MD.

The question did not come about from Doctors desire to foster good firearm practices in the home, or for the purpose of firearm safety in any way. The question appeared on the forms after the AMA decided to gather data about firearm ownership in order to lobby insurance for possible rate increases for firearm owners. This is one more instance of the Gun Control Lobby having been given a free ride without any of the press the NRA is (as this thread indicates) for having opposed the action.

If my doctor decided to spout the Gun Control Lobby's statistics of 40 times more likely and all of the other made up figures about the danger of gun ownership, I would leave his office and find another MD.

The other reason the question began to appear, was in concert with the plan to create a national healthcare database. One can easily see that those who love the idea of national anything - would love to have a check-mark for "owns a gun" in a database for which people have no 'opt-out'. The idea was to create a de-facto national gun owner registry - and then to tie it to rates charged for using the national health system - making it gun ownership more expensive through means other than direct taxation on firearms and ammunition or attacks on the 2nd amendment. It is much easier to amend existing health care regulation than to pass a new gun law.

 

[neci]

Why is that important? I keep hearing that marijuana is harmless.


What kind of parent are you that you let your doctor tell your kids about sex?

I'm talking about gay parents, and the doc asking them if they take precautions against AIDS. Is that any of the doctor's business?

while a child ingesting pot is safer than ingesting xanax, one can never be too safe.

the kind of parent that wants her kid to have an STD test if they choose to be sexually active.

because only gay people have AIDS if a person is diagnosed with a communicable disease, i would hope their doctor teaches them how to protect those they come into contact with.

 

[cjh]

What difference does it make?



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.

Hmmm.

I wouldn't be bothered by a doctor telling me to keep medicine away from my kids. Maybe that's just me?

Is there a real risk of kids contracting aids from a dad's breast milk or menses?

As to a nursing mother, I think risk factors relating to HIV are fair game. You want to ignore the possibility of her transmitting a disease to a nursing baby?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Sure quacks like a duck.

No, it doesn't.

Inquiring about an individual's firearm ownership and offering advice on gun safety are two different things.

The bill doesn't "make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety" under any circumstances.

The article quoted in the OP is a dishonest propaganda piece.

 

[Ishmael]

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?

Quite frankly I don't care who they play golf with, or where, or even whether they play golf at all. They can wax eloquent on any subject they want-----outside the office.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

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.

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

...

I responded to your reply to my post. That's all. It's all about your subjective contradictions.

 

[Peregrinator]

No, it doesn't.

Inquiring about an individual's firearm ownership and offering advice on gun safety are two different things.

The bill doesn't "make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety" under any circumstances.

The article quoted in the OP is a dishonest propaganda piece.

It does if you consider a physician giving advice "harassment."

Quite frankly I don't care who they play golf with, or where, or even whether they play golf at all. They can wax eloquent on any subject they want-----outside the office.

Ishmael

You continue to advocate for the state telling physicians what they can and can't talk to their patients about. You are a socialist, interventionist jack-booted thug, by your own criteria. You realize that, right?

I responded to your reply to my post. That's all. It's all about your subjective contradictions.

So, again, however I feel about this law, you support this particular interventionist policy? Can we talk about your subjective contradictions now?

 

[Ishmael]

It does if you consider a physician giving advice "harassment."

You continue to advocate for the state telling physicians what they can and can't talk to their patients about. You are a socialist, interventionist jack-booted thug, by your own criteria. You realize that, right?


So, again, however I feel about this law, you support this particular interventionist policy? Can we talk about your subjective contradictions now?

You're starting to sound like LT now.

1. The law is purposely designed to forbid record keeping and the denial of treatment/services.

2. You need to learn the difference between 'Shall' and 'Should' from a legal standpoint. The law does NOT say what you are arguing it says.

3. Firearm safety is a "safety" issue, not a health issue. If the pediatricians are so God Damned concerned with safety let them start recording, and lecturing, those parents that own automobiles and swimming pools. At the very least I'd like to see them make a token effort to address the real child safety problems.


If public health were synonymous with public health then the public health dept. would be the go to guys for street signs, stop lights, and drivers licenses. They would also run the police/sheriffs depts. Doctors would also be the mandated trainers for drivers ed. and a whole host of other safety related courses. The fact of the matter is they aren't, nor should they be.

For decades the lawyers tried to go after the firearm industry with all of these same arguments, representing individuals, class actions, and various municipalities. And they lost their ass on all counts all the way up to the SCOTUS. These efforts included attempts at record keeping and denial of services. Now we are confronted with a group of activist physicians who are attempting to prevail where the legal profession failed under the banner of 'it's for the children.' Horseshit, it's all about their political agenda, the 'children' are merely pawns to be sacrificed if necessary.

Ishmael

 

[koalabear]

Gammo

 

[Peregrinator]

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

You're starting to sound like LT now.

1. The law is purposely designed to forbid record keeping and the denial of treatment/services.

2. You need to learn the difference between 'Shall' and 'Should' from a legal standpoint. The law does NOT say what you are arguing it says.

3. Firearm safety is a "safety" issue, not a health issue. If the pediatricians are so God Damned concerned with safety let them start recording, and lecturing, those parents that own automobiles and swimming pools. At the very least I'd like to see them make a token effort to address the real child safety problems.


If public health were synonymous with public health then the public health dept. would be the go to guys for street signs, stop lights, and drivers licenses. They would also run the police/sheriffs depts. Doctors would also be the mandated trainers for drivers ed. and a whole host of other safety related courses. The fact of the matter is they aren't, nor should they be.

For decades the lawyers tried to go after the firearm industry with all of these same arguments, representing individuals, class actions, and various municipalities. And they lost their ass on all counts all the way up to the SCOTUS. These efforts included attempts at record keeping and denial of services. Now we are confronted with a group of activist physicians who are attempting to prevail where the legal profession failed under the banner of 'it's for the children.' Horseshit, it's all about their political agenda, the 'children' are merely pawns to be sacrificed if necessary.

Ishmael

1. Good. I think that's a good thing. It also does other stuff. Define "harass."

2. You have no idea what I need. What I am arguing is what YOU said.

3. I think it's an important part of a pediatrician's job to educate parents on best practice for keeping kids safe. Safety and health are the same thing, unless you are also going to argue that injury and ...there's no word... unhealth are not related. I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would include a gunshot wound under the heading of "unhealthy."

Street signs, stop lights and DL's are administered by the DOT, which also administers...EMT's. Why do you suppose that is?

Did YOU read this post?

I just wanted to take another look at what the law actually says.

1) That's fine; the information is irrelevant anyway, and I see this as protecting 2nd amendment rights.

2) I wish I knew what exception(s) were included.

3) Equally fine, and completely unnecessary. The patient is free not to answer, free to find another doctor. Only a true interventionist would support this.

4) Necessary, if the law has to exist at all. EMT's go into people's homes when said people are not at their best. "Scene Safety" is the mantra of all prehospital providers, and knowing whether there's a gun around is part of that.

5) Patient may already decline to provide such information. Unnecessary legislation.

6) Good. Physicians like any other service provider have the right to choose their customers subject to obvious limitations eg race, gender, etc.

7) No reason that the facilities or providers should know about gun ownership. Not a good reason, imho, to refuse care, but the law is intrusive and interventionist.

8) I would need to know how "harassment" is defined in the law. I would also think that any sort of harassment is already regulated. The patient is free to choose another doctor in any case. Or sue the harassing one.

9) This is ridiculous. I've been denied coverage because I engage in "activities in the mountains using ropes or other equipment." If any increased risk of payoff is fair game, they all should be. That's what actuarial science is all about.

10) Whatever.

11) Provides for the Florida Legislature to decide what a doctor should and shouldn't say to a patient's legal guardians at the point of that gun held by the long arm of the interventionist government. Fantastic.

 

[koalabear]

Barbra Boxer said.....

 

[bronzeage]

...

If public health were synonymous with public health then the public health dept. ...
Ishmael

Public health is not synonymous with public health. It's actually the same thing.

 

[Peregrinator]

Barbra Boxer said.....

Who cares? She's a lunatic.

 

[koalabear]

Who cares? She's a lunatic.

Then Pelosi chimed in.....

 

[cjh]

<snip>

3. Firearm safety is a "safety" issue, not a health issue. If the pediatricians are so God Damned concerned with safety let them start recording, and lecturing, those parents that own automobiles and swimming pools. At the very least I'd like to see them make a token effort to address the real child safety problems.


<snip>

Injury prevention is a health issue. And they do address issues re: automobile safety and pool safety.

http://www.aap.org/family/tipppool.htm

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/0515/p2085.html

 

[koalabear]

Then Harry Reid teamed with the NRA to build the most modern and best shooting range in Nevada.....

 

[kbate]

3. I think it's an important part of a pediatrician's job to educate parents on best practice for keeping kids safe. Safety and health are the same thing, unless you are also going to argue that injury and ...there's no word... unhealth are not related. I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would include a gunshot wound under the heading of "unhealthy."

Please detail the portions of medical school and/or internship which qualify a pediatrician to speak as an authority on firearm safety.

Perhaps you might attempt to bring up "Treating Bullet Wounds in the ER" as a qualification, but I truly doubt that would qualify an MD to teach me how to store a firearm. My farm hand can shovel horse shit with the best of them, but he still cannot ride a horse without falling off.

If I desire firearms safety instruction for my children - I will give it myself, or take them to an NRA qualified firearms instructor - not a doctor whose qualifications are at best questionable.

 

[koalabear]

Boy survives tornado by hiding in clothes dryer
11-year-old squeezes into machine as storm tears apart his house

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43022078/?GT1=43001

 

[Byron In Exile]

It does if you consider a physician giving advice "harassment."

What if I consider giving advice murder? What then?

You're just being silly, now.

 

[Ishmael]

What if I consider giving advice murder? What then?

You're just being silly, now.

Grasping at straws might be more the case.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

1) Our lifetimes overlap by a fair bit, and I disagree.

Overlap? Your lifetime is a subset of mine, if I'm at least one day older.

I think you'll find that better medical schools stress the duty of the physician to educate patients.

I might find that medical schools stress the duty of physicians to hop around on one leg. That's no guarantee they do it.

Your mileage may have differed, but it is still a recognized duty and responsibility of a physician.

Recognized by whom, where? What is the enforcement mechanism? Are there any penalties for non-compliance?

2) The analogy is about choosing customers.

Your broken analogy is an attempt to portray regulation of a customer's actions within an establishment as "choosing customers." That's simply not the case. Restaurants don't refuse to serve smokers as a result of no-smoking laws. Such laws just disallow burning tobacco inside, no matter whether it's done by smokers or non-smokers.

One of my biggest issues with the law is that it's NOT a medical licensure reg. That would be an entirely different conversation.

The law certainly is, so I guess that takes care of one of your biggest issues with it.

FS 456.072 (2)

When the board, or the department when there is no board, finds any person guilty of the grounds set forth in subsection (1) or of any grounds set forth in the applicable practice act, including conduct constituting a substantial violation of subsection (1) or a violation of the applicable practice act which occurred prior to obtaining a license, it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties:

(a) Refusal to certify, or to certify with restrictions, an application for a license.

(b) Suspension or permanent revocation of a license. ...​

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.

Such a doctor wouldn't be driven out of business if most doctors did it.

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.

On what grounds do you think a physician should be able to refuse care to a person who does really awful stuff?

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?

That's alright. I'm searching for your principle.

Your question is a false dichotomy;

No, there's a comma. It doesn't purport to be an exhaustive list of options.

I'd just lie to him if I didn't want to stop eating meat.

And I'd lie to any doctor that inquired as to whether I owned guns.

 

[Sean]

Isn't it fascinating how so many defend a law that is so obviously unconstitutional?