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

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

Perhaps one of you constitutional scholars might explain to all of us how a law that forbids a practitioner to deny service to a customer that is exercising their constitutional right in a manner that has zero effect on the practitioner might be found to be unconstitutional?

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
Perhaps one of you constitutional scholars might explain to all of us how a law that forbids a practitioner to deny service to a customer that is exercising their constitutional right in a manner that has zero effect on the practitioner might be found to be unconstitutional?

Ishmael
Click to expand...

asking about the safety of a household is unconstitutional? Otherwise...why pass a law prohibiting it?
 
kbate said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know. My assumption, as I think I've said several times now, is that anyone bright enough to get through med school can probably also figure out that unloaded locked weapons are safer than loaded unlocked weapons.

I agree with your last 100%. I've said repeatedly also that people are free to choose another doctor, to lie to their doctor about weapons in their home, or to tell the doctor it's none of his business.
 
Byron In Exile said:
What if I consider giving advice murder? What then?

You're just being silly, now.
Click to expand...

Ishmael said:
Grasping at straws might be more the case.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

Hey, Ishmael once told me he thought a law requiring gun safety education for gun owners was "punishment."

But more to the point, we see how laws around "sexual harassment" can be and are abused frequently by people screaming "victim." It's not a stretch to imagine a parent suing a doctor under this law for asking about guns in the home.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Overlap? Your lifetime is a subset of mine, if I'm at least one day older.

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

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

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.

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. ...​

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

That's true.

By anyone who knows what the role of the physician is supposed to be. It's easy to google up tons of journal articles, curriculum items, etc etc. I don't know what the penalties are, if any, or what the mechanism is.

It's late and I'm tired. My point was that I think doctors should be able to choose their patients. I believe market forces will regulate that choice.

That's a state law, not a medical licensing board regulation. It's the state telling the medical board what to do.

Thank god all doctors don't do it then.

I mentioned drug-seeking. I've seen patients refused pain relief on suspicion of drug-seeking. I can't think of others offhand.

Okay.

Which is what I and other people have been saying all along. There's no need for this law.
 
SeanH said:
Isn't it fascinating how so many defend a law that is so obviously unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
What's fascinating is the way you insert stupid comments into discussions as though nobody can tell how obviously out of your depth you are.
 
coastal-boy said:
asking about the safety of a household is unconstitutional? Otherwise...why pass a law prohibiting it?
Click to expand...

Peregrinator said:
I don't know. My assumption, as I think I've said several times now, is that anyone bright enough to get through med school can probably also figure out that unloaded locked weapons are safer than loaded unlocked weapons.

I agree with your last 100%. I've said repeatedly also that people are free to choose another doctor, to lie to their doctor about weapons in their home, or to tell the doctor it's none of his business.
Click to expand...

Didn't quote sean, but there are two of you arguing what the law doesn't say. <shrug>

Ishmael
 
Similarities...

Little girls, grandmothers, beauty queens – all are unlikely terrorists. Yet all have been victims in recent months of invasive Transportation Security Administration pat-downs at the nation's airports. The searches have sparked public outrage -- despite claims from the Obama administration that they're needed to stop would-be terrorists.

Now, Texas lawmakers are seeking to end this insanity after a former Miss USA complained last month that TSA agents "molested" her at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport. On Thursday, House members passed a bill banning pat-downs in the Lone Star State in which a TSA agent "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person."
Click to expand...
David Paulin

People, even people who want limited government are forced to fight back, and then, when they do, are accused of being hypocrites for using government...
__________________
Barry Says: But A_J, they think they're getting safety!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg
 
1. Information on gun ownership has no business being routinely included in medical records.

2. Due to #1, there's no reason to routinely ask patients if they are gun owners.

3. If we follow #1, there would be no need to create a special class of individuals immune to the usual actuarial processes of insurance companies.

4. Doctors should be encouraged to suggest to their patients (or parents of patients) that if they own a gun, they might consider a gun safety course, or offer them a handout on gun safety (like the one on the NRA website). And then shut up and never mention it again.

That's my take on it.
 
I don't disagree, but sweet baby Jesus, we just brought the kid in for a sore throat and ear ache...




Gun safety tips? What the ... that's nice.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
I don't disagree, but sweet baby Jesus, we just brought the kid in for a sore throat and ear ache...




Gun safety tips? What the ... that's nice.
Click to expand...

I would think this interaction would occur at the first visit, when you're bringing your bundle of joy in to see the doc for a wellness check. They go over all sorts of bullshit then. It would be easy to slip in another brochure. Not at all appropriate for a visit for an acute illness.

No need to repeat with subsequent children.
 
It's been a long time since that first visit to the pediatrician for me, but if I remember right they gave me a flyer about electrical safety and even gave me a few of those plastic plug-blocker thingies. This isn't so different than that.
 
You would think it, but let me ask...




Ever been around a reformed smoker or alcoholic? They can't get past the mission statement...
 
sigh said:
It's been a long time since that first visit to the pediatrician for me, but if I remember right they gave me a flyer about electrical safety and even gave me a few of those plastic plug-blocker thingies. This isn't so different than that.
Click to expand...

They probably, unless, of course you're on the res or in Appalachia, they did not have to enter into your record that you had electricity in the home...



;) ;)

... nor did they probably ask you if you had it.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
You would think it, but let me ask...




Ever been around a reformed smoker or alcoholic? They can't get past the mission statement...
Click to expand...

You mean the doctor? Yeah, it might be hard to get some to shut up, but if they offend you, fire them. I've fired docs before.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
They probably, unless, of course you're on the res or in Appalachia, they did not have to enter into your record that you had electricity in the home...



;) ;)

... nor did they probably ask you if you had it.
Click to expand...

I got that covered with #1.

Jeez, A_J, we're coming close to agreeing again. Damn, must be a bad week.
 
sigh said:
You mean the doctor? Yeah, it might be hard to get some to shut up, but if they offend you, fire them. I've fired docs before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a lot of plans restrict who you can see, and I don't know if you've noticed, but doctors are becoming a little more scarce and changing doctors is limited by finding one accepting new patients and accepting of your insurance (or medicare/caid).

I had to have the wife use her job connections at the hospital to get me in as a new patient with a doctor, and I tried to fire Princess's orthodontist, only to find out there wasn't much in the way of choice when it comes to replacement.

For this, in my mind, I only have government to thank at this point, because I don't remember it being that way when I was younger...
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
Yeah, but a lot of plans restrict who you can see, and I don't know if you've noticed, but doctors are becoming a little more scarce and changing doctors is limited by finding one accepting new patients and accepting of your insurance (or medicare/caid).

I had to have the wife use her job connections at the hospital to get me in as a new patient with a doctor, and I tried to fire Princess's orthodontist, only to find out there wasn't much in the way of choice when it comes to replacement.

For this, in my mind, I only have government to thank at this point, because I don't remember it being that way when I was younger...
Click to expand...

I note the scarcity of doctor thing, but I don't know what to do about it. And it's not (as you pointed out) unique to this issue. I can't fix obnoxious or bad physicians, though. If I could, I'd have added a #5 to my list.
 
Ishmael said:
Perhaps one of you constitutional scholars might explain to all of us how a law that forbids a practitioner to deny service to a customer that is exercising their constitutional right in a manner that has zero effect on the practitioner might be found to be unconstitutional?

Ishmael
Click to expand...

medicine is a regulated profession, so it probably doesn't.

tell me how, though, such a broad and sweeping rule does not infringe upon a parent's right to know truthful information about gun safety and their children?

The State’s interest in preventing underage tobacco use is substantial, and even compelling, but it is no less true that the sale and use of tobacco products by adults is a legal activity. We must consider that tobacco retailers and manufacturers have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about tobacco products. In a case involving indecent speech on the Internet we explained that “the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials … does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults.” As the State protects children from tobacco advertisements, tobacco manufacturers and retailers and their adult consumers still have a protected interest in communication.
Click to expand...

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lorrilard.html
 
for those of you interested in the analytical framework girding this issue, the discussion beginning at page 1778 of this article is informative: http://***************/viewer?a=v&q...e8dDGD&sig=AHIEtbS16ugW2tURnXGxXp7iri2gutP4RQ

so is this supreme court opinion--in particular section ii beginning at page 366: http://supreme.justia.com/us/535/357/index.html
 
omg, this is still going....NUTS

there is no need for a law
dr's need to find some comon sense
we need less government
 
sigh said:
It's been a long time since that first visit to the pediatrician for me, but if I remember right they gave me a flyer about electrical safety and even gave me a few of those plastic plug-blocker thingies. This isn't so different than that.
Click to expand...

SOCIALISM!!!! FREE SILVER!!!! GOVERNMENT INTRUSION!!!!! GUN HATERS!!!!!!! THIS IS HORRIBLE. I HOPE THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF ELECTRICIANS CAN LOBBY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO GET DOCTORS TO STOP ASKING ABOUT UNPLUGGED ELECTRICAL OUTLETS!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top