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

[Peregrinator]

Yes or no: should doctors lecture patients on every conceivable danger that could possibly befall them?

If not, then why mention anything other than the health of the patient on that day, with the symptoms (or lack thereof) apparent to the doctor right then and there? If the patient asks for advice on something else, then I'm fine with doctors yakking on whatever the patient asks about - but they shouldn't go probing into families' lives for stuff that isn't their business.

If so, then you will end up with a book that big of crap they'd have to tell us, at the risk of a malpractice suit for not mentioning it.

Obviously not.

Because prevention/education is a huge piece of what pediatricians and GP's do. Or should do, at any rate. The model of medical practice you favor in this post is that of "Wait until it breaks, then fix it," which is fairly outdated. In the case of something like a sprained ankle, so what? In the case of hypertension, it "breaking" could mean a stroke or an MI. In the case of gun safety, it could mean an accidental shooting.

In any case, I've repeatedly pointed out that a patient is perfectly within his rights to refuse to answer, to lie, or to find another physician. There's no need for a lot of this law. I agree with what CJH said above.

 

[off2bed]

Obviously not.

Because prevention/education is a huge piece of what pediatricians and GP's do. Or should do, at any rate. The model of medical practice you favor in this post is that of "Wait until it breaks, then fix it," which is fairly outdated. In the case of something like a sprained ankle, so what? In the case of hypertension, it "breaking" could mean a stroke or an MI. In the case of gun safety, it could mean an accidental shooting.

In any case, I've repeatedly pointed out that a patient is perfectly within his rights to refuse to answer, to lie, or to find another physician. There's no need for a lot of this law. I agree with what CJH said above.

Your model is why health care is unaffordable any more.

 

[Peregrinator]

Your model is why health care is unaffordable any more.

What is my model? I don't recall posting a description. What I posted is what modern medicine is increasingly about, based on scientific evidence. It's called "evidence-based medicine." You might want to check it out.

Your post indicates that you prioritize money over health. Is that true?

 

[off2bed]

What is my model? I don't recall posting a description. What I posted is what modern medicine is increasingly about, based on scientific evidence. It's called "evidence-based medicine." You might want to check it out.

Your post indicates that you prioritize money over health. Is that true?

You said, more or less, that doctors should be our nannies and tell us how to live.

I don't have as much faith in doctors as you do.

But if you want to pay more for medicine just so you can be told how to live, go ahead; but don't expect others to live that way.

 

[Peregrinator]

You said, more or less, that doctors should be our nannies and tell us how to live.

I don't have as much faith in doctors as you do.

But if you want to pay more for medicine just so you can be told how to live, go ahead; but don't expect others to live that way.

I've never said any such thing. Feel free to ascribe to me positions I don't hold and then bitch about them, but don't expect me to act as your mythical enemy just because no one else will.

I see we've arrived at the part where I ask you a question and you make shit up instead of answering it.

 

[Sean]

I thought you were smarter than this.

Really? Why???

 

[Peregrinator]

Really? Why???

He quoted me in his sigline. A sure sign of intelligence and taste.

 

[Sean]

He quoted me in his sigline. A sure sign of intelligence and taste.

He obviously didn't understand the point you were making with the post he quoted. I always laughed when I saw it.

 

[Peregrinator]

He obviously didn't understand the point you were making with the post he quoted. I always laughed when I saw it.

I just noticed that it's gone. I'm kinda bummed, because it always made me laugh, too.

 

[off2bed]

Bad memory, Perg?

Because prevention/education is a huge piece of what pediatricians and GP's do. Or should do, at any rate.

 

[Byron In Exile]

i've described the law as i would draft it, not as it is written.

the discord between "should not" and "however, if in good faith" creates a lot of potential for disagreement between the patient and physician as to what should not have been done and what was done in good faith.

given the fact that professional discipline is on the line, the law should be clear.

You said, "It seems to me that a law that simply mandated 1) no written records re: gun ownership, 2) respect for the patient's wishes whether to discuss the topic, and 3) no discrimination in providing services would better serve the law's intent."

So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?

 

[Peregrinator]

Bad memory, Perg?

Did I say I forgot what I posted? What is this supposed to mean?

 

[cjh]

You said, "It seems to me that a law that simply mandated 1) no written records re: gun ownership, 2) respect for the patient's wishes whether to discuss the topic, and 3) no discrimination in providing services would better serve the law's intent."

So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?

No.

I think the language needlessly creates an ambiguous standard.

Is "should" merely advisory or is it some sort of passive-aggressive mandate?

Is good faith objectively or subjectively measured?

It's a statute waiting to be tested in court.

My articulation of the law would use clear mandates: shall keep no written records, shall respect the patient's wishes, and shall not discriminate. My articulation would also obviate the need for a good-faith safety valve.

 

[warl0ck1]

Not sure what the NRA agenda is, but I'm pretty much ambivalent about it.

Actually the agenda is very easy to figure out. The AMA who has an anti gun stance has put it in Questionnaires for there doctors to ask about then discourage gun ownership. all in the guise of gun safety. I told my kids doctor he could pound sand. the thing is that same doctor can refuse to take you as a patient if he/she wishes. by making it illegal to ask the question now the doctors can't screen their patients on this.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Actually the agenda is very easy to figure out. The AMA who has an anti gun stance has put it in Questionnaires for there doctors to ask about then discourage gun ownership. all in the guise of gun safety. I told my kids doctor he could pound sand. the thing is that same doctor can refuse to take you as a patient if he/she wishes. by making it illegal to ask the question now the doctors can't screen their patients on this.

Sounds like you need to use the free market and find yourself a new doctor for your kids.

 

[sigh]

...then why mention anything other than the health of the patient on that day, with the symptoms (or lack thereof) apparent to the doctor right then and there? If the patient asks for advice on something else, then I'm fine with doctors yakking on whatever the patient asks about - but they shouldn't go probing into families' lives for stuff that isn't their business.

If so, then you will end up with a book that big of crap they'd have to tell us, at the risk of a malpractice suit for not mentioning it.

Do you have kids? Do you understand the concept of a wellness visit? It's the one part of medicine that actually does take a preventative approach. For the first two years (at least) of my son's life he was never ill but I still had regular visits. So there were no symptoms to discuss and the health of my son was fine. The visits were about prevention (including vaccines) and education (developmental stages I should expect to see, and related safety issues: "Your son will soon start cruising about on his feet soon, holding onto furniture. This is a good time to get all those breakable items up high"). It's been said that babies should come with instructions, but they don't. Regular visits to the doctor, and listening to his advice, makes up for at least part of that lack.

And since insurance companies are still paying for pediatric wellness visits, I guess they agree they have value.

On your planet I guess that equals bleeding heart medicine. On this one, it's standard of practice (and has been for decades), no matter how much you argue against it.

 

[koalabear]

Do you have kids? Do you understand the concept of a wellness visit? It's the one part of medicine that actually does take a preventative approach. For the first two years (at least) of my son's life he was never ill but I still had regular visits. So there were no symptoms to discuss and the health of my son was fine. The visits were about prevention (including vaccines) and education (developmental stages I should expect to see, and related safety issues: "Your son will soon start cruising about on his feet soon, holding onto furniture. This is a good time to get all those breakable items up high"). It's been said that babies should come with instructions, but they don't. Regular visits to the doctor, and listening to his advice, makes up for at least part of that lack.

And since insurance companies are still paying for pediatric wellness visits, I guess they agree they have value.

On your planet I guess that equals bleeding heart medicine. On this one, it's standard of practice (and has been for decades), no matter how much you argue against it.

How many times did he ask about guns?

 

[kbate]

Do you have kids? Do you understand the concept of a wellness visit? It's the one part of medicine that actually does take a preventative approach. For the first two years (at least) of my son's life he was never ill but I still had regular visits. So there were no symptoms to discuss and the health of my son was fine. The visits were about prevention (including vaccines) and education (developmental stages I should expect to see, and related safety issues: "Your son will soon start cruising about on his feet soon, holding onto furniture. This is a good time to get all those breakable items up high"). It's been said that babies should come with instructions, but they don't. Regular visits to the doctor, and listening to his advice, makes up for at least part of that lack.

And since insurance companies are still paying for pediatric wellness visits, I guess they agree they have value.

On your planet I guess that equals bleeding heart medicine. On this one, it's standard of practice (and has been for decades), no matter how much you argue against it.

Do you think that we would have 'wellness visits' if insurance did not pay for 'wellness visits'? Things such as this, are one of the reasons health insurance and health care are so expensive.

 

[sigh]

Do you think that we would have 'wellness visits' if insurance did not pay for 'wellness visits'? Things such as this, are one of the reasons health insurance and health care are so expensive.

One very small reason, k. There's a whole lot more driving up the cost of health than wellness visits. But that's not relevant anyway. It's another discussion altogether. If you want to talk about doing away with preventative care for children, that would certainly be another interesting discussion, but how about we finish this one first?

 

[warl0ck1]

Sounds like you need to use the free market and find yourself a new doctor for your kids.

My doctor was fine with it. but that is the thing that this legislation is trying to avoid.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't have as much faith in doctors

It's statements like this that make health care unaffordable.

 

[kbate]

One very small reason, k. There's a whole lot more driving up the cost of health than wellness visits. But that's not relevant anyway. It's another discussion altogether. If you want to talk about doing away with preventative care for children, that would certainly be another interesting discussion, but how about we finish this one first?

There is no finish to this one, and everything is related to the cost of delivering health care - including the topic of this discussion.

The topic (as the OP wishes) is that an gun control education is preventative care and should be basically a billed item on insurance forms.

 

[Peregrinator]

There is no finish to this one, and everything is related to the cost of delivering health care - including the topic of this discussion.

The topic (as the OP wishes) is that an gun control education is preventative care and should be basically a billed item on insurance forms.

I'm not sure I ever said that.

 

[Ishmael]

I wonder how much of the conflict arose because of physicians unwittingly being overbearing and patients being overly sensitive to perceived criticism?

I know you will disagree with the analogy and will not press you to accept it. But, were the risk lead paint chips and the doctor learned the parents probably lived in a house with lead paint, would he be out of bounds by nagging the parents to have the paint analyzed for lead content?

That is the threshold that is going to be pushed and determined.

Nagging would certainly be out of bounds, pointing out the potential problems is certainly worthy of comment. Having an opinion is one thing, evangelizing is a whole order of magnitude, or more, removed.

Let me put it to you another way. Lawyers, doctors, carpenters, plumbers, whatever, are all my employees. That observation is based solely on the knowledge of who the money flows from and to. In most cases I am paying for advice as to what alternatives I may have in any given situation, but in the end it is MY decision as to what direction they may pursue. I do not expect to be lectured, on my time and dime, about any subject outside of their area of expertise. I further have zero tolerance for lectures concerning my lifestyle when not germane to the issue at hand.

I don't go to attorneys for medical information, nor do I expect the plumber to rewire my ceiling fan. I give doctors zero credibility concerning firearm safety, particularly when they are advocating non-ownership, when I have trained experts at my disposal whose advice costs peanuts when compared to the physician.

I'm well aware that there is a huge segment of the population that are perfectly content to allow others to order their lives for them, just as there is a segment that is perfectly content to do so. For the most part those that allow others to order their live might be referred to as slaves, slaves who are paying for the privilege. But that does not mean that the slave is free to demand my subservience any more than the would be master can.

Ishmael


Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

Bad memory, Perg?

Are you attempting to claim that this is his "model" for health care?

Even you can't be that stupid.