Crow: I'll eat it.

[cjh]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida law restricting what doctors can tell patients about gun ownership was deemed to be constitutional Friday by a federal appeals court, which said it legitimately regulates professional conduct and doesn't violate the doctors' First Amendment free speech rights.

The ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned a previous decision that had declared the law unconstitutional. An injunction blocking enforcement of the law is still in effect, however.

The 2011 law, which had become popularly known as "Docs vs. Glocks," was challenged by organizations representing 11,000 state health providers, including the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians

Doctors who break the law could potentially be fined and lose their licenses.

By a 2-1 decision, the appeals court upheld the law as a protection of patient privacy rights and said that the limits imposed by it were "incidental."

"The act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat.

In a lengthy dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson called the law an infringement of First Amendment rights.

"The act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic, and one topic only, firearms," Wilson wrote. "Regardless of whether we agreed with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message."

Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor had asked them about guns. The couple say they refused to answer and the physician refused to see them again.

The measure signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott prohibited doctors from asking patients about their ownership or recording that information in medical records unless it was medically necessary.

Marion Hammer, a National Rifle Association lobbyist in Florida and former president of the national organization, said that the judges "nailed it" and understood the intent of the legislation that was pushed by the NRA.

"The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners when they seek medical care," Hammer said in an email.

A main attorney who filed the appeal said the decision would cause Florida physicians to curb their own speech on safe gun ownership.

"We strongly disagree with the panel majority's holding that Florida doctors have no First Amendment right to ask patients about potential dangers in their lives, including the presence of guns in the home," Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier said in an emailed statement.

http://m.chron.com/news/us/article/Federal-court-upholds-Fla-s-docs-vs-glocks-law-5647572.php

 

[RobDownSouth]

Modern medicine today is defined as interaction between a patient, a doctor and his/her Republican legislator.
:nods:

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I've never, ever had a doctor ask me if I have a meth lab in the basement.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well good on you, not that I think crow is the appropriate meal here. The courts found against freedom of speech and infavor of guns, it happens.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well good on you, not that I think crow is the appropriate meal here. The courts found against freedom of speech and infavor of guns, it happens.

<Vettemode>
Duh! Free speech is the FIRST amendment, Guns is SECOND amendment, so founding fathers wanted guns to be twice as important (2>1) as free speech!
</Vettemode>

 

[Que]

Interesting result.

The Government cannot violate the privacy of Doctor-patient privilege as they would have to do to prosecute an abortion charge if it were illegal.

The Government can insist that a doctor not violate a patients privacy by delving into issues not related to the patients health.

The two positions are tangential only in that they both pertain to privacy.

Now the Government needs to do the hat-trick by saying that patients have no right to violate the Doctor's privacy by looking into the Doctor's track record and any sanctions he may have been hit with.

I agree with the decision, I think but I am not sure why I do, other than the fact I would be peeved if a Doctor that otherwise did not have any interaction with me were to inquire.

Was it ever an issue that a patient could not simply respond "none of your dammed business?" or would refusing to answer been considered reportable to some database?

I suspect at issue here was an agenda by some anti-gun nuts to establish a prohibited database of gun owners. One can see how well that worked out for gun ownership in Australia.

 

[Sean]

A judge in the UK fell asleep today while a child rape victim was giving evidence. And I still think your courts are more fucked up than ours.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Interesting result.

The Government cannot violate the privacy of Doctor-patient privilege as they would have to do to prosecute an abortion charge if it were illegal.

The Government can insist that a doctor not violate a patients privacy by delving into issues not related to the patients health.

The two positions are tangential only in that they both pertain to privacy.

Now the Government needs to do the hat-trick by saying that patients have no right to violate the Doctor's privacy by looking into the Doctor's track record and any sanctions he may have been hit with.

I agree with the decision, I think but I am not sure why I do, other than the fact I would be peeved if a Doctor that otherwise did not have any interaction with me were to inquire.

Was it ever an issue that a patient could not simply respond "none of your dammed business?" or would refusing to answer been considered reportable to some database?

I suspect at issue here was an agenda by some anti-gun nuts to establish a prohibited database of gun owners. One can see how well that worked out for gun ownership in Australia.

The doctor has no enforcement ability. It's not like lying to your doctor has any punishment beyond him prescribing you the wrong medication because you didn't tell him you were alergic to "such and such."

I don't believe it was ever an issue that the patient couldn't simply respond "none of yoru damn business." It's was just that (and you agree with this) because you wanted the government to step in because questions are SCARY! Even if you couldn't say that you could lie as I already mentioned.

This was really pro-gun nuts getting pissy because after several years of toddlers racking up impressive kill counts some doctors decided to practice health care and you didn't like it.

 

[zipman]

A judge in the UK fell asleep today while a child rape victim was giving evidence. And I still think your courts are more fucked up than ours.

So, was a mistrial declared or do you still have to face the charges?

 

[Learnsmith]

Modern medicine today is defined as interaction between a patient, a doctor and his/her Republican legislator.
:nods:

THIS.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

yes, you are a fucking idiot

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Crowfest 2003?

Look, where I live, crow is on the menu.



People get pissed that I do not eat the squirrels that I shoot and trap.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

http://m.chron.com/news/us/article/Federal-court-upholds-Fla-s-docs-vs-glocks-law-5647572.php

why the fuck does a dr need to talk about guns? you socialist are fucking idiots

 

[Mr Noone]

I'm allergic to guns. Brings me out in hives. I told my doctor.

 

[Mr Noone]

why the fuck does a dr need to talk about guns? you socialist are fucking idiots

Guns, when shot, can have health consequences. For socialists as well as Ayn Randians.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm allergic to guns. Brings me out in hives. I told my doctor.

[Americans will get this.]



It might be the blueing...

 

[Learnsmith]

It's funny, because every time we have some whackjob with a gun go on a spree here stateside, the outcry from gun-rights activists is always "This isn't about guns, it's about access to mental-health care." And yet with this story here, we see it's really not.

See, these are not people legitimately interested in solutions. They are people instead who would rather do nothing about a problem if the alternative is having to act responsibly. Yet another reason I have nothing but contempt for modern American conservatism. I long for the days of arguing with stuffy old Tories.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Guns, when shot, can have health consequences. For socialists as well as Ayn Randians.

I have never shot a gun because you cannot eat it and it will not "assault" you...

 

[lovecraft68]

Is there different laws for mental health? What about the instance of a guy who is talking to his shrink about going on killing sprees?

As for regular doctors? I don't even think mine knows I have kids never mind what type of guns I own.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Is there different laws for mental health? What about the instance of a guy who is talking to his shrink about going on killing sprees?

As for regular doctors? I don't even think mine knows I have kids never mind what type of guns I own.

It's been a while since I read the original story but I believe this was a about pediatrists primarily. So they might not know you have kids but they'd know the kids had parents most likely.

By the time I was alone with doctors I knew enough that I wouldn't tell my doctor anything my parents didn't want them to know however.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Privacy

Lawyer, doctor, but increasingly the latter has to enter electronic diagnosis and questionnaires that are "private," but maybe not to government or Snowden...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, was a mistrial declared or do you still have to face the charges?

Ouch, that'll leave a mark.

 

[loveupskirt]

It's funny, because every time we have some whackjob with a gun go on a spree here stateside, the outcry from gun-rights activists is always "This isn't about guns, it's about access to mental-health care." And yet with this story here, we see it's really not.

See, these are not people legitimately interested in solutions. They are people instead who would rather do nothing about a problem if the alternative is having to act responsibly. Yet another reason I have nothing but contempt for modern American conservatism. I long for the days of arguing with stuffy old Tories.

You would be quite mistaken if you think I am not just as disturbed and appalled by mass shootings and murder in general as you or any liberal or gun control proponent is. Where we differ is in what we think the solution might be!

As far as acting responsibly, I always act responsibly with my guns. Because someone else doesn't should not affect my right to own one.

Any object can and many often are used to hurt and kill others. Hammers, hatchets, butcher knives, bookends, automobiles, etc.

 

[Sean]

Ouch, that'll leave a mark.

Apparently criticising Israel means you're a child rapist.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You would be quite mistaken if you think I am not just as disturbed and appalled by mass shootings and murder in general as you or any liberal or gun control proponent is. Where we differ is in what we think the solution might be!

As far as acting responsibly, I always act responsibly with my guns. Because someone else doesn't should not affect my right to own one.

Any object can and many often are used to hurt and kill others. Hammers, hatchets, butcher knives, bookends, automobiles, etc.

No you aren't. Stop claiming that you are. It's okay that you're not I don't really bat an eye at it, a bunch of kids getting shot up happens on Tuesdays in the United States and if any of us gave a shit we wouldn't still be discussing this we'd be demanding action and any politician who didn't have an answer would be driven out of office over night.