Why would doctors need to know if you have a gun?

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4805895...as-docs-vs-glocks-law-shot-down/#.T_SND_XNlD0


NBCMIAMI.com
updated 7/3/2012 10:47:33 AM ET

Print
Font:

A Florida law that banned doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients has been shot down by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke permanently ruled against the so-called "Docs vs. Glocks" law on Friday, according to the Miami Herald.

Cooke, who had issued a preliminary injunction last September, said the law was so "vague" that it violated the free speech rights of doctors.

Lawsuit Takes Aim at Docs vs. Glocks Law

“What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient, whether relevant or not at the time of the consult with the patient,” Cooke wrote in her 25-page ruling.

The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns. The law was backed by the National Rifle Association.

House sponsor Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said an appeal is likely, according to the Herald.
 
Maybe they fear an "on-the-spot" malpractice punishment?
 
I would just answer "N/A"...

Seriously, even with them trying to say its about suicide... it's just none of their business.
 
Damocles said:
I would just answer "N/A"...

Seriously, even with them trying to say its about suicide... it's just none of their business.
Click to expand...

Just another case of the NRA's tight grip on the ballz of America:

Judge Marcia Cooke — who was appointed by George W. Bush and used to work for Jeb Bush (so spare me anywhining about so-called “liberal judicial activism”) — not only ruled the legislature’s law unconstitutional, she said: “The state’s arguments rest on a legislative illusion.”

She also wrote: “What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient…”

Cooke said the nebulous law ultimately “impairs the provision of medical care and may ultimately harm the patient.”

So the law was unconstitutional, based on a fictional premise and might actually harm people. Well done, Jason!

This was all utterly predictable. Forget the fact that pundits like me – along with scores of legal experts – called out this bum bill from the get-go. The legislature’s OWN STAFF said as much when analyzing it.

But Brodeur and the rest of the sheep in legislature passed it anyway. Why? Because the NRA gave them marching orders — even though most sensible gun owners not only opposed this plan, but were embarrassed to be associated with. (The Sentinel was inundated with letters from conservative gun owners opposed to this bill. Most argued that if a doctor wanted to talk to them about guns, they could either do so – or say no. They didn’t need government to pass a new law.)

If you’re not familiar with all the background, I attached my original column on the topic below.

But, in general: You should be mad.

Florida has become a breeding ground for small-minded, pandering politicians who lack respect for the Constitution, as well as basic intellectual curiosity about the laws they try to pass. They try to trample your rights — and then spend your money on legal costs to do so.
Click to expand...

Amen...

Your doctor is interested in your health. A pediatrician is interested in your child's health. He has every right to ask if there's fence around the pool or if there's a loaded firegun laying around the so-called "responsible gun owner's" house.
 
Howey said:
Just another case of the NRA's tight grip on the ballz of America:



Amen...

Your doctor is interested in your health. A pediatrician is interested in your child's health. He has every right to ask if there's fence around the pool or if there's a loaded firegun laying around the so-called "responsible gun owner's" house.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. The doctor is paid to provide medical care, nothing more. Whether I own a gun or carry a gun is none of their business.
 
WinterBorn said:
Utter nonsense. The doctor is paid to provide medical care, nothing more. Whether I own a gun or carry a gun is none of their business.
Click to expand...

A doctor doesn't give a damn if you carry a gun. He does care if your child is endangered by a gun laying around a house. Apparently the courts agree.
 
Howey said:
A doctor doesn't give a damn if you carry a gun. He does care if your child is endangered by a gun laying around a house. Apparently the courts agree.
Click to expand...

The courts agree that it violated the practioners rights of free speech, not that the doctor has any need to ask about firearms.

And from the article (and Damo's post) "The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns."

So this noble medical practioner refused to see a couple because they refused to answer questions about guns? And you think this is right?

It is nonsense.
 
WinterBorn said:
The courts agree that it violated the practioners rights of free speech, not that the doctor has any need to ask about firearms.

And from the article (and Damo's post) "The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns."

So this noble medical practioner refused to see a couple because they refused to answer questions about guns? And you think this is right?

It is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Ocala couple. They were probably teabaggers from The Villages :)

I do know this:

http://www.flobgyn.org/display.php?n=117

Children's safety at issue
For the time being, the injunction allows Florida doctors to continue discussing relevant safety issues with parents, said Florida pediatrician Louis St. Petery, MD. He's executive vice president of the AAP's Florida chapter, the Florida Pediatric Society.

“The NRA has said we are trying to rid the state of Florida of firearms. That's not true. What we want is to make sure guns are stored properly so that children do not inadvertently get hurt or killed,” he said.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me. But then, to teabaggers and Rick Scott, nothing's reasonable...
 
Howey said:
I don't know about the Ocala couple. They were probably teabaggers from The Villages :)

I do know this:

http://www.flobgyn.org/display.php?n=117



Sounds reasonable to me. But then, to teabaggers and Rick Scott, nothing's reasonable...
Click to expand...

And who would say, "We let the baby play with our .45". It is lip-service at best.

But I like the way you automatically labeled the Ocala couple. It shows your mindest, to say the very least.
 
Something we tend to forget: Part of obamacare is, all of our medical records are to be digitized and stored in some central bunker. This is de facto gun registration.
 
Howey said:
A doctor doesn't give a damn if you carry a gun. He does care if your child is endangered by a gun laying around a house. Apparently the courts agree.
Click to expand...

This is silly... They don't ask about other larger dangers. Far more children drown in pools than from any firearm, no question about pools... nor should there really be, simply having a pool has nothing to do with what is happening at that time...

If I come to see a doctor for my child's strep throat there is absolutely no logical need for them to know what any of my possessions are, simply knowing I have a pool is not a prediction that such a possession would ever endanger my child or have any bearing on his medical condition. I could maybe understand a shrink asking about it... but even then my answer would be N/A... Whether I own a firearm or not is none of a MD's business.
 
Occupant said:
Insane/unstable people should not have guns.
Click to expand...

And at the point that I am diagnosed insane/unstable they would then have an actual reason to ask that question... although at that point they should probably ask my wife, unstable people may not be truthful.

The idea that someday I might be diagnosed insane/unstable so my doctor needs to know if I have a gun is ridiculous. Gun or not I'd put n/a down on any form that asks that from a medical provider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top