Flawed new gun law costs you money, rights (FL)

[jpak]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-11/news/os-scott-maxwell-guns-docs-law-06121120110611_1_gun-questions-gun-owners-gun-extremists

By now, you're probably familiar with Florida's attempts to stifle free speech inside doctors' offices.

After all, this Big Government intrusion made national news.

But you probably don't know how this ham-fisted pandering to gun extremists is going to waste taxpayer dollars.

Or about the constitutional concerns the Legislature's own staff had over the bill — concerns that mysteriously disappeared from print right before the bill passed.

<much more>

[DrDan]

1. not only stiflng free speech - putting the lives and safety of children at stake

just to protect the arsenal

[petronius]

3. How so, exactly? You do know the background of the bill, right - that it's

a response to an extreme anti-gun reaction by a doctor? So in taking a stand on this bill you have to choose between supporting a ban on asking a certain question (while still allowing the distribution of information), or supporting a doctor's freedom to deny care on social/political grounds. Which of those comes closest to "putting the lives and safety of children at stake"?

[jpak]

5. It specifically bars doctors from asking their patients questions about guns in the home

The GOP/NRA hates them some First Amendment

yup

[petronius]

9. Yes, and physicians are still perfectly free to distribute any information they want

on firearm safety. The bill wouldn't have come up if a pediatrician hadn't decided to deny a child care on these decidedly non-medical grounds. So again, as silly as we all seem to think the situation is, which side of the bill comes closest to being anti-child and anti-safety?

[jpak]

13. A physician can do anything they want regarding their patient's health and safety

There is a reason why the First Amendment is 1st on the list

can you think why?

:shrug:

[petronius]

16. Anything? Truly? You put 'denying care' in the category of 'health and safety'?

This bill only came up when a doctor rejected a patient because of a non-medical, social/political issue - that's the side of the debate you've chosen to support. I've yet to hear of a medical organization, or opponent of the bill, condemning this doctor's action, or proposing any policy to ensure that care isn't denied for trivial reasons.

As for the 1st Amendment issue, I'll leave that for the court to decide, except to say that the order of the BoR means nothing in terms of legal precedence (you really think it does?) and I doubt it's as clear-cut as you think in the context of a licensed and regulated commercial activity...

[jpak]

27. If a physician sees a threat to a child and the parents refuses to take action

then they can refer the patient to other doctors

no one was "denied" treatment

nope

[petronius]

37. A patient was denied care for a reason wholly unrelated to health and safety

You applaud that because you put anti-gun sentiment ahead of anything else - would you be as consistent if the topic was religion, speech, ethnicity, gender, politics, sports, alma mater, ...?

[jpak]

45. The pediatrician thought it was a medical issue - the GOP/NRA Nanny State thought otherwise

yup

[petronius]

49. The "GOP/NRA Nanny State"?!?

:rofl:

There was no legitimate threat or medical issue involved - merely a doctor who turned away a child for social/political reasons. If the medical associations spoke out against that, the bill would never even have come up...

[eqfan592]

51. Ummmm...

...you do know what the phrase "nanny state" generally means, right? Because your usage of the phrase here would imply that you do not....

[DrDan]

47. and how would my alma mater or politics endanger the safety of my child

a gun certainly can.

[petronius]

56. Lots of things can injure a child - a parent owning those things isn't a health issue

the physician in question made a social/political statement that denied care to a child, and you support that...

[DrDan]

65. I support the physician asking the child about things that put that child in danger

you doon't support that, obviously. The right to protect one's guns is a higher priority.

[eqfan592]

66. Once again, pure bull shit.

The physician doesn't have to ask a single question to provide safety information. And the doctor in question didn't offer safety information when he asked the question, he through the patient out of his office.

So basically you're wrong on just about every single level imaginable.

[DrDan]

71. the question is often asked amid many others - such as "do you use sunscreen"

should the doctor just start issuing safety brochures for EVERY POSSIBLE instance where the child could be in danger? Or in those instances that apply?

Never mind - I know your answer.

[eqfan592]

74. Is a doctor going to...

...toss a patient out of his office for not using sunscreen as was the case with this doctor? I think not. And no, I don't think they need to provide info for every conceivable circumstance. I think we can use the CDC numbers as a guide for the most common issues, which would place swimming pools well above firearms as far as hazards to children.

And for the record, my doctors office actually does distribute free information about skin cancer and sun screen right at the office there, without any need for questions.

[DrDan]

81. your doctor probably already knows the answer to the question

[eqfan592]

85. lol, nice bigotry!

When all else fails, revert to insults and stereotypes. How amazingly progressive of you, DrDan.

[DrDan]

87. vs resorting to profanity in an attempt to bully one's way through the thread?

[eqfan592]

95. Oh, I'm sorry...

...do you have sensitive eyes? And oh yes, I can see how bad language is clearly on equal footing with bigotry and stereotyping. You really put me in my place!

[RSillsbee]

90. The Dr. did NOT just throw the patient out of his office

He finished the exam and informed the parent they had 30 days to find a new physician

[eqfan592]

98. I had been told...

...that the doctor did not finish the exam but instead ended it and asked the patient to leave. If I was mistaken in this then I do apologize. However, I still find the doctors actions to be objectionable, and am curious if he takes similar actions if people have swimming pools on their property.

[RSillsbee]

99. There is a very specific standard that a Physician must adhere to

when dismissing a patient. They generally send a TOS ( termination of service) letter explaining exactly why( and it has to be a legitimate reason such as non payment, illicit drug use, or failure to follow treatment protocols)service is being terminated. The pt must also be given a reasonable amount of time to find another physician and arrangements must be made to transfer the pt.s records to the new practice

For a Doctor to just stop an exam and throw a pt. out would be construed as pt. abandonment at best. The Pt would definitely have grounds to sue

[DrDan]

101. swimming pools are such a strange counter-argument

it takes a permit to have one built
it becomes a part of one's property record
insurance companies are notified of a swimming pool

No pool owner insists on privacy with respect to owning one.

I would have absolutely no problem if the doctor of my child spoke to my child about pool safety.

As a matter of fact, I would appreciate a few words from the doctor as safety around pools can never be over-emphasized.

Yet, I guess there is no irrational paranoia about my pool being taken away.

And you are incorrect about that doctor. There was a period given to those parents to find a new one.

[eqfan592]

111. Ownership of a swimming pool....

...is not a constitutionally protected right. Nor would any pool owner ever worry about confiscation of their pool by government authorities, which has been an issue at times for firearm owners. They also kill more children a year in accidents than firearms. So it stands to reason that if the doctor was so bent out of shape about firearm ownership, pool ownership must REALLY send him off the deep end (no pun intended). Unless, of course, he doesn't actually care about the safety of children and is in fact just a bigot.

[DrDan]

114. gun ownership is not the issue at hand - privacy is

and the paranoia surrounding that ownership

[eqfan592]

117. lol, you were the one that brought up...

...the permits required for a swimming pool, as if that some how invalidated the comparison, not I. So you have only yourself to blame for the issue being discussed. And you also failed to address the other points made. Also, care to provide evidence that gun owners are inherently paranoid? Or is that just a little slander you like to toss out there without any evidence, just like everything else you have to say?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

120. Has there ever been a case...

...of government officials attempting to confiscate pools, as there have been with firearms?

There is nothing at all irrational about privacy concerns, nor overtly paranoid. Especially when there is nothing to gain from the privacy violation.

You strike me as somebody that is of the "why care about privacy if you have nothing to hide" school of thought. Were you a big fan of warrantless wiretapping programs as well? I mean, after all, they were doing it "for the children"....

[rl6214]

157. dr dan, are you a real doctor or do you just play one on the internet

"irrational paranoia as gun owners"

or are you just acting out your bigoted views?

[rl6214]

156. Who said anything about paranoia other than you

nice attempt at an insult.

[rl6214]

155. It doesn't require a permit to erect an above ground pool

nor does an above ground pool become part of one's property record
nor does an insurance company need to be notified of an above ground pool.

Try again.

[Euromutt]

123. Or if people refuse to answer whether they own a swimming pool

I've never had a pediatrician ask me whether I own a pool, by the way. Admittedly, I do live in western Washington state, not Florida, but it still makes me a bit incredulous about the AAP protesting "well, we ask about pools too." Not in my experience, you don't.

[PavePusher]

164. And, most noteably...

I don't think the AAP has a stated policy of being anti-pool.

[GreenStormCloud]

96. Should the doctor ask about any and all dangers?

The list of things that hurt or kill small children more than guns is pretty long. He is going to have to sit down for a long time to go over the list with the parent.

[eqfan592]

112. I also wonder...

...if he will behave in a similar manner if the parents keep any of the items higher on the list than firearms around the house.

[rl6214]

152. A patient was told to go find another doctor because

said doctor WOULD NOT provide services anymore because the mother refused to answer the question about firearms in the home. They were not immediately denied services but were denied services in the future. Be honest, quit arguing semantics and admit you are lying about this.

[PavePusher]

32. No, a physician can NOT do "anything they want".

That's kind of the point.

yup

[DrDan]

34. particularly when it infringes on protecting the arsenal

[PavePusher]

60. Dodging again.

You are so gonna need a chiropractor after this...

[gravity556]

146. re: Protecting the arsenal

Actually, to pick nits, an arsenal is where firearms are built, an armory is where they are stored. And gun owners are tight lipped for a few reasons-one of which is that firearms are a target for thieves. Sure, they aren't getting into my safe, but the little bastards are likely to tear up some shit in the (wasted) effort). Another reason is ingrained hysteria with some folks. I was chatting with a gentleman at a party (I was DD, so no adult beverages for me) and an hour or so into the conversation guns came up. I dodged questions until he finally dropped the "All gun owners are slack jawed knuckle draggers" line. Finally told him that I have been a shooter since I was 6 and that both I and my lovely wife both carry.

Watching a drunk guy backpedal is rather entertaining. Suddenly we were "the good kind of gun owners".

[RSillsbee]

88. Blatantly untrue

There are standards of care that Physicians must adhere to or risk loss of their license or incarceration

[rl6214]

154. No they can't!

"A physician can do anything they want regarding their patient's health and safety"

No they can't, why do you think their are AMA rules? Duh.

[Hoyt]

69. Preventing a bullet hole in a baby's head is hardly anti-child.

Someday when your doc puts you on Aricept, I hope he/she also has the balls to suggest you turn in your guns and keys to your car.

[petronius]

84. An Alzheimer's joke? I suppose that's cleverer than your usual, but no more classy

As for the topic of the thread, opposing this bill does absolutely zero to prevent baby-head-bullet-hole problems. Refusing care to kids because of political/social decisions by their parents? That's anti-child...

[Hoyt]

89. Only "politics" I see are gunners whining about a doc wanting to make sure guns were stored safely.

Guess they are afraid if the child can't play with guns he won't grow up to be another gun toter.

[petronius]

91. I'm actually not surprised that you don't fully understand the topic of discusion

I am a bit surprised that you admit it, however obliquely...

[Hoyt]

121. I do understand. Pediatricians in USA have provided "anticipatory guidance" including guns for years

It is recommended by the national association. Most state Medicaid agencies require it.

Then, a bunch of whining gunners start bitching about it and get a law passed (with the help of the NRA) that makes it difficult to continue the anticipatory guidance. That does not indicate gunners are interested in safety -- only maintaining their pipeline to more guns, acceptance for their bad habits, and worse.

And this will really make you look like you sucked a lemon: The American Academy of Pediatrics' Web site says: "The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home."

[eqfan592]

129. LOL

They base their assertion on a study that has been torn to shreds time and time again, both in the scientific community and on this forum. Sorry, but no lemon sucking faces over here. Really more of a sad shake of the head at the willful ignorance of some highly educated individuals.

[Hoyt]

148. When was the last time you told a mom her child is dead because some gunner left one laying around.

You probably think that's funny too since guns apparently are very important to you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

151. Never. You?

Somehow, despite all your posturing and pontificating, I rather doubt it...

[Hoyt]

161. So quit telling docs how to practice medicine because any opposition to more guns offends you.

[eqfan592]

165. So refusing service to those...

...with different political views is practicing medicine these days? Wow, who knew!

[PavePusher]

139. Nothing in the new law creates any difficulties in providing information.

Unless you can point out specific reasons how it does so...?

[Hoyt]

160. Actually it does, Docs have to worry about gunners &/or NRA whining about their guidance.

No written guidance is as effective as a physician talking to mom and dad.

[petronius]

140. You've overlooked the trigger for the whole thing: a doctor who 'fired' a patient over

apparent gun ownership. Without that, the bill would never have come up, and I find it difficult to understand how anyone would support denying care over a social/political issue, or why the AAP wouldn't take a position opposing such acts by its members.

But beyond that, physicians' ability to provide guidance is unimpaired: in the context of health and safety, there is no functional difference between "Do you own a gun?" and "Would you like some information on safe firearms storage?" or even "Would you like to discuss a whole range of child-safety topics, including firearms?"

[Hoyt]

141. Maybe the doc knows something you don't about the family and situation.

All you know is someone took action over guns and that ticks you off.

[petronius]

142. If you can find the tiniest hint of that in the brazillion articles and posts on the topic, then

I'll admit you may have a point. Until then, knowing what we do know, do you have any comment on the two issues in my post - the patient 'firing,' and/or the inaccuracy of claims that this bill impairs provision of safety info?

Do you think it was right, pro-child, or beneficial to deny the patient care?

Do you see how easy it is for doctors to transmit any/all info to patients that they want, even with the bill?

[Hoyt]

147. He didn't deny patient care. There is a protocol to dismissing patients where they get needed care.

. . . . . .until the find a new doc. I can assure you that written info is not nearly as good as anticipatory counseling.

The real fact is that you are going to keep clutching your guns and beaching about anything that might threaten them.

[petronius]

149. Firstly, I can not agree that dismissing a patient for a social/political reason can be in any

way beneficial to the patient; it is likely to be harmful. I say this doctor's behavior was wrong, and the involvement of guns specifically has no bearing on that conclusion. How do you feel about it?

Secondly, the law does not preclude the provision of verbal, written, or any other form of guidance - the doctor-to-patient information flow is not restricted in any way. (However, I'd quibble with you a bit there as well: written info to take home is at least as valuable as potentially forgotten verbal communication embedded within a perhaps stressful doctors visit. The approaches are complementary.)

The bottom line is that this absurd law is a response to poor behavior by an individual doctor. If the medical establishment had been able to set aside political/social group-think and self-police a bit (before or after the fact), it would never have come up...

[rl6214]

153. How is asking this question a first amendment right?

[DrDan]

6. yes I do - I happen to be from Florida

and I strongly object to this NRA-pandering legislation

[petronius]

12. Then you choose the 'deny care to children' side of the question?

I think we all agree that it's a stupid bill in response to a stupid event, but kicking back at the NRA is the wrong reaction. Why don't you pressure the medical associations to put some policy in place that would make this bill unnecessary?

[DrDan]

17. bull - this is all about protecting the privacy of gun owners at the expense of child safety

just one further example of the NRA agenda being pursued by bought-and-paid for republican legislators.

[petronius]

19. There is nothing in the bill that prevents physicians from distributing absolutely any

safety and health info they choose. At the same time, neither you nor any one else on the anti-bill side has said anything against a physician rejecting a child patient for this social/political reason. Your knee-jerk desire to rail against the NRA bogey-man has put you squarely on the anti-child side of this idiotic situation...

[DrDan]

21. just more NRA-driven legislation to protect the arsenals fueled by

the irrational paranoia of guns being taken away.

This time, at the expense of child safety.

But what the heck, no expense is too high to protect the arsenals.

[eqfan592]

25. See post 23. NT

[petronius]

30. You have utterly failed to show how 'child safety' is compromised,

but your irrational fear of the NRA bogey-man is well demonstrated.

Why do you not condemn the doctor who turned away a child? The bill will not prevent a single bit of safety-related info getting to a patient, but that doctor's choice likely did...

[DrDan]

33. the irrational fear here is on the part of the NRA and gun owners - and we both know that

[petronius]

44. You continue to duck - the bill does nothing to compromise child safety, the action

it's in response to did. No complaining about the NRA can change that fact. If the medical establishment spoke up to oppose this doctor's action, we wouldn't even be discussing the bill. But, both they and you have conspicuously avoided that... :shrug:

[eqfan592]

48. Of course they are avoiding it!

Their prejudice will not allow people like DrDan to acknowledge the wrongheadedness in the actions of the doctor in question. They don't care about the privacy of gun owners at all, and view them all through the same tinted glasses. Any action that harms the rights of gun owners is a great thing to them, no matter the extended consequences. It's sad but true.

[DrDan]

52. thank you - you finally admit that the privacy of gun owners is more important

than the safety of their children.

sad but true.

[eqfan592]

58. LOL

I did not such thing, but nice try. Shit, you can't even twist anything I said in my post as anything even close to that, because the simple fact is that this has NOTHING TO DO with child safety to begin with.

If the doctors care about child safety in regards to firearms, then they can feel free to distribute information on the topic to their patients, which this law does not prevent in any way, shape or form.

[DrDan]

67. here ya go

". . . wrongheadedness in the actions of the doctor in question. They don't care about the privacy of gun owners at all . . . "

your words, are they not?

[eqfan592]

70. Yes they are...

...but I've also said NUMEROUS times on this thread that ensuring the privacy of gun owners does NOT equate to endangering children, because there is nothing about this law that prevents doctors from distributing safety information to their patients.

But hey, nice try at trying to twist my words around and take them out of context. It really says something about you personally that you feel you must resort to such tactics.

[DrDan]

73. and I must say it says a lot about you as well - as I said in another post

2 issues - child safety and gun-owner privacy.

You support one and I the other.

[eqfan592]

75. And as I said in the other post...

...I support both. To imply that you cannot support child safety without violating the privacy of the parent is demonstrably false.

[DrDan]

77. well - there you have it - we differ in our priorities

[eqfan592]

78. We do.

I make both a priority, and you completely ignore one with no benefit to the other.

[Euromutt]

125. I believe that's called "quote-mining"

For example, you left off the first part of the first sentence which makes it clear the "they" in the second sentence refers not to doctors, but to "people like DrDan," thereby giving a misleading impression. It's a dishonest thing to do.

Moreover, eqfan didn't actually say gun owners' privacy was more important than child safety, which is what you claimed. In short,. you're wrong. Again.

[eqfan592]

46. Oh really?

What prompted this law again? Go check on that then come back and tell us about "irrational fear."

[DrDan]

68. it is very simple . . . two issues

1 - privacy for gun owners
2 - children's safety

I support one of the above, you support the other.

Very simple.

[eqfan592]

72. Not in the least.

I support both. You seem to think that the only way to encourage child safety is to violate the privacy of the parents. I think that is demonstrably false.

[DrDan]

76. no -you think to protect your privacy relative to gun ownership, the safety of children is secondary

[eqfan592]

80. Don't tell me what I think.

Just because you're apparently incapable of understanding a simple concept such as this is not my fault. I place both at equal footing, end of story.

[DrDan]

83. lol

[eqfan592]

86. indeed. nt

[Straw Man]

79. Two issues that are not mutually exclusive.

1 - privacy for gun owners
2 - children's safety

Providing safety information serves both ends. Asking intrusive questions and then denying care serves neither.

[eqfan592]

82. Exactly. nt

[rl6214]

158. "and we both know that"

Who's that, you and hoyt?

[PavePusher]

35. The more you keep dodging the facts....

the more foolish you look.

Glad you're not my doctor, I wouldn't put up with such idiocy in a supposedly intelligent, educated person in such a position of trust and responsibility.

[flamin lib]

28. Look, a Doctor can choose not to treat someone for a variety of

reasons. Won't stop smoking/drinking? Find another doctor. Won't take my advice or follow my treatment? Find another doctor. Medicare/medicaid? Find another doctor. Put your kids in what the doctor believes is hazardous to their safety? Find another doctor.

The right to own a gun does not trump everybody else's rights.

[PavePusher]

38. No "trumping" involved.

The doc doesn't have a right to know what private property I own, unless it represents an active influence on my health.

[DrDan]

41. it does here - there is no right greater than the right to own a gun

that trumps all else.

[gejohnston]

53. trumps your right to own a swimming pool, which kills more childern

[eqfan592]

55. Exactly.

Cling to your pool first, ask questions later, right jpak?

[eqfan592]

54. Exactly how far are you willing to take that?

Do you think doctors have the right to refuse care if the patient has a pool on their property? Given that more children are killed in that manner than by firearms, I would think you do agree with that.

This boils down to certain doctors being prejudice against gun owners, and has nothing to do with child safety. If they cared about child safety, they would have offered safety information to the patient and not just thrown them out of their office as they did. We all have a right to privacy, and the doctors asking this question as a basis for care were violating it.

[Hoopla Phil]

134. But I thought medical care was a "human right" I guess it is only if the person

needing medical care doesn't violate YOUR view of how things should be.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. And the *very first* reply is a Lovejoy!

[Hoopla Phil]

135. OK, I really did lol at that. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

2. It isn't the doctor's business if I have guns. He is unlikely to be an expert on gun safety.

I am already extremely knowledgable on that myself and could likely teach him.

[jpak]

4. It is the doctor's business

yup

[Bold Lib]

8. No, it is not.

The only exception is if there is some other factor involved such as clinical depression/anger management issues. And guess what, the law allows the question to be asked in such cases. Other wise, what ever legal items I own is none of the doctor,s business.

[AndyTiedye]

61. Small Child Shoots Himself with Gun Thinking it is a Toy

Depression or anger management are not likely to be a factor in these cases until after the fact.

[eqfan592]

62. A situation...

..that can be avoided in part by the doctor providing safety information to the parent, not by tossing the parent out of their office because the parent owns a firearm and that doesn't jive with the doctors prejudice views.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. That happens about 25 times a year that a small child kills himself with a gun.

In a nation of 310 million 25 times a year is pretty rare.

[DrDan]

104. exactly - a collateral cost to society to protect gun ownership

[eqfan592]

107. Oh wow...

...we have a true believer here folks. One who is incapable of seeing any benefit at all to firearm ownership, only its "collateral costs."

[GreenStormCloud]

124. Deaths to children under five from walking happen about 140 times a year.

Clearly walking is more dangerous.

You don't really care about the children. You just want to ban guns and will use any tradgey to push your agenda, even if the tradgey is rare.

[ergot]

150. It's a very reasonable "price" to defend the Bill of Rights.

You seem to be awfully invested in this issue...if you had your druthers, how would you "rectify" what you obviously consider to be a problem?

[Hoopla Phil]

136. I don't see that situation as being any of the doctor's business.

It looks to be a criminal matter if the adult did not take appropriate/responsible measures to prevent a child from gaining access to a firearm, but not a doctor. Please understand; doctors treat medical conditions, police investigate criminal conduct. There really is a difference.

[DrDan]

7. of course it is - considering the health and safety of children under his/her care are involved

[Bold Lib]

10. No it is not.

The only exception is if there is some other factor involved such as clinical depression/anger management issues. And guess what, the law allows the question to be asked in such cases. Other wise, what ever legal items I own is none of the doctor,s business.

[DrDan]

11. gotta protect that arsenal - at any risk - gotcha

[Warrior Dash]

14. Protecting freedom...at any risk.

Gotcha...

[DrDan]

18. protecting freedom? - protecting gun-owner privacy is what this is all about

at the expense of child safety.

But - no expense is too high to protect the privacy of the gun owner.

[Warrior Dash]

20. Do you have a problem with the 4th Amendment?

[DrDan]

22. what is unreasonable about child safety?

[eqfan592]

24. What a load of crap.

As has already been pointed out, there is nothing preventing doctors from distributing information about firearms safety to their patients. It only prevents the doctors from asking specific questions that they do NOT need to know the answers to. If the doctors are really interested in child safety, then they will distribute the info to all their patients.

[DrDan]

29. load of NRA crap is exactly right.

irrational gun-owner paranoia . . . . that is all this is based upon

[eqfan592]

39. lol, got my answer.

You can't defend your position that this law protecting the privacy of gun owners is somehow at the expense of children, so instead you revert to BS drivel such as this.

I guess any time we come up with a privacy issue we should just shunt it aside "for the safety of the children" and label all those who argue against it as being "paranoid," right? You must love things like warrant-less wiretapping then. I mean, if it saves the children, it must be good, right?

And given the fact that this law was prompted by the actions of a doctor, one who literally threw a patient out of his office because of their firearm ownership, it's not really "paranoia" nor "irrational" in the least. It can and has happened, and shouldn't be allowed to happen, end of story.

[Warrior Dash]

26. Nothing. Just present your affidavit supporting your claim of danger first.

[eqfan592]

23. "At the expense of child safet"

How exactly? Nothing is preventing doctors from distributing firearm safety information to their patients. It is simply removing their ability to ask questions about their patients personal life that they do not have a need to know the answers to. Most progressives I know agree that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, and this law helps protect that. Or do you only care about privacy for folks who agree with you politically?

So you are either deliberately misrepresenting the law or are ignorant of it. Which is it?

[DrDan]

36. what exactly do you fear in doctor asking the question?

only the irrational fear that someone might take away a precious gun. Admit it.

[eqfan592]

43. Lol, my doctor has never asked me that question...

...but I guess if it were asked, I'd fear being tossed out of his office and having care denied because of the doctors own prejudice viewpoint. Not really a thing to do with somebody "taking my gun away" in this specific instance.

Don't worry about trying to reply in a rational manner. I know you aren't capable of it and will only come back with more insults.

:D

[spin]

59. Some people have a fear that the information will be recorded by the doctor ...

and when medical records are computerized may cause an insurance company to raise the rates for patients that they know own firearms or drop their policies. Of course some do fear that the government might learn about their firearm ownership and in case that firearms are banned will send a swat team into their house to confiscate their weapons. This is unlikely to ever happen as banning and confiscating all firearms is a gun control fantasy that would lead to a revolt by armed citizens.

Of course if a patient is concerned about this they could simply lie to the doctor. Unfortunately this may result in the patient not learning valuable information.

The best course is for the doctor to give his patients pamphlets on how to safely store firearms from children. If the patient chooses to ask questions, then the doctor can state his opinions.

[Euromutt]

127. There's any amount of information I don't want insurance companies getting hold of

In my book, insurance companies come one step lower on the ladder of untrustworthy scum than banks, and banks come one step lower than war criminals. At least war criminals don't pretend they're providing a service from the goodness of their hearts while they shaft you.

[Hoopla Phil]

131. Actually the fear is that a doctor may not provide services for a patient based on the answer.

Does the fact that it really did happen make it irrational?

[PavePusher]

40. If you dodge the issue any harder, you're going to slip some disks. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

132. If you want those "slipped disks" fixed you better answer the gun question right or

you may not get treatment. Oh wait, that is no longer lawful thanks to this law.

[gejohnston]

50. You never answered how denial of care for a political reason has anything to do with child safety

Since more children die each year in swimming pools (according to CDC), why no questions about swimming pools? No, it is none of the doctor's business outside the given. In many ways, the left is no better than the right as far as disregarding the legal rights of others, as long as it is their "other". The professional left is no better than the right when it comes to putting ideological purity above honesty and integraty. That is part of the reason why the Dems have not won the mid and mountain west since 1964.

[eqfan592]

57. Here here!!

"In many ways, the left is no better than the right as far as disregarding the legal rights of others, as long as it is their "other". The professional left is no better than the right when it comes to putting ideological purity above honesty and integraty."

I couldn't have put it better myself!

:toast:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. The lack of an answer...

...implies that there is no good answer.

[X_Digger]

64. "at the expense of child safety"-- prove it

Find me the section of this law that prevents doctors from providing safe gun storage information to parents.

I'll wait.

*whistles*

*taps foot*





That's what I thought.

Perhaps you might want to dial back the wharrgarble and actually read the law.

*shakes head*

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Ah, but providing safe gun storage information to parents *isn't* preaching "gun abstinence-only"

Let's see if ideology trumps an oft-proclaimed interest in protecting chidren's safety...

[DrDan]

103. more drivel from the NRA kool-aid

[eqfan592]

108. Asking you to supply evidence...

...to support your assertion is "drivel from the NRA kool-aid?" No, it's what a rational person requests when somebody starts railing about the safety of "the children" without backing up their claims in any way, shape or form.

[DrDan]

109. you need evidence that the safety of children is a worthwhile effort . . .

do I have that right?

[eqfan592]

113. LOL, no, you don't.

You need evidence that somehow protecting the privacy of gun owners also inherently endangers the lives a children and that there is NO WAY to effectively provide safety information on the subject with the parents first being questioned about their gun ownership.

[DrDan]

116. I'm done - we disagree on priorities - mine is child safety - yours,

privacy surrounding gun ownership.

so be it

[eqfan592]

119. LOL!

Ya know, having a discussion with you is truly entertaining. It's like having a discussion with somebody that has their hands over their ears and are screaming "LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" I mean, you literally ignore any point made by anybody else that doesn't jive with your personal view, while simultaneously failing to support the assertions you make.

I know I've only said it about a dozen times now, but I place equal priority on both. You have failed time and time again to provide any sort of evidence that the two priorities are somehow mutually exclusive. But I guess in your world, knowing that your right about something means never having to support your assertions, right?

[GreenStormCloud]

128. Your interest is not child safety. You ignore things that cause more child deaths than guns.

You simply want to ban guns and will use any emotional tradegy to further your agenda.

[PavePusher]

138. Dodge. n/t

[X_Digger]

144. Yes, you are done.. you can't back up your claim.

What part of this law prevents pediatricians from providing safe storage information to parents?

None.

Nada.

Zip.

Zero.

De rien.

[PavePusher]

137. Dodge. n/t

[jpak]

15. Cling first

ask questions later

:D

[eqfan592]

31. That's right....

..only care about little things like privacy when it's people that already agree with you being affected. Everybody else? Fuck 'em! How VERY progressive of you, jpak.

[PavePusher]

42. You certainly are clinging to... something.

And it doesn't seem to involve facts.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Does the doctor ask about other dangerous items?

It isn't the doctors business if I have:

Swimming pools?

Power tools?

Chain saw?

What kind of car I have?

Knives in the house?

Golf clubs?

Bathtub?

Bathtub with shower?

Plants with big thorns?

Stairs?

Second or higher floors with windows?

Animals?

I could expand that list for a loooooong time. Do we expect the doctor to be an expert on safety on EVERYTHING that one could possibly hurt themselves with? Yet some members here expect him to be an expert on gun safety. He is a doctor. I talk to him about medicine.

[east texas lib]

100. What this doctor did is to attempt to force his patient to adhere to the doctor's personal ideology

His actions were no different than a pharmacist that refuses to fill a contraceptive prescription because of his personal religious beliefs. Further, since the doctors can still make any recommendations they wish to no free speech is being impinged. There is a difference between suggestion and coercion. The doctor is free to engage in the former, but not the latter. As it should be.

[DrDan]

102. obviously wrong

[east texas lib]

105. Only in your mind /nt

[DrDan]

106. and in reality - and we both know it

[east texas lib]

110. See # 105

[rl6214]

162. "and we both know it"

Who is we, you and jpak or you and hoyt?

[Hoyt]

122. Not personal ideology -- gun safety is a policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

And this will really make you look like you sucked a lemon: Their Web site says: "The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home."

I agree, but the gunners here would rather die first. Heck, most can't even leave home without one.

[gejohnston]

126. what makes it political is

the fact that guns are safer than swimming pools in terms of killing kids. Besides, the study they based it on was written by a fourth rate economist who is a shill. So I should care what they think?
Actually most do leave home without one.

[Euromutt]

130. That's hardly an improvement

The AAP's position is also motivated by ideology, rather than by empirical evidence; witness the fact that organization also advocated a complete ban on private ownership of handguns, despite that fact that handguns are markedly easier to store securely than long guns, and--these days--are routinely equipped with safety features that many long guns are not. For example, most magazine-fed shotguns do not have firing pin block safeties, as a result of which they can discharge when dropped on their butt with a round chambered, whereas most current-production handguns are "drop safe."

And while it's a truism that your kids cannot be harmed by means of your guns if you don't possess any, there are a number of possible ways by which your child could come to harm which you might find yourself unable to prevent due to not having a firearm.

[east texas lib]

133. Well, now...

"Their Web site says: "The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home."

That is an opinion that the AAP is free to have as well as make recommendations based on that opinion. And that is ALL they can do. Enjoy your lemon. Tequila and salt helps.

[X_Digger]

145. Giant appeal to authority..

Any other logical fallacies you'd like to trot out?

[aikoaiko]

115. The author of the piece you reference is just a sore loser.

I really don't like this law much, but it solves a problem anti-gun advocates caused.

I think there should have been a better solution, but so be it.

[gejohnston]

143. about the subject line

Just how will it cost me money or any rights?

[unclebob]

159. I tell my children..

That there are certain things we NEVER talk about outside the home. Money, guns, and other personal matters.

Hate to say it, but I have taught my children if a doctor asks anything personal, lie to them.

In this day and age, privacy is paramount, as as much as I dont agree with shutting down free speech, I dont agree with nosy doctors either.

[spin]

163. Welcome to DU. (n/t)