Posted on 02/23/2006 6:47:11 AM PST by SWO
So long as answering the question is voluntary, there is no problem. None at all.
If you refuse to answer, and the doctor records that as a "yes", then you have participated. (Otherwise, why refuse? Not answering is an answer.) There is no voluntary participation once you are asked.
There are exceptions, of course. This situation would certainly put politics at the bottom of my list. But when someone is in a scientific career and they are in the "guns are bad" group, then the linearity of their thought process probably ought to be considered. FRegards
If that is the case, lie.
Just got rid of a doc who passes out brochures to his prospective patients..that states...'handguns' are a health hazard..
The ONLY reason for asking that, is the doctor is acting in colusion with a burglary ring looking for high value targets.
Our pediatrician sent home a brochure suggesting you should lock your guns up along with other safety advice. I have no problem with that, but I remember they were thinking about pulling the kids aside from their parents to ask them that question, with which I have a total problem.
A private doctor should ask his patients about potenially hazardous activities without the government interfering, including but not limited to gun ownership and homosexuality.
We gave our granddaughter a pink Cricket for her ninth birthday. She loves it. It's too little for her now. She's ready for the Marlin.
I don't know why Coach Blevins is keeping quiet on this one, we use to go to school with shotguns in our pickup trucks. He was the football coach and became principal.
Why?? My 8 year old grandson got a Savage .17 cal HMR bolt action for Christmas and has become very proficient with it. He can knock a chigger off a ripe apple at 100 yards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They can counsel safety without asking for information.
There is a vast difference in invasivness between, "do you have guns in your home;" and, "if you have a gun in your home, safe storage and a trigger lock could prevent Little Johnnie from accidentally shooting someone."
Yes 52.51%
No 45.14%
Undecided 2.35%
Total: 2295 votes
THIS rather puts the lie to it in a nutshell.
People are much more likely to be cut or stabbed, than shot; EVERY household has them; and, typically, knives (steak, kitchen, pocket, etc) are treated & secured in a much more blase fashion than guns.
It isn't "only about safety"; nor does the answer, if any, warrent being recored in the patient record.
Considering that the doctor is seen as an authroity figure;
Considering that it is easy for the doc to make the patient feel intimidated;
Considering that the question can be asked of the child out of the parent's hearing;
Considering that the answer goes into permanent patient records:
Then, yes; it is warrented.
The practice of medicine is a state regulated, state licensed PRIVELEGE that gives the state the right to restrict the power & scope of practice.
If you want to practice public safety or public health, get out of G.P./F.P./Peds, and practice in the appropriate specialty area where this would be legitimate.
Now, if you want to ask about guns over coffee and donuts on YOUR time, then it is not the state's business.
Best answer on the thread---BRAVO!
Unfortunately ridesthemiles is not exaggerating; it does.
EVERY "animal premises" is to be registered. It applies to any property on which there is "kept, maintained, cared for...etc." any fowl, poultry (which includes rabbits) equines, ungulates, exotic, etc, etc, with either a single or double toed hoof....
Also covered are fish. Have a farm pond with trout or catfish? Have to register.
If you have a single pet pot bellied pig; a child's pony; a pet duck; a pet rabbit; even Granny's laying hen, means the premises must be registered. No exceptions, no excuses.
Every time the 4-H kid takes an animal to the county fair, I understand, there is a piece of paper to be filed, for a fee, and then filed again to return home. EVERY time ANY animal (so far, pet dogs & cats are not covered) enters or leaves the property for any reason, it must be recorded.
It is a federal mandate, with each state enacting enabling legislation; and, I have have heard, all at the instigation of UN NGO's. There are many threads about it, and several FReepers much more knowledgeable about it than I am.
Where is this happening? I haven't heard a peep about it.
Worked with an nurses aid once, who had figured out that the corollary to, "if you didn't chart it, you didn't do it," was "if I chart it, then I did do it."
Not sure how long it had gone on, but it was probably quite a while. The downfall was the dead patient at breakfast time, who supposedly was 'warm dry, and comfortable' and had a perfectly normal set of vital signs recorded less than 2 hours before, yet had been dead for several hours.
No telling whose, or how many other, records were screwed up, nor to what extent, and that was just ONE person.
Other than losing their job & certification, I don't know what, if anything, came of it.
>The doctors aren't trying to be politically corect gun grabbers.
You are wrong here. I read the safty sheet from APA handed out with the survey. It had anti-gun lies in it trying to trick people into thinking guns are more likely to do harm then do good. The "factoid" didn't even make sense. I was something along the lines of a gun is 'More likely to hurt a loved one than kill an intruder' (When the relevant statistic SHOULD be 'hurt a loved one vs. protect a loved one.') Maybe someone saw it and can quote it. It was really an amazingly irrational factoid.
A few days ago, there was a vote to postpone in Texas. Calpernia is the really knowledgeable FReeper on this.
Our SD legislature has worked on it, as IIRC, MN & WI among others have.
So far, and they are quick to say "for now" it is 'voluntary', they do have enforcement powers tacked on if enough don't 'volunteer'.
Here is a current thread that can be a starting point.
Frankly, this appears to me to be just another scare story spread by organizations with hidden agendas. I see nothing to indicate that any state or federal law has been passed, much less implemented, that would require families with a pet duck or bunny to register and have their "premises" subject to inspection. And if any pending legislation is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as requiring that, it will no doubt be revised before having a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
A couple of years ago, another scare campaign like this was in full swing, spreading around internet pet-health message boards and e-mail groups like wildfire. The claim went along the lines: "There's this horrible law that was drafted by the American Veterinary Medical Association that about to be passed in many states, that would make it illegal for anyone who is not a licensed veterinarian to treat an animal or even give advice on treating an animal. Those of us who want to get holistic therapy for our pets, or reiki, or . . . . would just be out of luck because all the practitioners would be legally barred from helping us. Farmers would be breaking the law if they treated any common condition that they've been treating themselves for centuries. This law would even make message boards like this one illegal!"
The facts? The draft legislation was intended to be incorporated in states' professional licensing statutes, all of which limit the restrictions to people who are taking money for performing whatever activities are deemed to require a license. No information-sharing message boards would be illegal, farmers would be perfectly free to go on doing what they've always done, and there were liberal exceptions (as in the current laws) for non-veterinarians such as farmhands and animal shelter workers to perform procedures and administer medications under the very general "supervision" of a veterinarian (meaning if the farmer has the vet out once a year or so, and says I'm doing X, Y, and Z like I always have, and the vet says fine, then the farmer is free to continue all these treatments and medications, including castrating piglets, adminstering vaccinations, and all the rest). The scare campaign was originating with self-styled for-profit practitioners of all sorts of new-agey "treatments" for pets, who often discouraged their clients from seeking any real veterinary care. The increasing popularity of these "treatments" and increasing frequency of vets seeing animals brought in who had been suffering through the "treatments" while not getting proper diagnosis and treatment for what would have been easily treatable conditions if they'd been addressed in time, prompted the AVMA to draft some model legislation designed to crack down on these businesses. The "I can cure your cat's kidney disease with aromatherapy for just $50 a session" crowd fought back hard.
Let me know the first time anyone gets an actual legal notice that they have to register their home as an "animal operation" and register their kid's pet duck and let the instpectors in, and I'll join the bandwagon. But I'm not holding my breath. State and federal legislators have kids with pet ducks and bunnies, and know people who do, and remember having them as kids themselves, and they're also really fond of getting re-elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.