Posted on 02/23/2006 6:47:11 AM PST by SWO
CHESAPEAKE - A pediatrician who asks a child's parent about firearms in their home could lose his or her license or be disciplined under legislation being considered by a Senate committee today.
The bill would prohibit health care professionals from asking a patient about gun possession, ownership or storage unless the patient is being treated for an injury related to guns or asks for safety counseling about them.
Sponsored by Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Martinsville, the bill sailed through the House by a vote of 88 to 11 last week. A message seeking comment was left for the delegate; he did not return the call.
The legislation is opposed by The Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics because it blocks a common practice by medical professionals to inquire about gun ownership and safety when they go over a safety checklist with parents during a child's regular checkups from birth to puberty.
"We saw the bill but presumed no one in their right mind would put it through," said Dr. Leslie Ellwood, chapter president. "We thought it was such an unusual bill that anyone with common sense wouldn't pass it."
The national group is closely watching the bill now.
Some local medical professionals are incensed by the bill and the rapid way it is moving through the General Assembly.
The bill also is opposed by several medical groups, including The Medic al Society of Virginia and nurse associations.
The National Rifle Association supports the bill because it will protect gun owners "from intrusive, unnecessary questions from medical professionals," according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Web site.
"We don't have an opinion or issue an opinion on guns," Ellwood said. "We don't say it is a bad thing to have around children. Our plan is always to find out how the guns are managed in the household so they are safe."
The national pediatric group puts out a guide on safety counseling for pediatricians under its injury prevention program.
The state-endorsed guidelines are used by not just doctors and nurses but by others whose jobs involve children.
Medical professionals are encouraged to use the routine safety survey to counsel parents about everything from car safety seats and child-proofing a house and backyard pool to bicycle helmets and fire safety once the child reaches the appropriate age.
Pediatricians use the checklist to curtail preventable injuries, such as poisoning by household cleaning products, not to be intrusive, say Virginia physicians.
"The bill hits at the heart and core of prevention and protecting our children," said Dr. Nancy Welch, Chesapeake Health Department director. "I am just amazed that it has gone this far and seems to be flying under the radar."
A board-certified pediatrician, Welch e-mailed three committee members from the South Hampton Roads delegation after being notified about the Senate committee meeting today.
Sen. Harry Blevins, R-Chesapeake, has a policy of giving each bill a fair hearing before commenting on it, said his legislative assistant, Karen Papasodora-Cochrane.
Sen. Frederick Quayle, R-Chesapeake could not be reached for comment.
Sen. L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, said she thinks it's a bad bill.
"I don't know how it even got out of the House because a person who is practicing the healing arts, if they really have a child's safety in mind, would ask that question and others," she said.
If parents think the question is intrusive, Lucas said they can always tell the health care provider: "It's none of your business."
THE POLL TO DATE:
Should the state disallow pediatricians from asking parents about gun ownership?
Yes 49.25%
No 48.88%
Undecided 1.88% Total: 800 votes
Reach Janette Rodrigues at (757) 222-5208 or janette.rodrigues@pilotonline.com.
© 2006 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com
Thanks, have printed and copied. I've already dumped one doctor because of this crap.
Have an appointment with a new one next week. Going to be fun!
LOL! When they finally do computerize medical records nationally, they will have some real strange statisticial "studies." No one in America smokes, drinks or does drugs and everyone wears their seatbelt and condoms. We are finally perfectly healthy so nanny staters can all retire! : )
I am SO glad I sat the cup of coffee down before reading this one!
If you ever give a doctor knowledge of unlawful activity, they can report you and in some cases like suspected child abuse are required to report you to the police. Doctors are not priests and will turn over medical records if ordered by a court. They have been trained in a new humanism code of amoral "ethics" so if you expect them to interact with you in an ethical way by Western standards, they may not. You have to check on them and make sure they are not wackos/moonbats.
Be real careful that your kids understand that doctors (teachers, police officers, etc.) are not their best friends and blabbing unnecessarily or to get attention is not to their advantage. Your medical record will become a part of a national computer system sooner or later so keep it in a way that will look pretty to employers, insurers and cops.
If they really cared about safety, they would ask about all the other dangers to kids which are statistically more likely to maim or kill them.
If they really cared about gun safety, as opposed to having an interest in prying into my privacy, they could accomplish it by handing out safety information. IIRC, when my kids were little, I got a "fact sheet" about car seats, a "fact sheet" about immunizations, etc.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/Firearms%20Malpractice%20Form.pdf
Can I play?
LOL
Should the state disallow pediatricians from asking parents about gun ownership?
Yes
51.32%
No
46.35%
Undecided
2.33%
Total: 1931 votes
Yes, it does.
If the data indicate that fewer households have firearms than do, the pediatric injury/death statistics will show the presence of a firearm to be proportionally more dangerous than it actually is.
That will be shouted from the rooftops every time a gun control bill hits a legislature. (along with the liberal battle cry: "Forrrr the Chillldrennnn!"
If even people who do no have firearms reply that they do, the number of owners will appear greater, the danger less, and the study will be buried.
I am more concerned when doctors and school authorities ask kids about things their parents own.
Uh huh. What was it Hillary said? "We will take things away from you for the common good."
And don't forget "If it will save just one life...".
Sorry, but you need to do more research.
If the interest was to save prevent harm, this can be done with a handout, no questions asked. There is no need to record the information if it is just about safety. And, like smoking, the questions are commonly unrelated to the problem at hand.
I have endured the antitobacco lecture, only to request that the doctor quit yapping about cigarettes and take a look at my injured leg. At 90 bucks for 15 minutes, I don't want to waste a chunk of that expensive time on unrelated data gathering to support someone's political agenda.
No. The pediatrician should be able to ask whatever he thinks is pertinent. The parent doesn't have to answer, of course, and can always choose another pediatrician.
Sorry, this bill is constitutionally obscene. Asking a question is in no way an infringement of my right to bear arms. It might be a stupid question, but anyone is free to ask stupid questions at any time. Criminalizing a question is just absurd.
You're unnecessarily confusing the issue. No one is defending the assinine question. However, the right to ask assinine questions must be defended.
Absolutely. I agree 100%. However, the proper response when asked a question that is none of someone's business is a simple, "That's none of your business." That's all it takes. The idea that we need to criminalize the question and incarcerate the person asking the question is constitutionally obscene.
This is an excellent bill. I'm in medical school right now, and perhaps I can offer some insight.
Insurance companies are basing doctors compensation on asking patients lifestyle questions and putting these answers in medical records. In some cases (diet, exercise, tobacco, alcohol use) such questions are helpful medically. In others - The "gun" question is one such case - they are not. The reason it even came into play is probably as a result of liberals in management at said insurance companies.
Furthermore, the entire medical establishment has taken a hard turn to the left somewhere along the line. While I'm not sure if this is true of practicing physicians, the AMA, and state medical societies it certainly seems true here in academic medicine.
So though it might seem a bit obscure, such a bill is actually necessary.
It is about a question being asked and the answer recorded in what is a permanent file which follows you everywhere.
Getting something straightened out after it gets in there is next to impossible.
If you refuse to answer, that is taken as an answer in the affirmative, and that is RECORDED.
THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT THAT OTHER THAN STOPPING THE QUESTION FROM BEING ASKED. THE DATA WILL BE IN YOUR RECORD OTHERWISE.
The only time the question is justified is if there is a firearm related injury involved, period.
Which is why even incorrect medical entries are assumed to be correct.
Not good advice in my opinion. IMHO, and speaking not only as being married to a woman in the medical field but as the father of a 12 year old who had heart surgery when she was 10, politics has nothing to do with medicine. When someone's cutting on a loved one, you want the absolute most competent professional present, and politics doesn't make good doctors.
I know full good and well that the surgeon who did my daughter's operation is a flaming lib, but I don't give a damn. He's without a doubt the best surgeon in his field, in this area, and I considered it a huge boon and favor that he took the time to perform a fairly routine repair, when most of his work is typically much more lucrative pedi-transplants.
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.
Any doc I ask for gun advice from better be named Holliday.
When "talking to people" involves intimidation, conspiracy to deprive them of their Rights, and harassment under color of law; then the the government has a duty to get involved.
I'm going to hope you're right, but I'm also going to be watching close.
This isn't a speech issue.
It is about one group of folks abusing their power to harass and intimidate (at the least), or (at the most) engage in a conspiracy to compile a list of gunowners to be used against them in the future.
The government has an obligation to protect individual Rights.
Unless you are at the doctor's office being treated for a gun shot wound, whether you own a gun or not is none of the doctor's business.
That being said I do NOT favor legislation that limits the professional relationship between a doctor and his or her patient. There are lots a places the government doesn't belong. That's one of them, IMHO
Which comment would then be forwarded to "child protection" investigators as proof of bad parenting abilities.
LOL!
When I took my son in for his first checkup, the Dr. asked if we had guns in the house. I told him I couldn't wait until he was 5 or so, so I wouldn't have to clean my guns any more. He laughed.
Yeah, before you know it, the gov't will be telling us we need permission to carry a gun, along with what kind of guns we can own and where we can carry them.
But seriously, I think you are missing the big picture.
The gun grabbers have come to the conclusion that they have failed at implemting their agenda through the legislative process. In all but a few states, it is impossible to enact any gun control. To the contrary, most states are currently liberalizing their gun laws to become more aligned with the intent of the Founders.
Having failed at the legislative process, the gun grabbers are now attempting to enact their agenda via multinational corporations and the insurance industry.
Want to work for XYZ corporation, or have medical insurance for your family? Then you must sign a form saying you don't have guns, and agree to a corporate HR bozo inspecting your home. That is where all this is going.
Virginia gunowners, fortunately, have a very proactive organization up there (VCDL) that is at the forefront in heading a lot of this stuff off.
Not only this, but I *think* they must get some kind of bonus for doing so.
One time, I went to the doctor to get Xrays of my ankle that I had injured falling down some stairs. The nurse engaged in some very low level interrogation tactics to get me to "confess" to being in a fight (which I wasn't).
Be real careful that your kids understand that doctors (teachers, police officers, etc.) are not their best friends and blabbing unnecessarily or to get attention is not to their advantage. Your medical record will become a part of a national computer system sooner or later so keep it in a way that will look pretty to employers, insurers and cops.
Worth repeating a million times. You get the big picture.
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.