Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would bar doctors from asking about guns POLL TO FREEP AT LINK
The Virginian-Pilot ^ | February 23, 2006 | By JANETTE RODRIGUES,

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bigbrother; freep; gungrabbers; poll; surveillance; vageneralassembly; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last
To: robertpaulsen

I gotta have a copy of this!


151 posted on 02/23/2006 4:19:23 PM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

When I was asked this question, the doc *definitely* did *not* ask about swimming pools or other common safety issues.


152 posted on 02/23/2006 4:23:22 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Panzerlied
Here's a nice .pdf one to print that also contains a hand-out for the physician:

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/Firearms%20Malpractice%20Form.pdf

153 posted on 02/23/2006 4:42:07 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Being forced to answer a question is a violation of my First Amendment Rights.


154 posted on 02/23/2006 4:57:04 PM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Here you go....the copy that you reformatted for SAS (thank you). It's in pdf version so it can be easily downloaded and printed.

Physician Affidavit

155 posted on 02/23/2006 4:58:19 PM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org • Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Thanks. I really need to get one of my code-writing friends to write a little applet that will snag all the FR usernames that have made posts to a page.


156 posted on 02/23/2006 5:23:21 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: SWO
"The bill hits at the heart and core of prevention and protecting our children,"

I totally agree. My arsenal enables me to do a much better job of protecting my children.

Question: Do you possess firearms?

Answer (depending on my mood): None of your business or yes and I have a couple on me.

157 posted on 02/23/2006 5:27:46 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWO; antiRepublicrat; dsc; lakeman; Squint; Onelifetogive; the gillman@blacklagoon.com; ...

A few pings to some of the folks posting on this thread.

See the document at the replied-to post, from the Second Amendment Sisters. It's a small *.pdf, that is meant to be printed front-and-back, and tri-folded.


158 posted on 02/23/2006 5:30:06 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
With how difficult HMOs and other quasi-socialized medicine groups are making it to switch doctors, I don't have an issue with this. The fact that they only ask about FAs and not "do you have a pool in the back yard? do you cover it? is there a fence around it?" tends to prove that they are abusing the doctor-patient relationship and restrictions in free choice in order to keep a form of tabs and registry on their patients (don't forget Slick Willie's misleadingly titled "Medical Privacy Act" which actually enabled health agencies to share databased information with other agencies) and to make law-abiding citizens feel pressured into not exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Since the increase in Medicare/Medicaid regulations and other government regulations and the MPA, doctors are more and more becoming agents of the state. I object to this. But until we get the free market back into medicine, it is as wrong for doctors to ask this question as part of their personal political agenda as it would be for agents of the DMV.
159 posted on 02/23/2006 5:36:09 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
So the government can forbid me from asking you if you have guns?

That is so assinine. You cannot let the government control what someone has to say outside of the typical five understood exclusions (libel/slander, etc.)

This weapon is just like mandating that restaurants have to forbid smoking.

There is no conspiracy of doctors - and 'none of your business' is a legitemate reply AS IS boycotting doctors who do ask that question. That is how CONSERVATIVES get things done.

160 posted on 02/23/2006 6:00:33 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

"from the Second Amendment Sisters"


Good stuff. Thanks!
(what would Kerry's doctor do?)


161 posted on 02/23/2006 6:46:50 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
So the government can forbid me from asking you if you have guns

As a private citizen, no. As an individual in a position of authority and either on the state payroll, or operating with a license from the state, yes.

You cannot let the government control what someone has to say outside of the typical five understood exclusions (libel/slander, etc.)

Sure you can, when such speech constitutes harassment at the least, and a conspiracy to deprive the American people of their arms at the most.

This weapon is just like mandating that restaurants have to forbid smoking.

No it isn't.

There is no conspiracy of doctors - and 'none of your business' is a legitemate reply AS IS boycotting doctors who do ask that question. That is how CONSERVATIVES get things done.

Yes, there is absolutely a conspiracy to disarm the American people.

"None of your business" is certainly a legitimate reply, but as others have noted, if you so reply, they will check "yes" on the gun ownership box. Also, the doctor could ask the question of others living in your house, such as a child or an elderly parent with diminishing mental facilties; either of which may let the cat out of the bag.

For instance, the next question could be "since there are guns in your house, are they ever left around so a minor can access them?". Granny, not knowing any better or not even understanding the question, may answer "yes". In many states, that is a crime, and a doctor will report you to the stasi.

Boycotting doctors was certainly an option 50 years ago. Today, in our quasi-socialized medical "system", it isn't so easy.

I suppose one could argue for getting the government out of the medical system, but that isn't going to happen realisticly. The next best thing is for state legislatures to actively protect individuals from harassment by doctors.

162 posted on 02/23/2006 6:50:12 PM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
As a private citizen, no. As an individual in a position of authority and either on the state payroll, or operating with a license from the state, yes.

The state forces me to have a liscence to practice medicine. The state also requires you to have a liscence to drive as they have socialized the road system. Does this mean the state can control what you say while you are driving your car?

Sure you can, when such speech constitutes harassment at the least, and a conspiracy to deprive the American people of their arms at the most.

Harassment is a legally concept that 'are guns in your house' question does not reach. If the doctor actually did something that constituted harassment, there are already legal remedies in place to address it.

And conspiracy? It's a really bad idea, but to suggest this is some back-door gun registration strategy sounds like you should be wearing a tin foil hat. Do you actually have proof of a conspiracy?

163 posted on 02/23/2006 7:14:48 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: doc30

naive, 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment or information

In Oregon the health care providers report this information to the state government.


164 posted on 02/23/2006 7:27:38 PM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dsc

I wish I had thought of that. Next time.


165 posted on 02/23/2006 7:29:40 PM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Well, you could try Oregon where the state tells the doctor to ask these questions (and report to them). What's your choice there?


166 posted on 02/23/2006 7:40:23 PM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

I agree with you. Leave free speech alone.

But you are nuts if you can not admit that this gun thing with docs occured during the Clinton Administration when they were screeching that guns were dangerous to children and that parents who had guns were irresponsible.

They started then telling med students and family docs to quiz parents about guns. It is a form of harassment since these docs are really not experts on gun safety and gun ownership is none of their business. The whole issue came out of a left wing political effort to ban guns through fear. Docs cooperated and lent their authority to a left wing anti-gun hysteria.

They should not be surprised when they find themselves being targeted in the culture war. Doctors should have the brains to stay out of the culture war and not be used as the attack dog of society going after political and social enemies.


167 posted on 02/23/2006 9:55:27 PM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
That is one of the most politically astute and well crafted counter arguments I've ever seen. If Phyllis Schafly didn't come up with that herself, then I want to know the name of the woman who did because if she lives in my district I want her to run for congress and will happily put my money where my mouth is.

And if she's reading this and she wants to work in a hedge fund then she should freepmail me and we'll discuss it.

168 posted on 02/24/2006 2:47:46 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
That is one of the most politically astute and well crafted counter arguments I've ever seen. If Phyllis Schafly didn't come up with that herself, then I want to know the name of the woman who did because if she lives in my district I want her to run for congress and will happily put my money where my mouth is.

And if she's reading this and she wants to work in a hedge fund then she should freepmail me and we'll discuss it.

169 posted on 02/24/2006 2:58:58 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: SWO
Poll Results

Should the state disallow pediatricians from asking parents about gun ownership?


170 posted on 02/24/2006 3:09:49 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Panzerlied
I haven't read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it's ridiculous. Might as well ask about car seats, hammers, scissors, electrical outlets, floor cleaners, Drano, aspirin, baby oil, vitamin supplements, air fresheners, chain saws, drills, oh yeah... and swimming pools, staircases, windows, bicycles (w/ or w/o training wheels), salt, sugar soaked cereal, ... well, you get the point.

But after all, just because someone asks a question doesn't mean I'm required to answer it.

171 posted on 02/24/2006 4:44:51 AM PST by Motherhood IS a career
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Since it is something that is permanently recorded, and not simply an attempt to communicate firearms safety with respect to children, it is something that needs to be stopped. I have no problem with a doctor asking just so the doctor can pass along info to the parents, and I have no problem with people walking away from such a doctor, but it should not be a mandated question requiring permanent recording, even if you don't answer.


172 posted on 02/24/2006 6:10:11 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl
It is a form of harassment since these docs are really not experts on gun safety and gun ownership is none of their business. The whole issue came out of a left wing political effort to ban guns through fear. Docs cooperated and lent their authority to a left wing anti-gun hysteria.

Perhaps you are right that there is some political movement behind the questions, but that is also not something that can be legally outlawed. And if you really think it constitutes harassment, then litigate it. Or just get in your Doctors face about it if he brings it up or fire the doctor and start a protest in your community on the issue, etc., etc.

173 posted on 02/26/2006 1:51:16 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

I remember a few years ago when my son, who about 12 at the time, had a physical. I had left to use the bathroom and came back just to hear the doctor ask my son about guns in the house. I answereed coming through the door and said I believe and it was none of their business. And if I did I certainly would have a gun safe. The doctor shut up at that point. Later on the doctor asked about bike helmet use and my son answered that he does not except when I tell him to and that he felt that that should not be law but up to the parents decision to wear a helmet. The doctor was a bit surprised but answered that if he saw the head injuries and the medical cost to society. I answered that that was inaccurate as any medical cost that would occur from a head injury would be covered by my insurance and myself and any further care would be my responsiblity. Society does not pay my insurance premium, I do and so does my employer. So that arguement was false. She went on about surely we agreed about seat belt use and I said no I did not agree to have the state make laws about any risk taking. She argued about the terrible injuries that can occur. I said I personally looked at wrecked car as a insurance adjuster and still did not think that that should be a law. I then went on about how based on her logic that the state could regulate any activity we do from skiing , horseback riding climbing since all involve physical risks . Therefore I did not feel that the state had any justification to make laws about helmet use and seatbelts. In fact the state has usurped my authority as a parent. This absolutely stunned the doctor especially when I said I saw wrecked cars and the drivers all the time and still did not agree the state should jump in and regulate. I definiately see the results of car wrecks more than she does as a pedetrician.

My son at that time had not realized how I would argue against an authority figure. It raised my status in his eyes and even heard him talk about that with his friends in the boy scout troop.The boys felt quite free to confide in me after that.


174 posted on 02/26/2006 8:48:16 PM PST by Rhiannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: metesky

Should the state disallow pediatricians from asking parents about gun ownership?



Yes
61.02%

No
37.03%

Undecided
1.95%

Total: 3535 votes


175 posted on 02/26/2006 8:49:15 PM PST by Rhiannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SWO
Think.
A doctor can ask you if you have a gun in the house. The same said doc can report you if he/she considers it unsafe.

A doctor can not ask your child about sex. The doctor can not talk about abstinence (in some states.).

While the same doc cannot treat a broken arm on the child until a parent is present, the same said doc can perform an abortion without anyones permission.
176 posted on 02/26/2006 8:56:26 PM PST by truemiester (If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWO

A better way to put it might be "if you have guns are you careful to keep them out of reach of untrained children." Almost all gun accidents involving children are because someone, young or old, who had no idea what he was doing got hold of the gun.

But that would be like asking "do you avoid placing obstacles on stairwells."


177 posted on 02/26/2006 9:00:47 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Does this mean the state can control what you say while you are driving your car?

IIRC it's a crime in some places to flip another driver the bird.

178 posted on 02/26/2006 9:02:38 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: SWO; All

Anyone whose doctor asks about their gun ownership should report the doctor to the state medical board and to his insurance company for a "Boundary Violation". A few complaints and the doctor will face HUGE premium hikes. Doctors will stop asking if a few have their insurance premiums raise drastically.


179 posted on 02/26/2006 9:13:33 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

This isn’t a free speech issue any more than the state telling a dentist he can’t do heart surgery. It’s a matter of protecting the public.


180 posted on 02/26/2006 9:47:19 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: doc30
The doctors aren't trying to be politically corect gun grabbers.

###

Yes they are.The AMA and several other groups started this in conjunction with Hand Gun Control Inc or whatever name they are using this week.
181 posted on 02/26/2006 9:54:50 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: doc30

See this: "The AMA's Epidemic of Deceit"

http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/010628wheeler.html


182 posted on 02/26/2006 10:13:47 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: doc30

You may want to read this too: "The Social Hygiene of Gun Control".

http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/000317wheeler.html


183 posted on 02/26/2006 10:18:32 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"As much as I despise gun control laws, I don't see a problem with this. The doctors aren't trying to be politically corect gun grabbers. They want to help parents to be aware of fire arms safety so the doctor doesn't have to work on the kids in the ER because someone wasn't practicing good fire arms safety in their home."

Until they (reluctantly or willingly) turn over said records to the gun-grabbing police.

What with the democRATs constantly wailing the siren song of "free" government health care, you can bet that they can pull off a real coup in disarming the public with those doctors' records.

184 posted on 02/26/2006 10:23:50 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
IIRC it's a crime in some places to flip another driver the bird.

Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the SCOTUS has ruled that is not protected speech by the first amendment.

185 posted on 02/27/2006 11:43:26 AM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
It’s a matter of protecting the public.

Protecting the public from free speech? Excellent.

186 posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:58 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

It’s protecting the public from unqualified advice from a person of presumed authority. That's why doctors are licensed in the first place.

It’s also why their insurance companies will not assume liability for their advice on the use subject.


187 posted on 02/27/2006 12:25:20 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble

© 2000 by Joe Horn crowtalk@theriver.com

One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of liability exposure. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.

To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?

Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.

Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:

One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about ll the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer.

How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.

Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example, E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.

Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.

It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home defenseless against violent crime.

The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person would have surmised.

If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is considerable......

Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.

Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting. Among other firms, he has consulted to IBM, Gates Learjet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.

188 posted on 02/27/2006 12:38:49 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
You sound like a liberal. 'Protecting the public' from a doc asking a stupid question. Maybe the state should also protect us from fatty foods.

Please. Go to Canada.

189 posted on 02/27/2006 12:45:57 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: SWO

What web sites do you frequent?

How many cars do you own and what kind of mileage do they get?

Do you have friends that are smokers?

HOw many calories do you ingest each day?

Are you a member of the NRA?


190 posted on 02/27/2006 12:48:34 PM PST by subterfuge ("We're going to take things from you for the greater good..."---Hillary Rod-Ham Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backinthefold
I took him to the pediatrician and the dr asked me "Do you smoke?"

See post 190, which I wrote BEFORE I saw your post. I kid you not.

191 posted on 02/27/2006 12:52:06 PM PST by subterfuge ("We're going to take things from you for the greater good..."---Hillary Rod-Ham Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

When our ped asked, I said yes and then asked why are you asking? She said to remind parents about keeping them locked up safely. I had been ready for a fight, but I could live with the safety angle.


192 posted on 02/27/2006 12:54:21 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
When our ped asked, I said yes and then asked why are you asking? She said to remind parents about keeping them locked up safely.

That's reasonable. I put that on the form and he didn't say a thing. I do live in gun-loving the South though.

193 posted on 02/27/2006 1:03:37 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

So you are against licensing doctors? How about letting them give legal or tax advice? Would you go for that?

You sound like an anarchist. Please go to Somalia.


194 posted on 02/27/2006 1:05:39 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

You will find that most surgeons are conservative, and almost all of the rest of the mds are liberals.


195 posted on 02/27/2006 1:22:36 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

If my ped had said that for safety reasons I should remove all guns from our house, I would have ended the visit there and found another doc. And we love our guns up north too--don't believe ALL the hype (well, yeah, we sure have more libs here than you do, and they're scared of guns).


196 posted on 02/27/2006 2:14:23 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
I am against the government telling people they can't ask you if you have a gun. Doctor or not. There may be cases where it makes sense to ask that question, anyway. Freedom is only valuable if it includes the freedom to do stupid things.

And yeah, a doctor should be able to give tax advice and legal advice. Foo on you if you take it. Only a liberal would think people are too stupid to know better.

197 posted on 02/27/2006 3:20:35 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

Doctors are regulated in all sorts of ways. They may not practice law etc. They are licensed by the state to be doctors and the state can tell them what that license allows them to do.

You may not like it that doctors are licensed, but reasonable people see the need. Only an anarchist would think doctors shouldn't be regulated.


198 posted on 02/27/2006 3:37:36 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
You're reasoning is so broken to continue this discussion. I can break open my old college logic book and pick off all the latin termed falacies you are comitting.

Doctor does something you don't like that harms no one. You want the gov'ment to come in and tell the doctor what he can and cannot say. That is wrong as the government has no moral right to do that - the doctor and the patient are not the government's property.

199 posted on 02/27/2006 3:59:13 PM PST by mbraynard (I don't even HAVE a mustache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

The doctor by accepting the license accepts the fact that the state can regulate what he does when acting in the licensed profession. He is of course free to find another job that is not licensed.


200 posted on 02/27/2006 4:02:40 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson