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 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-213 next last
To: Timedrifter

Scary thing is, if you give the "wrong" answer to some of those questions, in some states it will either put you in direct violation of state law, or at least provide what the state recognizes as "probable cause" for a visit by child welfare workers. Will the doctor then report you?


81 posted on 02/23/2006 8:55:05 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Bullbleep--any self-respecting gun-owning parent already knows this FAR better than any physician (unless the physician is also a gun-owning parent). There is NO reason for ANY physician EVER to ask this question.

There are a lot of gun-owners out there who don't practice adequate gun safety.

I'm really not sure why there needs to be a government solution to this problem. Like I said, if a doctor is too nosy, get another doctor.

82 posted on 02/23/2006 8:57:04 AM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"Even so, do you believe the government should restrict someone's first amendment rights like this? If they can do that, then they can restrict your second amendment rights as well."

Since the question is NOT about any area of medicine, YES, I "do" think the legislature has the ability to restrict the what the doctor does. After all, they are ALREADY telling him that he can or cannot practice medicine at all. It's not a "free speech" issue.

83 posted on 02/23/2006 8:57:55 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
"So don't answer the question."

See the post from the Freeper who refused to answer, and whos physican WROTE IN HER RECORDS that his answer was "yes".

84 posted on 02/23/2006 8:59:53 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
See the post from the Freeper who refused to answer, and whos physican WROTE IN HER RECORDS that his answer was "yes".

By filling in a false answer, that physician already violated ethical and legal rules regarding accuracy in medical records.

85 posted on 02/23/2006 9:01:26 AM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl

That was the essence of my reply to another post. If you don't want a doctor asking if you have firearms, go to a different doctor. At first I was thinking the doctors just want to prevent pediatric firearm accidents. Not a bad thing to do. But then the story started to nag me and I realized it wasn't the gun question. It really struck me that this is also a free speech issue. No I'm getting more upset that this state government wants to restrict speech. Regardless of my opinion on doctors asking about guns, I'm getting really upset about the government regulating speech.


86 posted on 02/23/2006 9:01:46 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Shanda

We must go to the same Doctor.


87 posted on 02/23/2006 9:02:41 AM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
"There are a lot of gun-owners out there who don't practice adequate gun safety."

It depends on who defines gun safety. My parents owned guns. Those guns were ALWAYS loaded, and openly available at any time to any member of the family. THEY defined "gun safety" as "teaching their children proper gun-handling and safety procedures". NOT as the physicians typically recommend--keep all guns locked up with the ammunition locked up separately.

But you can bet if I or any of my siblings had displayed any irresponsibility that the guns would have been "made safe".

88 posted on 02/23/2006 9:08:21 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
"By filling in a false answer, that physician already violated ethical and legal rules regarding accuracy in medical records."

And this helps the gun-owner exactly how, when the doc's records are computerized and cross-linked, and the feds later decide to search those records to see who's a gun-owner??

89 posted on 02/23/2006 9:08:37 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
re: And if you lie and say no...are you committing some kind of crime?)))

No, unless you're trying to get certain medications prescribed to you or otherwise defraud or mislead to a criminal act. Then it's both a crime and a tort. You're not under oath, but not all lies are OK.

I'd be glad to see this busybody practice (what is it about the Pediatrics Associations?) abandoned.

And most docs don't like having to do it--the Associations decide what "standard of care" is and who "deviates from standard practice." Then you might lack a good-faith defense in court. Docs are as likely as any conservative to own guns or belong to the NRA.

But Associations are often made up of people who don't want the bother of treating patients.

90 posted on 02/23/2006 9:09:04 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Since the question is NOT about any area of medicine, YES, I "do" think the legislature has the ability to restrict the what the doctor does. After all, they are ALREADY telling him that he can or cannot practice medicine at all. It's not a "free speech" issue.

And where do you draw the line with medicine? Just active treatment for patient complaints and not root causes? The legislature should be doing that, too? It should be up to the doctor to do ask such a question and not mandated or restricted. Giving permission to ask when a gun injury is involved is pointless because, with a gun injury, the police and, in the case of a minor, social services will be sticking their noses in big time. For doctors, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My only issue with asking the question is that doctors not record the information and it be done informally.

91 posted on 02/23/2006 9:11:04 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Legal requirements for registration of what can reasonably be presumed to be animal breeding and selling businesses is well within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. I don't know the specific law you're referring to, and if it covers people who just have several pets, it's out of line. But the puppy mill problem is not only one of horrible animal cruelty, but also of serious infectious diseases being spread from state to state, since nearly all these operations sell to brokers including out-of-state ones, and the brokers in turn resell to retailers in multiple states. And even for animals only be sold within the state, most states' laws have long provided for regulatory measures to avoid spread of disease in livestock, and commercial inventory pet animals are essentially livestock.

Horses are another type of "pet" animal that are frequently sold across state lines, and have multiple owners during their lifetimes, so breeders/traders of horses can also appropriately be subject to registration and inspection requirements. But of course, this shouldn't apply to a family which keeps a few horses for pleasure riding.


92 posted on 02/23/2006 9:12:42 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SWO
Although it's never come up. (I try to avoid doctors as a matter of policy and overall good health.) If it ever does, I'm going to reply...

"Guns? Are you out of your damned mind? Those things are dangerous! I've heard tales of those things jumping up and killing people just to watch them die! What kind of fool question is that to ask? Guns! Next you'll be asking if I keep a nest of Copperheads under the bed! Do I look like a crazed lunatic to you? No, honestly DO I?!"

1911, it's not just a number, it's a way of life. (/grin)
93 posted on 02/23/2006 9:12:42 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30
The problem with the medical industry is that is highly regulated by state governments, as is the insurance industry. The states have fought hard to maintain control over medicine and insurance, in order not to have it slip into predominantly Federal jurisdiction, as has happened with banking, pharmaceuticals, railroads, and airlines. One way the states have accomplished this is to show that they are "tough" regulators, even in relatively conservative states like Virginia. Any given state's medical association is essentially a state-supported guild, not unlike those in medieval Europe, technically private and voluntary, but in actuality quasi-governmental and coercive. Since insurance companies are the primary repayment sources for many physicians, their guidelines compel doctors to perform their services in compliance with those guidelines.

Physicians are likely under pressure by their trade association and insurance companies to be proactive with regard to gun ownership. Additionally, in graduate schools as well as at the undergraduate level, leftist propaganda commingles with "hard" science. As a result, many physicians are liberals and therefore support gun control. At the last Presidential election, there were surveys that showed that people with graduate degrees were almost as likely to vote for Kerry as were those who did not graduate from high school, the low paid workers and welfare recipients that have been a Democrat "core" group since the New Deal era.

Ideally, insurance and medicine are services that should be freed from state regulation. However, that is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. We are fortunate if we can successfully stop fully socialized medicine and elimination of the free market on vitamins and supplements. Given that we are stuck with a regulated commodity (medicine), it may be necessary to stop insurance firms and state medical associations from covertly promoting an anti-gun agenda. I do not think it is a violation of the doctors' First Amendment rights any more than it is for a postal worker or a soldier being prohibited from engaging in partisan politics by campaigning for a candidate.

94 posted on 02/23/2006 9:13:13 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider

GREAT REPLIES!!!!!!


95 posted on 02/23/2006 9:16:59 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
At the same time I had a friend who was going through medical school and I asked her about it. Indeed they were coaching the young doctors to ask about gun ownership. I then asked if firearm safety was a required course in medical school. The answer, "Of course not!"

Interesting story. Perhaps if politics could be set aside, the medical schools and the NRA could co-ordinate their activities and come up with a safety program that would be practical and apolitical. Otherwise, the NEA may try to get the grade schools to do the same thing.

96 posted on 02/23/2006 9:17:26 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
re Physicians are likely under pressure by their trade association and insurance companies to be proactive with regard to gun ownership.

Right on target.

re: Additionally, in graduate schools as well as at the undergraduate level, leftist propaganda commingles with "hard" science. As a result, many physicians are liberals and therefore support gun control. At the last Presidential election, there were surveys that showed that people with graduate degrees were almost as likely to vote for Kerry as were those who did not graduate from high school, the low paid workers and welfare recipients that have been a Democrat "core" group since the New Deal era.)))

a clean miss--there's a big difference between a professional (and I'd include accountants, MBAs, etc. here) and a MA in Philosophy. It's a rare doc who voted for Kerry, and a rare doc who'd belong to the Lawyer Party.

97 posted on 02/23/2006 9:20:03 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive; SWO; Steve_Seattle; mbraynard; doc30; Wallace T.; Wonder Warthog

I have a problem with the 1st Amendment aspect of this too. However, I would be fine with such a bill if it applied only to patients whose bills are being paid in any part by public funds, and to doctors whose salaries are being paid by a publicly funded institution or agency, and to facilities which have been built and/or maintained with public funds (and that would end up catching a solid majority of pediatric offices). Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the medical profession's anti-gun political crusading (which is part of its larger pro-socialism political crusading). I suspect that in many pediatric practices, a very large percentage of patients are taxpayer-subsidized. Even worse, a lot of parents who are relying on taxpayer-funded health care programs for their children, are in programs where they don't haven't any choice as to what doctor they see, so the "if you don't like it, find another doctor" answer doesn't help.


98 posted on 02/23/2006 9:20:25 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"And where do you draw the line with medicine? Just active treatment for patient complaints and not root causes?

And what disease is a gun the cause of??? Simple answer---none. Gun ownership is not like smoking, for instance, or excessive consumption of fatty foods, or any other REAL medical issue with a "root cause".

Sorry, but gun ownership is NOT a medical issue, despite all the pushing by anti-gun physicians to make it into one.

99 posted on 02/23/2006 9:25:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; All

DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS DO!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310481/posts


100 posted on 02/23/2006 9:25:14 AM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-213 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