Bill would bar doctors from asking about guns POLL TO FREEP AT LINK

The Virginian-Pilot ^ | February 23, 2006 | By JANETTE RODRIGUES,

[GovernmentShrinker]

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?

[Potowmack]

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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".

[Potowmack]

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.

[doc30]

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.

[yarddog]

We must go to the same Doctor.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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".

[Wonder Warthog]

"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??

[Mamzelle]

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.

[doc30]

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.

[GovernmentShrinker]

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.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

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)

[Wallace T.]

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.

[ridesthemiles]

GREAT REPLIES!!!!!!

[doc30]

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.

[Mamzelle]

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.

[GovernmentShrinker]

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.

[panaxanax]

DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS DO!

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