You have a reading comprehension problem. I started my post to you by saying “First”.
I was refuting your fallacious claim about second hand smoke with the scientific facts. I was not addressing your straw man of equating smoking bans to baring doctors from giving professional advice in areas they are not qualified and trained to give advice in.
A doctor’s license gives him permission to give an opinion in an area where he has training and expertise. By accepting that license, he accepts the states right to make the rules about what advice he may and may not give.
A restaurant or bar’s license is to do business. I don’t agree they should need a license to do business. I do agree there should be laws baring them from passing off dog meat as pork or serving tainted food. I also believe there should be laws about them claiming their hamburger can cure cancer or whatever. That’s fraud.
A doctor, by virtue of his medical license is presumed to be qualified to give the advice he is dispensing. The state has an interest in maintaining the integrity and public trust in that license. Doctors mostly sell advice. True they also sell skilled services like setting a broken bone, but mostly they sell advice based on a presumed expertise.
There is a well documented and well organized movement in the medical community to spread false information about guns and gun safety. I’ll not post the links since you seem uninterested in facts and would rather try to debate theoretical points.
The doctor accepted the license. When he did that he recognized the states right to regulate his professional speech. In this case the state is not trying to regulate his political speech or his religious speech, etc. They are regulating his professional speech.
Personally, I’d rather hold the doctors accountable by reporting them for boundary violations and driving their insurance premiums through the roof. If they want to play games they need to be ready to pay the price.
You obviously didn’t read the risk management advice to physicians in my earlier post. Doctors and their insurance companies can be held liable if a doctor gives advice in an area he is not trained and qualified to give advice in.
Most malpractice carriers now specifically exempt coverage for torts in areas where a doctor has given advice in an area he is not trained and certified in. They also exclude coverage for doctors engaged in an activity the licensing agency bars.
This law is an attempt to counter an attack on the Bill of Rights by Doctors Against Handgun Injury, a gun prohibitionist coalition.
This coalition , which also includes the American Medical Association (AMA) and, not surprisingly, the strident American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and 10 other medical organizations reportedly comprising 600,000 doctors, is calling for a variety of patient privacy-invading measures in the name of gun safety. They are in bed with The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
This law is a little heavy handed for my taste, but it isn’t a free speech issue. The professional speech of a licensed professional may rightly be regulated by the licensing body.
You are not familiar with how restaurant inspections work. The environment of the restaruant is considered - I just read today of a restaraunt being cited because of stained ceiling tiles. 2nd hand smoke is much worse than stained tiles. I could and an unlimited number of others could testify how hazardous 2nd hand smoke is to us. By your reasoning, this would allow the government to terminate someone's property rights.
This law continues to open the door to limit freedoms and personal property rights.
There is no evidence that a doctor causes any actual violation of any right whatsoever by asking the question. You mention malpractice - that is a civil litigation matter and the right place to dispute this - a doctor giving bad advice.
Your attempt to stretch the 2nd amendment right into this is as bad or worse than the stretching of the commerce clause to limit guns within proximity to a school. And like that law, this one is probably also going to be ruled unconstitutional - correctly so.