That may be the case, but less it's a medical emergency I think a private practicioner can choose to see or not see anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants.
If I have a patient who is suicidal, ethically and legally I need to ask them about their access to act on this suicidality. I always ask if their are guns or other weapons available.
Do you also ask him about his knives, his neckties, his chain saw, his fifth floor condo, his proximity to the subway, his bath tubs and extention cords, his plastic bags, his brother's gun in his brother's house, his cars and the proliferation of freeway overpass columns, the gasoline in his car and his matches?
Are you doing your due diligence, or are you just asking about guns? Because when people suicide, they use the means available, and when there's no gun, they do something else. The possibilties are limited by man's imagination.
What I find odd about this is how it is kinda turning some people away from their supposed ideal. Liberals are arguing against a business legislation(some, not all), while conservatives are arguing for a more restrictive business regulation(again, some, not all).
Without seeing the actual language of the bill, I cannot really judge it. Would a doctor or nurse making housecalls be able to ask(I think they should be able to at least ask)? How about a psychiatrist(yes, they are doctors) dealing with a suicidal patient as CC suggests(again, they should be able to)? I would have no problem with the bill, as long as there is some sort of common sense exceptions to it. There are times it would be reasonable for a doctor to ask. Another example: dealing with patients either on meds that affect judgement, or with Alzheimer or related issues that degrade judgement. I could see in those cases it being very worthwhile for a doctor to ask.
This has to do with pediatricians and a program devised by the American Academy of Pediatrics that asked and then advised about various dangers to youngsters in the home.
The fear among gun right advocates was that this would be a backdoor registration, a formal recording of them as gun owners in their medical records. Second concern was about the medical record itself. That record is released by your doctor (with your permission) and reviewed for health care insurance and with the uncertainty of who will eventually be the masters of the database under the new health care law, it gives one pause about what's in your health record and who will be seeing it.
Who can say what the ramifications would be of gun ownership under some future health regulatory scheme . . . given the effort of the medical community (and government entities) to categorize guns as a public health hazard?
With the ingenuity of anti-gun activists (the cabal of the Brady Campaign, the AMA, AAP and leftists in government) these concerns do have some merit IMNSHO. Why have the public fight in the legislatures when you can get what you want with a health care Trojan Horse?
Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=44993
provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made
provides exception for EMTS & paramedics
prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession
clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered
This has to do with pediatricians and a program devised by the American Academy of Pediatrics that asked and then advised about various dangers to youngsters in the home.
The fear among gun right advocates was that this would be a backdoor registration, a formal recording of them as gun owners in their medical records. Second concern was about the medical record itself. That record is released by your doctor (with your permission) and reviewed for health care insurance and with the uncertainty of who will eventually be the masters of the database under the new health care law, it gives one pause about what's in your health record and who will be seeing it.
Who can say what the ramifications would be of gun ownership under some future health regulatory scheme . . . given the effort of the medical community (and government entities) to categorize guns as a public health hazard?
With the ingenuity of anti-gun activists (the cabal of the Brady Campaign, the AMA, AAP and leftists in government) these concerns do have some merit IMNSHO. Why have the public fight in the legislatures when you can get what you want with a health care Trojan Horse?
There's been an issue with the, um, APA I think it was? Maybe it was the CDC...anyway... Telling doctors to ask their patients about their guns and other nosy questions as if it were health related.
Honestly, I see no reason as to why a medical provider shouldn't be able to ask that question, if it's on topic to the medical visit at end. To my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing they can do to me for not telling the truth.
I see two ways that a patient could go with this:
1. The flat-out denial:
Dr: Do you have any firearms or ammunition present in your home?
Pt: Nope, can we get back to addressing the gunshot wound in my thigh please.
Personally, I'd like to get creative just to see the Dr's reaction.
Dr: Do you have any firearms or ammunition present in your home?
Me: Does the 50 cal. on the roof of functional my M1A1 Abrams count? ...or are you just concerned about the 120mm main cannon?
I'm not the most pro-2nd Amendment member on this board.
However. Why the **** does a doctor need to know about your guns and ammo?
I am concerned about supposed Libertarians in here thinking that it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to ask you a question like this that has NOTHING to do with your physical.
Why should we stop at gun ownership, why not just proceed to asking you who you voted for in the last election, then proceed to refuse to see you based on your political leaning.
j-mac
you mean like this?
Double Like. Yes, the liberal/conservative some-time reversal on this issue is interesting. I'm thinking that conservatives "for it" are concerned that information is being collected. Your point about Alzheimer's Disease (or other cognitive disorders) is an excellent one. Stupud law on so many levels.
I am concerned about supposed Libertarians in here thinking that it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to ask you a question like this that has NOTHING to do with your physical.
Why should we stop at gun ownership, why not just proceed to asking you who you voted for in the last election, then proceed to refuse to see you based on your political leaning.
j-mac
"Unrelated" is subjective.This law does not explicitly say anything about asking unrelated questions. It simply says that a doctor can't ask a patient if they have firearms.
And some people think Obamacare is stupid.
There are good laws, and there are stupid laws. What's your point? You must LOVE the three-day waiting period laws, right?
Yes, both are stupid. A law that says you can't ask a certain question is okay? Are u frickin serious?
If the doctor doesn't need to know then he has no business asking.
If the patient thinks its irrelevant it is within his/her rights to say "none ya business."
Why the **** do we need a law making asking questions illegal?
If doctors have no business asking, then they usually won't ask. If you are offended by the question, find another doctor.
But their bosses,regulators, associations or who ever may be out to get gun owners.Doctors, as a profession, aren't out to get gun owners.
What problem is it that you have with drug tests and credit checks anyway?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?