free speech supported for Florida docs - in opposition to NRA desire to gag

[DrDan]

A federal judge has blocked the state of Florida from enforcing a law pushed by firearms advocates that banned thousands of doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who had already issued a preliminary injunction last September, made her decision permanent late Friday when she ruled in favor of groups of physicians who asserted that the law violated their free speech rights. She said the law was so "vague" that it violated the First Amendment rights of doctors, noting that the legislation's privacy provisions "fail to provide any standards for practitioners to follow."


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-07-03/story/federal-judge-blocks-florida-law-preventing-doctors-discussing-gun#ixzz1zZRDKd9k

[wordpix]

1. gawd forbid we should keep guns out of the hands of people with violent fantasies & mental illness

not to mention, out of the hands of children

Waiting for the NRA freepers to respond now: guns for all, no background checks at gun shows, no doctors' questions!

[DrDan]

3. a poll on this forum (old DU) had 5 members supporting NO restrictions to gun ownership

none - not based on age, criminal record, mental capacity - nonw

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Oh boy. A whole five? That's... a .... lot?

[DrDan]

34. no control over gun ownership . . . 5 astounds me

[AtheistCrusader]

38. There's hundreds of people in these forums.

Guaranteed there will be at least a few trolls.

[NewMoonTherian]

93. Six. I didn't get to take part in that poll.

Gun policy is so broken in this country that it requires a complete teardown. From there, we can discuss reasonable measures that actually protect people without infringing on the rights of innocent people.

[DrDan]

177. I wouldn't think removing age restictions and allowing mentally-challenged to own guns would be

something to be proud of.

I learn something every time I visit this forum.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. re: "...we should keep guns out of the hands..."

"...of people with violent fantasies & mental illness"

What would a doctor have to do with accomplishing this?

[Euromutt]

105. Especially a pediatrician

Given that those are the ones who most frequently ask about gun ownership.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

145. I would understand...

...a pediatrician asking about firearms. A pediatrician already knows that children are in a household. Were I a gun dealer, I would try to develop a relationship with pediatricians in my area offering discounts on safes, trigger locks... to customers referred by the practice.

[GreenStormCloud]

150. Welcome back. You've been gone a long time. We missed you. N/T

[NewMoonTherian]

2. I have no problem with doctors discussing gun ownership.

As long as I'm free to tell them "It's none of your business," and maybe a few other choice phrases.

[Hoyt]

9. And, I hope doctor looks at you and says, "For your child's sake and others, get out of my office."

[permatex]

19. Why would you wish for that?

because a parent exercises their right to tell the dr. it's none of their business, you would want the dr. to retaliate by refusing to have them as their child's pediatrician? I am at a loss to understand why you would want that.

[DrDan]

21. shouldn't that be the doctor's prerogative?

[permatex]

22. Sure it should

but why would Hoyt wish for it?

Off to the range now. Talk at ya all later.

[Hoyt]

27. Because no physician should have to put up with what NewMoon posted. It's that simple.

[permatex]

41. What's wrong with telling your pediatrician

that it is none of their business if you have a gun in the home or not? I shouldn't have to put up with a physician asking me if I have a gun in the home, but I would because it's a 1A issue as my telling them none of your business is a 1A issue.

I've seen some really off the wall remarks from you in my short time here and this one, hoping a dr. kicks out a patient for telling the dr. none of their business, is right up there.

Dude, your hatred of gun owners astounds me to no end.

[Hoyt]

43. Your irrational love of guns, Dude, astounds me as well.

[permatex]

44. Then I've done my job here

I've astounded you. My so called love of guns is, in my opinion, rational and my opinion is all that counts, not yours, not anyone else's, but mine.

[PavePusher]

77. You've dodged the question.

As usual.

[Meiko]

35. Not gonna happen Hoyt

and you know that. Besides it say's they are free to discuss guns not that they have to. If you as a patient have not set some ground rules that covers discussions with your doctor, you better get busy. Some doctors own some really nice guns, they can afford the best.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. How does the doctor refusing treatment help the child.

Further, what makes the doctor an expert on firearms? Knowledge in one area does not grant knowledge in another area. One goes to a plumber for drain problems, a mechanic for car problems, and a doctor for health matters.

[DrDan]

51. 8 children dying per day seems to venture into the realm of a pediatrician

[GreenStormCloud]

54. That number is false. Less than one per day. N/T

[DrDan]

62. uh huh . . . ok (denial does nothing to help the situation)

not unlike those denying global warming.

[pipoman]

76. Let's see the source then?

The CDC says around 4.

[DrDan]

115. read the article

[pipoman]

121. I did

So then you won't take umbrage if I continually cite the NRA's 1.7 figure, eh? This is the difference between the gun controller's and the liberal 2nd amendment advocates in these parts..A lot of the gun control advocates love to cite fictitious figures muttered by biased zealots which have no basis in reality, are based on ridiculous statistical analysis, and/or are simply made up. The 2nd advocates cite unbiased figures supported by actual statistics. The gun control activists depend on readers not knowing the truth. When faced with actual statistics from reliable sources which are completely at odds with the zealot's made up numbers, the gun controllers choose to believe the lies and dismiss the truth, just as you are doing right here, right now....it is really fascinating. The source cited in the article, the Bradys, are liars, it has been demonstrated here time and again...it is demonstrated right now with the CDC stating around 4 per day of people 0-17, and the Bradys stating 8 per day, a number never achieved in the history of this country. They have lost ground to the point of complete irrelevance because of their complete intellectual dishonesty, much like the 'reefer madness' believers. They are so desperate that they have to make shit up to try to make themselves visible...they are effectively in the ideological ash pile of failed lobbying/policy efforts..they are a joke..keep on believin'..and wishin'..

[DrDan]

129. demonstrated by those with an ideological bias

[permatex]

137. Back atcha

[pipoman]

140. The truth is the truth and lies are lies, regardless the messenger..

[GreenStormCloud]

123. I trust the U.S. Government's Center For Disease control for their statistics. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

55. And by refusing treatment the doctor helps the situation?

Explain how refusing treatment because the parent owns a gun helps a child with an illness.

[4th law of robotics]

161. Pools are far more dangerous to children than guns

But I wouldn't expect a pediatrician to kick a parent out of his office (as suggested earlier) if he should find they own a pool.

[Hoyt]

72. I said nothing of withholding treatment of child. Just get the unfit dad out of the office.

If a father is not willing to be reminded of his responsibility to his kid and others with respect for guns, I think a doctor should make a point by making an example of dad. I'll leave that up to doc though.

[pipoman]

78. I think you know full well why this happened in the first place, no?

Because an asshole Dr. refused service to a child.

Maybe asshole doctors should be able to refuse service to kids unless the parent agrees to a blood test for alcohol and drugs, after all drunk parents kill far more children than gun owning parents, by a multiple of about 10?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. Be interesting to see if the is even allowed to happen under ACA

when the implementing rules & regs come out.

It certainly would not be allowed at an HMO like Kaiser.

[permatex]

95. Why would the father or mother be unfit if they refused to answer a question about guns in the home?

How do you know the parent is irresponsible just because they tell the dr. it's none of their business if there is a gun in the home?
Since when is it the responsibility of a dr. to make an example of someone?

Dude, get a grip.

[NewMoonTherian]

57. That's fine by me, also.

I'd likely be seeking a new doctor, anyway. I wouldn't want the treatment or counsel of someone so obnoxiously unprofessional that he would push his ideological agenda in that situation.

[bongbong]

66. New Definition!

> he would push his ideological agenda in that situation.

Being concerned about the dangers of guns being in the same household as children isn't considered thoughtful - it's considered IDEOLOGICAL!

at the gun-religionists!

[Hoyt]

73. How about a father so wedded to his guns that he won't even listen to someone who has probably

seen the results of a supposedly law-abiding, responsible gun loving father who screws up?

[NewMoonTherian]

88. I'm not sure what your question is.

The law now protects the doctor's right to talk about the subject. The law is not going to require people to listen or act on what is said.

[Hoyt]

89. I would suggest you do act on it. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

[NewMoonTherian]

92. I already store my guns securely.

I resent the idea that a doctor would presume to ask probing questions about my family's private life, and give me non-medical advice concerning my personal responsibilities. I further resent the idea that I should be required to provide any information I don't feel comfortable revealing.

For that matter, I don't want my doctor's input on pool security, or cleaning chemical storage, or defensive driving. None of those are any of his business. My doctor's job description includes dispensing MEDICAL advice, diagnosing and treating medical conditions, and very little else.

[permatex]

96. And I would suggest you worry about yourself .

[permatex]

120. And just how is the doctor to know this?

I don't mind the doctor asking about guns in the home as long as the doctor doesn't mind me telling him/her to none of their business.

[eallen]

71. I have fired doctors for less.

You should choose a doctor who suits you.

[Hoyt]

74. I agree. And I would want one who confronts parents who smoke, drink too much, have a bunch of guns,

etc.

[Hangingon]

4. If I admit owning a gun will my pediatrician refuse treatment?

[Hoyt]

8. Nope, doctors will tell you to keep it away from kids and provide you some other valuable advice.

This was one of the stupidest laws the right wing gun nuts in Florida have enacted.

[pipoman]

80. Really? No. You are wrong again.

It was a question Amber Ullman least expected Wednesday from her children's pediatrician.

Do you keep a gun in the house?

When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused to answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child's examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn't welcome at Children's Health of Ocala anymore.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/ARTICLES/7241001

[Hoyt]

90. Jeeezus. I had not seen a photo of father. No wonder Pediatrician was so adamant/concerned.

I don't blame him. That guy shouldn't be let near a gun.

Physician did not refuse care -- gave them 30 days to find new doc, that is standard in medicine.

[pipoman]

94. LOLOLOLOLOL

There's your true colors... Fucken' hiippy, eh? So liberal...so...judgmental..

[Hoyt]

97. Yes, I can be quite judgemental of folks who carry guns. This guy just

looks like a poster boy for why antis are 100% correct.

[permatex]

99. So because you don't like what someone looks like

you automatically assume that they are an irresponsible gun owner?

[pipoman]

100. Geez really? Where have I

heard this shit before? Hmmm..



And who else likes to choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on such judgmental statements as..'This guy just looks like a...' knowing not one thing about said person? LOL...a caricature, I tell 'ya..keep talkin'..

[Hoyt]

101. I do know several things about him. One guns are too friggin important to him.

2. He's a right wing tool.

Anyone care to tell us about the good doctor?

[pipoman]

104. How about a cite

for #2 LOL...

edit...and #1 whilst yer at it..

To some of us one can't be too vocal about protection of our civil liberties/rights..

[DonP]

107. Where does it say he was "carrying" a gun?

From the article, unless I missed something, all they did was keep a gun in their home.

No CCW involved. Just simple ownership.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. In the seminal case, the Doc refused care

Facts matter in the real world

[Hoyt]

103. Actually, Professor, doc did not refuse care. Gave family 30days to find another ped.

That is what most docs do when they dismiss a patient.

I'm betting wife was hateful to doc who was simply concerned about child and yahoo 's guns. I would be concerned too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

118. So you admit he did not give some simplistic advice as you claimed he would?

[aikoaiko]

119. Actually you and DrDan have argued that doctors can dismiss patients for any reason.

This is a great example of your inconsistency regarding this case.

[Hoyt]

5. About time someone saw the wisdom in this. Maybe a few more kids will make it to adulthood.

The "Republican-controlled state Legislature" should never have listened to the NRA and right wing gun owners in Florida who made this an issue.

While it should never have been necessary, kudos to physicians who "stood their ground" and fought this right wing law at considerable expense.

[mvccd1000]

6. That was a silly law...

... and you've probably noticed that I'm one of the stronger gun-rights supporters here.

I guess I prioritize the Amendments in numerical order.

[permatex]

7. I have no problem with this ruling

as long as parents can tell the physician to mind their own damned business.

[Hoyt]

10. I hope doctor shows you a picture from emergency room where supposedly responsible gun owner's child

ended up with a bullet hole in their head.

[permatex]

11. I don't need a doctor to show me that

I lived it for 30+ years and it still doesn't alter my opinion of parents telling the doctor to mind their own damned business.

[NewMoonTherian]

164. Didn't the courts rule that patients can't be forced to put up with crap like that?

When the right wing wanted doctors to show girls all kinds of images before performing an abortion?

[Starboard Tack]

12. Good to see 1A still has some merit in Florida.

[permatex]

15. I wholeheartedly agree with you

this was a 1A issue and physicians should be able to inquire about firearms in the house just as it is a 1A issue that the parents can tell the physician to mind their own business.

[Starboard Tack]

163. There will always be some parents who put their devotion to guns before the love for their children.

Being rude to a healthcare professional, whose concern is for the well being of all, may be exercising 1A rights, but in a way that is as foolish and irresponsible as having unsecured firearms in the home, or carrying one in public.
The question is valid, the response you suggest is childish, at best.

[permatex]

170. Your entitled to your opinion

as I'm entitled to my opinion and in the end the only opinion that count is mine.
My kids are grown now but if our pediatrician had asked about guns in the home back then, my response would have been the same, none of your damn business.
Nothing childish about it, in my opinion and your assertion that my response is childish is your opinion which means nothing to me.

[Starboard Tack]

171. And what would a civil answer have cost you?

Do you think that physicians who have your kids' interests at heart have some devious anti-constitutional agenda?
Let me ask you another question? How would you respond to an anonymous caller claiming to conduct a survey on gun ownership and safety?
Do you also tell census takers to mind their own business?

[permatex]

172. OK my civil answer would have been

I'm sorry but thats none of your business.
No I don't think its some anti constitutional agenda, but to me, and only me, its none of their business.

They have the right to ask and I have the right to answer.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Questions...

...about issues immaterial to issues at hand should be met the same response as questions about age, political affiliation and sexual orientation on job applications: NOT APPLICABLE.

No one needs a law for this.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Just don't tell the doc you're an NRA member.

He'll know you're bonkers if you admit it.

[Hoyt]

16. LMAO

[permatex]

17. Good point

but you don't have to be an NRA member to have a gun in the home. They can still inquire about firearms in the home and the parents can tell them to mind their own business, in a respectful way of course.

[spin]

47. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it ...

as foolish as it may be.

I have often discussed my ownership of firearms with my doctors. We discuss the different weapons we enjoy and our experiences on the range.

Sometimes I engage in such a conversation long enough to avoid having the doctor stick his finger up my ass to check out my prostate gland.

It may surprise you but many doctors own firearms and enjoy the shooting sports. Some actually have carry permits, especially in states like Florida. Many enjoy hunting which is a shooting sport that I have never tried.

[spin]

18. There's more to this story than meets the eye ...

Family and pediatrician tangle over gun question
By Fred Hiers
Staff writer
Published: Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 6:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.

It was a question Amber Ullman least expected Wednesday from her children's pediatrician.

Do you keep a gun in the house?

When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused to answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child's examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn't welcome at Children's Health of Ocala anymore.

"Whether I have a gun has nothing to do with the health of my child," said the mother of three girls.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/ARTICLES/7241001

I personally have no problem about a pediatrician asking a parent if there are firearms in their home as the proper storage of firearms is extremely important when young children might gain access to them.

I do question the doctor's decision to drop the patient because she refused to answer his question. It would have been far simpler to merely give her a quick lecture on gun safety or perhaps to give her some free literature on the subject. However a doctor has the right to refuse treatment to a patient if he chooses.

The doctor defended his position by saying that a relationship between a doctor and patient is based on trust and the mother's refusal to answer his question about firearms undermined that trust on more important issues. He also mentioned that half the families that he treats have firearms in their home.

This incident led to the law in Florida that would have prohibited a doctor from asking questions about firearms in the home. Gun owners expressed some concern that having such information in their medical files might lead to higher insurance rates in an age of electronic records and might also be a stealth means for the government to learn who owns firearms. It may be possible that an individual's medical insurance bill might increase if the insurer knew he/she was a gun owner but this is unlikely. I also suspect that in an age of data mining, the government already does know who owns firearms or could easily find out.

I have often discussed my shooting hobby and my gun ownership with my doctors. When I shot regularly on an indoor range I had the level of lead in my blood tested on a yearly basis. This caused my doctor some minor grief as he had to file additional paperwork to explain the reason for the test as the state was worried about workplace environments that could be dangerous.

I agree with the judge's decision that the law violated a doctor's free speech rights.

[DrDan]

20. a patient has a choice, so should the doctor

[DonP]

25. Just like pharmacists, right?

If they disagree with dispensing specific meds they should have the same right to refuse service?

[DrDan]

28. so if a patient refuses to share information critical to family health with their physician,

you do not believe the physician has a right to not treat them?

[DonP]

36. So gun ownership is "critical to family health" now ... according to who? You?

That pediatrician? Based on what part of their medical training?

Since no insurance company in the country charges an extra premium for gun ownership on either health or homeowners insurance policies, it doesn't seem to be considered a risk factor.

Because if it actually was and somebody could prove it, you know damn well the insurance companies would charge extra for it.

So it's OK for doctors to fire patients over things, but not for pharmacists. Just trying to make sure I know where the lines are drawn, and redrawn as needed to support hypocrisy.

[DrDan]

37. it is critical to the 8 children that die daily

[spin]

42. I would point out that it is critical that the pediatrician point out to a parent ...

that if they own firearms proper storage is vital.

This can be accomplished in many ways. Obviously it can be discussed in a conversation between the doctor and the parent but if so it is not necessary for the question of gun ownership to occur. The doctor could merely state, "If you own a firearm it is important to properly secure it." He then could go on to describe how to do so. He could also discuss the dangers of owning a pool in the same manner. Pools kill far more children than firearms but both pose a danger.

The doctor could also simply pass out a brochure on how to safely store a firearm. If the patient wished, he/she could discuss the issue with the doctor.

I feel the doctor was entirely within his rights to refuse treatment to the patient who copped an attitude when he asked if she owned firearms, however I question the ethics of doing so. I'm not a doctor nor do I play one on DU but I feel I would have handled the situation in a more reasonable manner. I would have said, "Perhaps my question was too intrusive but I only wish to point out that if you do indeed own a firearm, proper storage is very important to avert a tragedy." I would have then went on to describe some simple and inexpensive methods to do so.

This pediatrician and other doctors should realize that many gun owners have an irrational fear of revealing to any authority figure that they own firearms. This fear is promoted largely by the NRA and other gun owners. As I have often pointed out, our government has the ability and the capacity by using data mining to compile a very comprehensive list of gun owners if it so chooses. The government would have little reason to search medical records for such information even if when such records are computerized. Far better methods are available.

Patients should also realize that owning a firearm involves a great deal of responsibility especially when young children are in the house. A pediatrician who is concerned about your child's safety is indeed a good doctor.

[DonP]

50. You mean "Brady" children = up to 24 years old? Those children?

[GreenStormCloud]

52. That number is false.

Anti-gunners love to inflate the number of children who die from being shot. A child is generally understood to be a person who has not yet reached puberty, usually about age 12. So if we look as the CDC page, and search limiting the age to 0-12, we get 225 children of that age, annually, who die of gun shots. That includes suicide, homicide, and accident. That is less than one per day, far short of your claimed 8 per day.

To reach 8 per day you have to increase the included age all the way up to 19. We allow 18 year olds to join the military and serve in combat, and we call them men and women. I was 18 when I was sent to Vietnam in 1965.

You should know that when you post a dishonest number that someone in this group will notice it and post about it.

CDC page LINK: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[DrDan]

53. the number came from the link in the OP - but you would know that if you took the

time to read it

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Your number is still a lie. I went to the CDC for the true number.

If you need to rely upon lies to make your case then you have already lost.

[DrDan]

60. I'll trust the source from the link . . .

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. Recognizing that...

...trust is ultimately a decision, a personal one, and not one made by debate, what is your personal criteria for trust/distrust?

[GreenStormCloud]

126. That source is the Brady Center, which has been shown to lie to advance their agenda.

You trust them, not because they are accurate, but because it supports your agenda.

[DrDan]

127. shown by NRA and gun owners, right?

[GreenStormCloud]

130. Shown using data from the U.S. Government's Center For Disease control.

The real numbers are quite easy to look up. To get 8 "children" killed per day you have to have the age limit for being a child all the way up to 19. You can join the Army at 18. So the Brady's also have to claim that the U.S. is using child soldiers. Try telling some 19 year old who has spent a year in Afghanistan in combat that he is just a child.

[DrDan]

135. 8 per year . . . but go ahead and continue to muddle with the definitions if

it lets you sleep better

[GreenStormCloud]

143. So you want to insist that 19 year old men in the Army are children? N/T

[DrDan]

147. one every 2 hours and 45 minutes

[sarisataka]

68. I did read it

"Guns in the home are a proven deadly risk," Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center, said in a written statement. "Guns kill eight children every day. The government cannot tell us or our doctors that we are prohibited from discussing the deadly risks posed by guns."

I will take the CDC numbers thank you. And go ahead and try telling me the CDC is gun friendly...

[pipoman]

82. Here ya are again making up numbers, eh?

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[DrDan]

112. nope - just reading the article

[pipoman]

124. And choosing to believe fiction over fact..

so reminds me of the global warming deniers, the reefer prohibitionists, the anti-choice brigade, and the like, who like to believe fiction in the face of facts.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. wrong on more than one level

"...the physician has a right to not treat them"

- I would really really not phrase the doctor's option this way.



"...a patient refuses to share information critical to family health..."

- Unless the physician has a specific concern such as an addiction or mental health issue, firearm ownership would not be "critical".

[DrDan]

49. guns sharing a home with children is, on it's own, "critical"

[MicaelS]

58. It's amazing how so concerned you doctors are..

About guns in the home, when medical malpractice kills 100,000 Americans annually. And who's doing that malpractice? Why it's doctors!

But I suppose it's easier to point fingers at the NRA and Gun Owners, than to clean up the mess in your own profession isn't it?

And I guess your refusal to treat patients based on politics is acceptable in this day and age, isn't it? Pharmacists are allowed to do it. I guess the Hippocratic Oath no longer applies, not even in spirit.

[DrDan]

59. you really should avoid jumping to conclusions about others

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. He happens to be correct. You health care professionals are far deadlier than gun owners:

And it's not the NRA saying that- it's one of your own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pronovost

Peter J. Pronovost[3] is an intensive care specialist physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.[4] He is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, and Surgery, Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is Medical Director for the Center for Innovation in Quality Patient Care.

He introduced an intensive care checklist protocol that during an 18-month period saved 1500 lives and $100 million in the State of Michigan.[5] According to Atul Gawande in The New Yorker, Pronovost's "work has already saved more lives than that of any laboratory scientist in the past decade".[6]

In 2008 Time named Pronovost one of the 100 most influential people in the world;[7] that same year, Pronovost was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship, otherwise known as a "genius grant".[1]

Pronovost's book Safe patients, smart hospitals: how one doctor's checklist can help us change health care from the inside out was released in February 2010.[8]

https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/gkim9/public_html/PronovostTestimonyApr162008.doc?uniq=-cbj3dn

...Yet this same American medical system, leaves surgical instruments in patients, overdoses children with blood thinner medications, operates on the wrong side of the body, gives patients appropriate therapies only 50% of the time, and kills nearly a hundred thousand people per year from preventable errors. Perhaps most disturbing, a recent Commonwealth Fund Report ranked the United States healthcare system dead last among other industrialized nations in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes...

That means, despite being outnumbered about 20 to 1 by gun owners in the US, you lot manage to kill twice as many people.

[Euromutt]

109. "DrDan" isn't a health care professional; he holds a PhD in computer science (n/t)

[DrDan]

113. more jumping to conclusions . . .

[Euromutt]

116. No, I'm going by what I recall you telling me

Back when you had some football helmet as your avatar. Okay, correction: you hold a PhD in "a particular area of technology," not specifically computer science. It doesn't alter my point, which was that the "Dr" part of your handle indicates a PhD, not an MD.

[DrDan]

117. my comment was not in response to your post

your recollection is correct

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. not in the medical sense n/t

[DrDan]

63. I guess anything goes in protecting the sanctity of guns

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. anything goes in protecting rights

FTFY

[DrDan]

70. typical

[eallen]

75. There are important differences between physicians and pharmacists.

Pharmacists -- despite what some may prefer to think -- act primarily as a quality control point in a largely routine fashion serving masses of customers. In contrast, family physicians are providing highly personalized service. Related to this, even small towns will have a few family physicians from which to choose, but may require driving up the road to get to the one pharmacy in the area.

How much difference that should make legally -- I'm not certain. But they aren't equivalent.

[krispos42]

67. Answer every question I ask you, or I'll drop you

You, patient, don't have the opportunity to not answer any question I may ask. There is no private life when you're in my office, fool.

[DrDan]

69. hyperbole

[PavePusher]

79. Like "8 children a day"? n/t

[DrDan]

114. read the article

[PavePusher]

139. Yeah, I did. Where does that "stat " of "8 kids a day" come from? n/t

[krispos42]

91. Accurate.

I am your doctor, and out of the dozens of hazards to children that exist in your house, I will focus on one of them and if you don't answer me, you can get lost.

[aikoaiko]

122. You can't really support a doctor for dismissing a patient who wished to maintain privacy...

... on an issue that was not related to a treatment plan, no less?

Really? I can't believe you wouldn't call bullshit on the doctor's decision.

Doctors should should never force patients to choose between privacy issues and continuing to receive treatment.

[DrDan]

132. I can support a doctor in dropping a family when the parents exhibit more

concern over their gun rights than the health and welfare of the child

if the parents object to the care provided, to include the questions, they should be seeking other healthcare professionals on their own - rather than attempting to garner favor from their other RW-whacko, gun loving friends

[PavePusher]

134. Since the child is at far greater risk from many other things....

and the doctors were never, at any time, forbidden to offer gun safety advice, your concern is grossly misplaced.

But since you seem so exercised about the issue, please explain how telling a parent and patient to leave is good for "the health and welfare of the child". That should be interesting.

[DrDan]

142. the doctor exercised his prerogative, rightfully so

[PavePusher]

159. And you have failed to answer my question.

[aikoaiko]

138. She only said she didn't want to answer the question, the intake stopped, and she was dismissed.

That's it. He still could have advised whatever he wanted to advise about safe storage or accidents, but he didn't.

Think about the irrationality of the logic here. This doctor thinks its so important to find out if a parent owns a gun that he is willing to dismiss the patient who doesn't answer, but he is unwilling to assume the answer may be yes and advise accordingly.

In this case, it really was the doctor who put gun politics ahead of the health of the child. I know your public position on this issue will make it difficult for you to backtrack, but I'm confident you see the problem with the doctors logic.

It was a repulsive choice by the doctor -- legal but repulsive and not in the interest of the child.

Are you really a MD? Would you dismiss a patient for maintaining privacy over an issue that doesn't involve treatment? Most doctors I know work with their patients on issues that are difficult to disclose for whatever reason.

[DrDan]

146. never claimed to be an MD

I support the doctor's actions, however - it was his right as it would have been to continue caring for the family

[aikoaiko]

153. Do you support doctors dimissing their patients for any reason?

[DrDan]

154. no

[permatex]

141. RW-whacko, gun loving friends

at least we know where you stand on gun owners. Just because I tell a doctor it's none of their business if I have a gun in the house, I am more concerned about my gun rights than the health and welfare of my child?

Do you have any idea how utterly stupid that sounds?

[DrDan]

144. I certainly do - utterly stupid

[permatex]

152. Well, at least we agree on something

Let me clarify, I'm not calling you stupid, I've read alot of your comments and I think your a pretty smart individual, I am saying that your comment to which I replied to is pretty stupid.
Just because I or anyone else tells a doctor that it's none of their business if there is a gun in the house doesn't mean that we care more for our gun rights than the health and welfare of our children. it just mean that it's none of their business whats in our homes.

[DrDan]

155. that's where we part - I do think it is their business

I think them asking about guns, swimming pools, seat belts, etc is appropriate.
Years ago I took my daughter to the doctor with an arm injury (falling off a bike or something similar). He had her disrobe to examine her arm. I was offended, until I realized her health was his concern, not my not feelings. I am fully supportive of their efforts in my children's health - to include answering questions they deem to be related. If I objected to their method of treatment, it is up to me to find another care provider, and their decision as to whether they want to continue the care of my family.

My doctor today asks questions I would prefer he didn't . . . but I do understand why he does so. If it is my health under consideration, I shall be cooperative and try to do my part.

and on edit, I agree my comment was flippant.

[gejohnston]

156. disrobing for her arm?

That would require an explanation and it better be good.

[DrDan]

158. I was in the room - and I fully understand the reason

[permatex]

157. Thats where we will agree to disagree

I agree it is the dr. right to ask and this law was a useless, dumbass law, that said, its my right to tell them its none of their business and I shouldn't have to worry about retribution.

I had to take my children to the dr.'s many times also but not once did he ask about firearms in the home. My kids are all grown up now so all I have to worry about is when the grandchildren come over and thats when my home defense gun goes into the gun vault.

In my opinion, the better way to go would be for the waiting room to have brochures on how to properly store dangerous items, including firearms, in your home, as others here have said.

On edit also: I could have used less incendiary language also.

[PavePusher]

160. Wrong, wrong, WRONG.

It is not the doctors business to know what property I own.

They may ask if I would like safety information about topics x/y/z any time they want. They may not ask what belongings I have.

Can you say "boundary violation"? I'm sure you can...

[DrDan]

162. yes they can - at least in Florida they can - thanks to the sensible judge

[PavePusher]

165. Do you believe a doctor should be able to refuse care if told "NOYB"?

If so, you are endorsing discrimination.

[DrDan]

166. what a load

[PavePusher]

167. I'll note that you still haven't been able to cite the source of the "stat" you quoted earlier.

"what a load", indeed.

If that's the best you have, is it any wonder that the positions you support are fading faster than yesterday's sunset?

[DrDan]

168. once again . . . follow the link in the OP

geez louise

[friendly_iconoclast]

173. I take it your PhD is *not* in statistics, as that "8 per day" number you keep touting is incorrect.

It may be what you want to believe- but "seems about right to me" never has been and never will be a gague of accuracy...

Per the CDC site, the number of persons 0-18 killed by firearms in the period 1999-2007 was 19,760. 8 x 365 is 2920, which leads to a rate of 6.76 per day- still too high, but not
"...eight children every day."

So Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign is either 1) incapable of middle-school math or 2) lying.
What's your excuse?

[DrDan]

176. nice attempt at deflecting the argument

[friendly_iconoclast]

181. Would *you* listen to someone who insisted "pi = 3"? That's less of an error...

...than the one you're defending.
What was that doctorate in, again?

[DrDan]

186. I have read the corroborating support for that number - and I am comfortable with it

I refuse to get into a meaninless argument about the definition of a child.

(notice how I did not have to resort to personal insults in my reply?)

[PavePusher]

174. I went to the link in the OP.

No source for the stat is cited.

So, I'll ask again, where does it come from?

[DrDan]

175. we all get it - you do not like the number because it makes clear the impact of guns

[friendly_iconoclast]

180. Why is someone with a doctorate in a technical field defending factual inaccuracy?

Leave the "faith-promoting rumor" to the more doctrinaire religious types...

[PavePusher]

182. Stop lying about my opinion, which I have not actually offered.

I have asked repeatedly where the number quoted comes from. You can't seem to tell me, but see it as a reason to attack me.

Do you see the problem here?

[DrDan]

184. I do - you refuse to acknowledge that I provided my source

[DrDan]

169. every 2 hours and 45 minutes

[PavePusher]

183. I ask again: Where does your cited stat come from? n/t

[DrDan]

185. I don't know how to say it any differently - I provided the source for the number I stated

[PavePusher]

187. O.K., I'll be as clear as possible.

You have not provided the "source", you have quoted someone who is allegedly quoting someone else. There is a study or collected stats or something that is the source of the quoted stat. Provide it and you may have a talking point. As it stands, you keep citing a number apparently pulled from thin air, then passed along as gospel.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

[DrDan]

191. you asked for my source . . . I gave you my source

What source did the President of the Brady Center use? I would only be guessing . . . but you know that.

I can make a guess . . . as can you.

I am comfortable with his number.

8 deaths per day . . .

[PavePusher]

192. No, if you look back, I did not ask you for YOUR source....

I specifically asked (repeatedly) for THE source of the statistic.

Which you have turned backflips to avoid providing. Well done.

[DrDan]

193. "Where does your cited stat come from?" - #183

and I shared again and again where the number I cited came from - the link in the OP.

just another attempt to deflect attention from the real problem - too many young deaths daily

[PavePusher]

194. In other words, a number pulled from the Ether.....

just another attempt to deflect attention from the lies and inuendo.

[DrDan]

196. and your source for "lies" would be . . . .

you are claiming someone intentionally lied? Do I understand your post?

[gejohnston]

199. If Pave won't say it, I will.

Yes the president of the Brady Center either believes false information or he intentionally lied, with is redundant. All lies are intentional. The Brady Center lies. The NRA lies.

[DrDan]

200. I can understand that there may be different ways of cutting the data, for example

how old one considers a "child".

But, to accuse someone of lying - of intentionally using false data - is a serious accusation.

I would like "Pave" to support this accusation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. BTW....

A very good topic to bring up.

Thanks

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. If people are worried about docs asking about gun ownership... just lie and say. "no"

Problem solved. I would not answer such a question truthfully to somebody I hardly know.

[spin]

45. That's why a doctor asking that question is counterproductive ...

Many gun owners will simply lie.

Far better to simply pass a brochure to the patient that describes simple methods of the safe storage of firearms or mention it without asking if the patient actually owns a firearm.

Firearms are indeed dangerous items and if you own one, proper storage is important especially if children are present in your home.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. What a disappointment. The article doesn't refer to the NRA at all.

Why is that?

Was the reference to the NRA just bait to get readers to click to the story?

[DrDan]

30. did you actually read the linked article?

"The NRA tried to intervene in the doctors' lawsuit. But the judge denied the lobbying group's request, saying the state could adequately defend itself

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-07-03/story/federal-judge-blocks-florida-law-preventing-doctors-discussing-gun#ixzz1zZwsy4fr

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Thank you. So the NRA was not involved. The judge said that it could not be involved.

Got it.

[DrDan]

32. the NRA tried to intervene . . . got it?

[Meiko]

40. The NRA needs

to keeps it's nose out of this one.

[permatex]

46. Agreed

This law was ill advised and the judge did the right thing with the permanent injunction. NRA needs to let it go.

[pipoman]

86. A similar law

written which forbids doctors from denying service (service which is often paid for by public money) based on someone's refusal to answer non-critical personal questions should be forthcoming. This current law is likely too broad..healthcare should be a right and those who are licensed to dispense it should have no right to refuse service except in the most extreme of conditions, not including refusal to answer personal questions unrelated to the treatment at hand.

[permatex]

87. Now that is a law I can get behind

Health services, whether it be a doctor, a clinic, a hospital, should NEVER be denied because a patient won't answer a question not related to the health of said patient.

Your right, Healthcare is a fundamental right.

[Euromutt]

108. Well put

I recall saying something to the effect that this law was the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito, but that that didn't mean the mosquito didn't need swatting.

[bowens43]

81. if there is a minor in the house

you should not be able to own a gun, any gun.

[permatex]

85. Why?

as long as it is secured, why not?
Kinda trampling on the BoR aren't you?

[pipoman]

106. What about a swimming pool?

You do know that swimming pools kill 10 times more kids than guns and there are half as many residential swimming pools than homes with guns, no?

So again, what about swimming pools?

[DrDan]

111. agree 100%

[permatex]

125. I'll ask the same question that bowens43 refuses to answer

Why? As long as the firearm is properly secured, what is the problem? Kinda trampling on the BoR aren't ya?

[DrDan]

128. I see - so when the gun is not secured, there is no reason to be on the alert? gotcha

[permatex]

131. Didn't answer the question did ya?

Typical of gun control proponents. You agreed with bowens43 that if there is a child in the home, you should not be allowed to own a gun of any kind and I asked, why? If the gun is properly secured, why should you not be allowed to have a gun in the home?

Now, try answering my question.

[DrDan]

133. I did - try to reread it with a focus on understanding

[permatex]

136. No, actually you didn't.

Why is it I can't seem to get an honest answer, why should you not be able to own any kind of firearm if you have a child in your home? Why? If it's properly secured, Why not? Banning people from owning and keeping a firearm in a home with children kinda runs afoul of the BoR doesn't it?

Are you for that as is bowens43?
I would like a straight answer not hyperbole.

[GreenStormCloud]

148. I grew up with Dad's rifle hanging on the bedroom wall.

At age 7 I was given a BB gun, at age 11 I was given a real shotgun, .410 bore. I hunted rabbits and help put meat on our table. All the other rural families that I knew had guns and they weren't locked up. None of us had any accidents as we were taught very early to respect guns.

[NewMoonTherian]

149. You are wrong, and you are losing.

There is currently zero chance of your ridiculous idea from being implemented in the United States, because there is still some degree of sensibility left among us.

[aikoaiko]

102. It was a shitty law inspired by a shitty doctor's decision to deny service.

Let's face it, even if the parent refused to answer the question about gun ownership the doctor could have given the same advice on safe storage (if he was going to give any advice), but instead he chose to play ideological asshole.

I can see why he is a hero to some in this thread.

[Euromutt]

110. I think you missed a "shitty"

In front of "decision." Other than that, I couldn't agree more.

[Meiko]

151. What makes a doctor

an expert on gun ownership, some "guidance" form letter from the AMA. If the doctor can show me that he knows anything about guns, or even owns a gun then I will answer their questions. After they answer mine. In all fairness to doctors I have only been asked once about guns by a doctor, and she was a Pediatrician. I just informed her it was none of her business and let's get on with why we are here..OK

[FunkyLeprechaun]

178. When one trains to be a doctor

They participate in several modules (to help the potential doctor decide what he/she wants to practice in) and one of these is working in Emergency medicine. My sister is a doctor and she saw all sorts of things in the ER while she was training to be a doctor, including many gunshot victims.

You may not have experienced seeing a gunshot wound on a person but your doctor is likely to have seen gunshot wounds.

[Meiko]

179. I have seen several

gunshot wounds,Including the one in my back. I have also seen many automobile accidents, that doesn't make me an accident investigator.

[GreenStormCloud]

189. Treating gunshot wounds does NOT make them a firearms expert.

It makes them expert in treating bullet wounds, and that is all.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

190. Okay

But remember that they're the ones that know what gunshot wounds look like (especially with the different types of bullets out there).

They're right to have a cause for concern.

It's nothing to do with how well they know guns.

[PavePusher]

195. Surely they should be equally or more concerned about cars, right? n/t

[DrDan]

197. not unusual for a pediatrician to ask about seat belts and swimming pools

[sylvi]

188. There's no need for the doctor to know specifically if you own a gun or not.

It's not like they're going to offer a multi-hour syposium on firearm safety to those who do.

"Hey, you know to keep them locked up, right?", and pass out a brochure just like they would for any other home safety issues. Takes all of 10 seconds so why don't they just do it for all parents who come through instead of prying as to whether you are a gun owner or not?

[friendly_iconoclast]

198. But *that* wouldn't allow for moral posturing....