FL:Court Uphold Florida Law Limiting Doctor Snooping and Recordkeeping of Patients Gun Ownership

Gun Watch ^ | 27 July, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A8tM-hOOUqQ/S8HTXqrkIZI/AAAAAAAAA9g/QnOs59Ck3LI/s1600/Doctor+Big+Brother.jpg

The old media in Florida tried to frame the issue as one of the limiting of Doctor's speech, but it was never about that.   The law was in reaction to Doctors inappropriately asking questions about gun ownership, and potentially feeding that information into government databases.  This is known as a "boundary violation" where a professional uses his power in inappropriate ways.

The 11th Circuit Cout of Appeals upheld the law yesterday, the 25th of July.  It is possible that the rulling will be appealed to the Supreme Court.   From the startribune.com, Marion Hammer, a proponent of the law speaks:

"The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners when they seek medical care," Hammer said in an email.

A majority of the judges agreed:

"The act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat.

From the decision:

The Act seeks to protect patients’ privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiryand record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The Act recognizes that when a patient enters a physician’s examination room, the patient is in a position of relative powerlessness. The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority. In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear. In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The three judge panel concluded that the Doctor Patient relationship is a power relationship, so that asking about guns without a relevant medical purpose is a boundary violation that can be regulated by the state.

[skinkinthegrass]

I've have told; the Doctor, to "Go to Hell"..end of story.
then ended the Inquisition and changed Doctor.

[marktwain]

Also, the primary abusers were pediatricians asking children if their parents had guns.

[Haiku Guy]

Gun Registration
They don’t care how they get it
These jerks never sleep

[Logical me]

Nothing like living in communists America. Right? We are getting there bit by bit.

[x1stcav]

The left is like rust.

It corrodes 24 hours a day.

[Haiku Guy]

They want to get this information into each person’s electronic patient medical history. Then they will be able to find all of the houses with guns with the push of a button.

I can hear the statist a$$holes saying “The government can’t access these records for non-medical purposes, so what are you worried about?”

The sad thing is, they may actually believe that...

[Lurking Libertarian]

The rationale behind this decision is the same one that the 9th Circuit used in upholding California’s ban on gay conversion therapy: the practice of medicine is an activity that can be regulated by the State even when it interferes with doctors’ free speech.

[Vinnie]

Just say no.

[rcofdayton]

Actually, they don’t believe that. They are simply lying.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Bravo! It was distressing that this “dirty trick” sponsored by the radical leftist American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians, to coerce parents to surrender their guns, had originally been allowed by a federal judge.

It was downright underhanded. First, to get information about a family’s guns from the parents or their children, just so they could enter it into their medical record, where it could be accessed (thank you HIPAA) by any number of government agencies.

Then to coerce parents to give up their guns or to deny them medical service. And even to give the information to the state Child Protective Service “as *just* one factor” to determine if parents were “fit”. And even to get potential parents blocked from adopting because they owned guns.

But then the Florida legislature put the brakes on their scheme.

The AAP is so radical leftist, that a group of pediatricians have founded The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), a conservative medical society whose interest is in the medical care of children, not advancing the leftist agenda.

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also is totally dedicated to the leftist agenda, not medical care.

[tbw2]

The problem is that a “GTH” or “None of your business” results in a “yes” on the check box that you own guns.
Whereas lying and saying “no” when you do own guns means that someone, somewhere could prosecute you for lying in forms if the kid was hurt by a gun.

[BobL]

“I’ve have told; the Doctor, to “Go to Hell”..end of story.”

Then you get Box 3 checked off: “Appears to have firearms and is combative about it.”

Not a good thing to have in your files.

[BobL]

“Also, the primary abusers were pediatricians asking children if their parents had guns.”

One of my kids dealt with that question, alone with the doctor.

...so much for taking them in for checkups, or just about anything else.

[BobL]

“I simply responded, ‘None of your fuck!n business’.”

Also Box 3: “Appears to have firearms and is combative about it.”

“The doctor chuckled.”
In part because he had his answer and you didn’t appear to know it.

[BobL]

“Just say no.”

CORRECT ANSWER. That gets you Box 1 checked off: “Does not appear to have firearms at his/her residence”.

That is what you want in your file.

[rollo tomasi]

Just say no in a reassuring voice. Civil disobedience in an age of rising despots.

Sit your kids down, instruct them to do the same, and then have a long talk about the history of governments/ideological totalitarianisms.

[Robert Teesdale]

The sad thing is, they may actually believe that...

Bahahahaha lol LOL bahaha HAHAHA hehehe snicker (cough).

Assuredly. No one with an income to preserve would ever assist the State.

[Still Thinking]

The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority.

The physician doesn't have any "authority" other than what the patient cedes to them. In reality, they're people whom you consult for specialized knowledge and skills, like a plumber or a vet, or a mechanic, a contractor in other words. None of those people have any "authority" over you, or even to have any binding opinion on your lifestyle.

You may have a difficult time finding one honest enough and humble enough to realize that, but that's the fact of the matter.