Posted on 09/15/2011 10:06:16 AM PDT by Daffynition
Me: "How many malpractice claims have been made against you?"
—and one of the first questions they asked was about guns.—
A good answer is, “Does my Red Ryder bb gun count?” It’s a nice way to divert without actually lying. I have no ethical problem with helping them to incorrect inferences if the questions are inapropriate and irrelevant.
Heck, you can also say things like “Guns make me nervous”, even though you have an arsenal at home. I mean, they DO make you nervous if they are not being handled properly, right?
A great diversion is to ask a question as an answer. When they ask about firearm ownership, ask them, “if I were ever to buy a gun, would it be best to get training on how to use one. Heck, you could have three full gun cabinets at home. It’s still a good rhetorical question. And besides, you could even continue to steer the conversation in the direction of a gun you are “thinking of getting”, causing him to naturally assume that if you ever did it would be your first gun.
This sort of thing is actually kind of fun. I’ve done it regarding other subjects.
If your doctor reveals themselves to by anti-2A by asking stupid and invasive questions about your firearms, you are better off going elsewhere. I think that most gun owners would rather know if their doctor is an anti-gun snitch so as to avoid any problems in the future (especially if you have kids).
Forewarned is forearmed.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/25/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-added-21000-doctors-because-/
Rick Perry says Texas added 21,000 doctors because of tort reform.
In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a package of changes to malpractice law, plus the state added a few more through a referendum known as Proposition 12
I ask my GP here in Missouri about 0bamacare. She said " there were changes that were needed, but 0bamacare was too much too fast."
When I ask what was the first change that she felt needed to be made? Her reply "Tort Reform"
Patient enforcement, if the Doc asks the question:
“You’re fired!”
Instructions to children:
“It’s none of your business Doc.”
Then leave.....
Just ask the Doctor what expert training in regard to firearms that the doctor has . If you don’t find yourself impressed with the credentials ask the doctor if their malpractice insurance carrier knows that they are practicing beyond their scope & would the doctor like you to tell them. Then watch the look on the doctors face. 8*)
If you are discharged by your physician because of your use of firearms, they could face disciplinary action because they are discriminating against you because of your beliefs and ownership/use of a legal product.
In this case, it would be really stupid for a doctor to give you such a reason to take action against them. But Leftists (including doctors) are so careless about these things that I would not be surprised.
A GP is not a “mental health expert”, I am sure all agree...
Exactly. My GP knew that, too. He was “following the rules” set by his HMO, but only in the most technical of ways.
Don't be half-hearted, ask him to recommend where you should go for training. He's the expert with the MD. he should know.
Unless he is a psychiatrist he is not qualified to judge. I could be considered “crazy” by MDs offended because I only use Allopathic medicine for trauma and emergencies and use Naturopathic doctor for everything else. Don’t believe in vaccines or any other drugs. The fact of the matter is that it is none of his business, and we know that they are doing a back door information gathering project for their gun database. If any doctor ever asks me about guns, I will immediately leave and find another doctor. He has the legal right to ask whatever he wants. I have the right to leave. Just because it is a right. Does not mean that it is right.
Unless he is a psychiatrist he is not qualified to judge. I could be considered “crazy” by MDs offended because I only use Allopathic medicine for trauma and emergencies and use Naturopathic doctor for everything else. Don’t believe in vaccines or any other drugs. The fact of the matter is that it is none of his business, and we know that they are doing a back door information gathering project for their gun database. If any doctor ever asks me about guns, I will immediately leave and find another doctor. He has the legal right to ask whatever he wants. I have the right to leave. Just because it is a right. Does not mean that it is right.
You don’t know the story behind the story. The AAP is led by radicals, and it was their intention from the start to use pediatricians to essentially threaten gun owning parents, directly and indirectly, that their children could be taken from them if they continued to own guns. It was done in a very cynical and duplicitous manner.
First, the AAP passed a rule that made it the “ethical responsibility” of pediatricians to talk to the parents of their patients, to determine if they had guns in their homes. Refusal to say was *grounds*, as far as the AAP was concerned, for pediatricians to refuse service.
And this matters, because people may live very far from the next pediatrician, or a small group of pediatricians who were anti-gun could basically lock them out of reasonable pediatric care at all in a large radius.
Second, any information they provided would be put into the child’s electronic medical file, where it could be readily accessed, without warrant, by law enforcement and the State’s Child Protective Services, among many others. This meant that, *for any reason*, if parents were investigated by CPS, their *ownership* of guns could be used as a consideration of whether or not they were “fit parents”.
That is, their owning guns could be a partial “reason” to take their children away.
Third, if parents had a child, and wished to adopt another child, their gun ownership could be cited as a “reason” to not let them adopt, because they “had an unsafe household”. That is, because they owned guns.
The utter viciousness of the AAP in doing this was very intentional, done with tremendous cynicism about “first amendment rights”, because they wanted to *facilitate* the stripping of parents of their second amendment rights. It was a very planned scheme, and the intention had nothing to do with children, and everything to do with gun control.
From the AAP website:
“Advice to parents
“The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.
-Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
-Remove all guns present in the home.
-Talk to your children about the dangers of guns, and tell them to stay away from guns.
-Find out if there are guns in the homes where your children play. If so, talk to the adults in the house about the dangers of guns to their families.”
The whole point is to be half-hearted. It deflects more probing questions. People are basically lazy. If he thinks he’s barking up the wrong tree he’ll quit wasting his time, unless he is a zealot. In which case a whole nother strategy is necessary and even more productive.
To the first doc who asks me that question, I will ask, “How often do you molest children, doctor?” That clearly is of greater relevance to my child’s health.
>My dentist had a gun shop in his back room (Oklahoma). Sadly, he retired.
“He could make your bullets AND your fillings!”
;)
If a doctor asks you about your guns, ask him or her about their sex life.
You may not fully understand. It is not just a discussion, it is a Medical Records chart, in writing, with SS# of parents on it... and many other items. It can and will be linked to national databases. This is not right. Correct safety with firearms is a function of proper parenting and training. The questionnaire doesn’t ask about other things— like crack in the home, alcoholism of the parents,
The pediatrician’s national group has a position paper (based on CDC “studies” of dubious merit and politically left wing driven outcomes, like global warming) on the private ownership of weapons, all sorts, and guns. The database gathered in such questioning goes to insurance companies-— no privacy at all.
And, one should add, under obamacare this would be nationalized and interfaced with the IRS and Treasury. De Facto ad hoc removal of the 2nd Amendment. It is like Hitler and the brownshirts confiscating guns from Jews, and others because of their “public safety” threat. It happened and this is neosocialism.
Physicians operate within the 1st Amendment to the extent that their patients will let them. Just like anywhere else. And this crosses the line into serious Big Brother medicine.
The suit will be appealed by Atty General with numerous amicus briefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.