Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Docs vs. Glocks law protects patients(FL)
orlandosentinel.com ^ | 17 August, 2012 | Timothy Wheeler

Posted on 08/17/2012 10:10:57 AM PDT by marktwain

Why would the Florida Legislature pass a law that prevents doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes?

Opponents of the law, now struck down by the U.S. District Court, maintain that the law violates doctors' First Amendment right of free speech. The doctors insist they only want to educate patients about gun safety.

But none of the doctor organizations fighting the law have admitted to the public why the "Docs vs. Glocks" law, or Firearm Owner's Privacy Act, was necessary in the first place. Not the American Academy of Pediatrics. Not the American Academy of Family Physicians. Not even U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Cooke, who didn't even mention in her opinion the years-long gun control campaign waged by medical organizations.

Here's the truth: the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other medical organizations want guns banned. As far back as 1996, the AAP distributed a pamphlet jointly with the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a part of the Brady Campaign, then tellingly known as Handgun Control, Inc. The pamphlet, part of an ad campaign called STOP, advised parents, "The best way to reduce gun risks is to remove the gun from your home."

The AAP further reinforces its gun-ban message in its official policy, detailed on the AAP website. The policy's summary and recommendation section reads, "The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home."

This advice crosses the line from proper safety guidance to political activism in the doctor's office. But doctors felt empowered by the directive from the AAP to spread the gospel of gun control, using their examination rooms as a bully pulpit.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; fl; guncontrol
It is the doctors and medical practitioners being used as data gatherers for the nanny state that worry me more than them unethically pushing their political agenda.

But then, both go hand in hand.

1 posted on 08/17/2012 10:11:01 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

More BS


2 posted on 08/17/2012 10:14:46 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal; The Duke

Florida PING.


3 posted on 08/17/2012 10:18:10 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If I want to know my doctors opinion about guns, I’ll ask for it


4 posted on 08/17/2012 10:18:54 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“No, Sir. No guns in MY house. Guns are evil. Guns kill people! And, I hate to admit it, Sir, but guns skeer me...”


5 posted on 08/17/2012 10:25:50 AM PDT by moovova (OMG...Obama Must Go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“...protects patients”

That’s the problem with this law - it assumes that patients need the government to protect them from a doctor’s questions. I don’t want my doctor asking me about guns, but if he does, I’m more than capable of finding myself a new doctor without government intervention, thank you very much. Free market solutions are far better than a law that dictated what a doctor can or cannot say to a patient or ask a patient.


6 posted on 08/17/2012 10:27:27 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
in a world of obama care the government will own the doctors
7 posted on 08/17/2012 10:45:26 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
While I listen very attentively to medical advice given to me by any of my doctors, I am paying for it, I turn a deft ear to their questions and advice about gun safety.

Why?

While their medical advice is based on years of training and experience I have found that their advice about guns,etc to be based of hearsay evidence, at best.

Besides, once our medical records become digitized and available to anyone what is to prevent a governmental entity from electronically accessing everyone’s records and creating a clandestine list of gun owners invisible to Congress and, hence immune to prohibitions on such lists?

8 posted on 08/17/2012 10:45:26 AM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
That’s the problem with this law - it assumes that patients need the government to protect them from a doctor’s questions.

I think you are misunderstanding the law. It is not protecting them from the doctors questions. It is protecting them from the government that gets the answers to the doctors questions in their data base.

9 posted on 08/17/2012 10:48:02 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The doctors insist they only want to educate patients about gun safety.

Lame. What makes doctors experts in firearms? Unless they have a certificate in firearm safety, anything they say about the subject can be classified as the opinion of an amateur .

10 posted on 08/17/2012 10:55:20 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I think you are misunderstanding the law. It is not protecting them from the doctors questions. It is protecting them from the government that gets the answers to the doctors questions in their data base.

If that is the case, then the correct response (that is, the response that most closely adheres to pro-freedom/limited-government principles) would be to prohibit that information from being entered into any database that may be accessible to any government agency or authority. The correct response is NOT to legislate what a doctor may or may not say to a patient or ask a patient.

11 posted on 08/17/2012 11:07:01 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

When my doctor asks me about guns, he want to know if I have anything new that he can borrow, shoot, admire, etc. And then he shows me the picture of his prize elk (same picture, three straight years).


12 posted on 08/17/2012 11:11:51 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I have signs posted similar to this in my treatment rooms:


13 posted on 08/17/2012 11:15:20 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Sin Makes You Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
If that is the case, then the correct response (that is, the response that most closely adheres to pro-freedom/limited-government principles) would be to prohibit that information from being entered into any database that may be accessible to any government agency or authority. The correct response is NOT to legislate what a doctor may or may not say to a patient or ask a patient.

That is what the law does. It is being mischaracterized by the media. Surprise, surprise. Doctors are allowed to talk to patients about guns. They are not allowed to enter answers into data bases, or to deny patients care because they chose not to answer questions about guns.

14 posted on 08/17/2012 11:17:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I suspect that after January 1 2014 that question will be required for every doctor patient relationship and a while later, perhaps in 2015, anyone refusing to answer or affirming a gun in the home will be terminated from all medical care and/or taxed with the money being drawn immediately from the victim’s bank account. Justice Roberts says the government can require anything at all so long as the penalty for noncompliance is a tax.


15 posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:02 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
My doctor signed up for a newly minted Wisconsin CCW and started going to a local range to supplement her classroom training. She found out a major "guy thing secret" shooting is a lot of fun, she said a "blast".

Regards,
GtG

16 posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
You are a saint use : <img src="http://thabto.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/cc-sign1.jpg" width="20%"> to get


17 posted on 08/17/2012 11:24:40 AM PDT by Mycroft Holmes (<= Mash name for HTML Xampp PHP C JavaScript primer. Programming for everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Here is the NRA characterization of the law:

“The Florida law, to stop doctors from interrogating children and their parents about gun ownership and guns in the home, and entering the information into medical records, is especially important now given the current state of healthcare in our country. And on June 29, in an order that reads like it was written by the Brady Campaign and the anti-gun lawyers of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Miami Judge Marcia Cooke struck down the so-called “Docs & Glocks” law, which would have protected Florida's gun owner privacy rights.”

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/7/alert-judge-calls-law-to-protect-gun-owners-rights-a-legislative-illusion.aspx?s=&st=10473&ps=

18 posted on 08/17/2012 11:31:23 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

OMG, Doc, you owe me a new monitor and keyboard. Are you an eye doctor? LMAO!!


19 posted on 08/17/2012 11:34:49 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
That is what the law does. It is being mischaracterized by the media. Surprise, surprise. Doctors are allowed to talk to patients about guns. They are not allowed to enter answers into data bases, or to deny patients care because they chose not to answer questions about guns.

That's not entirely true. The law does all of those things, sure, and all of those things are entirely appropriate. But the law also states that doctors "should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm . . .," although it does make exceptions for doctors who ask with a "good faith" belief that the question is relevant to medical care or the health/safety of the patient or others. That part of the law strikes me as wholly unnecessary. Given the other protections in the law, as well as the "good faith" exception, what is the purpose of the prohibition? If the doctor can't use the information in any way anyway, what purpose is served by prohibiting the conversation itself? I'm a firm believer that government should have only that power that is necessary - superfluous, unnecessary laws are themselves harmful, because they represent superfluous, unnecessary expansions of government.

Moreover, that section, even with the good faith exception, strikes me as an unnecessary government intervention on the conversations between doctors and patients. First, because the law would likely "chill" even good faith questions; and second, because I don't think it's a proper role of government to go digging around determining whether someone said/asked something in "good faith," and punishing them if they did not.

20 posted on 08/17/2012 11:38:50 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
But Doctor, it is best not to say.

If people think I have guns, they may burglarize them.

If people think I do not have guns, they may burglarize me.

21 posted on 08/17/2012 11:45:57 AM PDT by gatex (NRA, JPFO and Gun Owners of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

“should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm . . .,”

Given that answers to questions such as above are required to be entered into patients records, and such records are already being entered into national data bases, how would you word the law to prevent the doctors offices from being used to collect information on who owns guns for the government?

Sure, we need to get the government out of the doctor/patient relationship, but that is not the reality we are dealing with.


22 posted on 08/17/2012 11:48:59 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Given that answers to questions such as above are required to be entered into patients records, and such records are already being entered into national data bases, how would you word the law to prevent the doctors offices from being used to collect information on who owns guns for the government?

The rest of the law does just that, prohibiting doctors from entering such information into the patient's record. There is no law that requires doctors to write down every answer to every question they ask. I would word the law exactly how it is worded, with the exception of removing the prohibition on asking.

23 posted on 08/17/2012 11:55:49 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

When my kids pediatrician asked “Do you have any guns in your home?” my response was an immediate “This visit is over, Doctor, and you are fired! Any attempt to keep my children’s medical records from their new physician will result in a MASSIVE lawsuit and publicity from gun-rights organizations that could run you out of town.”

The Doc was still spluttering justifications as my family departed her office.


24 posted on 08/17/2012 12:00:00 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21; kinganamort; katherineisgreat; floriduh voter; summer; Goldwater Girl; windchime; ...
"Why would the Florida Legislature pass a law that prevents doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes?"

Ummm, maybe because they agree with their conservative base that the nanny state sucks? Or that the FedGov will be putting this in your medical records for the remainder of eternity, maybe?

Florida Freeper

I'm compiling a list of FReepers interested in Florida-related topics.
If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.

25 posted on 08/17/2012 1:35:57 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mycroft Holmes; SgtHooper
Thanks. Here's the other one I have posted in my office:


26 posted on 08/17/2012 1:37:23 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Sin Makes You Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It works both ways. I had a dentist I really loved who is a fellow firearms afficionado and has as dark a sense of humor as I do. One time we were making small talk about his last hunting trip and he gets this crazy look on his face and sez, "You know, it isn't the camping I like. It's the KILLING! Now open wide."

Of course, you'd probably want to be careful about exactly which patients you used that line on...

27 posted on 08/17/2012 1:52:20 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If some anti-gun quack wants to lecture US about firearms, perhaps we should lecture THEM about the 200,000 patients who die each year due to mistakes made by so-called doctors.


28 posted on 08/17/2012 2:12:24 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The Second Amendment makes all the other amendments possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

All it takes is one antigun doctor to decide that someone is stressed or unstable and the cops can go on a gun grabbing expedition.


29 posted on 08/17/2012 2:23:23 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Just say no.


30 posted on 08/17/2012 2:29:09 PM PDT by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ax

They ask little kids what their parents have.


31 posted on 08/17/2012 2:34:29 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Make sure that a parent is in the exam room with the little kids so that Mom or Dad knows what questions are being asked.


32 posted on 08/17/2012 8:19:19 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (If people don't have to show an ID to vote, why do they have to show one to purchase a firearm?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson