Posted on 03/27/2013 10:31:54 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) -
Upstate Rep. Joshua Putnam says the doctor's office is no place to be asked about your guns.
But at Palmetto Pediatric, Dr. Deborah Greenhouse says it can be an invaluable part of routine checkups. She's seen what happens when kids don't get the message.
"Three-year old, 5-year old sibling," explained Greenhouse. "A gun was laying around. One picked it up, shot and killed the other."
"Just like I would talk to a family where maybe the parent is a smoker and would be exposing the child to secondhand smoke, it's the same thing here," she said. "If the parent is a firearm owner, we should be talking to them about how to keep their child safe."
"The intent of this legislation is to put a safeguard there to make sure that the Second Amendment rights and the privacy of South Carolinians are not trampled upon," said Putnam.
Putnam's bill is similar to one Floridians came to know as Docs vs. Glocks. It passed two years ago but didn't hold up to First Amendment challenges and could be repealed.
Putnam said his bill is meant to ensure physicians won't one day be required to turn over patient information that would be put into a kind of a federal gun owner database.
"We just don't want the citizens to go their physician and have something jotted down in notes and then that gets reported back to the federal government," he said.
"I would say that is totally ludicrous," said Greenhouse. "I do not document in my chart the number of guns in a household. I don't really care. I do mark that I counseled a family on firearm safety."
Putnam's bill would allow doctors to discuss guns if the patient were being treated for mental health purposes was in an abusive situation or if they'd already been shot.
According to Greenhouse, it's a slippery slope.
"Today it's Mr. Putnam saying I can't talk about gun safety," she said. "Tomorrow, it could be someone from big tobacco saying I can't talk about smoking cessation."
Putnam said he's fine with doctors handing out pamphlets on gun safety, but that in the exam room, doctors should focus only on the medicine.
Just tell the AMA doc you have a shotgun in your pants.
And what qualifies this doctor to advise anyone on firearms? Is she a qualified firearms instructor? Pure overreach by the doctor.
“Just tell the AMA doc you have a shotgun in your pants.”
That’s what I would recommend... “yes, I do have a gun, but I go to a urologist for problems with that...”
“And what qualifies this doctor to advise anyone on firearms?”
The same standard which qualifies an illegal alien, brainless Kenyan to be p-resident?
I think that all this doctor talk about fire arms is way out of proportion. According to the 2009 data, among all child accidental deaths nationally, firearms were involved in 1.1 percent, compared to motor vehicles (41 percent), suffocation (21 percent), drowning (15 percent), fires (8 percent), pedal cycles (2 percent), poisoning (2 percent), falls (1.9 percent), environmental factors (1.5 percent), and medical mistakes (1 percent). Since the difference between accidental deaths due to medical mistakes (1 percent) and accidental deaths due to firearms (1.1 percent) is only 0.1 percentage points, perhaps we should consider a ban on pediatricians along with the ban they propose on firearms and large-capacity magazines.
“So, Doctor, what are your qualifications in the field of firearm safety? None? Does your malpractice insurer know that you are giving advice outside your scope of competence?”
Your health care held at ransom to Utopian social engineering and demographic warfare.
Result? A wholesale loss of freedom.
Eff the government and its agenda.
Much more of this crap and soon Americans will simply refuse to pay their taxes.A very good move IMHO if done
by all.
If a doc tells you he's required to question you about firearms, tell him to show YOU the part of the law that requires you to answer.
That's the crux of the matter. Nothing I hated more than coming in to get a laceration stitched and waiting for the spiel about tobacco to wind down. (I paid for that five minutes, d@mnit!)
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/22-long-rifle-solid-point
Ammo to go has .22LR in stock. Only one manufacturer and it’s about $0.20 a round depending on shipping and the number of boxes, but I thought I’d post it for those interested at that price. [I do not consider this post inappropriate advertising because of the extreme shortage of ammo and the importance of this product.]
http://www.bulkammo.com/bulk-22-lr-ammo-22lr40grlrnskriflematch-50
Bulk Ammo also has some but at $0.50 a round with a bad review.
Why would you do that if they didn't have guns? Which is all the powers that be need if they are going to try to take (all) guns away.
Better lecture everyone, just in case, or you have flagged gun owning households.
Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I didn’t realize you owned a car. Do you know what cars do to children?
I have one of those doctor type of phobias, have not seen one in three years, so its nothing off my back, and if I had to be in a doctors chair getting interrogated I would probably act stupid. Very easy to act stupid and get away with it then trying to tell lies.
The solution to this is ridiculously obvious.
Don’t ask about guns, simply give every parent who walks through the door a brief gun safety talk and perhaps some written materials on the subject.
This method is far superior than asking about guns for several reasons:
1) It does not intrude on anyone’s privacy.
2) It does not undermine the parent’s trust in the pediatrician. Asking about guns will put many parents on the defensive (rightfully so) and will lead to them being more cautious about answering legitimate questions regarding their children’s health.
3) A parent who has had his/her privacy intruded on with gun questions, is likely to be upset and less likely to hear or process any gun safety information that comes from the doctor.
4) Parents may be so offended by the intrusive questions that they change doctors.
5) Parents with guns might lie and say they have no, to avoid the intrusion into their privacy, and then they won’t get the reminders about gun safety.
6) A parent who has no guns at the child’s current checkup would answer “No” and not get the gun safety information, but might acquire a gun or guns before the next checkup.
If the goal is to prevent tragic gun accidents, (an admirable one) as opposed to intruding on parent’s privacy, collecting data for the government or getting people used to giving up their privacy, the answer is obvious. Ask no questions and assume everyone has guns and give everyone the safety information.
I didn’t get past the first paragraph when I read “She’s seen what happens when kids don’t get the message.”
There was no need to read any further. Woman + gun = liberal democrat.
There will be a checkbox in the medical electronic records database mandated under Obamacare. ‘gunowner y/n’ Now, the government will have access to all of this data.
If you feel comfortable with this data going to the government through your doctor, then by all means, answer the question.
If you are smart you’d simply agree with the doctor that “guns are bad” and insist you would never allow a firearm in your home or even your neighborhood.
If you play games, the doctor will just tag you as a gunowner and move on.
Answering “no” is the best course of action for any American.
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.