Skip to comments.11th Circuit: Constitutional to Bar Doctors from Asking Patients About Firearm Ownership
Posted on 07/29/2014 2:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On July 25 the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit "eliminated the injunction" against the enforcement of Florida's "gun gag" law, which restricts doctors from asking patients if they own a firearm unless asking is necessary to a patient's treatment.
According to Law360.com, the 11th Circuit ruled that barring doctors from asking about firearms "doesn't violate the First Amendment."
Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed the NRA-backed "gun gag" legislation in 2011. Suit was brought against the State of Florida over the law by "the Florida chapters of the American Academies of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians along with a number of other groups and the anti-gun community."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If this is what it appears to be, it would be overturned by the scotus. The first amendment protects doctors too. They should be able to ask, but you are not required to answer.
Good.I wouldn’t answer any questions like that anyway.
You’ve never been to a V.A. clinic or hospital? Yes, you are required to answer.
I don’t see the issue here. States have been prohibiting certain questions for years. Think of employment. There are a list of about 10 or 15 questions that an employer can’t ask in an interview.
I guess I would side with letting anyone ask any question in any context as long as they are not forced to ask the question and the person being asked is not forced or coerced into answering it.
I thought the accusation is that if people refuse to answer, the doc refuses treatment until they do.
My doctor has the right to ask me if I own guns, and I have the right to tell him it’s none of his business. I also have the right to find another doctor.
What CANNOT be allowed to happen, though, is for the answer to have any effect on my health insurance premiums or my medical treatment.
Completely unnecessary -
If your doctor asks you such questions, inform him that it’s none of his business and that you will be seeing another doctor.
Problem solved. Without government.
If my doctor ever asked me, I would tell him that it was none of his damned business and find a new doctor.
It’s certain factions within the government that are seeking this information from doctors.
It isn’t “free speech” to ask this question when the government is requiring them to ask it (and it is none of their damn business anymore than “do you own a car”, “what type”, “how long”).
Centers For Disease Control considers gunshot wounds a “disease” that needs to be controlled.
I will simply tell them no.
Best Answer: NYGDB Doc!
You can ficure out what that stands for I’m sure.
They ask the kids. The ones that we can’t know the records from.
In this case, it was always coercive, and done with truly evil intent.
As background, the radical leftist American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is devoted to “the leftist agenda”, not children, issued a directive to its members that they should ask both parents and children about guns in the home, so that they could add them to the children’s medical records; where due to HIPAA, they could then be accessed by many government agencies.
The idea was insidious, that if the state Child Protective Agency investigated the parents, their ownership of guns would be “one factor” in determining if their children should be taken away. Likewise, if they wanted to adopt, if they had guns, they could be turned down as adoptive parents.
The coercion was included, that if parents *refused* to tell their pediatrician about their gun ownership, the pediatrician could refuse them services, even if the next nearest pediatrician was 75 or 100 miles away.
As soon as the state of Florida found out about the scheme from upset parents, they passed a law forbidding such inquiries. And not wanting their scheme thwarted, the AAP filed suit, alleging that the doctor’s first amendment rights were violated by not being able to do this.
Initially, not knowing any better, I would hope, a federal judge found in favor of the AAP, and overturned the law, but the state appealed. Now a 3 judge panel has reinstated the law. The AAP will undoubtedly appeal to the entire circuit court en banc.
As an aside, the AAPs behavior on this and other circumstances, led a former AAP president to set up a conservative pediatric association, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), whose interests are solely about the medical care of children, not radical leftist politics.
Bottom line is that, if you have children whose pediatrician belongs to the AAP, you need a new pediatrician, because the AAP is one of the most radical leftist medical associations out there.
Few years back I’d agree with you and say this was unconstitutional.
However Obamacare has turned doctors into agents of the government. So the government gets to dictate what gets asked and what doesn’t.
If my doctor ever asked me,...”
I have a great internist. Met him and his wife while they were shooting in the adjacent lanes at one of our local ranges. He said he asks people if they own a gun and if they say no, he asks them why not and offers to give them the name and phone number to a local range if they are interested in learning how to protect themselves.
He does not accept any insurance and said he can’t add any new patients for at least six months as he has a very, very busy practice.
Not necessarily. There are all sorts of limits to our free speech that have been upheld by SCOTUS. For example, you can't ask someone in a job interview if they're married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is. The same logic would apply here... there's no legitimate reason for the doctor to know whether or not a patient owns a gun unless it would affect their treatment (e.g., a patient who is suicidal). In fact, I think there's less of a reason for the doctor to ask about gun ownership than there is for an employer to know if a potential employee is married with kids, and SCOTUS has already upheld those free speech restrictions.
The fight here shouldn't be with doctors asking the question...it should be against the doctor ever being allowed to divulge the answers...along the same lines as "lawyer/client privilege".And the fight should be against doctors being required to ask such a question by the government.
However we are not obligated to speak the truth. Obama is proof.
I mean, if they’ve been upheld by the SCOTUS, why it MUST be Constitutional, eh?
Interesting my copy of said document contains no such exemptions; nor does it specify the SCOTUS to be the end all of what is/not Constitutional.
Here I was, all this time, thinking is was We the People that decided and had Inalienable Rights...yes, HEAVY /s
I don’t have that option.
Simple answer is ‘NO’.
If you say ‘None of your business’ or similar it will be construed to mean ‘yes’ but I’m not admitting it.
Just say No.
They should be barred by law from asking any question like that. It would be impossible in most cases to try to prove that they mistreated a patient based on any answer to that kind of question (trying to prove what a medical racket person said in private to an insurer or what such person did to otherwise mistreat a patient).
Just say no! :)
Probably, since the doctor also is recording what you say, that it is not a good idea to be a belligerent smart a%%. You can lie to a doctor, unless it is some kind of application for a job or a license. Then, do NOT lie to the doctor.
I, of course, answered that I didn't own any guns.
There was also a question pertaining to gun control laws and if I approved of gun control.
I answered that when guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens, then only criminals will have guns. I should have added, that potentially includes the police.
In addiction, I wrote that the defendant, who was pleading not guilty to 1st degree attempted murder, 1st degree assault and attempted assault, needed to man-up, accept his punishment, get out of prison, get his life straightened out and become a good citizen.
The judge called me in and questioned me at length. I maintained that he was guilty and that I didn't believe in innocence until proven guilty. I was excused.
I didn’t say it was constitutional. I said the supreme court was not necessarily going to overturn it, based on the fact that they’ve already upheld other limits on free speech.
Good law, when my doctor once asked me about gun ownership I lost all respect for him. He can’t function as my doctor if I don’t respect him.
...and oh so typical of your “friends” at the NRA to come up with more feel good legislation. How about lobbying Congress to rid us of some good old “shall not be infringed”, instead of this crap.
The “questioning” was a thinly veiled and illegal government attempt to create a gun owner registration list, via searchable private medical records.
Require MDs to have the query on their intake forms.
Require the forms to be entered into a searchable government database.
Nice try, no cigar.
my answer is that i don’t discuss my self-defense requirements with anyone i don’t live with.
Is this a *fear* or an *established fact*?
Require MDs to have the query on their intake forms.
Require the forms to be entered into a searchable government database.
For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.
It is all a violation of the first amendment. The way they got away with it was that you had to be licensed. You could lose your license.
Sleazy. We are not free.
When I moved to central, KY, one of the proofs we are much more free here was when I saw a pickup truck at a traffic light, with four people riding in the bed. I’ve gone back in time 50 years in some very real - and good - ways.
“If this is what it appears to be, it would be overturned by the scotus. The first amendment protects doctors too. They should be able to ask, but you are not required to answer.”
The First Amendment is for POLITICAL SPEECH. This is a case of doctors trying to help the government TAKE GUNS. Well...maybe you have a point, come to think of it - it is definitely a political policy.
Hense the many court cases, the new law forbidding it, etc.
I don't mind politely correcting simple factual ignorance, but quite frankly, dealing with your VERY obviously feigned stupidity on this topic, is almost a complete waste of time.
(Descriptive paragraph of your useless contributions self-deleted)
Have a nice life.
“...but you are not required to answer.”
And with you not answering, they check Block 3, which means likely has guns and is belligerent.
“Good.I wouldnt answer any questions like that anyway.”
Also Block 3, due to having a problem admitting to having guns.
“My doctor has the right to ask me if I own guns, and I have the right to tell him its none of his business.”
Sorry, the doctor will also check off Block 3, due to hostile nature of response.
The First Amendment is for POLITICAL SPEECH.
I give up.
It looks like just about EVERYONE here will get Block 3 checked off, with Block 3 meaning “likely owns guns, and is belligerent or hostile”.
Block 2 is: “owns guns, but appears to understand the responsibilities of ownership”. You get that if you admit to having guns, but politely answer all questions.
Block 1 is: “appears to not own guns and answered question politely”. You get that mark, of course, if you respectfully say no.
I prefer to be classified as Block 1, in case I ever need to call the police.
“For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.”
...and one can make a MUCH STRONGER case that these above questions are relevant regarding how the person will perform on the job - then knowing whether the child might get sick, just because a gun is in the house.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Thanks, I had seen that before...believe me it’s engraved in my soul.
“Actually, that is no true. It protects speech. It has been used by pornographers to defend their material.”
Maybe, but if that were the case, as others posted here (in effect), then realtors could say something like “blacks not welcome” in their listings. Free speech died at least 50 years ago in the US...in some cases for the better (as above), and in many cases for the worse.
...if we’re going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too.
...if were going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too
He has been proven right.
I guess we’ll disagree...I just prefer my kids not be interrogated by their doctor regarding guns (which did happen here, about 10 years ago).
Not answering, is still answering what they really want to know. They are making lists and checking them twice to make sure they don't miss anyone.
They can't ask how old you are either, but they can ask when you graduated from High School.