Why would doctors need to know if you have a gun?

[Cancel 2016.11]

I would be equally outraged at this invasion of my privacy.

Yes, I believe there are a couple on this thread who do support that though. Of course a woman's uterus is everybody's business!

 

[Damocles]

Darla, this is what I would have to say about that (bit off topic here, both women and men can own guns you know and still it wouldn't make it salient to care for your broken leg):

If you have a conscientious objection to certain medications just don't become a pharmacist. Seriously, if you can't do your job right because of your religion, then don't take the job.

That and I'm still pissed about being excluded like that. Maybe if I faked it and put grease in my hair... fake a few pimples...

 

[Jarod]

Read the thread, it's been answered.

So what I find outragous is that the legialature tried to pass a law telling Doctors how to practive medicine and inserting themselves into the Doctor / patient releationship.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Darla, this is what I would have to say about that (bit off topic here, both women and men can own guns you know and still it wouldn't make it salient to care for your broken leg).

If you have a conscientious objection to certain medications just don't become a pharmacist. Seriously, if you can't do your job right because of your religion, then don't take the job.

Okay, my mistake, I thought you supported the "right" of religious people to do that.

 

[Damocles]

So what I find outragous is that the legialature tried to pass a law telling Doctors how to practive medicine and inserting themselves into the Doctor / patient releationship.

Well, yeah. It's been overturned. My question wasn't really about that. It is why is it salient? I can, as I noted earlier, see if I were going in for psychiatric treatment... but why do they need to know if I have a gun to treat my kidney stone?

 

[Damocles]

Okay, my mistake, I thought you supported the "right" of religious people to do that.

I support their right to quit. This would be like a Jew getting a job at a meat packing plant and demanding an end to their packing pork and wrongly killed chickens, demanding they change the way the butcher kills chickens because he has a religious objection to the use of pig as food and the chicken isn't Kosher... it makes no sense. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job right you need to follow your conviction and get a job that isn't in violation of your religion.

 

[Jarod]

Well, yeah. It's been overturned. My question wasn't really about that. It is why is it salient? I can, as I noted earlier, see if I were going in for psychiatric treatment... but why do they need to know if I have a gun to treat my kidney stone?

I dont know, but I suspect Kidney Doctors were likely not asking that question. Ive never been asked that question.

 

[Howey]

I dont know, but I suspect Kidney Doctors were likely not asking that question. Ive never been asked that question.

I posted earlier the question was asked primarily by pediatricians.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, I believe there are a couple on this thread who do support that though. Of course a woman's uterus is everybody's business!

Not all of them, just yours.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4805895...as-docs-vs-glocks-law-shot-down/#.T_SND_XNlD0


NBCMIAMI.com
updated 7/3/2012 10:47:33 AM ET

Print
Font:

A Florida law that banned doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients has been shot down by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke permanently ruled against the so-called "Docs vs. Glocks" law on Friday, according to the Miami Herald.

Cooke, who had issued a preliminary injunction last September, said the law was so "vague" that it violated the free speech rights of doctors.

Lawsuit Takes Aim at Docs vs. Glocks Law

“What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient, whether relevant or not at the time of the consult with the patient,” Cooke wrote in her 25-page ruling.

The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns. The law was backed by the National Rifle Association.

House sponsor Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said an appeal is likely, according to the Herald.

It's called patient history Damo. Knowing a patient has certain behaviors that increases the odds of specific types of illnesses or injuries helps the physician to be prepared for treating said illnesses and injuries. If a physician does not feel a patient is providing them adequate information about their personal history then he/she has a right to not accept that individual as a patient. This is not the same as refusing to treat some one in a medical emergency. The opposite is also true. If a patient feels a physicians questions are to invasive of their personal life they have a right to tell said physician "that's none of your business" or to find another physician who will accept them as a patient.

 

[CanceledB]

who gets to define insane/unstable?

A psychiatrist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I would just answer "N/A"...

Seriously, even with them trying to say its about suicide... it's just none of their business.

No, it is their business. This is why physicians have legaly protected privacy rights to private information from their paitents. Just as do Attourney's and Clergy. If a physician feels that information is critical to performing their duties but a lay person feels that it isn't, the lay person has the right to choose another physician to serve their medical needs.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

A psychiatrist.

actually, they, alone, do not define insane/unstable. they provide their OPINION as to the mental capacity. if it is in a court of law, the law or legislature has already defined it, the shrinks merely give their opinion as to whether the person meets the criteria to fit the definition under the law.

 

[CanceledB]

they provide their OPINION as to the mental capacity.

Good enough for me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Utter nonsense. The doctor is paid to provide medical care, nothing more. Whether I own a gun or carry a gun is none of their business.

Any question a physician have relevent to a patients wellness is their concern. Gun owners have accidents or might get depressed, this isn't about political proselytizing it's about being prepared for contingencies. Just as you say it's none of a physicians business if you carry a gun you could say the same about a physician asking you if you smoke, eat trans fat foods, drink alcohol, smoke weed, operate heavy machinery, work with chemicals, etc, etc and you would be just as equally wrong. The Doctor/Patient relationship is a constitutionally protected private relationship so that the patient will feel free to share privelaged and private information with their physician so that the physician may better serve them.

It may be ok to lie to your wife, your children, your parents, your co-workers and the guys you hang out with on the block but three people you should never, ever lie to or with hold information are your Doctor, your Laywer and your Clergyman.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The courts agree that it violated the practioners rights of free speech, not that the doctor has any need to ask about firearms.

And from the article (and Damo's post) "The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns."

So this noble medical practioner refused to see a couple because they refused to answer questions about guns? And you think this is right?

It is nonsense.

It's absolutely that physicians right. The single most important aspect of practicing medicine is the doctor/patient relationship. That doctor has the right to ask you anything they feel is pertinent to your medical well being and if you refuse to cooperate or provide that information that Doctor is well within their rights to terminate that relationship. As are you if you think the Physician is overstepping their limits as your physician.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's absolutely that physicians right. The single most important aspect of practicing medicine is the doctor/patient relationship. That doctor has the right to ask you anything they feel is pertinent to your medical well being and if you refuse to cooperate or provide that information that Doctor is well within their rights to terminate that relationship. As are you if you think the Physician is overstepping their limits as your physician.

pray tell what owning a gun has to do with your medical well being? and where do you get the notion that it is a "right"?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is silly... They don't ask about other larger dangers. Far more children drown in pools than from any firearm, no question about pools... nor should there really be, simply having a pool has nothing to do with what is happening at that time...

If I come to see a doctor for my child's strep throat there is absolutely no logical need for them to know what any of my possessions are, simply knowing I have a pool is not a prediction that such a possession would ever endanger my child or have any bearing on his medical condition. I could maybe understand a shrink asking about it... but even then my answer would be N/A... Whether I own a firearm or not is none of a MD's business.

You're simply wrong. The physician has every right to ask you these privelaged and private questions and if you are not comfortable with that you are quite free to choose another physician. They may be obligated to treat you in an emergency but they are not obligated to accept you as a patient.

My advice is that if you have an family physician known for outstanding professional excellence in their practice that you put your ego in check and you think about the well being of you and your family and cooperate with said physician and provide them with such deeply personal information. Any information you can provide that physician that THEY feel enhances their ability to serve your medical needs is valuable information and the privacy of that information is protected by law.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Any question a physician have relevent to a patients wellness is their concern. Gun owners have accidents or might get depressed, this isn't about political proselytizing it's about being prepared for contingencies. Just as you say it's none of a physicians business if you carry a gun you could say the same about a physician asking you if you smoke, eat trans fat foods, drink alcohol, smoke weed, operate heavy machinery, work with chemicals, etc, etc and you would be just as equally wrong. The Doctor/Patient relationship is a constitutionally protected private relationship so that the patient will feel free to share privelaged and private information with their physician so that the physician may better serve them.

It may be ok to lie to your wife, your children, your parents, your co-workers and the guys you hang out with on the block but three people you should never, ever lie to or with hold information are your Doctor, your Laywer and your Clergyman.

i've seen bullshit, but this takes the cake. what if you own a meat cleaver? what about about rat poison? what about a car that is unsafe?

you're being ridiculous. owning a gun has ZERO to do with anyone's MEDICAL well being. unless you're dealing with mental health concerns. but that clearly is not the case here and not the case you're arguing.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

NOTE:

mott's or derp's logic:

a physician can refuse treatment (unless emergency) if you are of a faith he doesn't agree with. or even homosexual.