Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 17, 2017, 12:00:17 PM
-
I've been hearing this on Fox Business all morning. Sorry for the NBC link (because the video on "ghost guns" they stuck in the middle of this story is stupid). Apparently the 11th Circuit has ruled that doctors can in fact ask about guns as part of any medical questioning. As of now you can still not answer, though I guess that will generally imply a "yes" answer to the doctor. Also that as of now at least, health insurance companies can't deny or alter coverage for gun owners.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-florida-federal-court-rules-n722301
-
Apparently the 11th Circuit has ruled that doctors can in fact ask about guns as part of any medical questioning.
Good; now maybe they can finally determine whether Glocks cause lameness or the other way around.
-
There's a gun question on the forms at my doctor's office. I've never answered it, and I've never been questioned on it, but the way things are going I'm simply going to start lying.
-
There's a gun question on the forms at my doctor's office. I've never answered it, and I've never been questioned on it, but the way things are going I'm simply going to start lying.
"Just Say No" if asked whether or not you own guns - there is NO legitimate medical reason for a doctor to ask that question unless you're being treated for a bruised shoulder.
-
My doctor can ask me anything he wants, doesn't mean I'm going to answer him. If he asks too many dumb or irrelevant questions I'll just find another doctor. Seems easy enough to me, not sure why there had to be law about it.
-
"Just Say No" if asked whether or not you own guns - there is NO legitimate medical reason for a doctor to ask that question unless you're being treated for a bruised shoulder.
Senator Schumer: "According to the AMA, only 3% of the US population owns guns, hence a ban affects practically no one."
I only somewhat kid. I would likely check the "no" box if ever I saw such a questionnaire from my doctor. Though that relates back to my smartass remark. I was reading an article the other day regarding the inefficiency of most political polls that involve some personal information of the questioned person. Apparently polls have shown (ha ha) that people of the philosophical bent of most of us here will not participate in, or will give false information to said polls, while progressives are much more amenable to both taking polls and sharing their personal information.
One of the reasons all the Trump polls were so off, but also a way to create biased information. Strategically, it's probably better to skip the question so it can't be recorded either way (other than % not answered), though as I said, I'd likely put "no".
-
My doctor can ask me anything he wants, doesn't mean I'm going to answer him. If he asks too many dumb or irrelevant questions I'll just find another doctor. Seems easy enough to me, not sure why there had to be law about it.
The more things get run by the government, the more laws there will be about everything. I think the law was in reaction to the political activism of the AMA and other groups pushing doctors to ask about guns in the first place.
Also, given the restrictions placed on patients due to insurance requirements or few doctors taking their insurance, people are not as free to switch doctors as they ought to be.
-
"There is nothing in the record suggesting that patients who are bothered or offended by such questions are psychologically unable to choose another medical provider, just as they are permitted to do if their doctor asks too many questions about private matters like sexual activity, alcohol consumption, or drug use," the court ruled.
The ruling did determine that some parts of the law could remain on the books, such as provisions allowing patients to decline to answer questions about guns and prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums for people who lawfully own guns.
Does anyone else think that bolded portion is nonsense? Maybe I am psychologically unable to make sense of it and move on to another thread.
IMO, this isn't a free speech issue. They keep trying to phrase this in terms of "gun safety" when it is the political activism that is what people were concerned about. Maybe the law should have been written differently.
-
I would prefer no laws that require or prohibit what my doctor asks me about - either way is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
I'm a big boy, I can tell him it's none of his business if he asks about stuff I don't want to tell him.
-
I would prefer no laws that require or prohibit what my doctor asks me about - either way is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
I'm a big boy, I can tell him it's none of his business if he asks about stuff I don't want to tell him.
I don't want the AMA sticking its nose in where doesn't belong either.
The judges should also be big boys and admit this has nothing to do with gun safety. It tells me a lot about their political leanings.
-
I don't want the AMA sticking its nose in where doesn't belong either.
I agree, but the AMA is a private organization (maybe a misguided one) NOT the government and as far as I'm aware there was no law saying doctors had to ask about guns.
I wouldn't want a law saying doctors have to pass out NRA pamphlets either because the government just shouldn't be involved in that.
-
I don't want the AMA sticking its nose in where doesn't belong either.
The judges should also be big boys and admit this has nothing to do with gun safety. It tells me a lot about their political leanings.
You could argue that it does have something to do with gun safety (the question itself, not who is asking it or why), but it has NOTHING to do with medicine. If they were asking:
"Do you have guns in the house?"
"Yes."
"Do you wear hearing and eye protection when you shoot them?"
That would be a sound medical reason for asking. When they are asking about storage, they're getting into politics. Asking personal questions about drug use, state of mind, sexual lifestyle/activity, etc. is all intensely personal, but it all has direct medical relevance*.
It's not even so much government sticking its nose into things, it's the AMA twisting medicine into politics.
*Certainly these could be twisted into political oriented questions as well, or at least the data collected could be used politically. My doctor only asks those kinds of questions verbally, and I've never seen her write them down. I've always assumed they were in preparation for annual blood and other testing and for health triggers. etc. She has never asked me about guns.
-
Senator Schumer: "According to the AMA, only 3% of the US population owns guns, hence a ban affects practically no one."
President Phil Robertson: "Senator, do I need to bring up the percentage of transsexuals in the population? Or gays wanting to be married?"
-
We have spoken on this issue before, and I will mention what I did then: this question is usually asked in two contexts: child safety, just like asking about swimming pool access or dangerous chemicals; and in some mental health situations, such as suicidal ideation, dementia or domestic violence.
-
You could argue that it does have something to do with gun safety (the question itself, not who is asking it or why), but it has NOTHING to do with medicine. If they were asking:
"Do you have guns in the house?"
"Yes."
"Do you wear hearing and eye protection when you shoot them?"
That would be a sound medical reason for asking. When they are asking about storage, they're getting into politics. Asking personal questions about drug use, state of mind, sexual lifestyle/activity, etc. is all intensely personal, but it all has direct medical relevance*.
It's not even so much government sticking its nose into things, it's the AMA twisting medicine into politics.
*Certainly these could be twisted into political oriented questions as well, or at least the data collected could be used politically. My doctor only asks those kinds of questions verbally, and I've never seen her write them down. I've always assumed they were in preparation for annual blood and other testing and for health triggers. etc. She has never asked me about guns.
I would say it "could" have something to do with gun safety but likely does not. If the doctor was simply providing home safety advice about a number of things, it wouldn't bother me at all. However, the doctor does not need to ask if the patient owns guns at all to provide safety advice and information. Just like they could provide pool safety tips without actually asking if you had a pool.
The doctor might as well ask if you have any expensive jewelry and claim it is about burglary safety.
Within the confines of the Doctor/Patient relationship, I can't see a reason the state can't restrict doctors from getting nosy about such things. Doctor's already have their free speech restricted when it comes to patient information. They might have been better off simply preventing the doctor from passing on that information to anyone else or including it in patient information without good medical reason.
-
I wonder what would happen if the doctor's were asking if patients were Muslim?
-
Good; now maybe they can finally determine whether Glocks cause lameness or the other way around.
When you're hot you're hot.
-
IMO, this isn't a free speech issue. They keep trying to phrase this in terms of "gun safety" when it is the political activism that is what people were concerned about. Maybe the law should have been written differently.
They don't promote it as a "gun safety" issue, they promote it as a "public health" issue -- which it isn't. Massachusetts is on a parallel path:
http://www.usnews.com/news/massachusetts/articles/2017-02-13/program-to-help-doctors-discuss-gun-safety-with-patients
-
Kaiser has a health questionnaire for our kids checkups. It asks specifically, "Is there a gun in your home?"
I can truthfully answer no.
-
Kaiser has a health questionnaire for our kids checkups. It asks specifically, "Is there a gun in your home?"
I can truthfully answer no.
=D
-
I wonder what would happen if the doctor's were asking if patients were Muslim?
They do. I've seen several Dr's forms with a spot for "Religious Preference".
I live in FL, and I'm pretty dang pro gun, but I didn't like this law when it came out, and am happy to see it overturned. I'm a grown ass human, and don't need the State protecting me from my own damn doctor. I can say yes, no, or FOAD on my own. LESS government direction in our lives. That's the goal.
If you are worried about the AMA being anti (a valid concern) go with FOAD on the question. Tell your doctor that you see the fact that he's asking the question as colluding with people you don't support, and he's not going to treat you and your family.
-
I wonder what would happen if the doctor's were asking if patients were Muslim?
We ask the patient's religious preference, if the patients want to tell us. For example, if the patient is a Jehovah's Witness, there is a good chance they will not accept blood or blood products, and that is relevant to their care.
-
As Millcreek points out, there are relevant reasons for a doctor to ask many questions that may not be obviously medical in nature. (and I just thought of another one for guns, which would be lead and chemical exposures)
I just wish both the medical establishment and the general populace would smarten up and through politics out the window when it came to a lot of these types of questions. All it does is lower the standards of care and resources available to the patient.
-
I disagree that doctors need to ask if you personally own anything in order to bring up the subject of safety with that thing. I can understand doctor's not taking chances on religion because some fool won't mention religious restrictions then sue later over it.
I can see using BigGov to shut up doctors is not the answer. I would tell my doctor where to shove it. I would be concerned about people on medicare or some such that have trouble finding a doctor that will take them. More BS that is wrong with our current system.
-
I disagree that doctors need to ask if you personally own anything in order to bring up the subject of safety with that thing. I can understand doctor's not taking chances on religion because some fool won't mention religious restrictions then sue later over it.
I can see using BigGov to shut up doctors is not the answer. I would tell my doctor where to shove it. I would be concerned about people on medicare or some such that have trouble finding a doctor that will take them. More BS that is wrong with our current system.
That's the problem -- many people have limited choices regarding physicians. Plus, as I've noted before, we can't control if a doctor or a PA interprets a non-answer as a "Yes" and enters it as such on the chart. If you then change doctors ... more than likely you'll ask for a copy of your record to be transmitted to the new doctor, and now you have two doctors and two office staffs who know (or think they know) that you have guns.
A doctor doesn't need to know about guns to address specific issues. If a blood test comes back showing elevated blood lead levels (as mine did a few years ago), the doctor might then be justified in asking where I was being exposed to lead. But he/she doesn't really need to know where/how I'm being exposed -- he/she really only needs to alert me that my blood lead level is elevated and that I should do something to reduce my exposure to lead. A simple answer might be "I don't know, let me think about it" or "I sometimes work with lead in my shop at home, I'll cut back on the soldering and do something about ventilation." End of discussion.
-
I can tell that none of you actually work in healthcare. If you think we have the time or inclination to pore through your medical records to see if anyone asked about gun ownership, you are dreaming. We are more worried about seeing our 20-25 patients per day and getting good scores on the patient satisfaction surveys so we don't get dinged by the insurance companies and lose money.
Pediatrics and mental health are the two areas where this is routinely asked about, for the reasons I noted above. And if you tell my provider to shove it for asking these sort of questions, my discharge letter to you firing you from the practice will arrive within the week. I already have more patients than I can handle; good luck finding another provider, in some areas.
-
I can tell that none of you actually work in healthcare. If you think we have the time or inclination to pore through your medical records to see if anyone asked about gun ownership, you are dreaming. We are more worried about seeing our 20-25 patients per day and getting good scores on the patient satisfaction surveys so we don't get dinged by the insurance companies and lose money.
Pediatrics and mental health are the two areas where this is routinely asked about, for the reasons I noted above. And if you tell my provider to shove it for asking these sort of questions, my discharge letter to you firing you from the practice will arrive within the week. I already have more patients than I can handle; good luck finding another provider, in some areas.
It's a good thing the government hasn't mandated that all medical records be stored electronically where such answers would be easily searchable.
-
Maybe I'm weird, but I am letting my Dr's prescribe me chemicals I don't fully understand, offer advice on healing that has life altering consequences, drug me into unconsciousness, and in one case literally cut me open and screw things to my bones.
At that level of trust whether I have a particular tool or not seems pretty trivial.
Regardless, it's not like there is now a law saying they HAVE to ask.
-
It's a good thing the government hasn't mandated that all medical records be stored electronically where such answers would be easily searchable.
If only all medical records stored electronically had a common database allowing them to be easily searched.
-
Years ago, I don't recall if it was in context of Thing 1 or Thing 2 (the child-in-question was a toddler at the time), but their doc asked about guns as part of a larger Q&A about environmental stuff. Curious to see where it went, I answered truthfully that I owned guns. Doc asked if I kept them locked up and not accessible by the children unless under direct adult supervision. No lectures, no comments, just on to the next question and the subject never came up again. We've been using that office as our family docs for 10 years now and my kids have been seen by the same doc the entire time. I've discussed my hunting trips and such with my personal doc in that office (it's his practice).
FWIW, I try to normalize gun ownership and do not hide it from people. To me, it's no different than any other interest or hobby. I highlight the non-martial aspects such as developing the skills necessary to be consistently accurate, placing shots as close together as possible at increasingly long ranges, and the appreciation of the history or engineering of various guns. It's really no different than being a sports car enthusiast who appreciates vintage cars and takes them to the track. When talking about hunting, I downplay the killing aspect and focus on being part of and observing nature, and outwitting animals more attuned to their environment than I'll ever be. The more people see guns and gun owners as more like them and less like the raving "muh rights" OC types, the better off we'll be in the long run. This is a normal and healthy pursuit. It's like golf, but with more velocity and noise.
Chris
-
Docs ask lots of questions. When my PSA was elevated for a while, Doc asked questions about my sex life. Questions that were uncomfortable, but helped him figure out I had an infected prostate. I'm glad I didn't tell him off when he asked questions about my sex life. Oh, and on the gun thing, my doc knows I have a gun. We competed once at an informal IDPA match.
-
Docs ask lots of questions. When my PSA was elevated for a while, Doc asked questions about my sex life. Questions that were uncomfortable, but helped him figure out I had an infected prostate. I'm glad I didn't tell him off when he asked questions about my sex life. Oh, and on the gun thing, my doc knows I have a gun. We competed once at an informal IDPA match.
I think a lot, regarding viewpoints on this, depends on where you live and the political environment there. I used to go to the Sansum Clinic in Santa Barbara. On top of the already ultra-liberal atmosphere in the region, the clinic itself is well known to lean very left. I know they are anti-gun because they make it publically known in editorials, etc. I would be much more worried about them asking about guns for non-medical reasons than the medical center where I currently go.
At the former though, my doctor there never asked me anything about guns. In fact he rarely asked any personal questions. I've had a female doctor here for the last couple of years. As mentioned earlier, she's never brought up guns or anything else that I would consider non-medical. On the other questions, she asks them, but she's Filipino and it might be a cultural thing regarding males and females, but I crack up because she constantly and profusely apologizes to me before, during, and after the questioning. :laugh:
-
I think I asked my doctor once if she would ask me if I was a gun owner because I had heard about that. She just said something about "this is Texas" and went one with what she was doing.
-
I think I asked my doctor once if she would ask me if I was a gun owner because I had heard about that. She just said something about "this is Texas" and went one with what she was doing.
something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Zol75upPA
-
FWIW, I try to normalize gun ownership and do not hide it from people. To me, it's no different than any other interest or hobby. I highlight the non-martial aspects such as developing the skills necessary to be consistently accurate, placing shots as close together as possible at increasingly long ranges, and the appreciation of the history or engineering of various guns. It's really no different than being a sports car enthusiast who appreciates vintage cars and takes them to the track. When talking about hunting, I downplay the killing aspect and focus on being part of and observing nature, and outwitting animals more attuned to their environment than I'll ever be. The more people see guns and gun owners as more like them and less like the raving "muh rights" OC types, the better off we'll be in the long run. This is a normal and healthy pursuit. It's like golf, but with more velocity and noise.
Chris
Best answer yet.
-
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/SlowMedicine/63529
Interesting article.
-
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/SlowMedicine/63529
Interesting article.
More excuses. This time trying to use suicide as the reason to focus on guns instead of just general safety. The link won't let me read it a second time without registering, but I didn't notice any mention of asking people how many knives they had around the house.
It is all pointless reasoning to try to get professionals to bug people about guns. As said above, if they want to address gun safety, or general home safety, or suicide, there are ways to do so without asking patients what they own. Even if they own no guns, they will likely come in contact with them at some point. Of course, when it comes down to how much time my doctor has to spend with me personally, they have little enough time to address actual medical issues much less go fishing on other subjects.
-
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/SlowMedicine/63529
Interesting article.
Interesting, but the political anti-gun bias shows through crystal clear. Here's where you start to see it:
Suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths, accounting for more than 20,000 deaths each year. While gun owners are no more likely than the general population to attempt suicide, they are much more likely to be successful. One analysis found that firearm-related suicide results in death 80% of the time compared to pill overdoses, which result in death only 2% of the time.
Despite this epidemic of suicides by firearm, a recent survey found that 4 in 10 physicians never asked their patients about guns in the home, perhaps in part because the issue has become something of a taboo to discuss in many settings.
The word "epidemic" is used again after this quoted section, at least once. Never mind that the "epidemic" is actually an epidemic of suicide attempts, they choose to apply the term ONLY to those who actually succeed in killing themselves with guns. Yet, in epidemiology, a flu "epidemic" is not defined by how many people die of the flu, but by how many people catch it.
So if there's a suicide "epidemic," it's an epidemic of people attempting suicide by whatever means, and the discussion should be about how to prevent people from attempting suicide rather than blocking their access to one method so they'll look for other (possibly less efficacious) methods. Like my daughter, who has tried unsuccessfully to kill herself with pills enough times that she has done permanent damage to her liver and her kidneys. When the shrinks and medical doctors finally got their act together and limited her access to the pills, she tried to jump out the window of a tenth story apartment.
Yes, the article is interesting -- in showing how deeply the anti-gun bias has become ingrained in the medical profession overall.
As said above, if they want to address gun safety, or general home safety, or suicide, there are ways to do so without asking patients what they own.
I think I have commented before, although perhaps not on this forum, that doctors who have concerns about patients and gun safety have options. If a general practitioner thinks a patient has a dislocated elbow, he/she refers the patient to an orthopedist. If the doctor thinks a patient has cancer, he/she refers the patient to an oncologist. In other words, doctors routinely refer patients to people with specialized knowledge.
Who has specialized knowledge of firearms safety? NRA instructors. So why aren't doctors referring patients to the "specialists" with the professional expertise in firearms safety if they are concerned about firearms safety? Oh, right ... because the NRA is evil, that's why. So instead of referring to a qualified specialist, many doctors prefer to engage in what some of us consider to be a boundary violation.