The G word

[WiseOne]

It seems Florida has placed a gag order on physicians not to talk about gun safety with their patients, and it's been upheld after a court challenge:

http://smartgunlaws.org/eleventh-circui ... nership-2/

And the Daily Show did its usual brilliant job of ridiculing the law - really, the clip is hilarious.  And it frankly deserves to be ridiculed.  So it's OK for a doctor to talk about pool safety or car seats, but not about whether a parent might be keeping a loaded, unprotected gun in the house?  I mean, out of all the things that might threaten gun rights I cannot possibly imagine that this is one of them!

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hm7dcy/the-g-word

Incidentally remember that other thread about how physicians are sick and tired of being over-regulated?  Well...here we go again.  Yet another reason why you might be hit with criminal penalties for doing something that's both reasonable and ethical.

[Benko]

WiseOne,

No doctor has any business imposing their politics on their patients.

Should it be a gag order?  I dunno. 

[Mountaineer]

WiseOne,

No doctor has any business imposing their politics on their patients.

Should it be a gag order?  I dunno.

Kind of depends on what is done with the Doctor/Patient information.  If kept solely between the Doctor and the Patient, let them discuss anything.  If it is open to the prying eyes of Big Brother (government or insurance) then I can understand the Florida law.  Sort of.

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

WiseOne,

No doctor has any business imposing their politics on their patients.

Should it be a gag order?  I dunno.

Kind of depends on what is done with the Doctor/Patient information.  If kept solely between the Doctor and the Patient, let them discuss anything.   If it is open to the prying eyes of Big Brother (government or insurance) then I can understand the Florida law.  Sort of.

... Mountaineer

I am a doctor and I have to ask, why is any doctor asking whether I own a gun (I don't BTW)?  The point is not the confidentiality of the info.  The point is how is it relevant to my doctor?  I suppose you could argue that they could ask about general gun safety concerns.  However I'd be more concerned that the doctor is some turkey liberal who would either  a. lecture me about guns or b. unconsciously be biased againt me which would impair my medical care.

[Pointedstick]

The bare honest truth is that this happened because of some highly-publicized cases of liberal doctors using their position of authority to overtly push gun control. American gun owners are incredibly prickly about this sort of thing. I don't particularly agree with the law, but let's not pretend that it came out of thin air. Liberals chronically underestimate the political power of gun owners. You don't irritate us and get away with it; best to stop trying, really.

As for gun safety, we've been doing a pretty good job of policing our own; according to the CDC, accidental gun deaths have fallen by a factor of three during the same time that the number of guns in private hands has at least doubled, to the current estimate of more then 300 million:

[img width=600]http://i.imgur.com/PhFUr17.jpg[/img]

If doctors are really interested in reducing household killers, they should start with the incredible dangers of bathtubs and staircases.

[Libertarian666]

It seems Florida has placed a gag order on physicians not to talk about gun safety with their patients, and it's been upheld after a court challenge:

http://smartgunlaws.org/eleventh-circui ... nership-2/

And the Daily Show did its usual brilliant job of ridiculing the law - really, the clip is hilarious.  And it frankly deserves to be ridiculed.  So it's OK for a doctor to talk about pool safety or car seats, but not about whether a parent might be keeping a loaded, unprotected gun in the house?  I mean, out of all the things that might threaten gun rights I cannot possibly imagine that this is one of them!

Then your imagination is sadly lacking. Are electronic patient records private from the government? The question answers itself.

[Benko]

The bare honest truth is that this happened because of some highly-publicized cases of liberal doctors using their position of authority to overtly push gun control.

Bingo.

[Xan]

Also, I'm not aware of any way to prevent unconscious bias on the part of another person.

One way would be to prevent them from bringing up the topic that might trigger such a bias.

if this is the same law that was just upheld (i think it is?) then the gag order seems to be pretty loose, depending on how "relevant" is determined and who decides what is and isn't relevant...

it looks like it just stops doctors from asking all patents routinely without thinking about who and why they ask..

[Benko]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with asking such questions.

Fair enough--IF AND ONLY IF there is a long list of such questions (so they are asking about a number of possible "hazards" and not just guns) asked in a neutral tone of voice.  And it is not followed by a lecture about guns.

However I'd be more concerned that the doctor is some turkey liberal who would either  a. lecture me about guns or b. unconsciously be biased againt me which would impair my medical care.

People talk to me all the time about stuff I don't care about or disagree with. 

Those are not people you are paying (one way or the other) for their time.  In addition the time doctors can spend with patients is very limited and any time they spend on this could very well be time taken away from something that would actually matter to your health.

I don't think the solution to this is a gag order, though.

On general principle, I agree.  Not sure about the reality of this situation though.

[Xan]

Well, sort of.  But (i) you can't be sure you've prevented bias by not discussing something and (ii) not bringing it up would spur other unconscious biases.

i) You can prevent the bias from being directed at you if the doc has no way of knowing whether you have a gun or not.
ii) If it's not allowed to be brought up with anybody, there's no way that not discussing it can introduce any biases.

[MachineGhost]

Swimming pools, bathrobes, staircases aren't intentionally designed to kill kids.  I think that's the crux of the matter from the liberal perspective.

[WiseOne]

Thank you TennPaGa for the level-headed posts...

Benko no offense but in your specialty I doubt you get much chance to counsel patients about safety, and you may not be familiar with the process.  Counseling is a very important part of every physician visit.  I do counseling on all kinds of topics routinely, and if we don't provide counseling we can be sued!!  Here's an example:  a patient with epilepsy would be counseled about seizure safety (don't take baths or swim alone, don't climb ladders), state-mandated driving restrictions, potential seizure triggers and medication management (e.g. don't forget to take your pills, get refills before you run out) and if the patient is a woman of childbearing age, the potential for birth defects; and if the woman has a baby at home, they're counseled not to carry the baby in their arms. 

Pediatricians routinely counsel parents on all kinds of child safety issues.  Guns are fair game for counseling just as many many other topics are (yes including bathtubs & stairs).  As well as others you haven't thought of.  You may think you're a responsible gun owner, but as physicians we have to assume the person sitting in our offices is a dumb idiot who would leave a loaded gun on the coffee table.  Here's a real life example that I ran into once while at a VA clinic:

Patient with long standing, medically refractory juvenile myoclonic epilepsy came in for a routine visit.  I saw on the chart that there was no social history so I asked him what he did for a living.

Patient:  "I'm a truck driver."

Me (suppressing a gasp):  "For how long?"

Patient:  "40 years."

Me:  "How many trucks have you wrecked?"

Patient:  "Only three!"

I then got to introduce him to the wonderful world of mandatory DMV reporting and disability.

I expect the complaints about attempts by physicians to impose gun control (whatever the hell that means) are people who got offended by the questions because of their NRA sensibilities.  As the daily show clips point out, would it make sense for a pool shop owner to be offended by questions about pool safety?

And btw...you HAVE heard of doctor/patient confidentiality, correct?

[Benko]

WiseOne I am well aware, but read the examples that prompted the law:

What were the cases you're referring to?

Does the gag law address the problem of those cases?

"In one case, medical staff members separated a mother from her children and then asked the children whether their mother owned any firearms."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... ourt-video

i was going to say that I thought the gag order a bad idea,  but this makes me reconsider. From the same article:

"In another instance, a mother refused to answer questions about whether she kept a gun at home, telling the physician that she felt the question was an invasion of her privacy. The pediatrician then informed the mother that she had 30 days to find a new doctor for her child."

I assume the doctor has the right to do this, but neither of this instances sound like doctors generally interested in safety as opposed to people having a fixation on guns.

[MachineGhost]

I then got to introduce him to the wonderful world of mandatory DMV reporting and disability.

Isn't that you essentially acting as a law enforcement officer?  I think that's what gun owners wouldn't like about their politicalized topic.

[WiseOne]

I then got to introduce him to the wonderful world of mandatory DMV reporting and disability.

Isn't that you essentially acting as a law enforcement officer?  I think that's what gun owners wouldn't like about their politicalized topic.

You can think of it as my telling him what the law says, which is that if he is known to have epilepsy and gets into an accident and kills somebody, the insurance company would not cover a dime and he'd also be criminally liable.  If I didn't tell him this, I could be the one that the family of the dead person goes after.

Which brings me to another point that I think several have missed:  this law is yet another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation designed to pass the buck to physicians.  Let's say that the abovementioned idiot leaves a loaded gun on the coffee table, after the pediatrician was restrained from discussing this issue because of the gag rule.  Because the person is otherwise not noteworthy for anything other than a limited IQ and lack of awareness of gun safety, the pediatrician could be hit with jail time, legal penalties etc for bringing up the issue.  Then the idiot's 4 year old picks up the gun and shoots it at himself.  Dead kid = lawsuit.  In court, guess what the jury will say?  "You should have known this kid was in danger, and the law says that you could have brought up the G word in that situation!"

Don't think that doesn't happen.  It does, every day.

BTW Benko your examples are just ridiculous.  You have no idea what the circumstances were in these cases, e.g. whether the patients were belligerent/threatening, or whether there was a long history of issues etc.  And in any case these are outlier situations.  Hardly the stuff to base a law on.

bad thinking begets the creation of bad (but maybe necessary) laws.

if doctors had had the common sense to keep politics out of the office, and stick to thinking about who and why and how they ask, then a law which still allows them to ask but requires it be relevant, and prevents them doing it routinely as part of some agenda wouldn't be needed..

i haven't read the wording of the law but "relevant" seems to leave plenty of room for CYA against lawsuits for doctors...

[madbean]

If a doctor asked me if I had any guns stored in my house I would give him the same answer I would give if he asked me if I had any gold.

No.

End of story.

[dragoncar]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with asking such questions.

Fair enough--IF AND ONLY IF there is a long list of such questions (so they are asking about a number of possible "hazards" and not just guns) asked in a neutral tone of voice.  And it is not followed by a lecture about guns.

If you don't like the questions your doctor asks you, or his tone of voice, wouldn't you just find another doctor?  Why do want the state to intervene?

People talk to me all the time about stuff I don't care about or disagree with. 

Those are not people you are paying (one way or the other) for their time.  In addition the time doctors can spend with patients is very limited and any time they spend on this could very well be time taken away from something that would actually matter to your health.

Again, why isn't the solution for you to simply find another doctor?

Because the free market only works on odd numbered days and during republican primaries.

Also, Freedoms of speech and association don't apply to liberal fucktards

[Libertarian666]

Swimming pools, bathrobes, staircases aren't intentionally designed to kill kids.  I think that's the crux of the matter from the liberal perspective.

So guns are intentionally designed to kill kids?
And still some people wonder why libertarians can't take liberals seriously!

[moda0306]

I found something about the penalties in an old Orlando Sentinel editorial

Cheered on by the National Rifle Association, Rep. Jason Brodeur of Sanford sponsored this ludicrous law. His first version called for imprisoning doctors up to five years and fining them up to $5 million for asking questions about guns. Before the bill became law, those penalties were scaled back to a $10,000 fine and loss of medical license, and an exception was made for doctors who felt "in good faith" that their questions about guns were relevant to a patient's care or safety.

The guy wanted the state to fine doctors FIVE MILLION DOLLARS because someone was offended.  I guess we now know the price of offending the politically correct sensibilities of Republicans.

The more I'm exposed to the politics/statistics of gun ownership & laws, the more I'm feeling a very binary set of opinions towards the matter:

1) I'm feeling more and more sympathetic to libertarian ideas around gun control.  How much can we really limit the effect of guns in a fair, efficient manner?  How out-of-touch are avid gun-control advocates who believe in "gun-free zones" and the like?  Just not very confident in the liberals out there to construct these laws effectively.  They simply don't usually know what they're doing or talking about.  And that's never a sign of good public policy on the way.

2) It's hard to have much sympathy for the gun rights advocates that put so much weight on this issue.  It's obviously rooted far, far more in machismo and power and far less in actual love for liberty (not talking about most of the members here, but just the movement in general).  Obstruction of our 4th Amendment rights is a far, far greater threat (IMO) to the future of our country, and the secretive laws around it CURRENTLY are for more insidious (when used (as they usually end up being) for political purposes rather than nat'l security) than gun laws that are public knowledge. The NRA is simply the gun sale lobby in disguise... and too many gun advocates care more about their hobbies and displays of masculinity than actual liberty, as their deafening silence on other civil liberties issues (being far-more secretively abused) points out.  Oh and this doctor thing is the biggest final nail in the coffin of a debate I've seen. 

There's almost no issue in this country that gets the calls for revolution that gun laws do.  The topic is fraught with uninformed, nanny-state liberals on the left, and rednecks on the right all making ridiculous arguments about the nature of things that are inconsistent and borderline fraudulent.

And while this is might just mean that a libertarian answer to gun laws is the best one, it really shows us the nature of those on the right as a group, and how our liberty is NOT safe in their hands just because they quote Thomas Jefferson.  And to me, that second conclusion is a far more important one to get your head around for the future of this country than the first one is. 



To be clear, I'm not saying ALL gun enthusiasts or ALL conservatives are as I've described.  But certainly enough of them to elect some real f'kin buffoons into office.  I'm going trap shooting this weekend.  I am a gun enthusiast.  In fact, trap shooting is probably one of the hobbies I enjoy most, and definitely the one I'm best at relative to my peers, unless you include debating economics and politics.

[moda0306]

tech,

You are correct in much of what you're saying... but IMO FAR more damage has been done both directly and indirectly by the ignoring of the 4th Amendment than the 2nd.

It's been done behind closed doors and in secret, which lends FAR more likelihood of political abuse than programs that are apparent and obvious (which gun control laws usually are).

Basically, I think the 2nd amendment is one big mirage issue.  It's an issue used more as a distraction on the topic of liberty than an actual spearhead.  A lot of enthusiasm and emotions have been successful in keeping gun control prospects weak or hampered... however, that's a double-edged-sword, as the big gun enthusiasts are walking into restaurants with AR-15's on their back, when they should be inviting their centrist/liberal/gun-control-sympathizer neighbor out trap shooting or grouse hunting.  That's a bit of a sort of "straw man" to many on the right, as they aren't that crazy... but they feed into the paranoia and the "pry it out of my cold, dead fingers" approach to debating the 2nd Amendment rather than stepping back and looking at the true threats to liberty that are systemic in nature and feed into corrupt government, or taking a much more balanced approach to the importance of guns to personal (and systemic) safety.

[Benko]

for me it really comes down to how the question is asked, if i hear "i see you have children, would you be interested in some pamphlets or having a discussion about gun safety" my answer would be its not necessary, but i will take the pamphlet anyway... if the questions is "do you have any guns in the house" ((i hear) your papers please) and i would be inclined to tell them to expletive deleted off..

A. Simon basically summed up common sense on this issue: e.g.

Doctor: I want to discuss safety issues related to your kids with you (to mom) since accidents can have disasterous consequences. And run through a list mentioning a number e.g. pools, unlocked guns, including details for each etc.  This should be allowed. 

Asking if someone owns a gun, asking their kid if they have a gun should not be done. Banning any record of gun ownership in medical record I agree with. Confidentiality?  Hah.  Banning the words "do you own a gun" I agree with.


B. "In one case, medical staff members separated a mother from her children and then asked the children whether their mother owned any firearms."

Unless I'm misinterpreting those words, it says they e.g. made the parents leave the room and then asked the children if there were any guns at home.  I find asking children to "tattle" on their parents to authorities disturbing.  Unless there is a question of child abuse (if there were i would suspect that would have come out) this should not be done.

C.  TennPA,

We live in society where daily there are more and more decisions made to avoid offending the left and their minions. This bothers you?

[moda0306]

Accusations of "political correctness" is almost as annoying a red herring as the governmental and social silencing of opinions themselves.  I had to say the pledge of allegiance as a kid.  Was my teacher forcing me to do that "political correctness," or is a school administrator disallowing teachers to force it upon kids "political correctness."

I'd claim the former is (but saying something is "politically correct" isn't an argument... just a distraction from a deeper one).

Most conservatives would say the latter is.

Insulting religion (well... the Christian kind), guns, business, capitalist property norms, and patriotism is not "politically correct" to conservative circles.  We're learning real fast that a good chunk of the conservative base has no more patience for "politically incorrect" commentary than your typical Feminazi teaching at a University.

[MachineGhost]

So guns are intentionally designed to kill kids?
And still some people wonder why libertarians can't take liberals seriously!

  Guns are intentionally designed to kill, including kids.  There's no wishy washy with guns.  They're designed to do a very specific and explicit job just like anything else.

[MachineGhost]

Basically, I think the 2nd amendment is one big mirage issue.  It's an issue used more as a distraction on the topic of liberty than an actual spearhead.  A lot of enthusiasm and emotions have been successful in keeping gun control prospects weak or hampered... however, that's a double-edged-sword, as the big gun enthusiasts are walking into restaurants with AR-15's on their back, when they should be inviting their centrist/liberal/gun-control-sympathizer neighbor out trap shooting or grouse hunting.  That's a bit of a sort of "straw man" to many on the right, as they aren't that crazy... but they feed into the paranoia and the "pry it out of my cold, dead fingers" approach to debating the 2nd Amendment rather than stepping back and looking at the true threats to liberty that are systemic in nature and feed into corrupt government, or taking a much more balanced approach to the importance of guns to personal (and systemic) safety.

You nailed it.  NZ is looking better and better ever day.  Let's all these wingnuts have at each other Thunderdome-style.  It's just tribalism.

[MachineGhost]

Unless I'm misinterpreting those words, it says they e.g. made the parents leave the room and then asked the children if there were any guns at home.  I find asking children to "tattle" on their parents to authorities disturbing.  Unless there is a question of child abuse (if there were i would suspect that would have come out) this should not be done.

[align=center][img width=800]http://germanpostalhistory.com/php/Imag ... =60574.jpg[/img][/align]

We live in society where daily there are more and more decisions made to avoid offending the left and their minions. This bothers you?

What about the right and their minions?  Are they just all thick skinned red necks with guns and can take it like real men?