Florida Law Bans Doctors From Asking About Guns [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Florida Law Bans Doctors From Asking About Guns


ERASER
06-03-2011, 17:03
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/florida-law-bans-doctors-guns/story?id=13756579

Eurodriver
06-03-2011, 17:07
Its sad that we even have to resort to this.

We should also ban schools and police from interrogating students without parental consent...oh wait...

ERASER
06-03-2011, 17:07
The National Rifle Association has been accused of obstructing firearms research by blocking funding through the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

<Does Congress know about this?>

Just1More
06-03-2011, 17:17
Once they link guns to health care, they'll have to ban them because the costs are just too high. They'll say something about common sense....

Highspeedlane
06-03-2011, 18:09
Two thumbs up to Florida for a common sense response to the Nanny State syndrome that seems all too common these days.

GioaJack
06-03-2011, 18:28
An estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur without access to guns, according to a 2002 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.


If there is no access to a gun how can there be a gun related homicide or suicide? I freely admit that I'm no mathematician but how can no access reduce the incident by 41 and 94% respectively... shouldn't both be reduces by 100%?

I guess I just don't understand liberal speak.

I'm so confused. :crying:


Jack

FL Airedale
06-03-2011, 20:12
This legislation was introduced after an incident in Ocala, Florida hit the local then national news. A pediatrician asked a parent if he had guns in the house. The parent refused to answer.

The pediatrician told the parent to find another doctor unless the parent answered.

My doctor has never asked me if I own guns and it's none of his business unless he thinks I have a medical condition caused by them. I think bullet wounds would be obvious.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100723/NEWS/100729867

bsg1
06-03-2011, 20:15
it is none of my doctor's business if there are guns in my home.

AA#5
06-03-2011, 20:24
I don't think it's any business of a doctor whether parents are gun owners......BUT, I see nothing wrong with providing parents with a written list of known child safety hazards - prescription drugs, vitamin pills/supplements, cars, poisons, tools, cleaning products, electricity, matches, stairs, balconies, pools, and firearms.

Zatec
06-03-2011, 20:24
Doctors collect the info, but where does that info end up?
Isn't against their oath by disclosing said info with outside parties without permission?

AZson
06-03-2011, 20:28
Even if they did ask, I would say noneya.

M&P Shooter
06-03-2011, 20:31
The questioner I filled out for my kids new Dr asked if I had guns in the house and I wrote on form near that question......Has nothing to do with my kids health! They never said anything about my answer:dunno:

theleafybug
06-03-2011, 20:42
if my doctor is concerned about my exposure to heavy metals and other chemicals as a result of my firearms, that may be some important information for him to have. if he is concerned about my responsibility or any other reason, he doesn't really need to know.

TH237
06-03-2011, 21:20
it is none of my doctor's business if there are guns in my home.

This!

toshbar
06-03-2011, 23:50
No law gives you more freedom than you had before.

The government just expanded.

HotRoderX
06-03-2011, 23:53
An estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur without access to guns, according to a 2002 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.


If there is no access to a gun how can there be a gun related homicide or suicide? I freely admit that I'm no mathematician but how can no access reduce the incident by 41 and 94% respectively... shouldn't both be reduces by 100%?

I guess I just don't understand liberal speak.

I'm so confused. :crying:


Jack

Me to I guess the other 6% make there own?

gemeinschaft
06-04-2011, 00:31
If my doctor ever asked if I had a gun in the home, I would immediately ask him if he had ever had a Vasectomy?

When he told me that was none of my business, I would let him know that if he doesn't ask about my gun, I won't ask about his. :rofl::rofl:

I love how a 16 year old gangbanger who is gunned down in a bad drug deal ends up as part of a statistic concerning pediatric gun violence. :whistling:

AZson
06-05-2011, 11:41
This map was put out by the brady people.
Saying out of the 10 out of the last 14 shootings where committed in United states with the most lenient gun laws.
But if you read the map more closely you will see that in the states with the most lenient gun laws there where only in 9 out of the 42 states that had mass shooting, which is about 21%
Where as it is shown that of the 8 states with the most stringent gun laws, 4 out of the 8 have had mass shootings, with makes it about 50%
So I have no idea why the brady bunch published this, I think it hurt them more then helped.
Which also points out you can try and interpret the numbers any way you want to fit you agenda, but in the end its that facts that count.

Z71bill
06-05-2011, 11:46
The questioner I filled out for my kids new Dr asked if I had guns in the house and I wrote on form near that question......Has nothing to do with my kids health! They never said anything about my answer:dunno:

They just put you down as YES has guns in the house. :upeyes:

rhone89
06-05-2011, 11:54
a commonsense law. It is *no one's* business other than your own whether or not you have guns in your house. Period, end of story.

If a doctor refuses to treat someone just because he/she/it owns firearms, then that doctor should have his license revoked. Firearm ownership is a guaranteed right by means of the constitution, a license to practice medicine does not trump that, no matter how liberal the pos doctor who has it is.

hpracing007
06-05-2011, 11:57
All of mine went overboard in a horrific boating accident, next question?

rhone89
06-05-2011, 11:58
This map was put out by the brady people.
Saying out of the 10 out of the last 14 shootings where committed in United states with the most lenient gun laws.
But if you read the map more closely you will see that in the states with the most lenient gun laws there where only in 9 out of the 42 states that had mass shooting, which is about 21%
Where as it is shown that of the 8 states with the most stringent gun laws, 4 out of the 8 have had mass shootings, with makes it about 50%
So I have no idea why the brady bunch published this, I think it hurt them more then helped.

Yeah, if anything that map proves that strict gun laws do absolutely nothing to stop mass shootings, and seemingly, they actually encourage the mass shootings.

noway
06-05-2011, 12:55
Two thumbs up to Florida for a common sense response to the Nanny State syndrome that seems all too common these days.

double ditto

fun834
06-05-2011, 13:04
Um ... I agree with everyone that it is not necessarily a doctor's business and all that, but we really don't need a law for this. A private citizen (doctor) can ask whatever question they want. If we don't like it we can simply go somewhere else and vote with our dollars by patronizing a doctor more in line with our own points-of-view.

I guess we like government involvement when it aligns with our own opinions.

This is dumb.

F350
06-05-2011, 13:44
Originally Posted by M&P Shooter
The questioner I filled out for my kids new Dr asked if I had guns in the house and I wrote on form near that question......Has nothing to do with my kids health! They never said anything about my answer

They just put you down as YES has guns in the house. :upeyes:

THIS

I never give cleaver answers, engage in philosophical discussions etc when confronted by such questions; I LIE. Here I would say the opposite of reality (NO) or in other situations give them what they are looking for or what I figure is the "correct answer" if it is apparent, even when it is not important I NEVER give truthful answers to intrusive questions from anyone.

sputnik767
06-05-2011, 14:14
Doctors collect the info, but where does that info end up?
Isn't against their oath by disclosing said info with outside parties without permission?

I'm still a bit new to HIPAA regulations, but AFIK, the only personally identifiable info a doctor can share with others is anything pertaining to treatment of the patient (as in a discussion with another doctor), limited info in the event of an emergency, and anything pertaining to billing. Any release of personally identifiable info otherwise needs consent from the patient. However, info can be released as long as it is scrubbed of any personally identifiable info. But there is no oath that prevents doctors from releasing info, just laws.

MAGlock
06-05-2011, 14:23
This map was put out by the brady people.
Saying out of the 10 out of the last 14 shootings where committed in United states with the most lenient gun laws.
But if you read the map more closely you will see that in the states with the most lenient gun laws there where only in 9 out of the 42 states that had mass shooting, which is about 21%
Where as it is shown that of the 8 states with the most stringent gun laws, 4 out of the 8 have had mass shootings, with makes it about 50%
So I have no idea why the brady bunch published this, I think it hurt them more then helped.
Which also points out you can try and interpret the numbers any way you want to fit you agenda, but in the end its that facts that count.

I like the Texas info, it includes Ft Hood an Army Base? Are they saying they should not have weapons also?

redbaron007
06-05-2011, 14:30
Gun ownership has nothing to do with treatment. If there are gunshot wounds, then treat them; if not, STHU! If a doctor wants to educate me on concerns; i.e. prescriptions, poisons, firearms etc. in the house, then fine...give me the info; however whether or not I have them in the house is nunya!!

:wavey:

red

bandmasterjf
06-05-2011, 14:36
This legislation was introduced after an incident in Ocala, Florida hit the local then national news. A pediatrician asked a parent if he had guns in the house. The parent refused to answer.

The pediatrician told the parent to find another doctor unless the parent answered.

My doctor has never asked me if I own guns and it's none of his business unless he thinks I have a medical condition caused by them. I think bullet wounds would be obvious.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100723/NEWS/100729867


My Dr. knows I have guns. We shoot together. :cool:

Angry Fist
06-05-2011, 14:38
Our family's doctors have way more guns than we do.

BamaTrooper
06-05-2011, 14:47
An estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur without access to guns, according to a 2002 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.


If there is no access to a gun how can there be a gun related homicide or suicide? I freely admit that I'm no mathematician but how can no access reduce the incident by 41 and 94% respectively... shouldn't both be reduces by 100%?

I guess I just don't understand liberal speak.

I'm so confused. :crying:


Jack

I suppose if you talked about guns and got into a fight and hit him with a bat it might be gun related.

Zatec
06-05-2011, 15:05
I'm still a bit new to HIPAA regulations, but AFIK, the only personally identifiable info a doctor can share with others is anything pertaining to treatment of the patient (as in a discussion with another doctor), limited info in the event of an emergency, and anything pertaining to billing. Any release of personally identifiable info otherwise needs consent from the patient. However, info can be released as long as it is scrubbed of any personally identifiable info. But there is no oath that prevents doctors from releasing info, just laws.

I know doctors won't give up information about their patients to law enforcement with out a court order. So shouldn't the same hold true about giving information to groups like the __________.

I have a feeling that information is being given to someone. Why else would the brady bunch already be out there claiming they plan to sue over the new law.

cwb
06-05-2011, 16:19
The Brady bunch has already declared their intent to file a lawsuit over this. They're all up in arms about this First Amendment breach. Calls regarding their total disregard for the Second Amendment were not answered.

schaibaa
06-05-2011, 16:46
Um ... I agree with everyone that it is not necessarily a doctor's business and all that, but we really don't need a law for this. A private citizen (doctor) can ask whatever question they want. If we don't like it we can simply go somewhere else and vote with our dollars by patronizing a doctor more in line with our own points-of-view.

I guess we like government involvement when it aligns with our own opinions.

This is dumb.

Agreed. It's strange that people can be so hypocritical on here. This is an unnecessary law. If your doctor won't treat you because you won't answer his/her question, find another doctor. They shouldn't lose their license, they are free to believe what they want and treat who they want.

This is not a 'common sense' law... This is a 'nanny state' law.

sputnik767
06-05-2011, 17:07
I know doctors won't give up information about their patients to law enforcement with out a court order. So shouldn't the same hold true about giving information to groups like the __________.

I have a feeling that information is being given to someone. Why else would the brady bunch already be out there claiming they plan to sue over the new law.

Absolutely. No personally identifiable information can be given out without patient consent or court order, except in the 3 cases I outlined earlier. But if a doctor wants to, I believe he or she can give out certain info, as long as it has been scrubbed of all personally identifiable information. So I believe a statistic on how many patients a doctor has that own guns, can probably be given out. It really all depends on the doctor. Docs are regular people, some of them may have an agenda, others may simply not know, and yet others may not care about gun issues at all.

What HIPAA protects is patient confidentiality. That means you are safe if your boss or insurance company decide to pull up your history of disease or drug abuse, for instance. They will not get this info w/o your consent. But if I was representing ________ organization and wanted to get a statistic of how many patients own guns and how they present to the clinic or ER in comparison to those who don't own guns, all I would have to do is find a willing doctor. As long as no personally identifiable information is released, this should be legal under HIPAA regulations. Patient privacy is key here.

Zatec
06-05-2011, 17:32
Absolutely. No personally identifiable information can be given out without patient consent or court order, except in the 3 cases I outlined earlier. But if a doctor wants to, I believe he or she can give out certain info, as long as it has been scrubbed of all personally identifiable information. So I believe a statistic on how many patients a doctor has that own guns, can probably be given out. It really all depends on the doctor. Docs are regular people, some of them may have an agenda, others may simply not know, and yet others may not care about gun issues at all.

What HIPAA protects is patient confidentiality. That means you are safe if your boss or insurance company decide to pull up your history of disease or drug abuse, for instance. They will not get this info w/o your consent. But if I was representing ________ organization and wanted to get a statistic of how many patients own guns and how they present to the clinic or ER in comparison to those who don't own guns, all I would have to do is find a willing doctor. As long as no personally identifiable information is released, this should be legal under HIPAA regulations. Patient privacy is key here.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I still don't like the "statistical" use of information.

Angry Fist
06-05-2011, 18:13
I suppose if you talked about guns and got into a fight and hit him with a bat it might be gun related.
Do lead bats count? :tempted:

Jon91N/A
06-06-2011, 06:41
Agreed. It's strange that people can be so hypocritical on here. This is an unnecessary law. If your doctor won't treat you because you won't answer his/her question, find another doctor. They shouldn't lose their license, they are free to believe what they want and treat who they want.

This is not a 'common sense' law... This is a 'nanny state' law.

EXACTLY! This entire discussion is just beyond ridiculous. Anyone who thinks this law is good is just a flat out idiot.

JASV.17
06-06-2011, 07:55
When we had our first son and took him to his first Dr visit, they asked.."Any guns in the home?". I said, "no". When the Dr turned around, my wife have me the "huh?" look. I told her after, it's none of their business. It's none of anyone's business, and anyone asking would get the same answer.

njl
06-12-2011, 08:59
I can't believe so many of you are in favor of this sort of legislation. I have absolutely no problem with the pediatrician asking if we have guns in the house. When it was on the questionnaire when we were new patients, I simply skipped the question. When it was asked verbally, I answered yes. Next verbal question was something like "are you storing them securely?" I answered "they're all locked up in the safe unless I'm using them." That was it for the topic. Too many people are dumber than rocks and need to be reminded that when kids are in the house, a loaded handgun in or on your bed table may not be a bright idea.

What's really stupid about this part of the law is that doctors can still offer that sort of advice (and IMO should), they just can't ask if it applies to you. So this is mostly a non-issue...it's just something they have to adjust to and stop asking about.

As for the insurance part...I think this is really stupid. If I were an insurer, I'd definitely think it was my business to know if an insured home has firearms, if they're properly stored, etc. to help calculate my risk. Guns without a proper safe are probably more likely to be stolen if the home is burglarized, and may increase that home's liability risks. What's next? They can't ask if you have a pool, an alarm system, stairs? All these things affect the risk you pose to the insurer.

IMO, this is a stupid law that should never have been signed by the governor. I only hope he sees the stupidity of it and instructs the state not to put up a fight when it's challenged in court. Wasting our tax dollars defending an unconstitional law is the last thing we need.