Nurse Practitioner Asked Gun Question...

This is a discussion on Nurse Practitioner Asked Gun Question... within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by walvord Maybe I'm taking this wrong, but you sound like a typical elitist - all us little people. My wife and I ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: Nurse Practitioner Asked Gun Question...

  1. #16
    Member Array senseiturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by walvord View Post
    Maybe I'm taking this wrong, but you sound like a typical elitist - all us little people. My wife and I are both college graduates. We drive nice cars, live in a nice house, have nice clothes. Just by looking at us you can tell that we do not fit the description above. I guess this is why the government is trying to "idiot proof" all of American society, huh. All us 3rd graders.... Geezzz....

    Why do you have to advocate or not advocate weapon possession? It's just none of the physicians business. Do you advocate possession of a car or an airplane?

    This was for a mandatory sports physical. Leave my kids' safety to the parents. And no, the office was pretty much empty Sat. morning so no ACTUAL problems were waiting behind us.
    It's not an issue of elitism, it's an issue of what is expected of physicians. I am in no position to tell you how to run your life, but I must do my job. If my job is to ask questions, then I'll do it.

    Sure, I advocate possession of a car and airplane tickets. I personally advocate the possession of a weapon by EDUCATED, TRAINED, and/or otherwise RESPONSIBLE individuals.

    However, the comparison of weapon possession to car possession is a pretty weak one. Sure, vehicles kill lots of people each year, but so does smoking. So does drowning. So, right after we ban firearms, we can go ahead an ban cigarettes, cars, and water. We'll lock everyone in padded cells. Absolute nonsense! Life is deadly. I don't know anyone who's gotten through it alive.

    The difference is, most people NEED a car to hold down a job, get groceries, and survive. People NEED water to survive. But, 90% + of professions out there do not require carrying a firearm. These individuals do not technically NEED a firearm to carry out day-to-day activities, yet many choose to own one. This is either a good decision, or a bad decision, but either way it is an additional risk.

    It is this "additional risk" that gets built into the S.O.P. safety examination. Sure, I'd be willing to bet you are a safe and responsible parent, but unfortunately it's our job to identify some pretty bad parents, and hopefully step in before things really go sour.

    I apologize for getting you so worked up in the middle of the night, but I hope that you can see things from our point of view. I'd rather not have to ask those questions, but if I don't, my arse might end up as a defendant.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    However, the comparison of weapon possession to car possession is a pretty weak one. Sure, vehicles kill lots of people each year, but so does smoking. So does drowning. So, right after we ban firearms, we can go ahead an ban cigarettes, cars, and water.
    Didn't ask if their parents smoked, didn't ask if we have a pool. Just firearms. Must not have been doing her job properly. And they pretty much have banned cigarette smoking in Kalifornia.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    The difference is, most people NEED a car to hold down a job, get groceries, and survive. People NEED water to survive. But, 90% + of professions out there do not require carrying a firearm. These individuals do not technically NEED a firearm to carry out day-to-day activities, yet many choose to own one.
    There you have it folks. I don't NEED a firearm to carry out my day-to-day activities. I'm just a smuck trying to protect my wife and kid's from the day-to-day thugs running around among us but I'm not the police or the military. I don't NEED a gun. The doctors, police, and my government can save me and know what's best for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    I apologize for getting you so worked up in the middle of the night, but I hope that you can see things from our point of view. .
    Accepted. But I'll never be able to see or understand that point of view. I just don't need to be taken care of unless it is very very specific - e.g. chest pains.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    I'd rather not have to ask those questions, but if I don't, my arse might end up as a defendant.
    I can't imagine any legally carrying CCWer taking a doctor to court because they didn't ask about firearms in the home. Now if they start sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, that might be another story.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghettokracker71 View Post
    ARE OU KIDDING ME!@?!?!?

    on the paperwork?

    at least their not doing it being your back

    Yep Right on the paper ya know did your ins change are you still taking these pills and do you have guns in the house

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,353
    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    .

    We truly do live in a "well it don't say not to" society. People would drink bleach if they thought it could get them high.

    Sort of off topic but your right there Friday morning i was listen to the radio and they were talking about how the hospitals where have to change the way they had hand sanitizer's mounted as people were ripping them off the wall to drink it and get high ..

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    90% + of professions out there do not require carrying a firearm. These individuals do not technically NEED a firearm to carry out day-to-day activities, yet many choose to own one. This is either a good decision, or a bad decision, but either way it is an additional risk.
    You're absolutely right regarding NEED. I don't NEED to survive an armed home invasion, a carjacking, or other random thuggery. I just WANT to have a chance to do so. I balance the risk of having a firearm handy versus the risk of being killed because I don't.

  7. #21
    Member Array Manan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hoosier
    Posts
    153
    I would change Dr.'s immediately. They are in it for profit. Believe me! When they loose a whole family, they notice. That is worth hundreds of thousands over a life time. Don't just tell the receptionist. Call or write a personal letter the the physician.
    NRA Member
    I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46
    www.ShootersEar.com

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    All these people calling for "complaining" and "changing docs". Why not just start by calling and asking the doc why he/she would ask the question? I think you have the answer already...the question is on the standard form and unless the doctor is a "gun guy", it's just another question to him. He doesn't care if you have guns, he just has to ask the question to fill out the paperwork.

    If you do want to have a conversation about it, start by asking "why". Don't start by saying you want to complain about the doc asking the question. You will get a lot further and will learn a lot more by asking why instead of opening the conversation by saying you want to complain about the doctor's actions. Since he already knows you have guns in the house, if he is a gun guy he may tell you and end up having a good discussion about it.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,018
    I draw little pictures of stick guns on the forms that ask if I own a gun...It drives em nuts

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array Pitmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wherever there's fried chicken or barbecue
    Posts
    642
    Lets change the direction of this thread. The policy/requirements/rules placed upon physicians to ask about firearms in the home will be extended to other professionals who may come in contact with you, your family, and children. Some of these professionals may include nurses, social workers, counselors, mental health workers, etc. The policies are coming from AMA, JCAHO, insurance companies, NASW, etc. As a social worker who has to do assessments I'm offended by the some of the questions and information I am required to ask during the assessment process. This would be one of those questions, although sometimes it is necessary when assessing suicide/homicide risk. Documentation of answers can be made to be neutral. When refusing to answer the documentation of that answer can reflect negatively upon future readers of the response. (Refused to answer=non-compliant or resistant).

    The question then becomes what are the best ways to answer this question? Its not reasonable to expect a 7 year old to tell the "professional" to (expletive deleted) although I don't disagree with the sentiment. What should you or your spouse say if asked in the presence of your child? Lying at that point sets a bad example about honesty. No matter how you retroactively explain it.

    What should you teach your child about how to respond to these types of questions? When I have to ask these question I frame it in a manner that allows them the option to not answer it.

    This hasn't been an issue as much in the past but is a growing one. I don't think its right to ask kids this question. Asking parents is bad enough. Parents can respond to their physician and reasonably explain a position.
    Last edited by Captain Crunch; November 4th, 2007 at 01:29 PM. Reason: Edit Language Workaround
    Pitmaster

    HELGA: Where are you going?
    HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
    HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
    HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...

  11. #25
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud White View Post
    i have seen it on the paper you fill out for the year update of info at my drs office.. they always love my responses to it

    NOYFB?
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  12. #26
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by senseiturtle View Post
    Sure, I'd be willing to bet you are a safe and responsible parent, but unfortunately it's our job to identify some pretty bad parents, and hopefully step in before things really go sour.
    I may be way off base, but I thought your job was Heal the Sick and Injured. Since when is it a doctor's job to identify bad parents? Now you're the judge of parenting skills, too?

    Now, I notice many people getting worked up and threatening to file complaints, change doctors, and anything else to stir the pot. This reaction is similar to the 'leprechaun LEO' thread. Mountain/molehill. Personally, I don't have time to chase shadows.

    While I don't agree with doctors asking irrelevant questions, they are basically harmless. More importantly, the doctor's boss (AMA) requires them to ask those questions. As to asking the children, that is just plain wrong. Children should be taught not to answer these types of questions without parent supervision.

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Medical malpractice - misleading information from the federal government impacts support for gun control
    J. Neil Schulman

    ANYBODY WHO has studied the stock market knows that when women's hemlines go up, the prices of stocks go up also, but no one is foolish enough to claim that by shortening skirts we can cause a stock-market boom. That sort of common sense, however, doesn't seem to hold when the subject is the so-called epidemiology of "gun violence."

    The point at issue is the contention that medical researchers can study firearms-related violence as a matter of epidemiology apart from the motives of the people who pull the trigger--which is the proper study of that branch of sociology known as criminology. By this premise alone, epidemiologists deny the fundamental difference between microbic cultures and human cultures: microbes don't act on their value-judgments; people do.

    The latest outbreak of statisticitis emerges from a study led by Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, published in the October 7, 1993, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and financed by the Centers for Disease Control. A previous Kellermann-led study, published in the June 12, 1986, NEJM and also financed by the CDC, gave us the factoid that you are 43 times as likely to die from a handgun kept in the home--through homicide, suicide, or accident--as you are to kill a burglar with it.(*) By the time this factoid turned into mega-soundbite of gun-control advocates in the media and Congress, you were supposedly 43 times as likely to die from a handgun kept in the home as to protect yourself from a burglar with it.

    Dr. Kellermann himself cautioned against that conclusion, saying, "Morality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified. We did not report the total number of nonlethal firearm injuries involving guns kept in the home. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

    On Thin Ice

    KELLERMAN'S latest "population-based case-control study" of homicides throws such caution to the winds. He attempts to quantify "firearms risks versus benefits" by comparing households where a homicide occurred with households where no homicide occurred-in three counties, chosen for the convenience of their location to the researchers. After correcting for several other risk factors such as use of alcohol or illicit drugs, previous domestic violence, and previous criminal records in the 316 matched households ultimately compared, Kellermann determined that households where "homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance" occurred were almost three times as likely to have kept a loaded handgun in the home as control households where such a homicide did not occur. From this determination Kellermann concludes, "Although firearms are often kept in the home for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home."

    An immediate technical problem with Kellermann's methods was raised by David N. Cowen, PhD, in a letter to per year and over a million gun defenses if one included all firearms.

    Kleck's latest research, his Spring 1993 National Self-Defense Survey of 4,979 households, reveals that previous studies underestimated the number of times respondents used their firearms in defense. The new survey suggests 2.4 million gun defenses in 1992, 1.9 million of them with handguns; and about 72 per cent of these gun defenses occurred in or near the home. This indicates a successful gun defense about 1,728,000 times a year with no body for Dr. Kellermann to find.

    So who is doing the killing? Murder Analysis, 1992, tells us that 72.39 per cent of the murderers the Chicago Police studied in 1992 had a criminal history and, interestingly, 65.53 per cent of the victims did as well. A recent National Institute of Justice analysis finds, "It is clear that only a very small fraction of privately owned firearms are ever involved in crime or [unlawful] violence, the vast bulk of them being owned and used more or less exclusively for sport and recreational purposes, or for self-protection."

    Criminologist Don Kates concurs: "It has been estimated that 98.32 per cent of owners do not use a gun in an unlawful homicide (over a 50-year, adult life span)."

    Overwhelmingly, violence isn't a matter of ordinary people killing because a firearm is handy, but of criminals committing violence because violence is their way of life. When the Centers for Disease Control starts defining bullets as "pathogens" and hands honest gun owners the Typhoid Marys of a "gun-violence epidemic," the medical profession has lent its scientific credibility to a radical political agenda which threatens to increase the overall violence in our society by shifting the balance of power toward the well-armed psychopath.

    Oddly enough, even Dr. Kellermann agrees. In the March/April 1994 issue of Health, he is quoted as saying: "If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 special in her hand? Yeah."

    In this particular gunfight, the best ammunition is the truth. (*) Of those 43 deaths 37 were suicide; eliminating suicide immediately drops the claimed figure to 6 times as likely. We can eliminate suicide from our analysis of gun-effects immediately. The American Journal of Psychiatry (March 1990) reported in a study by Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black that gun-suicides, which were statistically reduced in the five years following Canada's imposition of handgun restrictions in 1976, were replaced 100 per cent by suicides using other methods, mostly jumping off bridges.

    Mr. Schulman is a Los Angeles novelist, screenwriter, and journalist. This articles is excerpted form his book Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, just out from Synapse-Centurion.

    COPYRIGHT 1994 National Review, Inc.
    COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Firearm Counseling by Physicians: Coverage under Medical Liability Insurance Policies.

    Original Article
    Southern Medical Journal. 96(7):647-651, July 2003.
    Paola, Frederick A. MD, JD

    Abstract:
    Background: Physicians who offer firearms counseling may increase their legal liability, depending on the attitudes of their medical malpractice insurance carriers.

    Methods: A survey was mailed to the 100 largest medical malpractice insurers. Requested data included their experience with claims involving allegations of negligent firearm counseling by physicians, their opinion regarding whether firearm counseling by physicians would be covered under their medical malpractice policies, and their prediction of how their insurance group or company would handle such claims.

    Results: Fourteen surveys were returned. No respondents reported having dealt with a case involving an allegation of negligent firearm counseling by a physician. Eight respondents (57%) thought that such counseling would not be covered under their medical malpractice policy, whereas six respondents (43%) said that it would.

    Conclusion: A majority of responding insurers thought that physician firearm counseling would not be covered under their medical malpractice policies. Physicians wishing to counsel their patients about the risks and benefits of owning and using firearms are advised to seek assurance of medical malpractice insurance coverage from their insurers or the annexation of a rider to their current policies.

    (C) 2003 Southern Medical Association

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array lance22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,032

    Smart Alek Replies

    You could qoute the number of deaths due to medical malpractice VS the number of childhood deaths on minors by 'accidentally finding daddies gun and shooting it'. My stats exclude homicide / suicide / getting shot by police while robbing liquor stores ... et all. I think there are more recent stats ... but these I share ...

    2002 US INJURY DEATHS FOR CHILDREN – CDC STATISTICS

    There were 73 million kids (under 18, to be specific) in the U.S.
    in 2002. Almost nine thousand died that year of accidental causes.

    Here's how it breaks down:

    Cause or mechanism of death Number Percent
    MotorVehicles 4819 55%
    Drowning 1007 12%
    Suffocation 920 11%
    Other or unspecified 739 8%
    Fire 571 7%
    Poison 256 3%
    Bicycles 154 2%
    Falls 125 1%
    Guns 115 1%

    Total 8706 100%

    FACTS TO PONDER:

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.

    Now think about this:

    Guns:

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes,
    that's 80 million..)
    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    -------------------- so ....

    I always like to ask them a couple questions:

    Doctor - do more children accidentally drown in pools than die by accidentally discharging a firearm? [correct answer is something along the lines that a child is 60 times more likely to drown in a pool than find your handgun and shoot himself or a friend]

    Doctor - what is the indent of death by medical malpractice VS death by accidental discharge of firearm?
    [if we can include adults in both forms of death then you are comparing a hundred or so deaths to over a 100 k deaths].

    Well ... all of a sudden they don't like statistics so much and all they are left with is their agenda.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble
    2000 by Joe Horn crowtalk@theriver.com
    One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians
    and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of
    those new areas of liability exposure.
    Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically
    inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even removal of those
    firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why
    these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.
    Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They
    may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without
    certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the
    practice of medicine.
    Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors,
    garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning
    chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks,
    knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one
    of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.
    To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to
    concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a
    lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the
    occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in
    the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible
    fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider
    themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with
    their patients?
    Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice
    insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.
    Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:
    One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned
    them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving
    preventative advice about ll the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home
    safety risk management? You know their answer.
    How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician
    or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.
    Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not
    borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance
    carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation
    problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example,
    E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.
    Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and
    liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them
    entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm
    available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't
    arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk
    Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.
    It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's
    advice.
    Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state
    that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no
    longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home
    defenseless against violent crime.
    The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home
    defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person
    would have surmised.
    If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising
    patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it
    is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.
    It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve
    counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political
    issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is
    considerable......
    Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if
    this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
    Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. What is your most asked question?
    By Kingkoopa in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: December 31st, 2009, 12:05 AM
  2. A question I should have asked...
    By AllAmerican in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 07:02 PM
  3. She asked the question...!!
    By monky in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 08:36 AM
  4. On another board (I think), this question was asked:
    By Wayne in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: September 17th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Search tags for this page

can a nurse prationier ask gun questions
,
can nurse practitioner sign concealed carry
,
comparing medical malpractice lawsuits to accidental gun deaths
,

concealed carry and psychiatric nurse practitioners

,
does an nurse practioner have to report an accidental death by firearm?
,
gun questions doctors
,
nurse practitioners and firearms
,
nurse practitioners gun questions
Click on a term to search for related topics.