The 1st Amendment and Nosy Doctors
This is a discussion on The 1st Amendment and Nosy Doctors within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Or First amendment rights versus those of the Second. Or what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Seems that the Brady Center ...
June 9th, 2011 10:11 AM
The 1st Amendment and Nosy Doctors
Or First amendment rights versus those of the Second. Or what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Seems that the Brady Center likes to hide behind some Constitutional rights while dismantling others.
""This gun lobby-backed gag law is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients to discuss the severe risks posed by guns in the home, particularly to children," Brady Center President Paul Helmke said in a statement."
Brady Center Sues Florida Over 'Gag' on Doctors Asking About Firearms - FoxNews.com
Seems the Brady center is suing over Florida's gag order on doctors asking about firearms rights in the home. This has more ominous implications as may be seen deeper in the article with doctors refusing patients and insurance companies adjusting premiums in order to sock it to firearms households.
...the American Academy of Pediatrics, a party to the suit, claimed the law would do harm because pediatricians should be able to provide "anticipatory guidance" to prevent injury to children.
I don't know about you guys but I don't need my doctor giving me unsolicited anticipatory guidance for anything not directly related to proper health maintenance. Next thing you know he'll be providing "anticipatory guidance" for investment portfolios or how to vote in the next general election. After all, one's investments and voting decisions have implications for whether or not he starves in coming years and starving could be said to be unhealthy.
Just think of the "anticipatory guidance" that could be forced on us by the following people in our lives if we begin to accept allowing others to think for us.
Water Meter Reader
Next Door Neighbor
And last but definitely not least: Government Bureaucrat.
Personally, the only "anticipatory guidance" I'm looking for is on Sunday morning in the preacher's sermon and even then I'll consider his sources.
Last edited by bmcgilvray; June 9th, 2011 at 10:45 PM.
Reason: Original Link Died - Replacement Provided
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
June 9th, 2011 10:11 AM
June 9th, 2011 10:16 AM
I don't see how it has anything to do with the First Amendment. Not one bit.
This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
June 9th, 2011 10:22 AM
I agree 100%. We *just* switched pediatricians because at my 6yo's last appt we were directly asked if we had firearms in our home. It was invasive and none of their business, and absolutely irrelevant to her medical treatment. I can understand if they want to offer pamphlets or generalized information on firearm safety and qualify that as "anticipatory guidance", but asking directly is out of line.
June 9th, 2011 11:59 AM
The Brady center concerned with constitutional rights.....Now that is rich.
June 9th, 2011 12:14 PM
The Doctors are trying to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. However there were reports of Doctors here in Fl. refusing treatment (not emergency treatment) if parents answered that they owned or had firearms in their homes. Below is an exerpt from the legislation...
Think about what is in red below, what if this somehow was "sneaked" into Obama's Healthcare Plan (somewhere in the 1900 pages that NOBODY seems to have read)...I can see it now, "If you own firearms you engage in dangerous behavior and can not be covered under the healthcare plan"...Pretty scary stuff...and nothing seems too "far-fetched" for the bunch that is in power right now!
BACKGROUND ON HB-155
Doctors need to treat illness, not guns. Pediatricians and other physicians, in growing numbers, are prying into our personal lives, invading our privacy and straying from issues relating to disease and medicine by questioning children or their parents about gun ownership.
We take our children to physicians for medical care, not moral judgment, political harassment, and privacy intrusions - and that is what HB-155 intends to prohibit.
This bill comes in answer to families who are complaining about the growing political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs - and the arrogant berating if a patient refuses to answer questions that violate privacy rights and offend common decency.
Horrified parents have described nurses entering the answers to gun questions into laptop computers to become a part of medical records. They have become concerned about whether those records can be used by the government or by insurance companies to deny health care coverage because a family exercises a civil right in owning firearms.
As parents, we are responsible for our children's safety. We don't need doctors pushing their anti-gun politics on us or our kids. We need them to spend their time practicing medicine and not prying into our personal lives on issues that have nothing to do with disease, its cure, or its eradication.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
June 9th, 2011 12:47 PM
I believe that is something the insurance companies (not government) devised so they can have another reason to deny claims. They put in in small print somewhere would be my guess.
I wish someone would overhaul the health care industry as they are out to screw the public any way they can.
"Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"
June 9th, 2011 01:07 PM
That question is on the form my doc's secretary hands me every time I go in.
I gave the following answer on my first visit and since then write "unchanged."
DO YOU HAVE FIREARMS IN THE HOUSE? Y/N
"I have something far more dangerous. I have a car!"
"Deine Papieren bitte?" or "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ !"
(Choose only one)
NRA Endowment Member
"I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is." -- David Crockett
June 9th, 2011 01:31 PM
Although I've never personally come across this situation (thankfully!), it is definitely one that gets me very irritated very quickly. If asked, I would respond "Doc, when was the last time you and your wife had sex? That has more bearing on my (or my wife's or one of my children's) healthcare than whether or not I own guns. If you aren't getting laid... you may be so frustrated that you overlook something...potentially serious, which could lead to a law suit. So you see, I'm really trying to save you the trouble." So in short, have sex, have guns. ;-)
But seriously, this is a blatant invasion of privacy and has NO bearing on the condition I or my family member is seeing the doc for (barring, of course, a gunshot wound). Unacceptable IMO.
June 9th, 2011 01:52 PM
The Amendments protect from government tyranny. Most doctors asking if you smoke, drink - or for the sake of your child's health - NOT YOU - ask about guns at home in case they are not secured - is either giving info to mitigate health risks or gauging the effect of those to properly evaluate disease findings. None of this has anything to do with the First Amendment but has a lot to do with a physician's goal: to lessen health-risk. It's not tyranny and it's not the government; if you don't want to answer a doctor's questions, so don't.
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
Children get killed by guns. Obviously some homes are unsafe. It's a reasonable question.
Don't answer if you want to be porky about it. Stop screaming about your "freedoms".
June 9th, 2011 01:55 PM
There is a difference between "health risk" and "safety risk". Having guns in the house is a potential safety risk, yes... but not a health risk. I am not going to get swine flu from my M&P9c, or SARS from my AR15.
Originally Posted by hamlet
June 9th, 2011 02:02 PM
I'm glad my doctor is a hunter/shooter/reloader. She simply does her job. The Brady kooks obviously have no clue as to the meaning of the first amendment. It provides for free speech. Nothing in the new law is preventing any doctor from spouting off all he/she wants. They also seem to forget that there's a fifth amendment that protects citizens from having to make any kind of incriminating statements. There's also a fourteenth amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law. Gun owners cannot be treated differently or discriminated against. Lastly courts have interpreted the fourth amendment as protecting against invasion of privacy. The Brady's need a new legal staff. If doctors are really concerned about children and firearms safety, I'm sure the NRA would provide literature they could have available in their offices.
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
June 9th, 2011 02:10 PM
Stop being a self-righteous fool. How'd you like it if you got hit by a bus and no one treated you in the ER because your guts coming out of your nose wasn't a disease. All this for simple effort to protect children, self-righteous screaming like government torturers are pulling out your fingernails. Avaunt! Back to Jupiter where you belong!
Originally Posted by OperatorJ
June 9th, 2011 02:18 PM
I'm not sure how you got self-righteous out of that. First of all, we were talking about a doctors visit... not an ER visit. While similar, they are not the same. Second of all, it is not my doctor's responsibility to protect my children, it is mine. This is about putting responsibility where it belongs - with the parents. I am a father to a 3yr old boy and a 3mo old little girl. It is my responsibility to keep them away from guns (until I train them at the appropriate time), and out of the street so they don't get hit by a bus. My doc (or insert any other medical professional for that matter) didn't go to 8 years of college and medical school to protect my children from guns. He went to learn how to protect us from diseases and injury. Thats it. A doctor talking to me or my children about firearms is like asking him to work on my car - not his job, nor his place.
June 9th, 2011 02:28 PM
Now what does healthcare have to do with whether I have a gun in my house are not. Unless I'm/family are suffering from lead poison it should not even be asked. I pay for weapon, I pay for my healthcare, i pay for my ammo, I pay for my Permit to carry concealed and I pay for the training beyond what is required to carry a gun. It's none of the doctors business if I have 1 are 100 guns in my house.
June 9th, 2011 02:41 PM
I would'nt answer him/her if asked that anyway ; )
A Native Floridian = RARE
IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment and doctors
2nd amendment and doctors questions
doctors refusing patients lawsuit
man is a nosey doctor
north carolina house gun gag law physicians
nosy doctor question guns
nosy doctor questions sex life
second amendment pamphlet for doctor visit
too nosy doctors
www. first amendments rights to stop medical doctor power .
Click on a term to search for related topics.