Doc, what’s up with snooping? (Merged)

[Miggy]

From the Boston Globe. Click here for full article about snooping pedriaticians.

And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.

Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”

When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.

But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.

She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.

At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mr.stuart]

Interesting article.My son is grown,but if a doctor had asked him these questions when he was young,the doctor would be questioned in an intense manner by ME!There are so many people and companies after our information.Of course the government is the biggest snoop.

[jualdeaux]

That's not the first I've heard of this.

[HotGuns]

That is ridiculous,completley uncalled for and unprofessional.

That would be like a cop stopping me on the road for speeding and asking me if I had hemmorids.

[PatrioticRick]

Children are never left alone with the doctors and it's up to the parents to say "It's none of you damn business Doc" with a smile. But in my case our doctor, he's the one I go shooting with.

[edr9x23super]

As the lawyer once said, "SUE THE B*******!"

[Captain Crunch]

Not surprising. The doctor is merely parrotting the policies of the American Medical Association (AMA).

Read the AMA's policy H-145.000, Firearms: Safety and Regulation here:

Seriously, folks, read this policy, then you'll definitly want to have a little chat with your doctor.

[firefighter4884]

Captain Crunch,

THanks for posting that. I read them all, and I feel dumber already! Isn't there a way to sit and educate these people? I mean... in order to be an MD, you have to have what? At least 8 years of schooling, post high school! You'd think that you'd be able to talk to them rationally!

grrrrrr.... ok... my blood pressure is up now!

--Jim

[Sonic Misfit]

I think the one article that shows their true intellect is this one.

H-145.994 Control of Non-Detectable Firearms

The AMA supports a ban on the manufacture, importation, and sale of any firearm which cannot be detected by ordinary airport screening devices. (Sub. Res. 79, A-88; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, I-98)




Yes, doctors are supposed to have all that education but it is in medicine. NOT LAW, NOT REAL ESTATE, NOT ...

If you think their stand against guns is bad, ask one of them about motorcycles.

[miklcolt45]

Captain Crunch,

THanks for posting that. I read them all, and I feel dumber already! Isn't there a way to sit and educate these people? I mean... in order to be an MD, you have to have what? At least 8 years of schooling, post high school! You'd think that you'd be able to talk to them rationally!

grrrrrr.... ok... my blood pressure is up now!

--Jim

Go shooting. Your bp will go down.

But, don't tell your doctor!

[Tye_Defender]

The following link has an article about physician liability when they "dispense" advise that they are not trained about.

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Horn/Physicians,_Don't_borrow_trouble,_Part_III.htm

My favorite is the form they have that the physician fills out.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/...ice%20Form.pdf

I have never used this, but I do think it's funny. If I ever did need to use it, I think I would be changing doctors soon after.

[ccw9mm]

Ostensibly, knowing about risks/threats to children is a valid reason to be concerned. But, under no circumstances is it okay (short of the child being hospitalized due to a wound sustained via a fired gun) for a doctor to play wannabe investigating cop. It's unprofessional and unreasonable.

From the write-up, it sounds like the child was interviewed while the mother was elsewhere (being examined). That's simply wrong.

In short, the doctor was dispensing blatant, holier-than-thou moral judgments, not medical attentions. I'd like to see the doc's degree in holier-than-thou. Must be quite a sheepskin.

[Rob72]

Ostensibly, knowing about risks/threats to children is a valid reason to be concerned. But, under no circumstances is it okay (short of the child being hospitalized due to a wound sustained via a fired gun) for a doctor to play wannabe investigating cop. It's unprofessional and unreasonable.

Actually it is. In conjunction with Department of Health Services, and State "Requirement To Report", regarding hazards to the life and well-being of children, it is acceptable and encouraged. Nothing in RTRs says that injury must have occurred, only that a "threat" is present, in the professional opinion of the care-provider.

As stated, get a lawyer- this mechanism is another effort at legislation-by-bureaucracy.

[Rob72]

The following link has an article about physician liability when they "dispense" advise that they are not trained about.

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Horn/Physicians,_Don't_borrow_trouble,_Part_III.htm

My favorite is the form they have that the physician fills out.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/...ice%20Form.pdf

I have never used this, but I do think it's funny. If I ever did need to use it, I think I would be changing doctors soon after.

Forgot to add previously: the physician interaction initially described did not involve advisement, but, again, making a welfare report, which is basically raising a flag to DHS/Child "Welfare" ("DHS: Proudly placing children in need with drunks and pedophiles for 60 years...").

The most important fact for us to keep in mind is that while you may sue your doctor, it is all but impossible to bring a suit against DHS- they generally have immunity from civil action. If your physician was acting "in good faith", he's covered too....

[ccw9mm]

Nothing in RTRs says that injury must have occurred, only that a "threat" is present, in the professional opinion of the care-provider.

It matters not at all that the State approves of such actions. I'm speaking of right and wrong. There is a world of difference between having a discussion with parents and surreptitiously interviewing an unsupervised child about things unrelated to the visit at hand. White coats are not badges.

Kudos to the parents for stripping this doc of his "right" to surreptitiously inteview their child, penalizing him for effectively making judgments about their firearms possession (by claiming it a "threat to the child") that could damage their family. Kudos.

Now, there is certainly a place for all medical folks to keep their eyes and ears open. For obvious signs of damage or overt threats, the reporting power they have is sufficient. Many children have been saved a painful path due to such diligence. I have family members in healthcare, so I'm aware of all the good they do, from pediatrics to emergency/trauma to hospice. It's a tough vocation.