Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

New (FL) law forbidding doctors to talk to patients about guns angers physicians

Mad Mike

By Mad Mike
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
take a look at the language used

So?

Doc- "I recommend you remove all guns from your home"

You- "NO"

Doc " ... ok, well you will have to find another doctor to take a look at that knee."

First of all, is this happening at all on any significant level?

Secondly ... so?

Not liking someone's phraseology, or disapproving of someone's business practice is not a justification for ignoring his right to free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Any of you smokers ever been dropped for smoking by your doctor? (not because of insurance)

~Bang

I've been told he would no longer treat me since I rejected his advice on smoking and a few other things

He was obviously bluffing or has Alzheimer since I've been back a few times

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cept One

Cept One

Posted
Posted
Cept one:

I'm still waiting for a response to this:

So, in your view, the government is free to prohibit anyone from "pushing a politically motivated and and factually dishonest information"? People may only ask others questions, without fear of government regulation, if such questions are in connection with compelling safety concerns.

No but it can limit what people say in very specific and limited circumstances. Do we allow teachers to talk to their students about God? Is this a violation of their 1st amendment rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
repo_4

repo_4

Posted
Posted
Heck, I'm for gun control. I believe in mandatory safety courses, in FBI background checks, I like waiting periods before you can get your gun, and a host of other things, but even I don't believe we should make guns illegal for Americans to own... and on the spectrum of my beliefs, gun control is probably one where I am most liberal.

Mind you, this post probably confirms in Repo's mind that I'm his enemy :paranoid:

Not at all. I am not opposed to waiting periods, background checks or courses for handguns. I had to wait 3 days for my first and then almost 90 days for a concealed carry permit after taking a class for it. Those keep people who really dont need to own a gun away from them.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 06:55 PM ----------

Nope. Not even for an instant.

Because I live in reality.

Well, you live in your "reality" and I will live in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
repo_4

repo_4

Posted
Posted
Speaking as one of those evil liberals who wants to take away everybody's guns, I would like to express my thanks to those people who have volunteered to stand up and to become the icons used to represent the people who the legislature was thinking of when they passed it.

Yeah, someone who pays taxes, votes, abides by all laws and minds my own business...

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 07:32 PM ----------

You live on an MTV reality show? Now it all makes sense!!!

Road Rules would be better. Then I would get to travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cept One

Cept One

Posted
Posted
Of course we do, unless they are working for the state. Then the state, as their employer, makes the decision.

Professional licenses are issued by the state and the state has the right to regulate those professions which require a special license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

:nana:

I've been told he would no longer treat me since I rejected his advice on smoking and a few other things

He was obviously bluffing or has Alzheimer since I've been back a few times

Well, you should quit smoking, you know.

:nana:

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

It was better to just quit going to the dr....helps with the bloodpressure and lessens my chances of going to prison for pinching his head off. :pfft:

One more BMI reference from him and no telling what was gonna happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
It was better to just quit going to the dr....helps with the bloodpressure and lessens my chances of going to prison for pinching his head off. :pfft:

One more BMI reference from him and no telling what was gonna happen

:ols:

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cept One

Cept One

Posted
Posted
Just pointing out that this statement was factually inaccurate. Note the 72 references cited in this report: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;105/4/888

The website you linked to was the dumbed-down skeleton version without all the primary data.

Ok i have not had a chance to read all of the info in that link yet but i found this very telling...

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years.

and

Several legal reviews emphasize that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's gun ownership. Two cases,Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, have established the meaning of the Second Amendment. These and later federal court rulings have indicated that the "right" to bear arms is linked to the preservation of state militias and is not intended to provide for an individual's right to own a firearm. The federal government could ban whole categories of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcl05

bcl05

Posted
Posted

Again, the AAP's mission is: "The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults."

The evidence is overwhelming that guns are dangerous and that absence of guns is the most effective way to prevent gun-related injuries and deaths. You may disagree with the policy approach, but the data isn't ambiguous. The AAP policy is to prioritize and advocate for child safety. In this case, they prioritize child safety over the broadest possible interpretation of 2nd amendment rights.. They have advocated (with essentially no efficacy) for increased regulation of guns. I am not clear about why that is relevant to why pediatricians should be legally barred from providing advice relevant to child safety to the families who are in their care.

No where in any AAP document (that I've found, and I've looked hard over the last day or so) could I find any suggestion that a pediatrician should restrict care to children whose parents own guns. To withhold medical care to a child just because a parent owns a gun, would in fact be antithetical to what our job is. The joy of pediatrics as a profession is that our patients are innocent children. Many of my patients have parents who have values very different than mine. The kids still deserve our best efforts to take good care of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cept One

Cept One

Posted
Posted
Again, the AAP's mission is: "The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults."

The evidence is overwhelming that guns are dangerous and that absence of guns is the most effective way to prevent gun-related injuries and deaths. You may disagree with the policy approach, but the data isn't ambiguous. The AAP policy is to prioritize and advocate for child safety. In this case, they prioritize child safety over the broadest possible interpretation of 2nd amendment rights.. They have advocated (with essentially no efficacy) for increased regulation of guns. I am not clear about why that is relevant to why pediatricians should be legally barred from providing advice relevant to child safety to the families who are in their care.

No where in any AAP document (that I've found, and I've looked hard over the last day or so) could I find any suggestion that a pediatrician should restrict care to children whose parents own guns. To withhold medical care to a child just because a parent owns a gun, would in fact be antithetical to what our job is. The joy of pediatrics as a profession is that our patients are innocent children. Many of my patients have parents who have values very different than mine. The kids still deserve our best efforts to take good care of them.

1) The Supreme Court ruled that we do in fact have an individual right to keep and bear arms... even the dissent affirmed this. Which makes the AAP's stance on the second amendment false. I also noticed that some of the statistics on that page cite anti-gun organizations as sources.

2) Statistics show that gun accidents among children account for an extremely small percentage of accidental child deaths.

0.46% of children between the ages 5-9 as opposed to 5.27% drowning deaths of children of the same age group. http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html

3) I never said the AAP was telling doctors to turn away patients. It has been reported that individual doctors turned away patients in Florida.

4) Pediatricians have no training in gun safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1) The Supreme Court ruled that we do in fact have an individual right to keep and bear arms... even the dissent affirmed this. Which makes the AAP's stance on the second amendment false. I also noticed that some of the statistics on that page cite anti-gun organizations as sources.

2) Statistics show that gun accidents among children account for an extremely small percentage of accidental child deaths.

0.46% of children between the ages 5-9 as opposed to 5.27% drowning deaths of children of the same age group. http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html

3) I never said the AAP was telling doctors to turn away patients. It has been reported that individual doctors turned away patients in Florida.

4) Pediatricians have no training in gun safety.

And all of this gives the government the right to suppress free speech how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
  • Author
Posted
:doh:

The Gov't is not suppressing free speech. Doctors are still able to speak freely outside of their STATE LICENSED medical practice.

Says the man who thinks the AAP is out to repeal the second amendment. :doh:

The bottom line is this. You have no problem stepping on the rights of others, as long as no one even thinks of stepping on yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
The Gov't is not suppressing free speech. Doctors are still able to speak freely outside of their STATE LICENSED medical practice.

In point of fact, the law does indeed suppress "free speech." I doubt you really think otherwise. I suspect you mean that, although the law suppresses free speech, it does not run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

I certainly acknowledge the 1st Amendment does not guarantee the unqualified right to speak freely. The government may regulate speech when compelling public interests so require. However, the government may not prohibit professionals from saying certain things solely because they must obtain a state-issued license to practice their profession. You apparently feel differently. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cept One

Cept One

Posted
Posted
Says the man who thinks the AAP is out to repeal the second amendment. :doh:

The bottom line is this. You have no problem stepping on the rights of others, as long as no one even thinks of stepping on yours.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;105/4/888

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 12:26 AM ----------

In point of fact, the law does indeed suppress "free speech." I doubt you really think otherwise. I suspect you mean that, although the law suppresses free speech, it does not run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

I certainly acknowledge the 1st Amendment does not guarantee the unqualified right to speak freely. The government may regulate speech in certain situations when compelling public interests so require. However, the government may not prohibit professionals from saying certain things solely because they must obtain a state-issued license to practice their profession. You apparently feel differently. Is that correct?

The Florida legislature obviously felt it was in the public's interest to regulate doctors spreading inaccurate information on gun safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
The Florida legislature obviously felt it was in the public's interest to regulate doctors spreading inaccurate information on gun safety.

In other words, the government may regulate the speech of state-licensed professionals if a legislative body determines that such regulations advance some public interest. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Uh oh...

It's a Trap!

This whole thread is a trap, General!

It's a place where any self respecting right-thinker takes a look and realizes that this clown of a governor just **** all over conservative values and beliefs.

Most of our right wing regulars of ES have steered clear, to their credit.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...