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

[Larry]

now on the flip side, how would some of you feel about legislation that made it mandatory for a pediatrician to ask parents if they own a gun?

Would that legislation be as equally pointless as this law?

As opposed to, say, making it mandatory that a woman considering abortion be shown an ultrasound?

After all, "It's not politics or an agenda or a crusade. It's simply informing the patient."

[Burgold]

Yup, Bang's got it. The Right have become the master's of misdirection as they pick your pocket and people actually thank them for mugging them. Yesterday, I went to a new doctor (I actually did too turns out I have strep ) They asked me if I smoked, drank, about my caffiene consumption, and if I exercised. I didn't find any of those questions out of line. They just noted whatever I said and moved on down their list. They never asked about guns. They never preached about any topic.

This law steals our rights. It's not protecting anyone in any fashion. It's harming one class of people. It's anti-free speech. It's anti-free market. It's very Republican.

To the few here who are defending it ask yourself if this is the cause that you want to believe in. Sometimes, it's better to take a stand against your own group. Sometimes, it's okay to hit the brakes and admit that your party did something wrong. There's not even a slippery slope here. There's no... "My God, if doctors feel free to ask us about guns, one day they may ask us about... my stamp collection!" and like Bang says there has been no concerted effort to refuse service to gun owners. There never has been. That would make news and that would be wrong. Stop chasing shadows and deal with the devil in the room.

Hopefully, the court deals with this promptly.

[Teller]

It forbids Florida doctors from inquiring about guns in a patient's home unless the information is "relevant to a patient's medical care or safety' date=' or the safety of others."[/quote']

I don't agree with this law. But answer me this. What other reason would a doctor have to ask about firearms in a home?

And doesn't it seem just a little deliberately inflammatory that the article says this is going to put kids in danger, but then turns around and says they can still ask if there are safety concerns?

[Larry]

I don't agree with this law. But answer me this. What other reason would a doctor have to ask about firearms in a home?

And doesn't it seem just a little deliberately inflammatory that the article says this is going to put kids in danger, but then turns around and says they can still ask if there are safety concerns?

Yeah, the thought did occur to me that the Doctor cold simply stick out his chest and announce that "In my medical opinion, the possibility of a patient getting shot is a relevant safety issue".

[Teller]

Yeah, the thought did occur to me that the Doctor cold simply stick out his chest and announce that "In my medical opinion, the possibility of a patient getting shot is a relevant safety issue".

It's irresponsible not to ask about firearms in a home if the patient is mentally unstable; or if there are domestic violence issues. But this law doesn't change any of that, because both of those would constitute safety issues.

There has to be SOME reason for the law though. And I, for one, would love to know what it is.

[Burgold]

It's irresponsible not to ask about firearms in a home if the patient is mentally unstable; or if there are domestic violence issues. But this law doesn't change any of that, because both of those would constitute safety issues.

There has to be SOME reason for the law though. And I, for one, would love to know what it is.

It's pandering to the gun rights folks and creating another scapegoat or boogeyman. Sometimes, a bad law is a bad idea and there is no good reasoning in it. I really suspect that is the reason to the law. Just another attempt to distract and create enemies.

[Larry]

It's irresponsible not to ask about firearms in a home if the patient is mentally unstable; or if there are domestic violence issues. But this law doesn't change any of that, because both of those would constitute safety issues.

Or if the house contains children, or anybody else who might use it accidentally.

There has to be SOME reason for the law though. And I, for one, would love to know what it is.

You, and I, and everybody in this thread, knows what the reason is.

[Mad Mike]

So, let's talk about this strawman. In this counter argument we are given no details. How many are some people? What gun right group is stating this? Can they bring forth a single person whose doctor has given them the boot over this?

I'm sorry. This reads like throwaway BS. Anonymous, unsubstantiated material with no numbers whatsoever doesn't impress me.

Actually it is documented to have happened in a few rare cases. Read the AP article in my OP.

The issue found its way to the GOP-controlled Florida Legislature after what is known as the "Ocala incident" took place in 2010, according to the state's response to the lawsuit. In that instance, a young mother was dropped from a doctor's practice solely because she refused to answer questions about firearm ownership. Similar cases came to light as lawmakers debated the measure.

Which is why I said that I wouldn't have a problem with considering a law saying that doctors cannot drop patients for being gun owners. But then again the stupid flows both ways. If you are a gun owner/advocate why would you want a doctor who would drop you for owning a gun? I guess there might be a case of someone living in the boondocks who doesn't have much choice. But to flip it yet again, aren't there medical ethics boards who can deal with this?

Which brings me full circle to the glaring loophole in this ridiculous law. Doctors... Don't ask. TELL every new parent about the dangers of guns around children as part of an overall safety talk. I'd LOVE to hear the NRA's argument against that.

[Teller]

Or if the house contains children, or anybody else who might use it accidentally.

Plenty of responsible gun owners have kids. I'm not sure I'm following you here.

[Burgold]

Come on, Mike. You need a sample size of greater than one incident before you make a federal case out of something or even a statewide case

Besides, Conservatives are forever arguing that a private business has the right to decline business. I think it's a pretty dumb reason for a doctor to drop a patient, but making it illegal for a doctor to be able to speak his mind to his patients is even dumber.

[Larry]

Actually it is documented to have happened in a few rare cases. Read the AP article in my OP.

Thanks for pointing that out. (I guess stupid is everywhere.)

Assuming that's true, then I do have a problem with that doctor. Just like I have a problem with pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control to people who they deem unworthy.

Analogy:

Decades ago, I went through training and was a member of a volunteer EMS agency. (I never actually treated anybody. I made it through state certification, and was beginning my apprenticeship, when I lost my job and had to leave.)

Part of that training was an overview of issues like patient consent, the Good Samaritan Law, and malpractice.

The training touched upon the well-held common knowledge that says that if a person is drowning, 10 feet from shore, and you're standing on shore, and there's a "doughnut" and a rope right next to you, that supposedly, if you grap the doughnut, try to throw it to the drowning person, and you miss, then you can be sued for malpractice. But that if you simply stand there and watch him drown, then you cannot be sued.

The instructor pointed out that there's a really big, glaring, hole in that "if you stand there and watch, you can't be sued".

If you are wearing a shirt that says "lifeguard", and you're sitting in a high chair by the side of the pool, then you

are

required to act to save that person. Failing to do so is called "nonfeasance", and it can carry criminal penalties. That, if you put on the uniform of the Chesapeake Volunteer EMS Agency, if you put on a t-shirt that says "lifeguard", if you put on a fireman's suit and ride on a fire engine, then you

are

obligated to help whoever needs it.

I think the same thing applies to doctors. And to pharmacists. When you volunteered for that job, then you agreed to perform that job. Even for people you don't like.

If you can't do that, then you need another job.

[Mad Mike]

Come on, Mike. You need a sample size of greater than one incident before you make a federal case out of something or even a statewide case

Besides, Conservatives are forever arguing that a private business has the right to decline business. I think it's a pretty dumb reason for a doctor to drop a patient, but making it illegal for a doctor to be able to speak his mind to his patients is even dumber.

I agree with the sample size being too small for such a law. But again, it was more than one incident. Let's not exaggerate either argument. As a journalist, I shouldn't have to remind you about distorting the facts in any way.

Also, I think you are referring to Rand Paul, a Libertarian, who has said that businesses have the right to refuse anyone for any reason including the color of their skin, making the argument that the free market would punish those who discriminate. Once more, accuracy is important, even when the general point you are trying to make is correct.

---------- Post added July-16th-2011 at 03:11 PM ----------

Thanks for pointing that out. (I guess stupid is everywhere.)

Stupid (like evil) *IS* everywhere. It's not a right or left issue. And for libertarians, private industry is no better than big government.

Stupid is part of the human condition. Anyone who tells you that one side or another has all the answers is... well... stupid.

[Burgold]

Actually, I thought it was a general conservative principle that the free market needs to be free and that businesses have the right to cater to or refuse customers. Wasn't trying to play games with that statement. It's something I've heard conservatives say for decades.

Any rate, what's funny is I think we agree on the issue, but you still feel some protective need to defend it. This is not a law that should have passed. It restricts liberties without a good enough reason.

[doctorshockalu]

Doctor: "Do you own a gun in the house?"

Me: "No"

What is the big deal? Or...

Doctor: "I want to tell you about the dangers of guns with your kids"

Me: "I've already received training, so have my kids. I have gun locks on every weapon and I have the only key. And since car crashes kill children at a much higher rate I'm going to lecture you about car safety for the next 5 minutes."

[Bang]

Doctor: "Do you own a gun in the house?"

Me: "No"

What is the big deal? Or...

Doctor: "I want to tell you about the dangers of guns with your kids"

Me: "I've already received training, so have my kids. I have gun locks on every weapon and I have the only key. And since car crashes kill children at a much higher rate I'm going to lecture you about car safety for the next 5 minutes."

No no no.. don't you see doc?

Out here we are too ****ing stupid and helpless to be able to carry on an adult conversation like that, or to say "Thanks anyway" to some advice.

According to reports,, a very small number of people have had an issue with their doctor.. and that of course constitutes an immediate public emergency that requires legislation to protect us. (Course, we may find out that the doctor dropped them because they wouldn't pay their bill,, but odds are it's probably because the doctor hated guns. Know why? Because thanks to the fear the Republicans created, that is what Republicans are afraid of, and as we all know, if the Repuiblicans are afraid of it, then it's a fact that needs to be dealt with. And what better thing to do when you're a frightened Republican but run to the government to save you? )

We NEED government to step in and protect us from pushy doctors who will brainwash our impressionable little minds.

Thank god for the Republicans who will make sure that the big giant nanny government will step in and regulate what people can say to us, thereby protecting us from the evils of people who say one thing, but act entirely different.

If it weren't for the Republicans keeping us safe, we would all be having gay sex at the big gun meltdown party and fashion show, and before you know it, the terrorists will have won because we'll have given all of our money to Code Pink and George Soros.

Honestly,, people,, if you still believe in these lying jackholes,, you're ****ing hopeless.

~Bang

[Teller]

Honestly,, people,, if you still believe in these lying jackholes,, you're ****ing hopeless.

I tend to agree. There are only two flaws I see in your logic.

1) If enough of us use logic and reason, eventually the party has to come back to us. Not the other way around.

and 2) The alternative is the lying jackholes on the other side.

[Bang]

I tend to agree. There are only two flaws I see in your logic.

1) If enough of us use logic and reason, eventually the party has to come back to us. Not the other way around.

and 2) The alternative is the lying jackholes on the other side.

I have been begging for option one since you've known me, my man.

Option ONE is the way to go. Demand better. Conservatives, stop enabling this crap by approving of it and excusing it. Call it out.

Even if it means sending a message by voting for th other guy once in a while. It's our only voice, Don't be bullied into not using it.

Almost every time I've voted for a Dem it's to send a message of anti-other guy. Not anti conservatism or pro liberalism.

The version of conservatism I was brought up on is considered liberalism now because the right has catapulted so far away from anything centrist.

(Of course, many new 'conservatives' are brainwashed into thinking that everyone that doesn't toe their increasingly crazy line IS a liberal, and every time someone calls me one, I sit back and laugh, and then scratch my head and wonder how we got this far down Stupid Avenue.)

we all know politicians lie. But these guys are not even remaining true to the values they supposedly espouse.. and the lies they are telling are very insidious, and can lead down some very dark paths.

In all honesty, the current version of the republican party more resembles ideologies we have fought hard to destroy for most of the last century.

~Bang

[Destino]

The reason a doctor has to have the conversation does not matter. Gun ownership is political speech and as such the government has no authority to limit it. If the doctor has a political agenda that actually makes it more obviously protected speech. Stop arguing politics and realize florida just wiped it's ass with the most widely understood and protected right Americans have. None of the people that supported this should hold office any longer as try have demonstrated a total disregard for the united states.

It doesn't matter if a child is in more or less danger. Rights are more important than people. If you dusagree with that ask yourself how many have died to preserve or gain rights? The frigging children are irrelevant in this case.

[Mad Mike]

Actually, I thought it was a general conservative principle that the free market needs to be free and that businesses have the right to cater to or refuse customers. Wasn't trying to play games with that statement. It's something I've heard conservatives say for decades.

Any rate, what's funny is I think we agree on the issue, but you still feel some protective need to defend it. This is not a law that should have passed. It restricts liberties without a good enough reason.

Go back to my original post. Not once have I defended the law. I disagree with it on pure principle. So much so that I called Gov. Scott a moron.

I'm defending the accuracy of facts.

First, you didn't read both articles in order to get all of the facts even though I pointed out in the OP that the second article contained more information and was more even handed. Instead, you started talking about how there was no evidence anyone was denied coverage. Then when I pointed out the fact that there were documented examples of doctors dropping patients who refused to answer the question of gun ownership or for saying that they did own guns, you distorted that argument by saying there was only one incident.

I like and respect you bro. But I'm a brutally honest critic of even my closest friends when I feel that they are wrong.

In this case as a journalist, I'm deeply disappointed that you would A) not gather all of the facts before speaking about the issue. and distort the facts even slightly, once you learned them, to make your point. I'm not trying to come down on you personally. As I said, I like you and have real admiration for you. But as a journalist, I hold you to a higher standard on this issue than most. As a journalist, the principle of accuracy and truth should be paramount.

Quick story... When working for my college newspaper, I took exception to an opinion piece that my editor wrote about student videos on display in the hallways of the photography/graphic design building. She was offended by one video in particular of a bikini contest. It was acceptable content in class and the the project was graded on camera work and editing. That she was offended by it was not the issue to me. I could well understand how she might feel offended and she was certainly entitled to her opinion. My problem was with one sentence where she wrote that the video was showing "naked" women. It wasn't. Regardless of her claim to me that they were "practically naked" and it amounted to the same thing... regardless of the fact that she was writing an opinion piece... She was still distorting the facts. And even when expressing an opinion, a journalist has an obligation to report the facts of an issue regardless of their opinion. Eventually our argument went to our student adviser who sided with me and the editor agreed to change "naked" to "nearly naked" which was perfectly acceptable to me.

Although I won awards for my writing there, I never went into journalism. But the principles I learned have always stuck with me and I have always tried to remain true to those standards.

[Burgold]

That's fair. To be honest, I tend to be much lazier on ES. It's a decompression vehicle and a way to socially shoot the **** with friends. Some of the stuff I say is straight off the cuff, some of it said to be ridiculous, and some meant very sincerely but not necessarily talking about the specifics, but about the grander topic.

I think this Florida episode speaks to something very core in the American spirit and that's what I'm most concerned with. You're correct to criticize my lack of scholarship and study in responding specifically to this case, because as you've correctly surmised I skimmed the articles enough to get the gist and responded to that. Most of my ES points should be understood in that light. There may be a few issues and points that I will deeply think about and analyze, but most I respond to quickly and based on first impressions.

That's a faulty approach and certainly not a professional approach and I accept the criticism inherit in that, but the approach is sincere and honest... just not thorough.

[Mad Mike]

That's fair. To be honest, I tend to be much lazier on ES. It's a decompression vehicle and a way to socially shoot the **** with friends. Some of the stuff I say is straight off the cuff, some of it said to be ridiculous, and some meant very sincerely but not necessarily talking about the specifics, but about the grander topic.

I think this Florida episode speaks to something very core in the American spirit and that's what I'm most concerned with. You're correct to criticize my lack of scholarship and study in responding specifically to this case, because as you've correctly surmised I skimmed the articles enough to get the gist and responded to that. Most of my ES points should be understood in that light. There may be a few issues and points that I will deeply think about and analyze, but most I respond to quickly and based on first impressions.

That's a faulty approach and certainly not a professional approach and I accept the criticism inherit in that, but the approach is sincere and honest... just not thorough.

And this kind of response is why I respect you.

BTW. My best friend is my best friend in part because a appreciate his brutal honesty with me. Like anyone, I can snap back at criticism when delivered with the "wrong" tone or from the wrong person, but when it's delivered in good nature and fair, I try to do my part and listen. I'm human so I'm not always successful, but I do try. If you ever feel the need to criticize me on an issue, you've earned my respect well enough that I promise to do my best to listen.

[AzSkinsFan63]

Let's just simplify this...

I kinda think there's only really 2 possibilities here..

1 As Bang said..."Out here we are too ****ing stupid and helpless to be able to carry on an adult conversation like that, or to say "Thanks anyway" to some advice". And then they are so angry they go to the governor and LIE that they were then dropped as patients (which can be proven). And then the power hungry legislature goes ballistic and passes the law. That could be it.....

OR....

2. There are some actual doctors in Florida that want to deny care to people who own guns and they ask the question under the ruse of "safety" to only then remove them as patients as a means of circumventing their constitutional right to own a gun. The passing of the law really does one thing..it prohibits doctors from dropping patients because they own a gun. It's to bad that the other side of the coin is that we can no longer talk about guns at the doctors office..which happens every single day all the time..ha..ha.ha..

Believe the one you need too in order to support your view...

[Destino]

Why can't doctors drop patients they disagree with? Gun ownership is not a protected group? Why can't the government limit political speech?

Answer both and this becomes easy to figure out.

[Mad Mike]

Why can't doctors drop patients they disagree with? Gun ownership is not a protected group? Why can't the government limit political speech?

Answer both and this becomes easy to figure out.

The better question is why are you talking like Yoda?

[HailGreen28]

I'm shaking my head wondering if stuff like this can get legislated, all the politicians should be fired for not devoting their time to their state's economy and finances.