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

[bcl05]

And for all your bit%&ing and moaning you still havent told me what my guns have to do with anything. Kids eating paint is something he needs to know. Should the child come in sick with vague symptoms that gives the doctor insight. It doesnt take a doctor to know a gunshot would. If that should happen, that is a case for police, not the doctor.

I'd rather prevent a gun injury than treat one.

Most gun owners are responsible and reasonably intelligent. Some are neither. For those, if our emphasis on safety gets them to put the guns in a safe rather than the nightstand, then we're doing our job. Most people don't need to be told that carseats are important. Still, kids get thrown through windshields every day. It is our mission as pediatricians to protect children. To a large degree, that means giving parents the tools and advice necessary to make good decisions. Some need more help than others.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I'd rather prevent a gun injury than treat one.

How dare you.

Its none of your business what I do with my guns! This is AMERICUH bud, and I will do whatever the hell I want with mah guns! Some high falutin liberal intellectual doctor thinks he can tell me what to do! That's a violation of my second amendment riats!

First amendment? Never heard of it! Keep the government outta my business! Unless I want it to be in someone elses business!

[Larry]

I'm a doctor. On my morning rounds today, I talked with patients and their families about the Nationals, the soccer game, the weather, birds, a cousin's upcoming wedding, someone's vacation plans, a particularly nasty local crime, and furniture choices. I must be Repo's worst nightmare.

And the ONLY reason you could POSSIBLY have for any of those questions, is because you intended to drop those patients who didn't answer the way you wanted.

At least, according to repo.

[Mad Mike]

At risk of sending Bang off the deep end (Breathe deep Bang - you aren't alone on this):

Thank god the republicans are working to protect our freedom ... from energy efficient light bulbs. :doh:

House Republicans move to thwart lighting efficiency rules

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-light-bulb-20110716,0,5554546.story

Reporting from Washington—

The House Republican majority moved Friday to keep old-style incandescent light bulbs around a bit longer, voting to block enforcement of new lighting efficiency rules and setting up a high-wattage fight with the Democratic-controlled Senate.

After failing earlier in the week to repeal the new standards, the House passed a bill that would bar the Energy Department from spending money next year to enforce them.

A great Op Ed piece:

The GOP’s dim idea on light bulb standards

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-dim-idea-on-light-bulb-standards/2011/07/11/gIQAWBXf9H_story.html

THE RIGHT WING of the political spectrum is incandescent on the subject of light bulbs. The government, the charge is, shouldn’t require Americans to buy certain types of bulbs. Aiming to prevent this, the House is set to vote Tuesday on legislation that would repeal federal lighting efficiency standards, which passed with wide bipartisan support in 2007 and are scheduled to kick in next year.

But the 2007 law doesn’t require Americans to buy compact fluorescents or any other type of light bulb. All Congress has done is set a national standard for how much power it takes to produce a certain amount of light. And there’s good reason to demand improved efficiency; about 90 percent of the energy that traditional incandescent bulbs use is given off as heat, not light.

The law has had an impressive effect: Light bulb manufacturers have invested heavily in developing new bulbs that use much less electricity, turn on immediately, work with dimmers and produce soft white light. Already, there are familiar incandescent bulbs that meet the federal standards, and there are other types widely available that are much more efficient.

Yup That's right folks. According to republicans, It's OK for the government to tell doctors what they can talk about with patients, but guidelines that can help the US be more energy efficient are off limits. F'ing morons.

[repo_4]

And the ONLY reason you could POSSIBLY have for any of those questions, is because you intended to drop those patients who didn't answer the way you wanted.

At least, according to repo.

Care to give me ALL the other reasons?

[Henry]

Care to give me ALL the other reasons?

Post #126?

[Mad Mike]

And for all your bit%&ing and moaning you still havent told me what my guns have to do with anything. Kids eating paint is something he needs to know. Should the child come in sick with vague symptoms that gives the doctor insight. It doesnt take a doctor to know a gunshot would. If that should happen, that is a case for police, not the doctor.

OK. So in your world it's OK to warn parents against paint chips, but warning them against leaving a gun where a child can find it is wrong huh?

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.

* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.

* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:Four teen boys

o 214 unintentional

o 1,078 suicides

o 1,990 homicides

o 83 for which the intent could not be determined

o 20 due to legal intervention

* Of the total firearms-related deaths:

o 73 were of children under five years old

o 416 were children 5-14 years old

o 2,896 were 15-19 years old

Brilliant.

Care to give me ALL the other reasons?

Oh, I don't know.... saving lives?

[Jumbo]

RE: banning Bang...if I feel he merits it I will do so as has been my track record. I have banned everyone from Kilmer17 to Baculus to Larry to aRedskin to Vicious (absurdly lefty atheist) to SkinsFan51 (absurdly righty Christian zealot) etc. etc.

I ban for behavior, not demographic or rigid bias or particular viewpoint, and always in accordance with our rules and guidelines. All is done in the interest of having a forum at least one notch above the typical brain-dead internet social-misfit watering hole that caters to trolls, whackjobs, no-lifes, and nutters.

And having consequences for behaviors is something long-proven to be more effective in shaping appropriate human interaction than its absence. I say that as a gen-u-wine professional expert in the matter (on more than one front).

My like or dislike for someone weighs little when banning is the subject. But folks are always well-served by carefully reading the rules that address such exchanges, assuming they have the intellect and will to comprehend them. I say this as one who had a significant hand in writing those rules in their current form.

Repo_4...fwiw, my suggestion re: your & Bang's exchange would be to consider that under our forum rules and guidelines he is within the lines as based on your own posted comments

(though the more riled one gets the easier it is to cross said lines).

You might be best served by stopping and focusing whatever you have to bring to bear on the matter under discussion objectively and the criticism he's leveling in a harsh/blunt but objectively valid/supported manner of how your stance reflects/typifies the glaring dissonance so widespread on the "right side" of the political spectrum these days in terms of dishonoring their own self-proclaimed core beliefs (as is also true of many dems, just to preemptively defuse any 2-digit IQ participants that dwell in these environs).

I'd call it a heated or passionate exchange at this point but if it gets too personal---boom shaka laka laka :evilg:

I now withdraw to my Sunday night TV buffet (The Glades, White Collar, In Plain Sight, Falling Skies) and similar high-brow intellectual pursuits. :pfft:

[Mad Mike]

I now withdraw to my Sunday night TV buffet (The Glades, White Collar, In Plain Sight, Falling Skies) and similar high-brow intellectual pursuits. :pfft:

I think I'm in love with Kiele Sanchez.

[Jumbo]

I think I'm in love with Kiele Sanchez.

How could you not? I lost count of the ones I'm in love with---I am just grateful that TV shows take a break so I don't have to see all of these amazing women all year long...my heart, you know.

[Bang]

And I love how you libs preach tolerence yet when someone has an opinion that differs from yours you start the name calling. Dude, you dont know a damn thing about me and who I am and to just "well youre not this, and youre not that" just shows YOUR ignorance. Typical lib, if you dont see things they way I do then you are a fool. Again, you are the guy that will bit@% about me not being open minded to your views and then when I ask you to clarify, explain or show me you reasoning you jump to name calling. We cant all be know it alls. That says alot about YOU indeed...

---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 10:00 PM ----------

And for all your bit%&ing and moaning you still havent told me what my guns have to do with anything. Kids eating paint is something he needs to know. Should the child come in sick with vague symptoms that gives the doctor insight. It doesnt take a doctor to know a gunshot would. If that should happen, that is a case for police, not the doctor.

I don't NEED to tell you what your guns have to do with anything, Because the issue here is not your ****ing GUN.

the issue here is BANNING anyone from asking you about it.

FREE SPEECH. Government stepping in where it doesn't belong.

Clue for you, I'd be this pissed off if Democrats passed a law forbidding your paperboy from asking you about the ****ing weather. This isn't about partisanship.

It is NOT THE PLACE OF GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS.

If you can't see that, then you are simply hopeless.

You're goddam right i am intolerant of people who want to subvert our constitution for real, and not the imagined way the bull****ters want to scream about. This is actual real opression, right in front of your dim little eyes. ANYONE who loves this country and what it stands for should be intolerant of rights being oppressed.

I am intolerant as hell of people who try to subdue free speech. I am intolerant as hell of lackeys who defend those who would do so.

Your "opinion" is that you need a LAW to stop a doctor form asking you a question.

i have NO respect for that. It is against everything this country stands for.

Anything else Komrade?

so call me names back, act however you want, ask dumbass questions that miss the point entirely,, defend your precious neo cons to the death for all i care. Trying to shame me for calling you what you are isn't going to work. Our country has fought ****ing WARS to secure this freedom, thousands of Americans have died so a doctor or a butcher or a friggin' soccer mom have the freedom of speech. We can have this discussion because of it.

We spent the better part of the las century fighting to defeat idologies that try to crush this freedom, and you're going to defend this action because you're too much of a ****ing coward to act like an adult when someone asks you a question.

SACK UP. Be a ****ing adult and handle it in an adult manner. Don't go crying to your nanny government to protect you from the question with a law that subverts our way of life.

And if you DO need your government to protect you from a question, don't CRY when Americans who recognize the importance of the first amendment have no respect for you.

Bottom line: the point is that the government has no business making a law like this.

Period. It is a slap in the face of the first amendment to the constitution.

and if your "opinion" differs, then you're no American I recognize.

~Bang

[Special K]

How can someone be a "small government" conservative, but support this law? I'm confused.

Furthermore, people saying doctors have no right to ask these types of questions have no clue what the scope of medical practice encompasses.

[Jumbo]

From rule #5:

Free debate within the parameters outlined is welcome, and diversity of opinion is vital to a good debate. Every member is free to post their own opinion on the topic/subject of the thread without sanction, as long as the way it's expressed does not violate forum rules. As you debate your fellow members we request you maintain contact with the content of the discussion within each reply, especially as any exchange becomes more heated.

We encourage spirited discussions and holding people accountable for what they post. This may be done in ways from funny to firm, including being castigating if reasonably merited. For example, calling someone "clueless" or calling some comment or post “stupid” when done in appropriate and justifiable context to the poster’s actual content is often allowable.

This is most safely done when in response to a specifically posted comment using the "quote" feature or in accurate reference to a poster’s general content in various threads over time on a given topic. Such castigations must not be excessive, and the reaction should be such as may normally be expected by an average reader with a strongly opposing and reasonably informed opinion. If you're unsure, being civil is the safest course. You will rarely go wrong by going after the views of the poster more than the poster's character or personality as you see it.

Moderators determine any actions to be taken if needed. Bottom line--do as you choose and so will the moderators.

We are not seeking to favor some genteel "tea & crumpets" gathering or some dry and ponderous book club discussion forum. Nor are we seeking some gratuitously flaming cage-match atmosphere in our threads.

Understand that moderators have wide latitude in defining and enforcing this rule. For this and all matters related to moderation, we suggest close inspection of Rule 18.

Now, as I have said, I or any other moderator here will do as they think justified when they think it is time. That is all.

[Destino]

I think I'm in love with Kiele Sanchez.

I think Natalia Cigliuti needs to stay on the show.

---------- Post added July-18th-2011 at 04:16 AM ----------

How can someone be a "small government" conservative, but support this law? I'm confused.

Furthermore, people saying doctors have no right to ask these types of questions have no clue what the scope of medical practice encompasses.

oh great another democRAT LIEberal elitist shows up to say those that disagree have "no clue".

[Jumbo]

How can someone be a "small government" conservative, but support this law? I'm confused.

Furthermore, people saying doctors have no right to ask these types of questions have no clue what the scope of medical practice encompasses.

Very well and simply put, katie.

I would not label you (even as proficient as I am at profiling) as "conservative" or "moderate" or "liberal" or whatever. All I know is you are consistently intelligent, well-informed, and open-minded and look at numerous angles of a matter without reflexive bias. :cool:

I am prompted to post that there are still many like you who play here, given all the air-time I give to the miscreants, hooligans, rapscallions, and ne'er-do-wells. :pfft:

[Bang]

How can someone be a "small government" conservative, but support this law? I'm confused.

Furthermore, people saying doctors have no right to ask these types of questions have no clue what the scope of medical practice encompasses.

100% correct.

But I still bet i could ace you.

~Ha!

[Special K]

100% correct.

But I still bet i could ace you.

~Ha!

NO WAY! I got 2 aces in my match this morning. I'm not going to talk about the double faults though...haha!

[twa]

OT but I just found out I got kin running for the state house down there

maybe some new blood will help

[Cept One]

This is not a 1st amendment issue... Doctors are licensed and regulated by the state. Outside of their medical practice they can talk about whatever they want. The new law does not bar doctors from asking or discussing gun ownership if there is specific medical reasoning behind it (mental health, gunshot wound, etc). What it prevents is organizations like the AMA from pushing anti-gun rhetoric in the form of medical advise. There is no reason a patient questionnaire should be asking about gun ownership and no reason why a patient should be denied service if they refuse to answer.

[Burgold]

and round and round we go. It is without question a first ammendment issue. It limits free speech.

Do you know how many professions are licensed and regulated by the state? Hell, as a driver you are licenced and regulated by the state. Does the government have the right to tell you what radio stations you can listen to while driving or what you are allowed to say?

[Bang]

This is not a 1st amendment issue... Doctors are licensed and regulated by the state. Outside of their medical practice they can talk about whatever they want. The new law does not bar doctors from asking or discussing gun ownership if there is specific medical reasoning behind it (mental health, gunshot wound, etc). What it prevents is organizations like the AMA from pushing anti-gun rhetoric in the form of medical advise. There is no reason a patient questionnaire should be asking about gun ownership and no reason why a patient should be denied service if they refuse to answer.

Your driving priveleges are regulated by the state.

Oh, wait,, EVERY BUSINESS IN AMERICA is licensed by the state.

Way to go, you just kicked down to door to let anyone who has any licensure with the government to be censored.

How many licenses do you have that are governed by the state?

I wonder how many different ways they can censor you?

i see where this is going.. what did they call it? oh yeah,, gulags. the ultimate Nanny state.

Let me see which is more dangerous... censoring people's speech in America.. or writing "none of your business" on a questionairre?

~Bang

---------- Post added July-18th-2011 at 11:57 AM ----------

And I love how you libs

I'm not a liberal. The only party I ever belonged to was the Republican party.

preach tolerence yet when someone has an opinion that differs from yours you start the name calling.

People who want to restict speech have names. Like "totalitarian". "despot". "Dictator". I'm glad to only call you "idiot". but as you should know, when people start stripping away your freedoms, those other words start to have real meaning.

Dude, you dont know a damn thing about me and who I am and to just "well youre not this, and youre not that" just shows YOUR ignorance.

I know you're a person defending the right of the government to restrict free specch. Have i assumed incorrectly in this regard?

Typical lib,

I'm not a liberal. The only party I ever belonged to was the Republican party.

if you dont see things they way I do then you are a fool.

One of us is arguing FOR the nanny state. one of us is arguing for individual freedom, and you have the nerve to cal ME a liberal/ Are you that ****ing stupid? Really?

Go get your neo-con handbook out of the drawer and look at what you're supposed to believe in. Shame on you for needing ME to tell you what that is.

Small government. Personal freedom. Protection of the Constitution. These are page one, bud.

Page ****ing ONE.

Call me a liberal? I don't think you know what it means. You're literally sitting here arguing in FAVOR of everything you supposedly disagree with.

The only difference is that a Republican passed the law. if a Democrat did, I bet you'd have an entirely different tune.

Prove me wrong. You say I don't know you or who you are. Well, show me you have the slightest idea what a conservative is supposed to stand for.

Because so far you've proven you don't have a clue. So far you're argung the exact opposite of the MAIN PLANKS of the conservative platform.

Again, you are the guy that will bit@% about me not being open minded to your views and then when I ask you to clarify, explain or show me you reasoning you jump to name calling.

Oh, I have an idea. why don't you get a law passed that protects you from having to listen to me tell you that you've got it backwards.

THat way you can have me arrested, and remain ignorant! Win win for you!

We cant all be know it alls. That says alot about YOU indeed

Yes it does say a lot about me.

it says i paid attention in 8th grade civics and I know that this is against the very fiber of what America stands for.

And you don't have to be a know it all to know it. All you have to be is an American who went to at least one year of high school. We ALL know it. Except for you, it would seem.

And for all your bit%&ing and moaning you still havent told me what my guns have to do with anything. Kids eating paint is something he needs to know. Should the child come in sick with vague symptoms that gives the doctor insight. It doesnt take a doctor to know a gunshot would. If that should happen, that is a case for police, not the doctor.

The doctor should not be restricted BY LAW about asking you a question. As an adult, you have the option to not answer him. You know, personal responsibility.. another conservative value that is lost on the republican party.

You're an insult to conservatism. You don't know what it stands for. You call me a liberal, and then champion restricting free speech, you approve of the nanny state.

You haven't got the slighest idea what you're talking about.

And it's very telling that you have called me a 'lib' twice now. It's the standard answer of this incarnation of the republican party to do so when threatened by facts and logic.

And you'll note, I never mix the terms "conservative" and "republican".

they're not the same. Not by any stretch of any imagination. they used to be, but not anymore.

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave.

~Bang

[repo_4]

My argument is not that the law is wonderful and the way to go, it isnt. The government has no business in the issue EITHER way. I am taking issue with arguments that the dr has the right to ask and know that information. That his poking his nose where it doesnt belong is ok with so many. I know I can say "none of your business" and get a new physician, and probably would. But why is that his right to know? He is not some random guy on the street asking me that question. This is someone I have an intimate, personal realtionship with.

Bang, my intention was not to get into name calling. Just feel like you kind of started that one. I know what I am and what my ideals are, I just jumped to the "lib" assumption just like you assume to know what I am because of my thoughts on one topic on a message board. Again, the relationship between a doctor and a patient is very different from two people on the street. Information that does not pertain to my visit, I do not think he should be asking about. I am not advocating government takover as has been suggested. That is not who I am.

[Burgold]

My argument is not that the law is wonderful and the way to go, it isnt. The government has no business in the issue EITHER way.

Now, that's what we're talking about. That's the whole issue. Stop right there! You got it. That's the correct answer! Whoo! We got there!

As to the other side you bring up, several doctors with active practices have explained why and how. The most aggressive intrusion to the answer "yes" seems to be handing you a pamphlet. Is that really so awful? Is it so terrible for them to worry about the safety of your children and give you some literature about safety tips that you probably already know? There are enough gun accidents, suicides, and acts of violence done by kids that it might be negligence if the doc doesn't ask that question.

[Dan T.]

My argument is not that the law is wonderful and the way to go, it isnt. The government has no business in the issue EITHER way. I am taking issue with arguments that the dr has the right to ask and know that information. That his poking his nose where it doesnt belong is ok with so many. I know I can say "none of your business" and get a new physician, and probably would. But why is that his right to know? He is not some random guy on the street asking me that question. This is someone I have an intimate, personal realtionship with.

The best response to this comes from an ES member who is a pediatrician:

I don't understand how you don't see that doctors are responsible for looking out for the safety of their patients. ~1500 kids die each year because of irresponsible gun use. It is obviously a safety issue.

Back when I was doing general pediatrics (now specialized) in our office, we would screen patients about whether or not it is likely they have been exposed to lead paint. There is a questionnaire. If house was built before a certain date, etc... If they met certain criteria, they get lead-safety information pamphlet and a screening lab test. We would ask if they had swimming pools (we had a pamphlet about swimming pool safety). I told every family that trampolines were an orthopedist's scheme to get a new boat. I was fanatical about appropriate carseat usage.

If a patient's parent told me they had guns, we would give them a pamphlet about gun safety and kids, emphasizing gun safes and trigger locks. How is that any different from all the other areas of safety that we (appropriately) addressed?

Besides, doctors should ask us personal questions. At my last physical, my internist asked me if I was having any trouble getting it up. Its perfectly ok to tell doctors that you don't want to discuss something. Happens to me all the time...

[Henry]

I am taking issue with arguments that the dr has the right to ask and know that information.

You have issue with someone, anyone, having the right to ask a question?

Really?

He doesn't have the right to know it, but he most certainly has the right to ask. Or at least he should.