Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?


PDA






DustyVermonter
May 18, 2010, 08:07 AM
Went to the Doctor for routine check-up and before I left he pulls out a file with all kinds of Gun questions on a checklist-Are there guns in the home,where do you keep them,do you keep ammunition in the home,where do you keep that,are they locked away,do you keep them together or do you keep them seperate,do you keep any of them loaded,Etc....Caught me off guard,what's that all about?Any ideas? Sounds kinda fishy, don't really know what to make of that. Ummmmm hmmm well.... Pretty much don't like it

If you enjoyed reading about "Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AirForceShooter
May 18, 2010, 08:09 AM
I lie.
It's got nothing to do with my health.

And let's face it anything your doc knows a whole lot of people know.

AFS

D Boone
May 18, 2010, 08:11 AM
I would feel pretty weird also. If you have been seeing him a long time that could be tricky, but otherwise find a new Dr. I guess you could always just tell him its none of his business. Either way thats pretty messed up, but I have heard of this happening before.

lobo9er
May 18, 2010, 08:15 AM
......

max popenker
May 18, 2010, 08:20 AM
There's doctors and doctors.

Just today, doc spotted an NAA Guardin pin on my jacket... we ended up discussing current gun laws and advantages of the pump-action shotguns over semi-autos for home defense scenarios (doc was inclined toward less-lethal loadings, such as rubber buckshot)

;)

Walkalong
May 18, 2010, 08:21 AM
Don't answer at all. It has nothing to do with your health care......for now.....

Politely avoid the questions and go.

Old Shooter
May 18, 2010, 08:25 AM
If DustyVermonter is indeed in Vermont, I thought it was almost a State Law that you had to own a gun.

Wondering if this is something the Insurance Company pushed for or is it a State requirement?

Seems a little early to be a part of the Obamacare program.

JoeMal
May 18, 2010, 08:41 AM
That seems out of this world that a doctor would ask you that....

Were you OC at the time? How did he know you were into guns? Or is that 'standard procedure' with all patients? *** I'm seriously confused...did this really happen??

I would laugh at my doctor if he asked me these questions

Unless I walk in with a gunshot wound, probing gun questions should not be the topic of discussion in the doctors office

CajunBass
May 18, 2010, 08:47 AM
I saw that one time. I simply wrote "None of your concern" and gave it back. Never heard of it again.

alsaqr
May 18, 2010, 09:03 AM
Some of those doctors do surveys for organizations like the New England Journal of Medicine. No medical journal has had anything good to say about guns or gunowners.

Just refuse to play the Dr's. silly games.

mrokern
May 18, 2010, 09:14 AM
A simple, "Sorry, none of your business." suffices for me. I won't ever tell them anything about non-health issues.

-Mark

DustyVermonter
May 18, 2010, 09:16 AM
Nah, I wasn't oc, I did have an LCP in my back pocket and it could have shown thru but it seemed pretty standard operating procedure...for him anyway.

22-rimfire
May 18, 2010, 09:17 AM
+1 Mrokern.

Stuff your doctor knows affects your health insurance rates. Trust me I know. So, I don't provide any non-critical information anymore.

Special_K
May 18, 2010, 09:39 AM
As a nursing student (Going for my BSN), perhaps I can weigh in on this a little.

While I don't personally believe information pertaining to firearms and the storage of those firearms the questions your doctors ask you may very well pertain to a situation. The assessments we are trained to do, as far as nurses go, pertains to a holistic view point. We not only try to treat the body, but often the mind, and the soul too.


What I'm trying to get at is, ask your doctor why he needs this information. If he doesn't give you a good answer don't tell him. Any good doctor should not take this personally in the slightest.

shockwave
May 18, 2010, 09:45 AM
Ease up, guys. No Big Brother involved. And alsaqr has the right idea - this is about epidemiology. Physicians are increasingly looking at health risk factors and some consider firearms to be a indicator of statistical risk.

Here's an example of (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full) the kind of study the doctor in question was probably participating in. This passage explains the reasoning:

Our findings describe the current motivations for firearm ownership and also provide information on the similarities and differences among owners of different types of guns. This information can assist in designing a more appropriate firearm injury policy as well as understanding the denominator of exposure when evaluating injury prevention interventions.

According to that report, the number of households owning firearms is on the decline, but there is a countertrend of those owning guns to own more than one. Personally, I do not dispute the statistic that says that having a firearm in my home increases my risk of a gun-related injury (or death). The same applies for my owning a chainsaw. If I do not own a chainsaw, my risk of a chainsaw accident will perforce be far lower.

So, personally speaking, I'm a safety fanatic with my weapons and handle them with extreme care. But I cannot control my neighbors' behavior and if some of them are foolish or careless, they may suffer a ND (or worse) and might add to the statistics of household injuries. It's logical, then, that physicians take an interest in this area because ultimately they have to clean up the damage caused by irresponsible owners (and criminals) and statistical data can help them formulate health policy.

It could be the case that some of them will advocate for a reduction in the number of firearms to thereby reduce risk. That's a given. But that's not the entire picture. Some will be advocating for increased education, training and other things that may, statistically, lead to better outcomes. Demographic data on ownership can help hospitals and ERs to better plan for the kinds of resources they'll need to provide adequate levels of service. Given their mission, it would be negligent for physicians to ignore the causal factors of firearm injuries.

After all, a lot of people here talk about popping goblins, feeding bullets to bad guys, "ending the threat," etc., but if you do shoot someone who doesn't die as a result (including yourself), you'll be giving a doctor a rough day at the office.

JoeMal
May 18, 2010, 09:51 AM
shockwave;

So if that is the case, why couldn't the doctor explain that? I MIGHT be more prone to reveal some information if I knew it was for the better of society...if it were going to mean better resources at the hospital etc etc.

But to just pull out a clipboard and start asking me 'What kind of guns do you own? What kind of ammo do you own? Do you keep your guns loaded?' seems a little fishy and honestly a stab at my privacy.

Careful
May 18, 2010, 10:02 AM
Telling them "None of your business" is the same as saying "Yes, I have guns in my house".

Airforceshooter has the right idea. "Guns? Nah, I don't keep none of those." Right answer. I don't feel bad lying to people who are asking questions that are none of their business.

Dave B
May 18, 2010, 10:09 AM
Tell him "no, but I have lots of knives and a couple of Ninja swords"

shockwave
May 18, 2010, 10:16 AM
So if that is the case, why couldn't the doctor explain that?

No idea. I just know from my line of work that this kind of thing is going on, and that's why they're doing it. What your particular doctor was doing I can't say. You might ask him, next time.

JoeMal
May 18, 2010, 10:18 AM
Well it wasn't me that this happened to, I was just curious. You would think if it was some sort of research, they would mention it. Any good research study informs its subjects of what exactly their answers/responses will pertain to. Like I said, going from 'So how have you been feeling lately? Taking any new medications? How many guns do you own?' seems strange and no so much research related. But that's an opinion

hso
May 18, 2010, 10:21 AM
Did you ask your physician why he was asking the questions?

Did he tell you why he was asking the questions?

Was it for a study and who was the study for?

Keep in mind that the only way we'll every see studies accurately reflect that there's no significant risk associated with firearms possession or storage and handling is if we contribute to those studies.

JoeMal
May 18, 2010, 10:27 AM
hso;

While you are correct, they are taking a terrible approach if that is the case. Nobody will respond to such probing, nonchalant questions like that.

As mentioned, any reputable researcher would know that informing your subjects of the entire process is the proper way to research. "I am collecting X data for Y reasons. You have the right to answer, or not answer, any questions that you would like. The data will be collected, analyzed, and discussed in Z ways (either for an article, publication, government data, hospital data etc etc)

ArmedBear
May 18, 2010, 10:28 AM
Do they not have the words "**** off" in Vermont?

Though people here are friendly and polite, we do hold those words in reserve for those who ask questions like that.

ForumSurfer
May 18, 2010, 10:28 AM
A simple, "Sorry, none of your business." suffices for me.

I should adopt that policy, but I always answer the question honestly.

It's always on my company's insurance "health assessment" questionnaire. I always end up "needing improvement" on the personal safety section. There's never really any explanation as to why. I don't really care enough about it to ask, honestly.

7.62 Nato
May 18, 2010, 10:31 AM
This has nothing to do with medical treatment and is none of their business. This is compiling data. Why do medical "professionals" want to compile firearm data ? There must be something in it for them or they wouldn't be doing it. Just look at all the "studies" that show the "dangers" of keeping a firearm in the home. The "increased" risks of "murder", suicide, DV, firearm theft.

I don't trust them one bit.

ArmedBear
May 18, 2010, 10:38 AM
...I also don't tell my FFL how often I pee. And he doesn't ask, either.

paradox998
May 18, 2010, 10:41 AM
If this were a research study and the physician was collecting data you have the right to decline to participate. Under Federal guidlines on research involving human subjects, individuals must be informed of the research, appraised of the risks and benefits of participation, and given the choice to whether or not to participate. This is called "informed consent". Any physician would be aware of this standard. Thus either this physician was acting unethically if this was a research protocol or this was not a research study but rather a serious invasion of privacy.

zxcvbob
May 18, 2010, 10:50 AM
I lie.

It's got nothing to do with my health. And let's face it anything your doc knows a whole lot of people know.

Careful, pretty soon that might get you busted for Lying to a Federal Agent. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/popcorn.gif

45Frank
May 18, 2010, 10:51 AM
Here's one for the Dr's. I applied to renew my carry permit months ago usually only takes 6 weeks or so. I had to get a letter from my Dr. saying I could physically carry a weapon, years ago no problem. Well the new Dr. listed my meds. and a problem occurred.
I am on something called citalopram, it's used for many things my Dr. prescribed it for Tinnitus, ringing in the ears. But this med. has also been used as an anti-depressant, well I am confident all will be fine since this is a gun friendly area. But I am still waiting.
Has anyone ever had their meds listed or asked for on an application?

7.62 Nato
May 18, 2010, 10:51 AM
Did you ask your physician why he was asking the questions?

Did he tell you why he was asking the questions?

Was it for a study and who was the study for?

Keep in mind that the only way we'll every see studies accurately reflect that there's no significant risk associated with firearms possession or storage and handling is if we contribute to those studies.
I've never seen automotive studies showing how many people didn't get in an accident. Or how many kitchen workers did not get cut by a knife, or burned on a hot pan, or stove. Or how many workers in a chemical plant were not treated for exposure to those chemicals.

I have seen "studies" by the AMA stating how much more dangerous it is to be around firearms. I've seen their data show a perpetrator killed in a home invasion or robbery listed as a "murder victim". I've seen "data" telling of the dangers of firearms to our children including known gang members in their 20s as "juvenile victims". Their conclusion is always that firearms are a health risk.

Now the trend is even leaning to what your mental health is. Doctor, heal thyself. And keep your nose where it belongs.

clem
May 18, 2010, 10:51 AM
Get a different doctor.

DustyVermonter
May 18, 2010, 10:55 AM
Yeah I would have to agree, I think those questionaires are put into a stack and given to some kind of agency with no initials, a little on the paranoid side of things but hey, that's the world we live in these days. So much changes in 25 years, granted I've only been alive for 21. Scoff....sob sisters

Kentucky_Rifleman
May 18, 2010, 11:07 AM
I always end up "needing improvement" on the personal safety section.

Which is fine, until "needing improvement" means higher premiums. I already pay more for smoking. Folks in some states (Alabama IIRC) are already paying a "fat premium" on their health insurance for being overweight. I'm in no mood to pay higher premiums for owning firearms.

Maybe I'm paranoid. That doesn't mean the insurance companies aren't out to get me (or my money at least).

On a related note, some years ago the family M.D. asked my aunt the same question about guns in the house, ammo, etc. In that case the Doc had diagnosed my uncle with chronic depression and medicated him. The Doc told my aunt to keep a close eye on things until my uncle got used to the meds, gave her a list of things to watch for, etc.

In THAT instance it was for the patient's health and welfare, but the OP's circumstance makes my eye tic.

KR

DustyVermonter
May 18, 2010, 11:23 AM
Well.....not that its a big deal or anything, but I was diagnosed with depression when I was around ten and this was a new doctor at a different office and he was prescribing me some new dep meds. Maybe that plays a part in all this?

BCCL
May 18, 2010, 11:26 AM
The next big push for gun control, is going to be "guns as a public health issue", so who do you think their are going to get their "data" from........

DustyVermonter
May 18, 2010, 11:27 AM
Still, I don't think that should red flag my ability to be a responsible gun owner and make responsible choices surrounding carrying.

ConstitutionCowboy
May 18, 2010, 11:34 AM
I've got a canned response I give anyone(doctor, dentist, banker, etc.) asking about guns or anything not directly related to the service I'm receiving:

"Who are you collecting data for and why?"

Woody

jcwit
May 18, 2010, 11:40 AM
I go to the VA for my health care and have never been asked any questions regarding firearms. If anyone would I would think it would be the VA.

JoeSlomo
May 18, 2010, 11:41 AM
Sorry, discussing firearm ownership in a doctors office is ridiculous.

Zack
May 18, 2010, 11:41 AM
...I also don't tell my FFL how often I pee. And he doesn't ask, either

lol!! :D

Yeah I would'nt tell him anything whats it do him? hes a doctor! not a gun store manager./NRA safty teacher. I think its like others posted. UniHealth care junk. They trying to track you down or something.

MachIVshooter
May 18, 2010, 11:42 AM
According to that report, the number of households owning firearms is on the decline,

According to every other indicator, their report is dead wrong. I have never in my (admittedly somewhat short) adult life seen so many non-gun owners changing that as I have in the last two years. A substantial amount of the business in that time at the shop I help out at has been "Hi. How can we help you?" followed by "Well, I want/need to buy a gun". "OK, what are you interested in?"....." I don't know. I've never owned/shot one before." This is followed by the usual introduction to firearms and the recommendation that they either rest a few and decide what they like or find one that fits and enroll in a basic course. The overwhelming majority of our sales to this group is handguns.

Anyway, back on topic. The only reason the doctor needs to know anything of your owning guns is if you do enough indoor shooting to put yourself at risk of lead poisoning. That way, they know to monitor the levels and advise you as to whether you're GTG or need to take a break/keep it outdoors. Otherwise, none of their business.

heron
May 18, 2010, 11:44 AM
IIRC, more people die from medical malpractice than from gunshot wounds, so isn't this like the pot asking the kettle if it's black?

paul
May 18, 2010, 11:49 AM
When I discuss firearms with my patients, it is generally in regard to when we shoot, at what we are shooting, and how we can keep the .gov mitts off of 'em.;)

I often suggest suppressors for hearing protection.:neener:

I would not use a physician for my personal health care that shows an interest in firearms that does not mirror my own.

p

NavyLCDR
May 18, 2010, 12:23 PM
Well.....not that its a big deal or anything, but I was diagnosed with depression when I was around ten and this was a new doctor at a different office and he was prescribing me some new dep meds. Maybe that plays a part in all this?

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! I would say that plays a HUGE part in all this. They are already removing gun ownership rights from vets diagnosed with PTSD. Mental hospital commitment is already a disqualifier for firearms ownership. At anytime in the future it could be that any type of mood altering or mood leveling drugs could be limiting.

You never told us (that I could see anyway) if you answered the questions or not.

nathan
May 18, 2010, 12:27 PM
COuld be an intel agent of HomeLand SEcurity. Never know these folks using the medical profession as a smokescreen. Walk away. He doesnt need to know ....

gdesloge
May 18, 2010, 12:28 PM
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/boundary_violation.htm

NotSoFast
May 18, 2010, 12:49 PM
I got that questionnaire my last visit to my doctor's office. I didn't answer the questions and told my doctor I don't plan to answer them as they are an invasion of my privacy.

cassandrasdaddy
May 18, 2010, 12:54 PM
gotten it twice once i just put noyb

the other i had fun made the wildest answers i could. my doc looked and didn't get it at first till i told him heck the 8 year olds packing. he took the hint. hes a good doc and hes allowed his opinion on guns no matter how wrong i think he is

tkaction
May 18, 2010, 12:57 PM
Ask him if he is qualified to discuss firearms.

David E
May 18, 2010, 01:12 PM
The AMA has been anti-gun for some time. This questionaire is just an extension of that.

I've not been handed one yet, but if that happens, I'll put "N-A" for "Not Applicable."

From that, they may conclude that it means I don't own any guns.

I think this is a better answer than "none of your business," from which they'll conclude that not only do you own guns, you must own a LOT of them.

BCCL
May 18, 2010, 01:34 PM
Keep in mind how anti-rights organizations work...your kid shows up at the ER with a broken arm from football...your medical "records" show you have guns in the home...someday an AMA reports comes out that claims "research shows that a gun in the home increases the risk to children".......

Cosmoline
May 18, 2010, 01:44 PM
"Who are you collecting data for and why?"

Woody

There you go. Don't be afraid to ask your doctor questions like this. Not just about weird surveys but about treatment, plans and what they're scribbling down. You're a consumer!

c919
May 18, 2010, 01:46 PM
I get that barrage of crap every time I take my daughter to the pediatrician. The first time her doc asked I got a little defensive (not rude, just wanted to know what the hell difference it made). We've been going to her since my girl was born and she has never been anything but down to earth and friendly, and she gladly answered my questions.

She said she's required to ask and that she thinks it's ridiculous. She apologized and conceded that it was out of line on the hospital's part.

LoneCoon
May 18, 2010, 01:50 PM
When I discuss firearms with my patients, it is generally in regard to when we shoot, at what we are shooting, and how we can keep the .gov mitts off of 'em.;)

I often suggest suppressors for hearing protection.:neener:

I would not use a physician for my personal health care that shows an interest in firearms that does not mirror my own.

p
Can I get a script for a silencer? My ears hurt when I go shooting.

NMGonzo
May 18, 2010, 01:53 PM
Went to the Doctor for routine check-up and before I left he pulls out a file with all kinds of Gun questions on a checklist-Are there guns in the home,where do you keep them,do you keep ammunition in the home,where do you keep that,are they locked away,do you keep them together or do you keep them seperate,do you keep any of them loaded,Etc....Caught me off guard,what's that all about?Any ideas? Sounds kinda fishy, don't really know what to make of that. Ummmmm hmmm well.... Pretty much don't like it

"Hey doc ... why the questions about guns? I came for a prostate exam!

hso
May 18, 2010, 02:00 PM
any reputable researcher would know that informing your subjects of the entire process is the proper way to research.

And any time a physician asks any of these questions they should provide full disclosure of the basis for them and provide a copy of the source material. Participating in a study is completely voluntary and should be based on full disclosure leading to an informed decision to participate or not.

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 02:12 PM
It's logical, then, that physicians take an interest in this area because ultimately they have to clean up the damage caused by irresponsible owners (and criminals) and statistical data can help them formulate health policy.

Shockwave:

How does does statistical data about gun ownership help physicians "clean up the damage"?

I presume the damage you are referring to is a gunshot wound. Relevant data would include the efficacy of various treatment protocols. It would NOT include gun ownership data.

The idea that they need to know how many people own what guns and ammo so they can have the requisite resources available is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that with or without that data they will have plenty of bandages, sutures, and antibiotics on hand.

I can't figure out what health policies you are referring to that would be affected by gun ownership data?

Like others, I suspect the policies that will be affected will be insurance policies. Data on swimming pool ownership, car ownership, what houshold cleaners you use, etc, etc would be more relevant to assessing risk.

I'm not interested in providing ANY information that would help the insurance industry justify raising my rates. And physicians have NO business helping the insurance industry to do so.

ArmedBear
May 18, 2010, 02:15 PM
It is logical that they might take an interest. They might also have an interest in orchids, motorcycles, cross-country skiing, sadomasochism, and bootleg liquor.

What doesn't follow is that they have any business asking you non-medical questions about these things, because they are curious.

7.62 Nato
May 18, 2010, 02:18 PM
Why is your daughters pediatrician "required" to ask ? By whose directive ?

buck1032
May 18, 2010, 02:24 PM
My family Doc always asks about my guns....

He is a good Doc, gun guy, ex Navy, and in general we agree on many, many subjects, ie politics, God, guns, hunting, fishing and music. He doesnít/or hasnít given me a survey questionnaire about guns though, if he did I would challenge him on it and ask why he wanted the info.

netav8tor
May 18, 2010, 02:28 PM
Multiple-choice test.


Hint, there is only one right answer, and that answer is B.




A. Transparency
B. Anonymity
C. Pseudonymity

A. Transparency calls for broad disclosure of personal information, promotes equality and generates accountability.

B. Anonymity shields users from the collection of information and allows them to interact and transact freely.

C. Pseudonymity, which permits users to interact through the use of a limited number of pseudonyms, and in that way shield themselves from possible detriments, while allowing collectors to partially benefit from personal information analysis.

coloradokevin
May 18, 2010, 02:28 PM
Did you ask your physician why he was asking the questions?

Did he tell you why he was asking the questions?

Was it for a study and who was the study for?

Keep in mind that the only way we'll every see studies accurately reflect that there's no significant risk associated with firearms possession or storage and handling is if we contribute to those studies.

Interesting point there, hso.

I've also heard of this happening in the past, and it doesn't strike me as anything that a doctor needs to know, as it has nothing to do with medicine. But, your point may be valid, assuming that they aren't going to twist and tweak the data they obtain until it comes out looking the way they want it to. Statistics are really only as good as the person presenting them, as well all know!

I have a couple of doctors and a couple of pyschologists in my family. One of the doctors (my uncle) is probably the biggest gun guy I know. The psychologists (an aunt and uncle) seem pretty anti-gun, and often talk about the risk factors of having guns in the house (the usual: you are more likely to die by a gun, etc).

In the instance that the OP talks about, I really don't think it is a government conspiracy. However, I do think that an anti-gun agenda might be driving these surveys (there is probably some young researcher out there who is driving this study, and he/she may very well have the goal of "proving" how dangerous guns are in the house). Again, if the data is fairly and accurately interpreted, I see this only helping us. But, that could be a BIG "if".

Personally, I'd throw a few questions in the doctor's direction before becoming involved in such a survey. I'd do the same thing if they started to ask questions about my driving habits, etc.

ArmedBear
May 18, 2010, 02:32 PM
I have three priorities when I'm paying for medical services:

1. Me
2. Myself
3. I

Note that, while making sure that I am healthy is not all about me -- I owe it to my wife, for example -- the actual service is. I don't see ANYTHING on the list of priorities about participating in any surveys. Most "studies" serve little real purpose, are driven by predetermined agendas, and are paid for by entities, private or governmental, with agendas.

Want me to participate in a "study"? Fess up, and pay up -- or go to hell.

My time is valuable to me. You may not approve of how I spend it, but I still own it.

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 02:36 PM
...there is only one right answer...


Uhh...what's the question?

BigO01
May 18, 2010, 02:41 PM
The only legitimate reason for a Doctor to ask you about anything gun related to my way of thinking would be if you were Ill and he/she suspected Lead poisoning due to breathing it while shooting or handling Lead Bullets while reloading .

Other than that "Sharing guns" isn't like drug addicts sharing needles and you can't get all kinds of things from it and Going into a Gunshop isn't like traveling into another country where you can pick up something like Malaria .

Since all the above even if they were possible health risks could all be handled by your Doctor with a few simple verbal questions and not a Questioneer from them I would hand them back the form and not bother writing anything on it .

I would tell them they should be more worried if I bothered to wash my hands after using the rest room and or before eating/touching food rather than what I own .

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 02:44 PM
As others have pointed out - and it's worth repeating - any legitimate research study requires informed consent before enrolling subjects.

Was the OP asked if he wanted to participate in a research study and given adequate information to make that descision? It doesn't sound like it.


I suspect that the OP's disclosure of his history of depression is the real reason these questions were asked.

Maelstrom
May 18, 2010, 02:49 PM
When Packing.org was still active someone suggested asking the doctor what sexual positions his wife prefers.

When he tells you that it's none of your business respond, "There ya go."

jayjaypunisher
May 18, 2010, 02:50 PM
I'd have asked "what kind of car do you drive doc? what's the licsense plate number? where's it parked? is it home when youre not?".....................then walked out

netav8tor
May 18, 2010, 02:57 PM
+1 Rainbowbob

armoredman
May 18, 2010, 02:58 PM
Maelstrom, what do you do if he tells you, and hints they are into swinging?:what:

It's impossible to hide firearms ownership when I have to list my emplyer, but to any specific gun related questions on a written questionaire I would use the N/A, specifically because it is "not applicable" to my health care. Same answer in a verbal interview, followed with that excellent advice a page back from Woody, "Who are you collecting data for and why?":scrutiny: The thing is, the answer would be meaningless except personal enlightenment, as I would still not release irrelevant information to a non qualified person.

shockwave
May 18, 2010, 03:25 PM
How does does statistical data about gun ownership help physicians "clean up the damage"?
It doesn't. The doctors do.

No dog in this fight on my part. The OP wanted to know why the doctor was asking, I linked to an article showing the kinds of data physicians are collecting, and offered some reasons why they might want to do that. If you disagree, take it up with them, not me.

What is kind of interesting here, though, is that this discussion does give us a moment to reflect on the other half of the equation. Most people here are fixated on several specific actions:

1. Identification of threat
2. Reaction to threat
3. Bringing weapon into play
4. Target acquisition
5. Deployment of weapon

And that's usually where it stops. Those who think a bit deeper on these matters give some thought to legal ramifications, lawsuits, lawyer fees, etc. Going a little further, we also have the problem of the person who has been shot (could be you, too). Somebody has to patch that person up, oversee their rehab, provide wound care, medication, possibly prosthetics and reconstructive surgery. This is rarely discussed.

But if we had any ER surgeons here who could weigh in, particularly those from an urban area, they'd probably tell us about Friday and Saturday nights when the gunshot wound victims turn up and how much trouble that is. We'd hear more about domestic shootings and self-inflicted wounds and so forth. Somebody has to pay for that care, and it's a burden on the healthcare industry. So you can kind of understand how they might want to get some understanding of the causes of these things and how the incidence of them might be reduced.

The key point here is that all of this is their business. It is reasonable that they would have concerns about this from an epidemiological perspective, just as they do with things like drug and alcohol and tobacco use.

nitetrane98
May 18, 2010, 03:29 PM
I've always bristled at what I consider NOYB questions from pretty much anybody. In the past I've been known to include an F in the phrase.

We've got a Stop 'N' Rob here that asked for my DOB in order to ring up a sale of cigarettes. I stopped being PO'd and now enjoy seeing how young or old a DOB I can give without getting so much as a glance from the clerk.

I seem to have mellowed a bit in my responses and can usually have a little fun with the asker. I'd probably say something like, "You know, i used to have a lot of guns but I kind of outgrew them, I'm just much more into explosives these days."

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 03:38 PM
netav8tor:

No, seriously, what is the question for which you provided the multiple choice answers?

jayjaypunisher
May 18, 2010, 03:40 PM
netav8tor:

i can beat that- up,up,down,down left, right, left, right, A, B, A, B, SELECT START

Sniper X
May 18, 2010, 03:45 PM
You are under NO obligation to answer any questions a Doctor asks. If he says you are, you are under no obligation to tell the truth.....

rondog
May 18, 2010, 03:52 PM
I seem to have mellowed a bit in my responses and can usually have a little fun with the asker. I'd probably say something like, "You know, i used to have a lot of guns but I kind of outgrew them, I'm just much more into explosives these days."

There ya go! That was my thought too, "guns? Nah, I'm not into guns....I prefer to collect HAND GRENADES! Older the better. WWI, WWII, US, German, Japanese, Russian, British, Vietnamese, whatcha got?"

Side note - last time I was at my dentist's, we were talking about guns. He asked if I CCW, and I said yeah. He got all excited, "do you have it with you?" I said no, I have more respect for him than that, I'm not bringing my gun into his office. He said he had no problem with it, then told me about an off-duty cop that was in his chair whose gun kept falling out of his shorts pocket onto the floor. He finally took the gun and placed it on the instrument tray!

But I think my GP would pee down both legs if he knew I carried.

ConstitutionCowboy
May 18, 2010, 03:52 PM
Here is one you might try.

When he asks if you will answer some questions regarding firearms, say "Sure!"

When the doctor asks how many you have, how often you shoot, and where or how do you store them, answer like this:

"Ah. These are questions about me and not about firearms."

Woody

Onward Allusion
May 18, 2010, 03:57 PM
"None of your business. Have a good day."

If he pushes... say "You're fired."

Say all of the above with a smile...

It's SO satisfying - the look on people's faces when you tell 'em that they're fired. I have had the pleasure of saying it on occassion to employees and service providers who REALLY deserve it. If your doctor pushes the questions - he really would deserve it, too.



DustyVermonter (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=122887)
http://www.thehighroad.org/images/icons/icon4.gif Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?

sarge83
May 18, 2010, 04:05 PM
"None of your business. Have a good day."

If he pushes... say "You're fired."

Say all of the above with a smile...

It's SO satisfying - the look on people's faces when you tell 'em that they're fired. I have had the pleasure of saying it on occassion to employees and service providers who REALLY deserve it. If your doctor pushes the questions - he really would deserve it, too.
I fired a my last doctor. Every month he wanted me to come in for high blood pressure check ups even though it was clearly under control with the meds. On top of that he wanted blood work done every month and it always turned out fine. All this was costing me about $75 a month out of pocket, plus my prescription co-pay.

This went on for a year and finally I said, no to the blood work and the springs flew out of his head. He went into a rant about HIM treating and ordering anything he wanted done in regards to my health. I said really? Tell you what, I have the final say about my health and treatment and I'll be damned if I am going to pay some SOB to talk to me this way, your fired. Asked for a copy of my records and walked out the door.

Twerp never got around to asking me about guns.

content
May 18, 2010, 04:05 PM
Hello friends and neighbors // Ask how much he gets paid per survey, then decline due to time crunch.

JoeMal
May 18, 2010, 04:08 PM
Woody, great idea!

Omaha-BeenGlockin
May 18, 2010, 04:28 PM
OP--you should have expounded about that tragic boating accident you had.

I give no un-needed info to anyone.

My Dr doesn't even have my SSN unless they back doored it through the insurance co.

My Census was returned with the number of occupents and nothing more---still haven't heard back from them yet---lol

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 04:31 PM
Here is an example of the kind of policy decisions based on these surveys:


Counseling about firearms: proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients.Vernick JS, Teret SP, Smith GA, Webster DW.

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. jvernick@jhsph.edu

Abstract
In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.


In other words, the AMA and AAP have concluded that asking patients about gun ownership, and counseling them to remove them from their homes, are a legitimate "aspect of the practice of medicine".

This is NOT legitimate epidemiolgy or medical practice - it is political activism based on erroneous conclusions from discredited "studies".

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 04:47 PM
I urge you all to go to the link provided by gdesloge and read the article:

Boundary Violation:
Gun Politics in the Doctor’s Office
Timothy Wheeler, MD


http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/boundary_violation.htm

WoofersInc
May 18, 2010, 05:04 PM
And that's usually where it stops. Those who think a bit deeper on these matters give some thought to legal ramifications, lawsuits, lawyer fees, etc. Going a little further, we also have the problem of the person who has been shot (could be you, too). Somebody has to patch that person up, oversee their rehab, provide wound care, medication, possibly prosthetics and reconstructive surgery. This is rarely discussed.

But if we had any ER surgeons here who could weigh in, particularly those from an urban area, they'd probably tell us about Friday and Saturday nights when the gunshot wound victims turn up and how much trouble that is. We'd hear more about domestic shootings and self-inflicted wounds and so forth. Somebody has to pay for that care, and it's a burden on the healthcare industry. So you can kind of understand how they might want to get some understanding of the causes of these things and how the incidence of them might be reduced.

The key point here is that all of this is their business. It is reasonable that they would have concerns about this from an epidemiological perspective, just as they do with things like drug and alcohol and tobacco use.

Sorry but I still have to disagree with this assesment of why they are asking.
I am a former Paramedic and a current ER nurse.
Let's look at the above. There are hundreds of things that will bring a person into an ER on a Friday or Saturday night with injuries. I can tell you that gunshot wounds are not one of the biggest concerns of the ER staff. It is the drug overdoses and the fights and the auto accidents.

Trauma is trauma. All trauma patients have a set protocol that they go through when they arrive. You have the same team and pretty much go through the same steps every time. It doesn't matter what caused the trauma most of the time. We are doing the same thing anyway.

Car accidents are by far one of the leading killers in this country as far as accidental deaths. They kill substantially far more people than guns do. Why then under your arguement is my doctor not asking my what type of car I drive? How many airbags does it have? How many tickets have I gotten for speeding? Do I ever drink and drive? This would give them far more info on injury prevention.This is a far bigger burden on healthcare and a far bigger use of medical resources. After all you don't have to spend over an hour with the Hurst tool cutting a gunshot victim out from under a semi.

However you want to read into a doctor asking these questions, It is not for statistical data to better prepare. It is agenda driven by most of the medical associations which are know to be highly anti-gun. The AMA, the New England Journal of Medicine. Heck even the CDC has paid for studies to try to influence the issue against guns. Also as has been pointed out, was the OP having a history of depression. In the lawsuit happy country we have become, if the doctor is still prescribing anti-depressants to the OP and knows about the guns, he would be found liable for anything that may happen. The doctor may also just be looking out for his own butt in this case..

Rxster
May 18, 2010, 05:05 PM
+1 for the boundary violation.
It is something that they should be reported to the medical board for.
None of their business.
Kinda like them having a discussion about why you should vote for their candidate.

ArmedBear
May 18, 2010, 05:12 PM
the AMA and AAP have concluded

Addendum.... These are private clubs that have deliberately cast themselves as representing "doctors", not their boards of directors or members.

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 05:15 PM
I am a former Paramedic and a current ER nurse...

...Car accidents are by far one of the leading killers in this country as far as accidental deaths. They kill substantially far more people than guns do. Why then under your arguement is my doctor not asking my what type of car I drive? How many airbags does it have? How many tickets have I gotten for speeding? Do I ever drink and drive? This would give them far more info on injury prevention...

...It is agenda driven by most of the medical associations which are know to be highly anti-gun.


Bingo - we have a winner!

Thanks, WooferInc for your informed insight - and for doing one of those difficult jobs for which you are probably underpaid and underappreciated.

mljdeckard
May 18, 2010, 05:20 PM
That level of questioning makes me VERY suspicious. I would roll my eyes at the initial questionnaire with the question "Do you have a gun in the home?", which is kind of a standard AMA intrusion. But this goes WAY beyond that. This guy is an activist, or is under the influence of activists. Unacceptable. I would (and I'm being very serious and literal here,) send a letter explaining why you can no longer pay him for services, and post on whatever web sites you can find that rate doctors, telling everyone the exact same thing. He asks questions that are medically irrelevant and intrusive to your privacy.

jerryd
May 18, 2010, 05:33 PM
My doctor knows about my guns and i know about his, we shoot together!!!!

gdesloge
May 18, 2010, 05:37 PM
I am posting this again. For some unknown reason, Rainbow's copy of the link does not work.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/boundary_violation.htm

gd

A and O
May 18, 2010, 05:47 PM
Was this Dr. a gov't. Dr? When at the VA Hospital for a routine cu the nurse asked a series of questions to locate a possible mental problem that could be used to deny me my gun ownership rights. Fortunately I was aware that this was happening at VA Hospitals and had prepared answers thought up before hand. I think I had read an article on KABA prior to this happening. One question they asked was "Do you ever feel like you are a victim of the circumstances of life?" and my answer was "No, of course not. I'm a victor over the circumstances of Life".

Just an additional note. With this society we now find ourselves living in it is an imperative to be prepared with a healthy dose of suspect towards any line of questioning from agents/employees of the gov't. Not being paranoid, just trying to point out the obvious. If you can not answer without incriminating yourself then clam up by saying you do not feel a need to answer this line of questioning.

rainbowbob
May 18, 2010, 05:51 PM
Thanks, gd.

I did edit my copy of the link and now it works. I think it's an important article and very relevant to this discussion.

MachIVshooter
May 18, 2010, 05:54 PM
It is logical that they might take an interest. They might also have an interest in orchids, motorcycles, cross-country skiing, sadomasochism, and bootleg liquor.

Insurance companies have a legitimate reason to inquire about these things, since it's all part of their risk assement that determines your premium. Lie to them, you may find yourself without coverage when injured during an activity you said you didn't partake in.

Your doctor, OTOH, does not need to know. For one, general practitioners will not be the ones patching you back together. That'll be the trauma team. And secondly, knowing what activities you participate in will not help them treat you in any way. Assesment of emergency procedure required is determined after examination. There is no ex post facto procedure for making an injury less severe by knowing what sort of dangers were present.

shockwave
May 18, 2010, 05:57 PM
Sorry but I still have to disagree with this assesment of why they are asking.

Feel free. But do note that I'm only referring in particular to several specific items. I don't know what the OP's doctor was doing but based on journal articles I've read and what I see on my job, I can say that some doctors do collect this kind of data and not because they are anti-gun activists. Maybe some are. The study I linked to above has zero agenda and only presented demographic data which may form the basis of further study.

You know, we've all seen the statement that having a gun in the home increases one's risk of injury by some percentage or other but is that really true? Is anybody collecting that sort of data? There are many questions that could be answered if we had information so I don't see any particular problem with practitioners trying to collect it. Nobody has to give it to them.

There are hundreds of things that will bring a person into an ER on a Friday or Saturday night with injuries.

Did I say that the only thing causing injuries were firearms? Did I say that the majority of injuries were firearm related? We aren't disagreeing at all. I do know that when I visit a doctor I am often asked about drinking, smoking, and other behaviors. This doesn't seem all that different (although I've never been asked about firearms and if I were I'd probably decline to answer). That some doctors do take an interest here probably has something to do with the fact that firearms are designed to cause firearm injuries, unlike automobiles, which you mentioned.

Since physicians can walk and chew gum, they are also interested in reducing vehicle injuries and drug overdoses - they are interested in reducing all morbidity and mortality to the extent possible. That some particular subset of them, some individual focus groups spend time examining gun issues with respect to medicine doesn't strike me as a big deal. However...

The AMA, the New England Journal of Medicine. Heck even the CDC has paid for studies to try to influence the issue against guns.

That would be bad science and I doubt that's really the case. NEJM will publish peer-reviewed research but they do not represent individual researchers as journal policy, and as you can read here (http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/cdc_questions_impact_of_gun_cont.htm) the CDC found that gun-control laws are ineffective and "has no plans to spend more money on firearms study."

The doctor may also just be looking out for his own butt in this case..

Very possible. Without asking him, there's no way to know exactly what his motivations were. Might have been working on an institutional survey, a small cohort survey with some colleagues, a private research effort, or just personal follow-up study - we see them do this sort of thing all the time. There's lots of possibilities here and most (although not all) of them are likely to be benign .

ol' scratch
May 18, 2010, 06:34 PM
There's doctors and doctors.

Just today, doc spotted an NAA Guardin pin on my jacket... we ended up discussing current gun laws and advantages of the pump-action shotguns over semi-autos for home defense scenarios (doc was inclined toward less-lethal loadings, such as rubber buckshot)

;)
Had a similar situation with my doc. I asked if I could have my lead tested during my annual physical. The doc told me sure and asked why. I told him I reload and shoot. Found out he was a member of the same club and talked him through a problem he was having with his 1911. One of my best friends is a firearms freak and is a pediatric oncologist. A lot more doctors enjoy firearms than you might think. It makes perfect sense to me. Who values human life (including their own) more than a doctor? Who also gets to see more of society's dark underbelly than most other people? Doctors.

Shadow 7D
May 18, 2010, 06:37 PM
Ask for his malpractice provider, you feel the need to inform them that they will have to cover him for bad FA advice.

Then inform him that since he is exceeding his Scope of Practice, as you see nothing on his walls that qualify him to give instruction about gun, you feel uncomfortable taking ADVICE from an amateur, and rather prefer to get it from a professional, then pick up a copy of your medical records and get a new doc

WoofersInc
May 18, 2010, 06:47 PM
That would be bad science and I doubt that's really the case. NEJM will publish peer-reviewed research but they do not represent individual researchers as journal policy,

They may not be stating outright that the papers published are policy but they are publishing them under their banner. It is still support for what is in those papers.

I pulled one article and this was in it.

Gun violence is often an unintended consequence of gun ownership. Americans have purchased millions of guns, predominantly handguns, believing that having a gun at home makes them safer. In fact, handgun purchasers substantially increase their risk of a violent death. This increase begins the moment the gun is acquired — suicide is the leading cause of death among handgun owners in the first year after purchase — and lasts for years.


Legislatures have misguidedly enacted a radical deregulation of gun use in the community (see map). Thirty-five states issue a concealed-weapon permit to anyone who requests one and can legally own guns; two states have dispensed with permits altogether. Since 2005, a total of 14 states have adopted statutes that expand the range of places where people may use guns against others, eliminate any duty to retreat if possible before shooting, and grant shooters immunity from prosecution, sometimes even for injuries to bystanders.

Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates — a position that has been discredited.2 Gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together. Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10.3

Policies limiting gun ownership and use have positive effects, whether those limits affect high-risk guns such as assault weapons or Saturday night specials, high-risk persons such as those who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, or high-risk venues such as gun shows. New York and Chicago, which have long restricted handgun ownership and use, had fewer homicides in 2007 than at any other time since the early 1960s. Conversely, policies that encourage the use of guns have been ineffective in deterring violence. Permissive policies regarding carrying guns have not reduced crime rates, and permissive states generally have higher rates of gun-related deaths than others do (see map).


A Supreme Court decision broadening gun rights and overturning the D.C. statutes would be widely viewed as upholding such policies. By promoting our sense of entitlement to gun use against one another, it could weaken the framework of ordered liberty that makes civil society possible.



Now mind you that this was just one article from the New England Journal. Sounds like it was written by the Brady Group doesn't it? There are quite a few more article just like this one.

Doctors can collect all the data they want but it will not affect what happens in an ER on a Friday night. We will still be staffed by what the hospital budget says is proper staffing. Not some report saying one extra nurse or doctor might help with injury prevention.

You know, we've all seen the statement that having a gun in the home increases one's risk of injury by some percentage or other but is that really true? Is anybody collecting that sort of data? There are many questions that could be answered if we had information so I don't see any particular problem with practitioners trying to collect it.

That is not the Doctors job. I don't expect my doctor to be on some social srevice crusade "for the better good of all". I expect him to treat me for why I am there.

That some doctors do take an interest here probably has something to do with the fact that firearms are designed to cause firearm injuries, unlike automobiles, which you mentioned

Firearms are mechanical machines. They are not programmed or designed to "cause injuries". They are designed to launch a projectile out of the barrel. Nothing more. It is the person holding it that makes it cause injuries just like it is the drunk driver that causes the 5 car wreck, not the car itself.

and as you can read here the CDC found that gun-control laws are ineffective and "has no plans to spend more money on firearms study."

That is because they were told by the people funding them to stop wasting taxpayer money.
In typical political fashion however the CDC just changed their approach and are again involved in this..

The CDC says it is not funding research on ”guns” or “gun control.” Instead, a CDC spokesman says – whether with a straight face or not I don’t know, since the communication was delivered by e-mail in response to a Republican congressional inquiry – the agency is studying “the web of circumstances” (whatever that is) that surrounds gun violence. Thus, according to this nonsensical gobbledygook, it is proper in the CDC’s eyes for it to study how alcohol sales impact gun violence or the effects of injuries sustained by teenagers as a result of gun possession. In other words, because some people who drink alcohol also might cause an injury or death to themselves or others by misusing firearms, and since alcoholism is a “disease,” it is appropriate for the CDC to study gun control. This subterfuge makes a mockery of the process whereby federal monies are appropriated in a way that reflects at least a colorable relationship with the agencies’ defined missions.

DoubleTapDrew
May 18, 2010, 06:52 PM
Tinnitus? Take two of these and call me in a month


http://www.silencertalk.com/tests/6-04-05-308/photos/All308_1200.jpg

:D

sig220mw
May 18, 2010, 07:29 PM
Hey jerryd, now that's my kind of doctor.

My doc has talked to me about paint ball because he is interested in it since I told him that I play it with my 2 sons. He talked like he wanted to try it.

This is the deep south and also Texas to boot. We do have our little liberal areas but most people around here no better than to run down gun ownership.

Probably the biggest concentration of liberal anti gunners in this state is in Austin. But even there they aren't the majority.

MachIVshooter
May 18, 2010, 07:42 PM
I do know that when I visit a doctor I am often asked about drinking, smoking, and other behaviors.

Not the same thing. They don't ask if you have alcohol and tabacco in the house, and if so, what kind, etc. They ask you if you smoke or drink, and about how much. The only firearms related question that would be appropriate in this capacity is "do you shoot at an indoor range, how much time do you spend there and is it properly ventilated?"

Now, if you're having problems with a wrist or shoulder, and they ask what kind of thigs you do that may be a contributing factor, the mention of firearm recoil may be pertinent, and at that point, a bit of detail may help the doc establish if it's part of your problem.

But outside of lead poisoning, any firearm related physical ailment is going to be trauma induced, whether from recoil, gun parts biting you, or actually being shot. The first is not to hard to figure out on your own. The solution to the second comes with experience. The third is not gonna be something that preventive care per a physicians recommendations will help reduce the damage from.

whalerman
May 18, 2010, 08:06 PM
Sorry Shockwave, I've seen this kind of questioning before. It is part of academia's efforts to use taxpayer money to gather biased data to be used to further their already formulated agenda. It that were not the case, people of their ilk would not have already released their conclusions. They have repeatedly testified, published, and otherwise politically supported all forms of gun control. Now they are gathering the information necessary to make those decisions. I'm just a simple guy, but I'd say they have that ass backwards.

I was questioned only once by medical personell about gun issues. It was a very short conversation. I was very polite, but in retrospect, regret being so.

The Lone Haranguer
May 18, 2010, 08:10 PM
Do you have children, and was this a pediatrician? They have been known to ask these questions of parents under AMA guidelines. But if this is just yourself, why??? It is irrelevant.

EddieNFL
May 18, 2010, 08:11 PM
We not only try to treat the body, but often the mind, and the soul too.

I'm afraid I would violate your constitutional right to not be offended.

EddieNFL
May 18, 2010, 08:14 PM
Do you have children, and was this a pediatrician? They have been known to ask these questions of parents under AMA guidelines.

Still none of his business. I trained my kids to refer any such questions to me or Mom. One particular middle school teacher wanted my youngest suspended because he refused to answer questions.

Average Joe
May 18, 2010, 08:22 PM
Who do you go to , Doc Holiday ?

Black Knight
May 18, 2010, 08:36 PM
My guns and ammo are not a medical concern until I am forced to protect myself and/or family with them by shooting an attacker. My Dr. doesn't bother me with this non-sense. She knows my job (police officer) plus I carry to her office all the time. These questions have been going on for a few years now and when will it end?

XxWINxX94
May 18, 2010, 09:06 PM
If I were asked about my guns in ANY other place besides one pertaining to guns, I would have to use the straightforward, polite: "Sorry, this doesn't concern you."

Gouranga
May 18, 2010, 09:21 PM
Sorry a doc is not your guardian. He is a person you hire to perform a service (to keep you healthy), not use me to conduct surveys for 3rd parties.

If asked the same questions, my response would be "Why is that medically relevant?"

If he cannot give you a solid answer, I would not give him one. My doctor knows too much about me already, lol.

JimKirk
May 18, 2010, 10:09 PM
"Doc you plan on robbing my house?" ....

"You already got license to steal!" ...

"What more do you need?"

Nomad
May 18, 2010, 10:20 PM
I would tell the doc it is none of his business. After all you are the customer/client/patient and he is employed by you. Besides doctors put their pants on the same way I do and I do not hesitate to speak my mind if I feel the need.

whalerman
May 18, 2010, 10:28 PM
Shockwave, the problem here is you. Healthcare professionals have allowed themselves to be railroaded by people who have an agenda and who have no knowledge and appreciation of the Constitution. Now, after medical groups have shown their true colors, we are expected to cooperate with these same people as they collect data to support a conclusion they've already reached. Sorry, I don't trust health care professionals with this information. Some are certainly unbiased and attempting to address people in need. But the majority of folks publishing "scientific" works are firmly behind the need for more and more unworkable, ineffective and restrictive gun laws. Nurse, your record on this subject is pretty undeniable. You may not have a dog in this fight, but your boss does.

The Lone Haranguer
May 18, 2010, 10:29 PM
My response to such a question wouldn't be very THR, I'm afraid.

ronbuick
May 18, 2010, 10:50 PM
obamacare, they will have all your medical records, -the feds that is- so they know if you have more guns in your house than that is registered, could this be true, maybe,
maybe not, but why now are they asking now, the Dr's have never asked in the past, my Dr. has not asked as of yet, but if they do, is does make one wonder!!

Ron

Zundfolge
May 18, 2010, 10:54 PM
The purpose of these gun questions (and the BS studies they are for) is 100% political ... politics has no place in the relationship between me and my doctor.

Of course if the doctor wants me to remove my shirt and/or pants he's going to find out I own at least one gun.

AcceptableUserName
May 18, 2010, 11:17 PM
Ask him why he's asking. Decline to answer. Find a new doctor. in that order

AcceptableUserName
May 18, 2010, 11:18 PM
Of course if the doctor wants me to remove my shirt and/or pants he's going to find out I own at least one gun.


Ha, I was going to suggest the OP inform the doctor that he's currently packing...in his trousers. Hopefully the mods don't come down on me too hard for this one, but I mean come on...stupid questions should get stupid answers. If I was the OP I probably would've taken some serious offense in there if the questions were presented like that. A simple "this doesn't concern you" and a search for a doctor with more integrity would probably be the best idea though.

Ala Dan
May 18, 2010, 11:22 PM
My good ole' doctor is a professional handloader and shooter himself; so he
does not ask me those kind'a questions; we talk 'bout what kind'a guns we
have bought lately~! ;) :D

tasco 74
May 19, 2010, 12:00 AM
i go to the dr. once in a while.... thanks for the heads up.....................

leadcounsel
May 19, 2010, 01:21 AM
Fire him, and tell him why.

JoeSlomo
May 19, 2010, 02:45 AM
It's logical, then, that physicians take an interest in this area because ultimately they have to clean up the damage caused by irresponsible owners (and criminals) and statistical data can help them formulate health policy.

"Health policy" as a result of firearms?

Right.

Firearms have absolutely JACK and SQUAT to do with "health" issues. Sadly, there are many "Doctors" who, despite YEARS of "education", are too stupid to realize this fact.

The neighborhood I was raised in had about 200 families or so, and I would say about 75 to 80% owned firearms. We NEVER locked our doors. We had NO crime. NOBODY was EVER victimized by firearms because firearms are insignificant. PEOPLE are the cause of violence. PEOPLE are the cause of "health issues".

20 miles away in the city, the urbanites averaged a murder or two every day despite gun control measures.

Go figure....

"Firearms?!? Doc...stay in your land bud."

makarovnik
May 19, 2010, 05:47 AM
I would ask the doctor who this information is for and how much he is getting paid for the filled out questionnaire.

If you have talked about depression with this doctor watch out. He thinks that if you have a gun in the house you are going to use it on somebody (or yourself) in a bad way.

pete f
May 19, 2010, 07:04 AM
FIrst off, ask why he is asking.

Sometimes its his clinic/hospital/practices's policy to ask such questions under false reasoning that "safety" can be rated by reducing "risks" to the point we are all going to be stacked, bubble wrapped on treadmills, perfectly safely getting our required exercise while eating perfectly prepared food pellets.

Other times its your insurance provider. When they enter you in the computer as to your coverage, a questionnaire is produced from a data base trying to cover all the suspect things that might be wrong with you. This can be absurdly humorous at times. Some times it can be deeply disturbing.

Find out who is asking the questions, tell your doctor simply that you are unable to make a connection between your deviated septum and gun ownership, and that you find his questions a real waste of the 7.4 minutes of time he has been allocated by the insurance company to spend with you.

Be polite, but be sharp. Let him know that you are there for a physical malady, not a psychological one, and that continued efforts in that area will not be tolerated. Saying "I know the difference between a sprained ankle and depression, Doc, do you think we can skip that part?" will get the idea across.

IF they do not answer satisfactorily, post where you live and someone on here will provide you with the name of a gun friendly Doc near you.

AirForceShooter
May 19, 2010, 09:29 AM
I'm just trying to figur eout what's happening with the information.
If the question is part of a medical exam wouldn't the info be confidential under HIPPA?
Me? I lie.


AFS

searcher451
May 19, 2010, 12:42 PM
Might be time to change doctors? Two of the city's ER docs are good friends of mine; both are gun-friendly, with one a big-time hunter and collector. The other recently went to concealed-carry training to get his permit, and I tagged along for support. Their attitudes might be shaped by what they see in the ER on a regular basis.

nathan
May 19, 2010, 12:53 PM
THey are looking for signs of Going Postal Syndrome ! Part of the new trend of medical assessment cr-p !

BP Hunter
May 19, 2010, 12:59 PM
The American Academy of Pediatrics and most probably Family Practice Docs are given a list of questionnaires that they "have" to ask their patients. Many of them concern safety - poisons, car seats, swimming pools and....guns. Doctors aren't there to report you to the police or have any connection whatsoever with the FBI or and LEO agencies. They are their just to advocate safety. It's all about good health. I am a pediatrician and used to ask abut gun safety. I stopped. Many fathers give me the look like I was their judge telling them what to do. They didn't like it. So at the end I just gave handouts on safety on every well visit which included gun safety.

Funny thing, some fathers and I later just talk about guns.

clem
May 19, 2010, 01:02 PM
I save all of my old Gun Magazines and leave them in my doctor's waiting rooms. The response from my various doctors is amazing. :D

Elquatro
May 19, 2010, 01:24 PM
This is super strange. "Do you prefer the standard American or metric system when measuring wood to build your birdhouses"?

Tell your Dr. it's none of his business. Well first, ask what it's for, then tell him it's none of his business.

rainbowbob
May 19, 2010, 02:14 PM
Let him know that you are there for a physical malady, not a psychological one..."I know the difference between a sprained ankle and depression..."


Good general advice, perhaps - but the OP disclosed that he was there to renew a prescription for his depression.

I am dead-set against doctors asking probing questions for the purpose of justifying "policies" (e.g., gun control measures).

Untreated depression, however, is a dangerous condition - and asking an acutely depressed patient about his firearms could be a legitimate medical inquiry.

Depression is treatable and usually well-controlled with the proper treatment protocol. There would not be any reason to question a patient about his firearms unless he was suicidally depressed.

That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.

SpamHandler
May 19, 2010, 09:26 PM
OP--you should have expounded about that tragic boating accident you had.

If the doctor doesn't follow up with questions that ARE health and safety related, i.e. 'was the vessel seaworthy?', 'were adequate lifejackets available?' or 'were you exposed to any spilled fuel?', then you'll know if the exercise is truly in your best interests.

DustyVermonter
May 20, 2010, 12:05 AM
I really wish that I had the presence of mind to have just given him the brush off but I didn't really start thinking about it until I was in the car on my way home. At that point I was trying to remember what we had didcussed before the barage of questioning but I couldn't remember. What I do know though is that my wife went to this guy and was not asked these questions but was however asked stuff regarding general safety practices such as seatbelts,Etc... Maybe he just didn't bother because he knew we were married and obviously shared the same home. The only thing I managed to keep private was the level of enthusiasm I have for shooting sports,HD,SD,hunting,etc... I told him I hunt and own a shotgun and keep it in a safe along with the shells. Didn't bother to tell him I no longer have room in my safe and my wife keeps complaining that I'm turning the house into an army barracks,lol. Although I have no sense of humor when it comes to gun safety. All appropriate measures taken to ensure safety.

orionengnr
May 20, 2010, 12:18 AM
About four years ago, during my annual physical, I was handed the usual stack o'paper to fill out. When I got to the questionaire with the "how many guns do you own", etc, I tore it up. Filled everything else in, and handed it all back.

Not a word was said.

When I saw the doc I told him that I objected strongly to the questionaire, and would be going elsewhere for my next physical.

I did, and my new doc has no such BS. He checks my blood for lead each year because I reload and shoot weekly. No problems, no questions, no forms.

HappyHunting
May 20, 2010, 12:34 AM
"It's all a conspiracy, man." He must watch too many pfizer commercials. He figures if you ask him about ED, he can ask you about your gun situation. Maybe they're related.. jjjjust kidding. I like guns.

ent
May 20, 2010, 01:01 AM
Many national physician groups are anti-gun. They have political agendas that are pushed on their members. This type of questioning is being talked about at national meetings and pressure is placed to ask these types questions.
Take for example these quotes from the American Academy of Pediatrics website: " 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."

" The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home. "

ArfinGreebly
May 20, 2010, 02:37 AM
Last I looked, there was a fairly long list of common risks and, when sorted according to the actual numbers of deaths per hundred thousand, guns in the home was not near the top.

I seem to recall, for example, that swimming pools actually claim more children's lives than firearms.

Yet I've never seen a question on the form, "do you have a swimming pool at your home?"

Similarly, there are no questions about kerosene heaters, partly filled gasoline cans, paint thinner soaked rags, or power tools. Also no questions about high performance cars or other transportation, to include jet skis, snowmobiles, and dirt bikes. No questions regarding the various hazardous sports in which I might participate, like snow/water skiing, rock climbing, or mountain biking.

In other words, "do you have guns in the home?" is a targeted politically driven question.

More kids drown in buckets, but they don't ask about buckets.


Using doctors to ask the question under the plausible-but-bogus guise of "assessing risks" is something of a coup.

"Well, you see, your health involves a lot of different factors, including behavioral factors like smoking, and exposure to certain risks, so we're just trying to get as complete a picture as possible."

No, you're not.

If you were, you'd ask about the damned swimming pool. You'd ask about sports. You'd ask about my driving habits and the length of my commute, and the specific routes I take to work. You'd ask about hazardous chemicals in the garage.

But you don't do that.

Instead, you ask a question that indexes my ability to protect and/or provide for my family.

If you were serious about "risks" you would ask unarmed people why the hell they would leave themselves and their families unprotected against muggers and home invaders. There's a very real risk to being unarmed.

It's not about risk.

It's about discouraging people from owning firearms by demonizing them as a "health risk."


It's about creating a "harmless" body of data documenting gun owners (confidentially, of course) until the day that guns can be plausibly reclassified as a "social health risk," thus requiring physicians to reveal which patients "pose the greatest social health risk." You know, kind of like they might do with a plague carrier.

rainbowbob
May 20, 2010, 03:14 AM
If you were serious about "risks" you would ask unarmed people why the hell they would leave themselves and their families unprotected against muggers and home invaders. There's a very real risk to being unarmed.

Bam!

Great post Arfin.

DustyVermonter
May 20, 2010, 06:19 AM
So, more or less, what you're saying is this information is geared toward gun owners as a whole, and not on any individual basis? Meaning, They are compiling this data to dough up statistics and target everybody's gun rights rather than to take my individual gun rights and anylyze my personal file and from there try to determine whether they think "I" am fit to own firearms based on my depression? Not that I would be pleased with either outcome but I especially don't like the idea of somebody trying to place "me" into a category and tell "me" that I am unable to own firearms because "I" fit some criteria, but also hate to think that I unknowingly participated in something that could help them in the advancement of gun control/demonizing gun owners in any way,shape or form, actually my goal is quite the opposite. I do know that the following are federal guidelines: You may not own/possess firearms if (a)You are under a restraining order (b)you are a felon (c)you have been imprisonned for Blah,Blah,Blah,Etc.... (d) You have been deemed mentally defective. So what's next? If you have been diagnosed with depression they are gonna try to put you/me in category (d)

Stever
May 20, 2010, 10:39 AM
I hope the physicians realize that forks kill more people than guns.

Deanimator
May 20, 2010, 10:49 AM
I seem to recall, for example, that swimming pools actually claim more children's lives than firearms.
Don't PLASTIC BUCKETS kill more children.

Of course didn't they redefine "children" to include those 24-26 years of age? I guess though that that would allow them to claim that "children" can walk into a gun store and LEGALLY buy an "assault weapon"...

KarenTOC
May 20, 2010, 02:35 PM
"Get a different doctor."

"Ask him why he's asking. Decline to answer. Find a new doctor. in that order."

"Fire him, and tell him why."

"Might be time to change doctors?"

Great advice, but switching doctors is not always an option. With an HMO, for example, if one doctor is required to ask, no doubt they all are. Dropping the HMO may not be a viable option for some.

I've never been asked, but after reading this thread, I've decided to respond with "Sorry, it's my policy not to participate in any research studies."

Cosmoline
May 20, 2010, 02:38 PM
I do know that when I visit a doctor I am often asked about drinking, smoking, and other behaviors. This doesn't seem all that different (although I've never been asked about firearms and if I were I'd probably decline to answer). That some doctors do take an interest here probably has something to do with the fact that firearms are designed to cause firearm injuries, unlike automobiles, which you mentioned.

That would justify the doctor asking questions if you has symptoms of possible lead poisoning or had a gaping bleeding hole in your foot. But simply owning a firearm, in and of itself, does nothing to cause a health condition.

The only reason they ask these questions is to provide support for virulently anti-gun "studies" funded by the virulently anti-gun medical association. As such, they should be disclosing the reasons to the patients before asking the questions. And they should be securing written permission to include the patient in the study. But a lot of doctors think they're beyond such trivial concerns.

Folks, I've deposed hundreds of doctors and heard hundreds more testify over my career. I've even Daubertized a few of them. There is nothing sacred or magical about them. They are as prone to being partisan, venal and corrupt as anyone else in power. As patients I strongly urge you to take an active role in your own treatment. That means asking questions, seeing your own medical records and getting a straight answer about proposed treatment and its cost. You are the customer! When some clown in a white smock starts asking invasive, personal questions that seem to have nothing to do with your sore throat or broken toe, it's perfectly acceptable to ask him what he thinks he's doing. It's also fine to refuse to answer.

Jamie B
May 20, 2010, 04:07 PM
Never have run into this issue myself.

Always remember that in the relationship, you are the customer and he is the supplier.

In spite of the medical degree, you are the one being serviced, and the doctor has the responsibility to consider your opinions.

If you do decide to go elsewhere, I would be sure to inform this doctor that you will inform everyone who you know about his invasive questions.

Many people are humbled by doctors, and some doctors play this to their advantage.

Always remember that you are the boss, and use common sense.
Don't let yourseld be pushed around!

Jamie

Polar Express
May 20, 2010, 04:14 PM
Karen has a great point.

When I was growing up, my dad used to tell both my sister and I that the only lie we were supposed to tell, was if someone asked if we had guns in the house. He beleived there would be a day, when a school might ask kids if there were guns in their house, and every kid that raised their hand, would be kept at school until mom/dad turned in all the guns. (Now I realize this scenario is extreeme, and I don't want to hijack this thread, and that topic is for a different thread, While that situation is extreeme, so are death camps, and they actually occured) so it's not impossible that we could get there someday, if we let it get to that point.

Others have mentioned in this thread that simply stating 'none of your busienss', actually answers the question in the affirmative. Answering 'no', keeps that data private, but.. it does nothing to stop the process of inappropriate questioning. Which is what leads me to my opening statement that Karen made such a great point.

If we refuse any and ALL questionairs about hobbies, activities or anything that is not related to our health CARE (not health patterns), and make that the point, we put ourselves in the best position to actually gain some ground against agenda-driven socialists.

Just my take on the matter, and thanks again Karen for a great idea.

PE

sprocket3
May 20, 2010, 04:19 PM
I had our pediatrician ask about this. I thought it was odd, but I think she is just worried kids are going to get into things and have an accident. She does look like a lib though.

Shadow 7D
May 20, 2010, 04:51 PM
Sprocket, go read the American Academy of Pediatrics position on gun, and NO not odd, it is a pushed agenda.

Mine was worse, she just assumed, she also didn't give me the handout, said something about probably knowing more than whoever wrote it.

nmmi9100
May 20, 2010, 05:22 PM
Folks, I searched for "Pediatrician Gun question" on Google and found this thread. Made me join THR.

This morning I took my son Walker to a new pediatrician. Our old GP moved to New Hampshire. I was shocked to see the following question at the end of the usual form:

"Are there weapons in your household?"

"Are they locked up?"

I wrote "None of your business" below the question and did not answer. When we went in to see the Doctor, she didn't even ask about my son's pink eye. She just asked about the question I refused to answer, stating it was necessary for her to ascertain his overall safety. I told her that was none of her business and that I had come to her to heal his pink eye. She said that I should "Seek treatment elsewhere" and refused to examine my 5 year old son. I told her that it didn't seem like she cared much about his safety/health if she refused to treat him because I wouldn't answer a politically-driven question. We left the clinic and got an appointment with another GP.

It's amazing ... they can't refuse treatment to folks that are gay, have AIDS, are illegal aliens, etc., but the doc refused to treat my sick little boy because I wouldn't answer a politically driven question.

And they didn't ask if we put the kid in a car seat, have him wear a bike helmet, or have exposed electrical wiring in the house ... just if we have "weapons". Sure lady, there's a kitchen knife on the counter....

I'm Pissed. Strongly considering reporting this to the state's medical licensing authority. Doubt anything will happen but it's worth a try.

-David
Edgewood, NM

rainbowbob
May 20, 2010, 06:37 PM
And they didn't ask if we put the kid in a car seat, have him wear a bike helmet, or have exposed electrical wiring in the house...just if we have "weapons". Sure lady, there's a kitchen knife on the counter....

Welcome to THR David!

It is unconscionable that a doctor would refuse to treat your ill child on the basis you have described. As you and others have pointed out, if this quack was genuinely interested in your child's safety, she would not refuse to treat him based on her political agenda. And she would be more interested in asking questions about the risk factors for children that are at least statistically relevant.

I think you have the perfect opportunity to file a legitimate complaint based on her failure to treat your son for the potentially painful and contagious medical condition presented to her.

Do it! And let us know what (if any) response you receive.

benEzra
May 20, 2010, 06:58 PM
Strongly considering reporting this to the state's medical licensing authority. Doubt anything will happen but it's worth a try.
I think it would be a good idea to do so.

rainbowbob
May 20, 2010, 07:03 PM
This is from an AAP website:


Question: What is the AAP position on guns and children?

Answer:
The AAP supports legislation for keeping guns out of the environment where children live and play.


And this:

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.


Also this:

Because firearm-related injury to children is associated with death and severe morbidity and is a significant public health problem, child health care professionals can and should provide effective leadership in efforts to stem this epidemic.

The AAP makes the following recommendations:

1. The AAP affirms that the most effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries to children and adolescents is the absence of guns from homes and communities.

a) Firearm regulation, to include bans of handguns and assault weapons, is the most effective way to reduce firearm-related injuries.

b) Pediatricians and other child health care professionals are urged to inform parents about the dangers of guns in and outside the home. The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home.


I guess that makes their position crystal clear.

Full Metal Jacket
May 20, 2010, 07:19 PM
no big deal. if your dr. starts asking invasive questions about your firearms ownership, simply tell him where he can go, and pick a new doc ;)

Shadow 7D
May 21, 2010, 10:41 PM
Actually report her to the medical board, to the state health ombudsman, and your insurance company, ethically she is bound, and if she charged for the visit, you can pursue fraud, cause she didn't treat.

suck, and frankly it isn't any of her business.

Travis McGee
May 21, 2010, 11:25 PM
"None of your business."

gunnutery
May 22, 2010, 01:40 AM
Physicians are increasingly looking at health risk factors and some consider firearms to be a indicator of statistical risk.

Then they should be asking what kind of cars we drive as that is much larger risk. It's none of their business, they're clearly pushing an agenda.

DustyVermonter
May 22, 2010, 06:05 PM
Food for thought- Could it be that "they" are using medical pesonel to obtain this information because when you go into a gunshop and buy a gun you fill out the papers, they run your name in the NICS and technically they are required by law to discard all of your information within 48 hours of the transaction. I know that in some places you are required to register your firearms but here in Vermont you are not. I do not like the idea that I do not have to disclose information regarding my firearm ownership on any state or federal level, but when I go see my doctor I end up leaving with that information in a file somewhere with my name on it. The more I think about this the angrier I get. I would think that that information would be confidential because of the HIPPA act but there is no way to know for sure what they do with it. Did I just put my name on a naughty list or something?

zxcvbob
May 22, 2010, 06:20 PM
they run your name in the NICS and technically they are required by law to discard all of your information within 48 hours of the transactionDo you actually believe they throw away juicy data like that after 48 hours? Not a chance. They probably throw away the master copy to give the appearance of following the law, but you can bet it's archived somewhere and is retrievable.

61chalk
May 22, 2010, 07:34 PM
To OP, its all political...anti-gun AMA doctors that back a anti-gun president. They want to link guns to Accidents, insurance goes up or is denied for owning guns...it will be called High Risk. Swimming pools or trampilines cause more deaths an injury in the home, so why aren't they asking if you own a pool or trampiline...? Well they are only concerned that you might get depressed an kill yourself....then why don't they ask if I own a rope, or knife, or sleeping pills.....? They started a thing at work this week when they come in to take blood an check for this an that. I was one that refused...guess what...that question came up if you own guns? Have you ever been depressed? How many different people have you had sex with the last 5 years.....My boss asked me why I wouldn't submit to the questions an test....Becuase I'm an American an I'm excercising my right to say NO! An I think that gun question is Un-American, It my right to excersice my 2nd Amendment right.......he listen an said thank you.....of course I will be fired soon.

Lee Roder
May 22, 2010, 08:36 PM
Who does your doctor work for? A for profit health insurer most likely. And how to increase profits? By raising your rates, or at least those of others in perceived "high risk pool". This is your health insurance company speaking, not some guberment scheme. Insurance reform? IMHO, we need it now.

spartywrx
May 22, 2010, 09:05 PM
I can see a pediatrician asking. The AAP hates guns and recommends badgering parents about gun safety. You'd be amazed how many parents out there think that leaving an loaded gun on the floor and a bottle of antifreeze next to it is no big deal.

Also, I can see a psychiatrist asking about guns for obvious reasons.

Lastly, as they told me in medical school you should ask about firearms, but just go over the obvious; keep them away from kids, probably you should lock them up (stuff that the NRA says to do in their info packets anyways), etc.. It was mentioned exactly once that we should do this, and I've never seen anyone else ask in my training so far.

The questions you got seems like your Doc has something against guns.

And if it was truly a study he was participating in, you would have been provided a informed consent form and would have had to read and sign some forms. If you didn't, then that doc is in huge trouble. You can't do anything without proper paperwork nowadays

If you enjoyed reading about "Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!