Federal appeals court sides with physicians in ‘docs vs. Glocks’ case

Status
Not open for further replies.
.....I know nothing about the legality of the question.....
But the legal question is what the court decision being discussed in this thread is about

.....I have a very old friend and Vietnam War Vet in Portland, Oregon. He trustingly answered in the affirmative regarding ownership of firearms. He was immediately hit with Anti-Gun statistics. He was told for the safety of his community to dispose of his firearms. ....
Protecting sensitive persons from uncomfortable conversations is arguably not the proper role of government. Basically, the 11th Circuit here said that the State of Florida could not constitutionally prohibit doctors from asking certain questions.

Some folks might find those questions offensive or needlessly intrusive. And some folks might find that answering those questions in certain ways might expose them to comments from the doctor they don't like or which causes them some discomfort. But it's not necessarily the place of government to "fix" that for people. Effectively the 11 Circuit could not find a sufficient governmental interest in protecting people from such encounters to justify an abridgment of the doctor's prerogative to ask what questions he decides as the physician are worthwhile asking.

It's up to the patient to deal with the situation without the intrusion of government.
 
If I consult a physician professionally, I consider that part of his properly doing the job I'm hiring him to do is deciding what he needs to know. That involves his exercise of his professional judgment. And while it's certainly appropriate for me to question him about why certain information is relevant, if I'm not finally willing to give considerable deference to the doctor's judgment, I should be seeing a different doctor.
Absolutely!

It's up to the patient to deal with the situation without the intrusion of government.
That's really what it boils down to here.
 
If folks want to understand the Constitution and the law, they need to stop tossing the Constitution into situations where it doesn't apply. The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with not answering your doctor's questions.

Frank,
I NEVER said the constitution applied here, but was using an analogy.which would be easily understood by most in American culture.
 
I think much of the controversy about physicians asking their patients about access to firearms stems from a case where a zealous anti-RKBA pediatrician in Florida who "fired" a child from their practice (i.e. refused to treat them any longer) because their parent(s) owned firearms and some dispute ensued. I don't know the specifics that went down and there may only be two people in the world that really know what transpired, but it's easy to imagine a crossroads where the parent was uncomfortable giving out information about firearms ownership and the pediatrician was imposing their own opinions upon the patient/parent. It's a shame really because the pediatrician may have otherwise been a very good provider and that patient-doctor relationship shouldn't have ended because of a difference in opinions between the parent and physician. However, a pediatrician should ask about firearms in the home to ensure parents are aware they're kept out of reach of children. Not all parents are as responsible as those members that frequent this forum, nor are all children as obedient and mindful as the children of this forum's members. Seeing a kid with a gunshot wound to his face was enough for me to realize reasonable screening questions transcended any parent's potential concerns about being asked such questions. I agree it's a personal question but that's precisely the nature of the questions you're asked at a physician's appointment. However, the other leading causes of pediatric death need to be addressed as well. A pediatrician would be remiss if they asked about firearms ownership (and more to the point that they were kept out of the reach of children who by nature are curious) but neglected to address children not wearing bicycle helmets, locked gates around swimming pools, use of car seats, etc. I enjoy talking with some of my patients about firearms (often at the expense of a waiting room that gets increasingly congested). I don't advertise my firearms collecting hobby. Nor do I advertise my interest in old cars, off-roading vehicles, my family, etc. But when it comes up I've never had any patients clam up. The approach may be different, or maybe learning I'm a gun nut disarms them. But the bottom line is that physicians have good reasons to screen for ownership of firearms and you should feel perfectly free to explore why you're being asked about firearms ownership and the response you get should be logical and free of politicization. And as Mr. Ettin mentioned, primary docs often encounter suicidal patients before any specialists. In fact, without a primary doc's referral many patients wouldn't be able to make an appointment in my office (unless they paid out of pocket up front- and I can't even afford my own rates...), so psychiatrists, pediatricians, internists, family medicine docs, nurse practitioners, physician's assistants, nurses, office staff, medical students, residents, and social workers are all going to inevitably ask screening questions for risk stratification. If you disclose that you practice unprotected sex with multiple partners then expect a talk about condom use. If you disclose that you own firearms then expect a talk about keeping them out of reach of children or questions to ensure you're not suicidal. You never know, the person asking you that question may own over a dozen AR-15's...
 
Last edited:
But the legal question is what the court decision being discussed in this thread is about

Protecting sensitive persons from uncomfortable conversations is arguably not the proper role of government. Basically, the 11th Circuit here said that the State of Florida could not constitutionally prohibit doctors from asking certain questions.

Some folks might find those questions offensive or needlessly intrusive. And some folks might find that answering those questions in certain ways might expose them to comments from the doctor they don't like or which causes them some discomfort. But it's not necessarily the place of government to "fix" that for people. Effectively the 11 Circuit could not find a sufficient governmental interest in protecting people from such encounters to justify an abridgment of the doctor's prerogative to ask what questions he decides as the physician are worthwhile asking.

It's up to the patient to deal with the situation without the intrusion of government.

I just wanted to make it clear that I am not legal scholar. This was posted from layman's point of view. :)[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure there's a time and a place the doc should ask that question . Like the above poster talking about the doc asking because recoil could cause more damage . My issue would be if the state made it a general requirement for all docs to ask or put the question in your information questionnaire . It's just not something that "NEEDS" to be known for all patients .

Although not the same I had a interesting 911 call a month ago . There was a guy knocking on my front door at 3:30am the other night . I looked out the side window to see a stranger sitting on my steps and thought maybe he bumped into it when he sat down . For a second I thought about how I was going to handle this . Do I talk through the window , crack the door open or call the police . He had no idea I was watching and I decided to call the none emergency police line .

once I was speaking to someone and they knew someone was at my front door they transferred to a dispatcher . The dispatcher asking the questions like do you know the person , what they look like and what they are wearing etc . Then she asked if there are any kids in my home ( I answered ) then asked if I had any weapons in my house , I paused for a second and said yes I have kitchen knives , a bat , metal candle sticks . I told her anything can be used as a "weapon" . She then clarified "do you have any guns in the house" ( I answered yes ) The next question was the odd one , HOW MANY DO YOU HAVE IN THE HOME ? My answer was " I don't see how that has any importance to this call . She answered OK then asked are you holding one in your hand now ? I answered "no" ( remember just a guy sitting on my porch ) she said ok we'll have someone come take a look or something like that .

I thought the question asking me how many guns were in the home was odd . Any reason you guys think that mattered to them ?
 
It is none of the doc's busness, and the HIPPA law is one of the worst laws. You do not belve me i found out the hard way. Family member or not , just try to get some medical info to help some one.
 
It is none of the doc's busness, and the HIPPA law is one of the worst laws. You do not belve me i found out the hard way. Family member or not , just try to get some medical info to help some one.
Whether or not a particular subject is "the doc's business" must be considered on a case by case basis, and if the patient wants the best care, he or she will rely upon "the doc" to decide what is relevant and what is not. Don't like it? Find another doc. That applies to any other professional person--attorney, tax accountant, insurance advisor, home security consultant, or even a heating and air conditioning contractor.

If a medical professional refuses to provide someone with information about a patient under the terms of HIPAA, that is because the patient did not authorize the release of the information to the person who is asking. And that is a good thing.
 
....If a medical professional refuses to provide someone with information about a patient under the terms of HIPAA, that is because the patient did not authorize the release of the information to the person who is asking. And that is a good thing.

There are always trade-offs, and HIPAA isn't the only medical privacy law. Before HIPAA many States has similarly strict medical privacy laws.

HIPAA and the similar state laws were driven by a strong public sentiment that the privacy of medical information deserved and needed strong, legal protections. The flip side is that it can now be difficult for interested parties to get information they intend to use for a good purpose. Protecting privacy on one hand and making information easily available on the other are mutually exclusive.
 
The real issue is that whatever your answer, that information is part of your permanent electronic medical record and is available to any medical provider in the country, as well as many government agencies. Let's say you answer "yes". Millions of people have access to that information. It could be used by thieves to steal your guns. It could be used by some future administration to round up gun owners, or to deny benefits or medical treatment until your guns are removed.

Now maybe you said "no". But the FBI NICS database shows evidence of several gun purchases over the years. Your eBay and Amazon history shows purchases of gun belts, holsters, grips, etc. Your bank statement shows membership fees to a shooting range, etc. And you have a CC license to carry in your state. So it's clear you lied to the doctor. Is it legal to give false information about your "medical" history? I do not know. Maybe it is right now but that could certainly change without notice. You could be someday charged with felony fraud for your deceptive answer.
 
I assume then I am fully within my "free speech rights" to tell said physician to pound sand.
Of course you are.

And they are within their rights to fire you as a patient when you tell them to pound sand. And enter your belligerent response into your medical records. Now tell me again why the Republicans repealing that bit about the Social Security admin, mental health, and guns stuff isn't important.
 
I've never been asked, I guess you have to go to the doctor first. LOL.
I'm in my fifties and don't go to the doctor unless I am sick and that is really rare. On one of my few and far between visits to my doctor we struck up a conversation about health mixed in with some personal interests from both of us. He seemed to be a really caring doctor and generally interested in my health and well being and I was impressed. He asked me to follow up on how I was feeling in a week or two. When the time came to follow up, I used their website to access my personal health account and to find my doctors email address.
I wrote him a very complimentary email, thanking him for the level of care and I also told him how much I enjoyed the personal aspect of our visit as well.
I received a phone call from my doctor a few hours later, although he was still very friendly he made sure to point out that ANY communication between doctor and patient, in the office, over the phone or email becomes part of my permanent record and to please keep that in mind for future communications. (I am guessing he left out the phone call part for the record)
I said absolutely nothing wrong or inappropriate in my email, just the opposite. I am a very happy-go-lucky guy and if I am happy about something I don't mind telling someone about it. I used my email to express that.
I was very much taken by surprise by his comments and really didn't know what to say to him. I really want to trust my doctor and the medical system but I feel I can't speak freely and without hesitation.
I can only imagine what would be written in my permanent record in regards to my feeling and use of guns.
 
I was very much taken by surprise by his comments and really didn't know what to say to him. I really want to trust my doctor and the medical system but I feel I can't speak freely and without hesitation.
Wow! That would have surprised the heck out of me too! And IMO, it's kind of a sad state of affairs.
 
....I was very much taken by surprise by his comments and really didn't know what to say to him. I really want to trust my doctor and the medical system but I feel I can't speak freely and without hesitation....

I suspect that the physician was merely trying to reinforce and clarify the boundaries professional ethics call for in the physician-patient relationship. In many professions, such as medicine, it will best serve the needs of patient if the doctor maintains a certain degree of detachment.
 
I gotta say I'm with the courts on this one. Literally saying that a doctor can't ask a question is indeed an infringement on the first amendment.

Is it any of their business? No. But asking a question that's not your business shouldn't be against the law.

Similarly, you're not required to answer truthfully or even at all.
 
House as in Gregg House of Princeton Plainsboro hospital said the patients always lie, that's what I'll be doing. Really this has no medical basis to my mind.
 
The invalidated measure was as inane as it was un-Constitutional, nothing but a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

Second Amendment rights were not ‘in jeopardy,’ but the First Amendment rights of doctors clearly were – as their right to free speech was indeed violated.
Whenever a list of who owns guns is being compiled it always puts the 2nd amendment in jeopardy.
There is something called a Boundary violation. If a doctor asked me I would hand them this: : https://www.scribd.com/document/235549775/Gun-Doc-Form
 
My wife and I have been repeatedly asked about firearms in the home by those in the medical industry. Since we are not liberals, telling the truth is important to us in our affairs. That notwithstanding, we regretfully answer those questions in the negative. I have never considered this issue as a First Amendment issue, but merely a political issue promulgated by the medical left intent on social engineering by whatever means available. We've talked about this in the home and consider such questions as an abuse of trust.
 
I do know at least one time it was medically related.

Doc asked a guy I know which shoulder he shot from, apparently he assumed he hunted, which was a correct assumption.

My friend replied something to the effect of
"what does that matter?"

To which the doc replied something to the effect of
"I like to put the pacemaker on other side"

My buddy answered,
"right, I shoulder on the right."



On topic: the ruling is one of those things I just don't care about.
I think it's stupid that they ask, generally. But at the end of the day I really don't care if they do. I personally and the gun community as a whole have much bigger issues to worry about. The whole thing, on both sides, seems silly to me.
 
Docs can ask whatever they want. So can other professionals. I've learned to answer a lot of questions with, "I'd rather keep that private." Everything from cashiers wanting my phone number to surveys to intrusive questions from ... just about anyone ...

Once, at an appointment, the doc noticed a holster and went into the "why do you need to carry a gun around ..." routine. I didn't argue. I didn't complain about my rights.

I just found a new doctor. Simple. Docs have their rights to ask. Patients have their rights not to answer AND to find a new doctor if they are uncomfortable with certain questions.

My current doc is a veteran who understands me. Been with him several years now and likely many more.

If there is one feature you can find on their bios when picking a doctor that reduces the chances of this kind of foolishness, I'd say look for veterans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top