Brady Center sues over new "Physician Gag Law"

[lobo9er]

accidental death to children by firearms less than 1% of child deaths

More children die from medical mystake.

 

[LibShooter]

Even if your guns aren't taken away immediately it could cause you to lose them at a later date or go against you in a court situation later.

We need to fix that... but not by having the state regulate the topics two people in a private business transaction can talk about.

Suppose a doctor worried about a lawsuit tells the DMV that I am blind when I'm not. I might lose my driver's license. How should we fix that? Not by outlawing eye tests.

 

[fallout mike]

I would probably ask the doc the most rude and crude personal question that came to mind. After his mouth dropped open and he says he will not answer the question I would then tell him to stick to what his expertise is.

 

[hso]

The 1st doesn't involve a physician's speech with a patient so there won't be much opportunity for Brady to win. Speech in a business relationship isn't protected.

 

[LibShooter]

Just like the doctor can have consensual sex with whoever outside the office, but sex in the office is against professional codes of conduct.

In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled businesses have a right to express their political beliefs. Wouldn't this apply to a doctor in his office?

 

[slydel0kt]

I 'cured' this problem w my children's doc.
She asked my son ( I was in the room at the time) if there were guns in the home.
I questioned her as to whether she was certified in firearms safety, to which she said "no".
I then told her that it sounded to me as though she were involved in the practice of handing out advice for which she had NO training, and that is considered 'malpractice'.
Never brought up again.

dan

 

[Kaeto]

One Dr. I went to had the question about firearms on the form. I dug into my art supplies bag and got out my bottle of whiteout and removed that question from the form.

 

[jahwarrior]

Aren't the vast majority of gun owners smart and responsible to know that guns and young kids shouldn't mix unsupervised? I'm certain that none of you would willingly do something negligent to pose a threat to your progeny.

i guess i should get the rifle out of my son's playpen now.

 

[HOOfan_1]

That sounds like two people exercising their individual Constitutional rights. Doctors, (or ditch diggers or dog walkers) should have the right to ask their clients just about anything they feel like. The clients can choose to answer or not or find a new physician (or Linear Excavation Technician or Canine Fecal Facilitator).

There doesn't need to be a law.

Ditch diggers and dog walkers usually don't take oaths.

Dropping a patient because they own guns sounds like a violation of the various Hippocratic Oaths that may be taken by Doctors.

Doctors and Lawyers and various other professions hold a fiduciary duty to their clients/patients etc. etc. This is why they are held to stricter guidelines than "ditch diggers". This is why people like Jack Thompson are disbarred/have their licenses revoked for using their position of trust to advance their political aspirations.

 

[MattTheHat]

The way I worded my suggestion I tried to imply that doctors could offer it if the patient were interested. I didn't mean to suggest that doctors just flat out hand gun safety pamphlets to parents of children. To do so would be uncool. I'd have no problem though if a doctor said something like "If you are interested I can give you pamphlets on gun safety and children". Maybe suggest it ONCE with new patients. If the parents say no then that would just be the end of it and the doctor should never ask again.

I have no problems with doctors trying to educate parents on ways of helping keep kids safe from guns in the home. Perhaps advertise a website on a poster in the lobby, or simply leave pamphlets in the waiting room. Doctors have ways to do it without invading anyone's privacy.

I understand what you're saying. And my response probably sounded a bit antagonistic towards you, which I certainly didn't intend. (Sorry, 'bout that.) However, the subject does get me a bit irritated.

If my doctor wants to hand out safety pamphlets, that's fine. However, in addition to firearms safety, there should also be pamphlets on other subjects such as power tool safety, pogo stick safety, why kids should wear bike helmets, the dangers of flinging monkey poo, and on and on.

If the only such safety pamphlets are on gun safety, it belies the doctor's true concern, which is his/her anti-gun political opinions.


-Matt

 

[MattTheHat]

One Dr. I went to had the question about firearms on the form. I dug into my art supplies bag and got out my bottle of whiteout and removed that question from the form.

(Think Peter Sellers

"Ah, Kaeto, the disappearing question ploy. Very good!"


-Matt

 

[MattTheHat]

Double, double. Please ignore.


-Matt

 

[MattTheHat]

In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled businesses have a right to express their political beliefs. Wouldn't this apply to a doctor in his office?

I imagine this issue would get a hazy when considering things such as receiving government funds for services provided, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And when the government mandates health insurance, I would assume there would eventually be a legal challenged raised as to the doctor's freedom of speech in such a situation.


-Matt

 

[NavyLCDR]

I imagine this issue would get a hazy when considering things such as receiving government funds for services provided, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And when the government mandates health insurance, I would assume there would eventually be a legal challenged raised as to the doctor's freedom of speech in such a situation.


-Matt

I don't think the challenge will be the right of the doctor to free speech. I side with the Brady Campaign on that one, actually. The doctor certainly has the right to ask anything he wants to. However, that right to free speech does not trump my 4th amendment right to privacy. The court challenge needs to be our 4th amendment rights. It should be illegal for the government to do anything or withhold anything, or for any insurance company to use my exercise of my 4th amendment right to privacy against me in any way.

 

[Pilot]

This is just a case of the Brady people trying to promote themselves to further enhance THEIR ability to make money and continue their LUCRACTIVE careers based on a relative's tragedy.

There Wavey, fixed it for ya.


Follow the money, they make tons of it in their little "not for profit".

 

[LibShooter]

Dropping a patient because they own guns sounds like a violation of the various Hippocratic Oaths that may be taken by Doctors.

The Hippocratic Oath is not a law passed by the state legislature. It's bad practice to drop a patient because he didn't answer a particular question, but unless the patient needs lifesaving emergency care right now... it is not and should not be illegal.

Doctors "fire" patients all the time. They're usually a little sneaky about it, but sometimes they just come out and say. "I'm not going to treat you anymore."

Outside of an emergency, they should have the right to choose with whom they're going to do business.

 

[kingpin008]

Suppose a doctor worried about a lawsuit tells the DMV that I am blind when I'm not. I might lose my driver's license. How should we fix that? Not by outlawing eye tests.

Seriously? Call me crazy, but it's not exactly rocket science to convince someone that you're not blind. You walk up to them and tell them what color clothing they have on, their eye color, whatever. Problem solved. Mental health issues, however, can be much trickier to resolve.

Let's keep the examples in the realm of reality, eh?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Some people just can't get enough of trying to mind other people's business.

 

[withdrawn34]

The Brady campaign invoking the Constitution?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[Jim K]

I understand the reason for the suit; the Brady campaign believes that anyone who owns a gun is, by that fact, insane.

But what I don't get is the basis. What does the First Amendment have to do with a doctor's question on any subject? Do they think doctor-patient conversations should be published in the paper? Do they think there is something that violates religious freedom?

They want the doctor to ask questions, and then if the patient does own guns, the doctor will call the police and have the home raided and the occupants shot dead. That does give a whole new meaning to the Hypocritic (no error) oath.

Jim

 

[LibShooter]

Let's keep the examples in the realm of reality, eh?

Actually that was based on a true story. My uncle once received a letter from the state he lived in at the time (North Carolina of Virginia, I don't remember which) informing him that his physician had informed the Dept. of Safety that he was legally blind. He was surprised. He had just retired from the Air Force and went to see his first civilian doc in a few decades.

After visiting the State Police office to read a chart he found a new doctor.

What does the First Amendment have to do with a doctor's question on any subject?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."

 

[kingpin008]

Actually that was based on a true story. My uncle once received a letter from the state he lived in at the time (North Carolina of Virginia, I don't remember which) informing him that his physician had informed the Dept. of Safety that he was legally blind. He was surprised. He had just retired from the Air Force and went to see his first civilian doc in a few decades.

That's not my point. What I'm trying to say is that the process of proving that you aren't actually blind and that you aren't actually a danger to yourself or others is not really a fair comparison.

If a doctor tells some gov't agency that you're blind and shouldn't be driving, you go down and read a chart and prove him wrong. However, try finding such a simple fix if a doctor determines that you're not mentally capable of owning a firearm. I guarantee it's a bit more complicated.

 

[LibShooter]

That's not my point. What I'm trying to say is that the process of proving that you aren't actually blind and that you aren't actually a danger to yourself or others is not really a fair comparison.

Okay. Substitute epilepsy for blindness. There are plenty of data points a mischievous physician could abuse to make life difficult for a patient. IMHO, the solution to that is not to forbid doctors to ask certain questions. The solution is to hold doctors accountable.

 

[kingpin008]

Substitute it with whatever you want, you're still comparing apples to oranges.

A physician should have no more right to ask me what guns I may or may not have in the house than he/she should be able to ask if I have seatbelts in my car. It's not germane to the relationship he or she has with the patient.

Does that mean a law is necessary to keep those type of questions from being asked? Maybe. I think it should be a last-resort after other solutions have been tried and failed, but I'm not willing to say that there shouldn't be a law prohibiting it.

 

[Yo Mama]

Am I the only one glad that the Bradies are spending resources and time on a futile issue?

They are an irrelevant organization, I could care less about what they are fighting over at any given time. I enjoy having an F rating, we're kinda proud here of it.