Brady Center sues over new "Physician Gag Law"

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's stopping a doctor saying "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, if you are interested here is some information on gun safety and children. Would you like me to answer any questions?"

Groundbreaking isn't it?
Click to expand...

I agree, there's a common sense solution to most problems. I guess the lawsuit industry doesn't see it that way, though.

And what if patients, upon being asked, don't want to tell doctors whether they have guns or not?? I wonder if the Brady Center will stand up for THEIR rights to privacy??
 
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.
Click to expand...

He or she DOES have the right to ask you if your car has seatbelts or who you like in the Stanley Cup or how you take your coffee or if you get enough exercise or if you saw last night's extra special episode of Glee or any number of other questions that may or not be germane to his or her relationship with a patient. That's what "the freedom of speech" mentioned in the First Amendment means.
 
And here we go again. Hmmmm.

A few posts back an entry was made suggesting a patient challenge a physician regarding the training they have had regarding firearms safety. I agree. I'd be inclined to ask the Doc about that aspect. Most times that would shut the conversation down. There is no situation where bantering back and forth with an MD who already has his/her mind made up is in your best interests. Shut up. If they want to talk about boating safety, do so. If not, keep it on topic. Tell them you appreciate their concern and leave it at that.
 
This whole thing has been a long time in coming.

Back in 2001, Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., who was then eiditor-in-chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, published his article expressing the dangers of the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, politicizing their anti-gun beliefs when using their positions of authority with their (vulnerable) patients. That article (from 2001) is here.

Has this changed?

In 2009, Dr Timmothy Wheeler was head of DRGO (Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership) wrote an article for the Clairemont Institute, Stating that nothing had changed. That article is here. Perhaps you might remember DRGO and The Clairemont Institute? Most recently (for those that are following 2A court cases) they filed an amicus brief for the plaintiff/appellant in Prieto v. Gore.

Now we can look at the lawsuits announcement at Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-florida-doctors-guns-idUSTRE75572Q20110606. This gives us the following:

But the plaintiffs -- three individual doctors and the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians ...
Click to expand...

Aren't these the same groups identified by Dr. Faria in the 2001 article?

This isn't a free speech case. It is a case of ideological activists, bent on getting "gun violence" classified as a disease. If they can't legislate them away, if they can't get the Courts to prohibit them, then they will take our guns away because it's a public health problem that trumps everything else. Period. That is their stated goal. And the Brady's don't much care how they get there, as long as they do.

There is much more at stake here than some Doctors supposed right to free speech.
 
@ #24

My shrink at the V.A. facility held up my license-renewal for 3 months, simply by stating that, :... I don't ever sign a kind of letter like that..." (she's Phillipina) after I had truthfully signed the new (post-HSA) state requirement about "...EVER HAVING HAD PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING ['Nam-vet group therapy; ans.: "yes"] in order to renew my license. It took 6 letters to 2 Congressmen to rectify the problem. I now have a lifer license.
 
OK. I just RECAPped the docket for the case.

The Case: Wollschlaeger et al v. Scott et al
Case Number: 1:2011cv22026
Filed: June 6, 2011
Court: Florida Southern District Court
Office: Miami Office

The Plaintiffs: Bernd Wollschlaeger , Judith Schaechter , Tommy Schechtman , American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter , American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter and American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc. (various attorneys from the Brady Center)

The Defendents: Rick Scott, Kurt S. Browning, Frank Farmer, Elizabeth Dudek and Lucy Gee

Justia Info: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv22026/380612/
Docket: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.380612/gov.uscourts.flsd.380612.docket.html

Did I overstate the problem in my prior post? Take a look at the Factual Background heading:

A. Necessity of Safety Counseling as Preventative Medicine

Unless the Doctor is also a qualified firearms trainer, how is s/he qualified to "counsel" anyone on firearms safety, let alone pass it off as "preventative medicine?" Read the complaint, it's only 27 pages.
 

Attachments

  • gov.uscourts.flsd.380612.1.0.pdf
    92.8 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
So how can a patient tell if his doctor’s advice about guns is good preventive medicine or political activism? Patients can assess a doctor’s advice by keeping the following questions in mind:

Does the doctor respect your right to keep guns? Or does he subtly send a message that guns are somehow bad? Moral judgments about the right to self defense, hunting, or other legitimate uses of guns are not acceptable subjects for a doctor talking to a patient. Does the doctor quote statistics from the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Medical Association about the supposed risks of guns in the home? Do you see anti-gun posters or pamphlets from these organizations in her office?
Click to expand...

From the link posted earlier itself. From the perspective of a future physician, I think the law is crap, not to mention the fact that it is easily worked around by rephrasing, as has been mentioned in this thread. While that rephrasing is more tactful (and more evidence-based, medical communication-wise, in that it seeks the permission of the patient), it doesn't really change the issue. Proper gun safety with children in the household is essential, and if you believe that the THR population is a representative sample of gunowners as a whole, I think you're mistaken. Even on THR, I have read posts where a member will claim to be keeping a firearm "out of the reach" of a young child by keeping it on a high shelf or dresser (quickly followed by "lock your f***ing guns up!"'s by other posters, but the point stands).

Along with helmet safety as the child reaches 5 or 6 and wants to ride a bike, or safe sex counseling to the child as the child progresses through the teens, parents should be offered counseling regarding gun safety as their children become more mobile. Suicidal patients and their families should be worked with to keep firearms out of the suicidal patients' possession while they work through that period in their lives. (Before the arguments about the plethora of ways to commit suicide, guns are quick, painless, and the action is irreversible, unlike many other ways).

It is a crappy thing that a physician would exploit their power imbalance to drive a political belief. The law is equally crappy. You're always welcome to just reply "no" (truthfully or not) regardless of the physician's intent, and you're welcome to find another physician, if you feel the intent was inappropriate. I think a much more reasonable and sound move would have been to campaign directly against the respective physicians' associations' statements than create a law impinging upon individual physician practice.

There's also always the option of you educating your physician, if you feel they are good intentioned and believe you are more well informed regarding gun safety than they, hoping to guide their better practice.
 
RTR, read the complaint. These doctors are treating guns, as a whole, as a preventable disease. The 1A angle is just a sham to get to the end game.
 
Last edited:
The associations are, which is a shame. The law does not address that, at least not in a good way, in my opinion. I also never mentioned 1A, for what it's worth, because I don't think it has a good place in this argument either.

Edit: While I believe that they are well intentioned, I believe the "a no gun home is the safest home" stance is narrow minded, and the safe gun ownership stance should be emphasized exclusively. Not to even get into the constitution.
 
This isn't a free speech case. It is a case of ideological activists, bent on getting "gun violence" classified as a disease.
Click to expand...

It is a free speech case because ideological activists have as much right to speak freely as you or I do.
 
Not all docs support this. My pediatrician knows I own guns (she's a customer and has a carry permit).

She also has no problem with me checking the "no guns in the home" box on the questionairre, and said she wouldn't check it either.
 
Best to avoid political discussions with people you do business with overall unless you have a relationship outside "the office".
 
.
RTR, read the complaint. These doctors are treating guns, as a whole, as a preventable disease. The 1A angle is just a sham to get to the end game.
Click to expand...




This.





They say "gun violence" is a disease.





It's not the case, criminal violence is the problem.


.
 
This isn't a free speech case. It is a case of ideological activists, bent on getting "gun violence" classified as a disease.
Click to expand...

And quite possibly, down the road, gun OWNERSHIP. One of the tactics of our ever expanding government (and their operatives in the media and academia) is to
pathologize all notions, opinions or ideas that don't meet with their approval or preferences. Examples: xenophobia, homophobia, technophobia, etc. These really aren't actual phobias in a psychological sense, but using the language of psychology can be effective in marginalizing attitudes that "modern" thinkers deem unsavory.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me this would be a good time to engage the doctor in conversation about guns rather than refuse to answer their questions or make a smart remark.

 I work with some doctors and while many have a very high opinion of themselves, to the point of arrogance, they’re typically intelligent. It’s possible that they can have discussion with someone from an opposing viewpoint without firing the patient.

 The doctor who fired that woman might have done so because he’s completely anti-gun or he may have done so because he doesn’t wish to have a patient who refuses to discuss issues, lies, or gives answers that can be seen as antagonistic. Her having guns may have had nothing to do with her being told to get another doctor.

 Having a discussion with your doctor, even if you feel it’s none of their business, can only help. The way you answer can be as important as what you say. The doctor may just want to hear you say you are aware that guns are dangerous for children to have access to and you have taken steps to ensure that they either don’t or are properly trained, etc.

 You also may change his mind about his stance on guns. You likely will walk away at least knowing how he feels. Then you can fire him if necessary.

 The leaders of these various organizations may be rabidly anti-gun. That does not mean an individual doctor is. They may be required to ask such questions.

 My son’s doctor asks all kinds of questions; including if we have guns in the house. I said yes, locked up in a safe, and it’s never come up again. Was that her business? Debatable, but I didn’t mind that she asked. She also asks if we have our hot water heater set to no higher than 120 degrees; every time we go in.
 
Last edited:
slydel0kt said:
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
Click to expand...
Now, this I like.
 
I forgot to add; the Brady Center is obviously using this as an excuse to go after guns. As was said above, they don’t care at all about doctor’s free speech.

I don’t think a doctor should have the option of firing a patient because there are guns in the house and maybe that makes the gag law necessary – maybe – but I don’t think a doctor should necessarily be prohibited from discussing subjects like firearms. Guns can and do hurt kids. Pediatricians can and should discuss all manner of safety related subjects; providing it simply isn’t an anti-gun witch hunt.
 
The leaders of these various organizations may be rabidly anti-gun. That does not mean an individual doctor is. They may be required to ask such questions.

My son’s doctor asks all kinds of questions; including if we have guns in the house. I said yes, locked up in a safe, and it’s never come up again. Was that her business? Debatable, but I didn’t mind that she asked. She also asks if we have our hot water heater set to no higher than 120 degrees; every time we go in.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's been mentioned on any other posts, but the issue isn't so much what a doctor's allowed to to ask concerning guns. It's what the patient is required to tell him if he asks. Heck, I suppose my plumber has the right to ask how much money I have in my bank account, if he wants. If "none of your business" is an acceptable answer, then maybe it isn't much of an issue.

As you get to know a doctor, you develop a relationship personally, and he may want information to give friendly advice. My kid's doctor asked about my motorcycles (back when I owned them) and told me in no uncertain terms that I shouldn't take my five year old for rides on my bike. He had no right to tell me this, but his own daughter died in a traffic accident, so I understood his perspective and it didn't bother me that he said it.

Keep in mind, however, physicians are often required by law to pursue lines of questioning about other things like potential child abuse, domestic abuse, gun shot wounds, etc., and report such things to the authorities, so they often DO act in a limited governmental or law enforcement capacity. In that sense, when you tell your doctor about your guns, you kind of are reporting to the "authorities."

Also, when someone asks a yes-or-no question about things like guns, the answer "none of your business" could be taken by some as an implicit "yes."
 
Jim NE said:
My kid's doctor asked about my motorcycles (back when I owned them) and told me in no uncertain terms that I shouldn't take my five year old for rides on my bike. He had no right to tell me this, but his own daughter died in a traffic accident, so I understood his perspective and it didn't bother me that he said it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I might argue that he had every right to tell you that. You have every right to weigh the merits of his advice and follow it or not; assuming there’s no laws against having a kid on a motorcycle.

Every parent starts out with that first kid; likely without all the knowledge they really need for the job. I know I felt overwhelmed at first. I’d bet that many people ask their doctors advice on all kinds of non-medical things because a pediatrician is someone who has seen all kinds of parents from all walks of life.

They also see the types of things that cause injuries. Gun related injuries may be rare but when they do happen they are serious injuries. As I said, my pediatrician asked about guns once. She asks about other things like poisons, hot water, bike helmets and car seats with regularity.

It’s OK for a doctor to offer advice or to try and determine that the household environment is safe. That would fall under an ounce of prevention is the best medicine. I’m not saying you have to answer all the questions truthfully, but what’s the downside to doing so?

If that advice become mandatory or else you’re fired as a patient then that is inappropriate. In such cases I might even contact the medical board to file a complaint, but do you really want that guy as your doctor anyway?


Advice - OK
Mandatory compliance for something that's not illegal - not OK
 
Advice - OK
Mandatory compliance for something that's not illegal - not OK
Click to expand...

That's a good way to sum it up.

When I said "he had no right" I didn't mean that in a legal sense...I meant it in a more colloquial sense, as in nobody has the right to tell you how to raise your kids. Of course they actually DO have a legal right to tell you how to raise them, but no right to make you raise them a certain way, for the most part. I took his statement as strong and well intentioned advice (and I wouldn't want my 5 year old on a motorcycle anyway.)

I actually plead ignorance on this Brady thing, as context is everything and I don't know the context or particulars of the law. But I do think the Brady organization has gone overboard many times in the past, sometimes without regard to constitutional considerations.

I guess it's important to know if this info is to be recorded and/or given to the authorities...or if it's just part of a gun safety program when you have kids. If it's the latter, I still like the idea of saying "If you own guns, here's some important safety info."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Brady allegedly to sue GA Town
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Jaymo
J
S
  • Locked
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
Replies
2
Views
469
armoredman
armoredman
W
  • Locked
Florida MD restrictions overturned.
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
BSA1
  • Locked
Brady Group sues Kansas
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
L
  • Locked
Bradys: No guns in parks
Replies
14
Views
1K
Tyris
T
Back
Top