Brady Center sues over new "Physician Gag Law"

[Al Norris]

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a policy on firearms. It can be viewed here. The following is an abstract of that policy, as seen at the linked site:

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. 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. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years.

This written policy has not changed since it was published in 2000. Of note is the use of the thoroughly debunked and discredited Kellerman studies. That's enough right there to discredit anything else they say. But read what they say about 2A law:

Several legal reviews emphasize that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's gun ownership. Two cases,Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, have established the meaning of the Second Amendment. These and later federal court rulings have indicated that the "right" to bear arms is linked to the preservation of state militias and is not intended to provide for an individual's right to own a firearm. The federal government could ban whole categories of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons.

We all know the outcome of both Heller and McDonald. So do they. It would jeopardize their policy to update it with current facts, studies and law. So they don't. What they do, is to continue to spread outright lies from false statistics and discredited studies.

Now you can go to the websites of the AMA, the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, and within moments, pull up the same kind of information. Much of it, like here, outdated and/or discredited.

The real question is not the law being attacked. But who is attacking this law and most importantly, why?

For those of you still harping that this a 1A issue, let me remind you that the Brady Center couldn't care less about free speech. They are funding this for one reason and one reason alone.

If after all this time, you don't understand what the Brady's are after, then nothing anyone says will sway you from your current thinking.

 

[Reasoned1]

Withdrawn.

 

[LibShooter]

For those of you still harping that this a 1A issue, let me remind you that the Brady Center couldn't care less about free speech.
...
If after all this time, you don't understand what the Brady's are after, then nothing anyone says will sway you from your current thinking.

I don't read minds, so I don't know if The Brady Center cares about free speech. But I suspect you are right on this issue. However, I don't care what they care about. I do care about the First Amendment, though and it applies to those who agree with us and those who don't.

We don't need laws telling people what they can and can't talk about with other people. We don't need laws telling people what they can and can't write down. This is absolutely a 1A issue because the Florida Legislature did make a law abridging physicians' freedom of speech. If the Brady Center is opposing this law they are right, no matter what their motives. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

BTW, Neither the AMA or the APA is trying to turn gun ownership into a disease. They are saying having guns around children is a hazard. And you know what..? That's not an unreasonable position. One reason we have safes is to keep potentially dangerous guns away from kids.

Your doctor is allowed to believe you shouldn't have guns at home. He's allowed to tell you that. A stopped clock is right twice a day. You have the right to tell him to shut his pie hole and get back to doctoring. That's how this free speech thing works.

 

[kludge]

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

And then she checked the "yes" box.

I wonder how much of this information is being put into some health care database.

 

[Twiki357]

Maybe I’m a little to paranoid, but medical questioning about firearms in the house (So I’ve heard) is starting out in medical schools. I understand that it is also a required input field for the government accessible computerized medical records required by obamacare. I DO know that it was a question on a recent medical evaluation questionnaire from my insurance carrier. A common consensus is that it is an end run around the prohibition on the access to BATF records by the hussain obama administration and his anti-gun cronies. I don’t think a doctor or any medical professional has any business asking any question that is not directly applicable to the patient or the current medical situation. Unfortunately, my preferred response of [It’s none of your f__n business] is the same as saying yes, so yes I will lie to him when he oversteps his bounds.

 

[thanatopsis]

its interesting to keep hearing there is no reason for a doctor to know if you own any firearms especially seen as there is one occupational hazard that we all encounter as shooters, which is Lead Poisoning. Doctors like to know about life style habits so that they can tailor what they are looking for to each patient, some one who hunts or hikes in forests may need periodic tests for Lyme disease what someone who races cars may not need.

I think the law approaches an issue in a heavy handed method that will prevent doctors from providing the highest quality of care they could. Doctors in FL now have to fear criminal penalties for talking to patients about a specific recreational activity that have specific hazards that should be kept watch of.

 

[Gadzooks Mike]

Guys, this isn't something the medical community just came up with. It's required because of the health care bill rammed through our last Congress. Individual states are trying to get it stopped. Alabama had a bill ready, but it didn't come up for a vote - blocked in the house.

 

[RTR_RTR]

citation?

 

[Gadzooks Mike]

citation?

Sure. H.R.3590 Sections 3015, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, and about a dozen others. You'll need (or should be) a lawyer to figure it all out, but in a nutshell, "The Secretary" (of HHS, currently Sebelius) can ask for anything he/she wants in order to make us a healthier population. There are other sections that explain about the state collection points (HIE's) where all the computerized health data will be collected.

This is very much like the question, "Have you ever smoked tobacco?" Doesn't matter if you do now or not, but DID YOU? Now let's say you answer "Yes, but I quit 12 years ago!" The YES box gets checked. Now you're 80 and you have emphysema. Let's further say that your neighbor said NO and also is 80 and also has emphysema. Who's going to get the better treatment?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not going to guess. That's something for everyone to think about themselves. I do, however, question the fact that someone in Washington whom I have never met has my best interests at heart.

Citation indeed. But it's only 906 pages and makes for an interesting read, especially if you're in the healthcare industry.

 

[LibShooter]

Who's going to get the better treatment?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not going to guess.

I'll guess. They'll get the same treatment. No one is ever going to get substandard treatment based on which boxes are checked on a form in some computer somewhere. Never.

And no one is going to be singled out for any... um... whatever folks are afraid will happen if they check the "yes" box next to a question about guns on a medical form.

 

[JustinL]

As I seem to be the first physician to weigh in on this

At no time in my training was I ever instructed to ask my patients if they own any firearms.

I have never felt compelled to ask any of my patients if they own any firearms.

I have never heard another physician comment about asking their patients about firearms.

I have never read any articles detailing how gun ownership should be considered a disease.

There is no secret database that we keep to create a backdoor gun registry for the ATF.

I do know plenty of other physicians who are gun owners.

I do think there are plenty of clinical scenarios in which it is perfectly reasonable to ask a patient if they own any. I just haven't been in that situation yet.

My two cents.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

JustinL: As I seem to be the first physician to weigh in on this

At no time in my training was I ever instructed to ask my patients if they own any firearms.

I have never felt compelled to ask any of my patients if they own any firearms.

I have never heard another physician comment about asking their patients about firearms.

I have never read any articles detailing how gun ownership should be considered a disease.

There is no secret database that we keep to create a backdoor gun registry for the ATF.

I do know plenty of other physicians who are gun owners.

I do think there are plenty of clinical scenarios in which it is perfectly reasonable to ask a patient if they own any. I just haven't been in that situation yet.

My two cents.

That's great.





Your obviously not a part of this group: Doctor's Against Handgun Injury


http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/




.

 

[swinokur]

What happened to Doctor-patient confidentiality?

Even if I did tell him yes-how could he say anything w/o violating his Hippocratic Oath?

 

[martialartsblackbelt]

what if the patient takes anti depressants? would this be justification to take their fire arm rights away? if so thats about 50 % of the US

 

[LibShooter]

what if the patient takes anti depressants? would this be justification to take their fire arm rights away?

No.

But here's an example of why a doctor may ask about guns. Some anti-depressants increase suicidal thoughts, especially in teens. The physician can suggest gun owners take special care to keep their firearms away from their kids.

I know nobody here on THR needs that advice, but not all gun owners are as conscientious as we are.

 

[martialartsblackbelt]

what if the patient is taking them for a digionous of Major depression or bi polar mood disorder. or schizophrenia? where suicide and violent out burst are listed symptoms in the DSM book?
the patient may not have any of those symptoms but better safe then sorry right?

 

[LibShooter]

I think a patient being treated for schizophrenia would likely fail the background check.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I think a patient being treated for schizophrenia would likely fail the background check.

Not unless he's committed a crime.



Sometimes mass murders/school shooters, what not, their first major crime is the big one. I believe the AZ shooter was like that.
.

 

[RTR_RTR]

Sure. H.R.3590 Sections 3015, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, and about a dozen others. You'll need (or should be) a lawyer to figure it all out, but in a nutshell, "The Secretary" (of HHS, currently Sebelius) can ask for anything he/she wants in order to make us a healthier population. There are other sections that explain about the state collection points (HIE's) where all the computerized health data will be collected.

This is very much like the question, "Have you ever smoked tobacco?" Doesn't matter if you do now or not, but DID YOU? Now let's say you answer "Yes, but I quit 12 years ago!" The YES box gets checked. Now you're 80 and you have emphysema. Let's further say that your neighbor said NO and also is 80 and also has emphysema. Who's going to get the better treatment?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not going to guess. That's something for everyone to think about themselves. I do, however, question the fact that someone in Washington whom I have never met has my best interests at heart.

Citation indeed. But it's only 906 pages and makes for an interesting read, especially if you're in the healthcare industry.

Thanks, I'll take a look at them eventually - midterm week. Just don't want you to think I'm ignoring!

 

[LibShooter]

I think a patient being treated for schizophrenia would likely fail the background check.

Not unless he's committed a crime.

Or if he's been committed to a mental institution. I'm sorry that I jumped to the conclusion that treatment for schizophrenia would involve hospitalization. That's not true.

 

[bushmaster1313]

The highest incidence of drug abuse is among physicians.

Perhaps we should have law requiring doctors to post weekly drug test results in their waiting rooms

 

[Neverwinter]

has anyone brought up that this may be a sort of gun reregisters?
i mean all of our medical files are on line and digital now

And they're still covered by privacy regulations.

The highest incidence of drug abuse is among physicians.

Perhaps we should have law requiring doctors to post weekly drug test results in their waiting rooms

Can you explain the logical path that led from the thread topic to drug testing physicians? I am very interested.

 

[Guillermo]

This discussion makes me really appreciate my doctor.

He forwards the office phone to his cell phone when he leaves at night so that he can easily check messages and answer the important ones.
Does his best to be prompt for an appointment.
If patients are not stacked up he asks what I am carrying, and why.
Never "instructs"...only "advises".

If I could just get him to explain what he did to be awarded the bronze star w "v device"!!!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Can you explain the logical path that led from the thread topic to drug testing physicians? I am very interested.

Provides an argument against the policy.
Shows that their motive is political not safety related
If they really wanted to do some policing to help patient safety they should police themselves first.

 

[publius]

In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled businesses have a right to express their political beliefs.

Reaffirming NAACP v Button from 1963, in which they ruled that soliciting legal business is first amendment-protected activity for a corporation.

Odd that the majority cited that case and the dissents did not touch it at all. Answering citations is kind of a Supreme Court tradition, unless there is no good answer...