Doctor visit today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point. I fully underestand the points made about pediatricians asking about hazards in the home when small children are present. However, my visit was to an internist/cardiologist and I am 65 years old, hardly the kind of patient who a doctor should spend valuable time with discussing possible pediatric hazards. I would much prefer his spending time with me, at least, discussing topics that might be relevant to MY health. After all, that's why I came to see him.

I still don't think it's within the realm of topics for any doctor to want to know, as a general rule, whether I have any firearms in my home. That's my business. What if our financial adviser or accountant asked the same question of any of us? Would we feel it was any of their business? How about your auto mechanic or appliance repairman? Would you feel any more or less inclined to discuss your firearms ownership with them, unless you happened to be discussing the upcoming turkey season, and where the best place to hunt might be?
 
I went to the VA last year to see a doc about some anxiety issues I'd been having. The only reason I went there instead of my pcp was because I wasn't sure if it was some form of PTSD. He started asking if I had guns in the house and I told him I did. He seemed more concerned about that than the anxiety issues I was having. He said it was because he was concerned because if I was depressed, that would be a concern. Even after I told him I've never had problems with depression, he still insisted on asking why I felt the need to own firearms. I was so damn pissed off at the guy I just wanted to tell him to f off and walk out. Needless to say, I've never been back to the VA.
 
I am 65 years old, hardly the kind of patient who a doctor should spend valuable time with discussing possible pediatric hazards. I would much prefer his spending time with me, at least, discussing topics that might be relevant to MY health.
Click to expand...
Medical problems that might be related to shooting:
  • Hearing loss
  • Elevated blood lead level
  • Hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, and back problems

Preventive medicine issues related to a gun in the home of a 65 year-old
  • Access of the gun to visiting children (grandkids)
  • Access of the gun to an adult child or spouse, who may have depression or other mental illness
  • Access of the gun to the patient, if he has a history of depression, or is on a medication that might cause depression--or if the physician might ever consider giving him a new medication that has depression as a possible side-effect.

Just off the top of my head.
 
This is not a new thing. Doctors often follow the CDC and our own U.S. Public Health Service positions, and many being acadmics have the broad, liberal view that guns are "bad".

"Last year Congress tried to take away $2.6 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In budgetary terms, it was a pittance: 0.1 percent of the CDC's $2.2 billion allocation. Symbolically, however, it was important: $2.6 million was the amount the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control had spent in 1995 on studies of firearm injuries. Congressional critics, who charged that the center's research program was driven by an anti-gun prejudice, had previously sought to eliminate the NCIPC completely. "This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America," wrote 10 senators, including then Majority Leader Bob Dole and current Majority Leader Trent Lott. "Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense."

"When CDC sources do cite adverse studies, they often get them wrong. In 1987 the National Institute of Justice hired two sociologists, James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, to assess the scholarly literature and produce an agenda for gun control. Wright and Rossi found the literature so biased and shoddy that it provided no basis for concluding anything positive about gun laws. Like Kleck, they were forced to give up their own prior faith in gun control as they researched the issue."

"As Bordua, Cowan, and Southwick observed, a prejudice against gun ownership pervades the public health field. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, nicely summarizes the typical attitude of her colleagues in a recent book. "My own view on gun control is simple," she writes. "I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned." Opposition to gun ownership is also the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC's parent agency. Since 1979, its goal has been "to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," starting with a 25 percent reduction by the turn of the century."
Click to expand...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x314650
 
My family practitioner (passed away recently, unfortunately) was not really pro-2A by any definition, but never pressed any sort of agenda into his practice. Good guy, different political views, but sticked within what was relevant for the exam.

My pediatrician has forms we get for each exam with the kids. They don't ask about firearms, but give recommendations from everything from what to expect with your kids behavior, to storing household chemicals to ... firearms. Two years ago, the forms had a one line recommendation about not having firearms at all if you ahve kids. Recently, I noticed they changed the recommendation to "if you have firearms, do not store them in the house." One of the more useless recommendations I can think of.
 
Medical problems that might be related to shooting:
Hearing loss none
Elevated blood lead level none
Hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, and back problems none

Preventive medicine issues related to a gun in the home of a 65 year-old
Access of the gun to visiting children (grandkids) none
Access of the gun to an adult child or spouse, who may have depression or other mental illness none
Access of the gun to the patient, if he has a history of depression none, or is on a medication that might cause depressionn none--or if the physician might ever consider giving him a new medication that has depression as a possible side-effect. none

Still none of his business.
 
Medical Questionnaire (spoofing): 1. do you own a car. 2. do you drive it safely. 3. Has your car killed anyone when driven by you. 4. Are you aware that cars kill more people than guns? 5. Has you car ever been stolen and used to commit a crime? 6. Do you allow children to play with your car?
It could go on and on and probably will in the future as the Nannie State takes over your freedom.
Click to expand...

Or a much more realistic situation - How does your child ride in the car? Do you use a child seat? Child seats have been shown to be safer for children until they reach x height, and I would highly recommend you look into purchasing one if you haven't already.

Medical problems that might be related to shooting:
Hearing loss none
Elevated blood lead level none
Hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, and back problems none

Preventive medicine issues related to a gun in the home of a 65 year-old
Access of the gun to visiting children (grandkids) none
Access of the gun to an adult child or spouse, who may have depression or other mental illness none
Access of the gun to the patient, if he has a history of depression none, or is on a medication that might cause depressionn none--or if the physician might ever consider giving him a new medication that has depression as a possible side-effect. none

Still none of his business.
Click to expand...

Then don't tell him anything ;) You're more than welcome to refuse to discuss anything about your sex life as well. It's all your choice.

I went to the VA last year to see a doc about some anxiety issues I'd been having. The only reason I went there instead of my pcp was because I wasn't sure if it was some form of PTSD. He started asking if I had guns in the house and I told him I did. He seemed more concerned about that than the anxiety issues I was having. He said it was because he was concerned because if I was depressed, that would be a concern. Even after I told him I've never had problems with depression, he still insisted on asking why I felt the need to own firearms. I was so damn pissed off at the guy I just wanted to tell him to f off and walk out. Needless to say, I've never been back to the VA.
Click to expand...

While focusing on firearms wasn't the best thing, as described, the comorbidity rates between anxiety disorders, depression, and PTSD are very high, and it would be a bad doctor who doesn't strongly investigate the possibility of depression
 
Still none of his business.
Click to expand...
No: still is

Since those could have been part of your history, and also because asking about guns in the house is considered standard medical practice these days, he can reasonably choose to ask.

In return, you can reasonably choose to refuse to answer, or even to find another doctor. Or you can unreasonably decide you know what his business should be better than he does.

And you've made your choices. :D
 
Well, again, my question is WHY is asking about guns in the house considered standard medical practice these days? He never asked if I own any baseball bats, knives, or a chain saw? What is it about firearms that makes some doctors think they need to ask if I own any? There are a lot of other things in and around my home that are far more dangerous to me and to others than firearms.

I guess I just resent the asking about firearms and not about any other dangerous things and practices.
 
Knives are dangerous, but kids learn very quickly what sharp is and what sharp things are - there's generally a lot of opportunity for learning to take place. Guns, you don't get many learning opportunities. Baseball bats? Really? And how many toddlers are starting chainsaws?

More realistic threats that should be addressed - preventing access to cleaners and other chemicals, covering electrical outlets, binding blinds string, etc. These are things that should be brought up, along with recommendations for safe gun storage. As was said earlier (I think), plenty of people underestimate the resourcefulness of toddlers and think "just putting something up high" is adequate. Tragedy can result.
 
Knives are dangerous, but kids learn very quickly what sharp is and what sharp things are - there's generally a lot of opportunity for learning to take place. Guns, you don't get many learning opportunities. Baseball bats? Really? And how many toddlers are starting chainsaws?
Click to expand...
Let's see, people are still cutting themselves as adults with knives because even though they know which part is sharp, they still touch it.
When I was in High School, baseball bats were the weapon of choice for fights. And that was when guns were allowed on campus in your vehicle and you could make knifes in shop class, but you could have a bat in your locker.
My children all tried playing with my chainsaws when they could sneak into the shop.
 
Let's see, people are still cutting themselves as adults with knives because even though they know which part is sharp, they still touch it.
Click to expand...

Not the non-masochistic adults I'm familiar with... Unless you're talking about accidents. At any rate, how life threatening are those injuries? Even severe lacerations are generally not imminently life threatening unless you manage to sever one of the few major superficial veins/arteries.

When I was in High School, baseball bats were the weapon of choice for fights. And that was when guns were allowed on campus in your vehicle and you could make knifes in shop class, but you could have a bat in your locker.
Click to expand...

We're talking about toddlers

My children all tried playing with my chainsaws when they could sneak into the shop.
Click to expand...

How successful were they? Chainsaws are just not built for 3-5 year olds to start.

How about this - try to look up an instance of a child involved in an accidental fatal shooting. Now look up an accidental fatal stabbing/bludgeoning/chainsaw massacring by a child. Go back and forth and see which you have trouble finding first.
 
It seems that some physicians assign themselves to the role of something like a "whole life counselor" where all aspects of the patients life are under review.

We are to defer to the doctor's superior education and social status as we are lectured about aspects of our life outside our physical bodies.

If that is what you want in a doctor, great. I do not.

When you mix the anti-gun politics of the different doctor's groups with advances in electronic medical records, and the issues surrounding keeping lists of gun owners out of the state's control, you get a toxic situation where the traditional relationship of the physician to his patient is degraded.

Bob
 
This is my point exactly. ^^^^^^

To repeat, everyone seems concerned with small children. I am 65, my children are all over 35 years old, and they have no children = no grandchildren, no little anklebiters running around my home. I am visiting with a cardiologist, not a pediatrician. Get it?

My original point was the doctor didn't like the querstion either and thought it invasive. So did I.
 
My parent's generation were never asked about firearms by their medical professionals (unless it was to find out what rifle or caliber to take on what hunt). They didn't need to.

It did not take a village to raise us. This did not mean that my parents didn't learn from others but it certainly meant that it was inappropriate to lecture them, from any source, in an unsolicited way on how to be "good" parents.

If the reason for a doctor visit is somehow related to firearms use, discussion of the subject could be considered within the bounds of the purpose of the visit. If it is not, all other subjects not related to the visit or of medical history is strictly out of bounds.

Information gathered inappropriately is ripe for misuse since it can very well be tied to an agenda, and subsequently used to curb freedoms and liberties of law abiding citizens. The CDC is blatant in this regard considering firearms rather than actions to be the source of firearm safety issues.

I stand 100% by my earlier posts (#41 & #44).

Dan
 
I look at it this way. I am not forced to see any particular doctor and can vote with my money and feet. If I answer yes and the doctor goes into some kind of anti-gun rant I feel I am better off for knowing who I am dealing with and can now go find a doctor with which I am more compatible.

Let’s be clear though, some people can be quite oblivious and need to be reminded of even the most basic safety items. This is not limited to firearms and doctors do not limit their safety questions to firearms.

My son’s doctor asked me about firearms. I answered they were safely stored and we moved on to other topics. It never came up again. We discussed a wide variety of safety related items. There’s nothing wrong or sinister about preventive medicine or advice. You are free to ignore it, answer the questions honestly, lie, engage in a debate or give hunting advice in return.

These questions aren’t aimed at you or me in particular. They are designed to find those people who are in need of this advice. Last week a women was arrested for holding a 1 year old on her lap while texting and driving, with two more kids unrestrained in the back.

If it’s not a political crusade of some kind the doctor isn’t going to waste time on a responsible firearm owner. If it is an anti-gun crusade – see paragraph 1.
 
nofishbob said:
It seems that some physicians assign themselves to the role of something like a "whole life counselor" where all aspects of the patients life are under review.

We are to defer to the doctor's superior education and social status as we are lectured about aspects of our life outside our physical bodies.

If that is what you want in a doctor, great. I do not.

When you mix the anti-gun politics of the different doctor's groups with advances in electronic medical records, and the issues surrounding keeping lists of gun owners out of the state's control, you get a toxic situation where the traditional relationship of the physician to his patient is degraded.

Bob
Click to expand...
MANY insurance companies have deemed it REQUIRED that YOUR doctor asks these questions. See my earlier post, but in a nutshell, insurance companies including some MEDICARE providers, have determined that if your doctor does not ask these questions , then he/ she is not doing the job properly, and may not get paid for that visit. Believe me, most doctors want to take care of you as efficiently as possible, but so many requirements have been put down by insuraqnce companies that make all our lives more difficult.
For example, did you know that if you are a smoker, and your doctor doesnt document on your chart that he talked to you about the dangers of smoking - the doctor may not get paid for that visit, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE YOUR VISIT WAS FOR.

example 2, if you habe a BMI that puts you in a range considered obese, your doctor must document in the chart that he talked to you about the health dangers of obesity, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR VISIT WADS FOR or else....you guessed it, your health insurance company can dock your doctors pay for that visit.

These are obviously medically important issues (smoking and obesity) but really, what sane adult can say that they aren't aware of the health risks of these , but still, your doctor is supposed to counsel you about these risks ON EVERY VISIT.

You might say " none of their business" but they have to ask, sometimes not by choice.
 
bergmen said:
My parent's generation were never asked about firearms by their medical professionals (unless it was to find out what rifle or caliber to take on what hunt). They didn't need to.

It did not take a village to raise us. This did not mean that my parents didn't learn from others but it certainly meant that it was inappropriate to lecture them, from any source, in an unsolicited way on how to be "good" parents.

If the reason for a doctor visit is somehow related to firearms use, discussion of the subject could be considered within the bounds of the purpose of the visit. If it is not, all other subjects not related to the visit or of medical history is strictly out of bounds.

Information gathered inappropriately is ripe for misuse since it can very well be tied to an agenda, and subsequently used to curb freedoms and liberties of law abiding citizens. The CDC is blatant in this regard considering firearms rather than actions to be the source of firearm safety issues.

I stand 100% by my earlier posts (#41 & #44).

Dan
Click to expand...
see my post above # 69. The people that pay your doctor for your health care say that these questions ARE NOT OUT OF BOUNDS. In fact they say that these questions are often REQUIRED
 
Last edited:
Additionally, you're opening yourself up to litigation if you breach that standard of care and that patient develops lung cancer, heart disease, etc.
 
or if your neighbors grandchild shoots themselves or someone else with a firearm from your nightstand
 
crew said:
see my post above # 69. The people that pay your doctor for your health care say that these questions ARE NOT OUT OF BOUNDS. In fact they say that these questions are often REQUIRED
Click to expand...

I can understand how you must ask these questions as a result of requirements from the insurance companies. But the insurance companies are requiring this as a CYA to prevent lawsuits.

This is being driven by attorneys. This is NOT being driven by concerns for my health. Nothing in your previous two posts suggests that you are looking out for your patients (not to suggest that you don't) by virtue of your responses. You are looking to comply with legal requirements.

I am not faulting you for this. This is a manifestation of a corruption of perspectives. Medical professionals know how to do their jobs without pesky interferences by lawyers, if only they were allowed to do so.

I am sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. But before malpractice suits became an industry, doctors were much more free to practice their profession for the specific benefit of their patients, not the lawyers.

Dan
 
Not sure about crew, but my input was just for additional perspective. I think it's in the patients' best interest.
 
These type of threads aren't really about the best interests of patients. It's about emotional responses to hot button topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Guess what the doctor asked me...
2 3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
8K
Amish_Bill
A
K
  • Locked
Interesting visit to the Doctor today
Replies
7
Views
889
hipoint
H
F
  • Locked
Somebody call a doctor!
Replies
16
Views
1K
3KillerBs
3
H
  • Locked
What caliber for spiders?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
quatin
Q
D
  • Locked
Found me a really cool Doctor......
Replies
18
Views
1K
Valkman
Valkman
Back
Top