Doctors need/want to know.

[Loosedhorse]

and the doctor should not have the right to prevent you from being his patient any longer.

I disagree. But that is not to say that your position is unreasonable. The most interesting court decisions involve two opposing reasonable arguments; and portions of the FL decision will no doubt be interesting.

I don't see your point here.

My point is that many (perhaps not you) seem to take the doctor's action of dismissing the patient as being motivated by an antigum agenda. I don't see any such agenda here.

It has already been established that this doctor does NOT dismiss patients who answer the question (either yes or no); and gave instead patient mistrust as his reason for excluding this patient. I am not sure why you consider that an invalid reason for dismissing a patient, or if I've missed your point.

(It's not even clear to me if this doctor excludes all patients who decline to answer the question, or just those who threaten to call their lawyer when asked.)

 

[HOOfan_1]

(It's not even clear to me if this doctor excludes all patients who decline to answer the question, or just those who threaten to call their lawyer when asked.)

Now it seems like you are misrepresenting the article.

When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused to answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child's examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn't welcome at Children's Health of Ocala anymore...

"All he asked me was, 'Are you refusing to answer the question?' and I said, 'Yes, I'm refusing to answer the question,'" she said. "The questions stopped at that point."

The article doesn't state that she threated to call her lawyer when asked the question. It said she refused to answer it.

Ullman said she called her husband from the doctor's office and threatened to call a lawyer over the incident.

It is not clear whether she had even called her husband before he told her to find a new doctor. It certainly does not state she threatened to call her lawyer directly after he asked her the question, nor does it state she told the doctor she was going to call a lawyer, it said she called her husband and threatened to call a lawyer over the incident. It is easier to imply from that statement that she told her husband that she would call a lawyer, than she told the doctor that she would call a lawyer.

I wouldn't want to do business with that doctor anyway...so yeah she should find a new doctor.

 

[sqwerl]

removed

 

[Loosedhorse]

The article doesn't state that she threated to call her lawyer when asked the question.

The article said this:

Ullman said Okonkwo - medical director of Children's Health of Ocala - didn't explain why he was asking the question.

"All he asked me was, 'Are you refusing to answer the question?' and I said, 'Yes, I'm refusing to answer the question,'" she said. "The questions stopped at that point."

Ullman said she called her husband from the doctor's office and threatened to call a lawyer over the incident.

You are perhaps saying that "the incident" is Okonkwo's dimissing her? You could be right. I thought "the incident" was his asking the question and her refusing. I could be wrong. But that's how I interpreted the writing.

It certainly does not state she threatened to call her lawywer directly after he asked her the question

It also certainly doesn't say that she didn't do that. Perhaps you find the writing unambiguous; I honestly thought it meant she did threaten up front, but (again) I agree your interpretation could be right.

It is easier to imply from that statement that she told her husband that she would call a lawyer

The word used was "threatened." In what way has she "threatened" to call a lawyer...if she hasn't told the doctor or his staff about it? The call was made while she was still at the office--maybe even from their phone?--and it is reasonable to assume the threat was made there, too.

 

[sqwerl]

It has already been established that this doctor does NOT dismiss patients who answer the question (either yes or no); and gave instead patient mistrust as his reason for excluding this patient. I am not sure why you consider that an invalid reason for dismissing a patient, or if I've missed your point.

Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be legally allowed to dismiss patients. I'm sure there are frequent issues of mistrust between a doctor and patient. Would a doctor dismiss a suspected drug addict if he/she refused to answer a question about drug use? They would have a right to do so but I wonder how often that happens?




This article indicates this case was part of the reason for the law:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/01/31/gvsa0131.htm

As HOOfan_1 stated, he dismissed her right after she refused to answer the question so that would have to be the point of his mistrust, not a threat of calling a lawyer as you suggested.
It seems like it's a case of he said/she said and nobody really knows what happened except the doctor and patient.


Here's a quote from the new article to back that up:

Dr. Okonkwo asked the mother if she owned a gun, but she refused to answer. For that reason, the physician gave her 30 days to find a new pediatrician, according to the Ocala Star-Banner. Dr. Okonkwo declined to speak to American Medical News for this article.

There's no evidence to prove this doctor has an anti-gun agenda based on his statement:

He said he asks such questions of all his patients so he can advise parents to lock their guns away from children.

But without knowing the facts of other cases we don't know that he counsels mothers on gun safety as he claims or recommends they take their guns out of their homes like the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends doctors do. I wonder how many doctors do or don't comply with their suggestions?

It's evident they're a hypocritical association. In the new article above there's the quote:

"We're not against guns, per se. What we're concerned about is proper storage and handling of firearms," said Louis St. Petery, MD, executive vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics

but the official position of the AAP is:

"We believe that handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned."

So they're not against guns, per se, just a great deal of them. lol

If that doesn't make it clear where they stand then maybe this will:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;105/4/888#SEC12

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.

and finally (from the first article):

Ullman said Okonkwo - medical director of Children's Health of Ocala - didn't explain why he was asking the question.

If we take what she says at face value, then he wasn't creating a relationship of trust to begin with. All he had to do was explain why he was asking the question and maybe she would've understood.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Here's a quote from the new article to back that up:

Dr. Okonkwo asked the mother if she owned a gun, but she refused to answer. For that reason, the physician gave her 30 days to find a new pediatrician, according to the Ocala Star-Banner. Dr. Okonkwo declined to speak to American Medical News for this article.

I do not see how that backs anything up. The threat to call the lawyer is not mentioned at all, and so the timing of that threat is not specified in the "new" article. As the doc refused to speak, the statement regarding his reason for dismissing her is speculative.

 

[sqwerl]

Dr. Okonkwo asked the mother if she owned a gun, but she refused to answer. For that reason, the physician gave her 30 days to find a new pediatrician, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.

All he asked me was, 'Are you refusing to answer the question?' and I said, 'Yes, I'm refusing to answer the question,'" she said. "The questions stopped at that point."

Ullman said she called her husband from the doctor's office and threatened to call a lawyer over the incident.

What do you not understand about this? The questioning stopped when she refused to answer so that would be the point he dismissed her to a new doctor. How could the call to a lawyer been his reasoning for dismissing her when according to both articles that happened after she refused to answer and the questioning stopped????

I never said anything wasn't speculative, in fact I said they each had their own side to the story. I just pointed out that what the new article provided was the reason for her dismissal was the same point the first article suggested the doctor dismissed her. The doctor was quoted in the first article so why would he have not made it clear that the reasoning was from the threat of legal action? Or do you believe the article conveniently left that part out and implied he did it before the threat?

 

[Loosedhorse]

What do you not understand about this? The questioning stopped when she refused to answer so that would be the point he dismissed her to a new doctor. [italics added]

As to the portion I've placed in italics: perhaps. The only thing I don't understand: why you're insisting that this is crystal clear.

What I do understand is that I don't know which of our interpretations is true. I think they're both reasonable, and you seem to think only yours is reasonable.

why would he have not made it clear that the reasoning was from the threat of legal action?

Ah, now you're asking me to speculate? Okay.

I'm not sure if you have ever been threatened with legal action. This doctor was. In that situation, I'd expect the doctor would either refuse to discuss matters (as he did in the second article) or attempt to give a reasonable justification (as in the first).

If her legal threat was either a primary or secondary reason for dismissing her, it does him no good to mention that while legal threat is still in the air.

If we take what she says at face value

Big if.

 

[jcwit]

Funny, I go to the VA for all my medical wants and needs.

Never, ever once has the topic of firearms, shooting, reloading, casting, or anything related to guns been brought up by the Dr.s.

I have asked to have my heavy metal ie: lead, to be tested, and I have mentioned target shooting to the eye Dr.

I would think is anyone would be concerned it would be the Government.

 

[sqwerl]

Maybe you missed page two of the first article.

When asked whether he explained to Ullman why he was asking about guns in her home, he said she was defensive and snapped at him, saying "That it wasn't any of my business ... so there was no point."

Okonkwo said the issue was not about whether the parents owned a gun.

He said the doctor and patient have to develop a relationship of trust and that if parents won't answer such basic safety questions, they cannot trust each other about more important health issues.

He said he respected a patient's right not to answer questions, but it was also his right to no longer treat them, and he isn't required by law to do so.

The doctor all but point blank states that she was let go due to their lack of trust and her failure to answer the question.

For your scenario to be true, the doctor did not present the truthful reason for letting her go.

Big if.

Why do you imply that she lacks credibility? The doctor's credibility would seem to be more of an issue for me to accept your theory. Why was he so candid in the above interview if he was worried about legal action instead of saying "no comment?"

 

[3KillerBs]

The first time I saw that question my thought was, "I live in rural North Carolina. Is this supposed to be a trick question?"

I generally decline to answer.

 

[zxcvbob]

If the doctor is that paternalistic, he did her a favor. Nobody needs a doc like that unless it's an emergency and nobody better is available.

 

[makarovnik]

This is nothing new. The first time I was asked this question by a doc was about 7 years ago (maybe longer) during a routine physical. I figured if I said "It's none of your business" he would check the "yes" box or the "patient refuses to answer box" so I lied and said "no" (my prerogative).

I think they might want to know if you have weapons in the house if you are being treated for depression, anxiety or other conditions that probably don't mix well with guns.

I have a very stable friend that was in so much pain after spine surgery (or was it hemorrhoid surgery) that he told his wife to hide the guns.

On the other hand, the doc may have been to gather this information for other reasons.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Not disposing of my objections to a doctor giving out firearms safety advice, I submit that they can do that without asking if the parent has a firearm. Beyond that, this thread started with an ADULT stating that his GP had a form asking about it. That precludes the idea that it is only to give firearms safety to parents in order to protect their children. The entire debate concerning the pediatrician didn't even start until post #59 on page #3.

Doctors can easily give out pool safety advice without asking if the parents have a pool, they can give out firearms safety advice without asking if the parents have a firearm. etc. etc.

There is no need for the doctor to know if the parents own a firearm...it really is none of their business. It takes about as long to say "If you have firearms, make sure they are locked up away from and inaccessible to your child" As it does to ask "do you have any firearms in your house" and then wait for the answer. I am sure most peditricians have pamphlets they can hand out for child safety around the home anyway.

With the controversies surrounding gun control these days...not to mention privacy concerns with medical care, I think the medical profession would do itself and its patients a favor by distancing itself from this issue. Give the advice if they want, advice is easy to take or leave as you like. Leave the probing questions out of it, unless it concerns a direct diagnosis of a medical problem.

That's all I have to say. I certainly don't hang around THR to debate politics and I need to stop letting myself get dragged into those debates.

 

[NOLAEMT]

I have a hard time believing some of the answers given by our members.

So some of you think it would accecptable to force to Dr. to treat patients he does not want to treat? A Doctor can refuse to treat a patient for any reason he wants, just like any other private business can. Refusing to answer questions is a perfectly valid reason to deny service to anyone. Many doctors now have contracts they require their patients to sign, saying that they will not be treated if they do not comply with medication orders, make appointments on time, etc. Especially with children, why would he want a patient whose parents threaten to sue him if he asks pertinent questions?

In addition, you don't have to be an NRA instructor to tell people that guns should be kept out of the reach of children. Just as you don't need to be a nascar driving instructor to know small children need to be in a car seat.

For some reason there is a segment of society today that feels that doctors are money hungry, selfish, etc. They then go to the doctor and demand a spicific antibiotic, or other medication, and then get upset when the doctor will not prescribe it; refusing to believe that perhaps the doctor, who has had 11 or more years of school after graduating highschool, might know more then they do.

 

[rjrivero]

PLEASE....Anyone who has had this question asked of them in their doctor's office, print this article and hand it to your doctor. A clear boundary violation being conducted on behalf of "HEALTH CARE."

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/boundary_violation.htm

 

[sqwerl]

So some of you think it would accecptable to force to Dr. to treat patients he does not want to treat? A Doctor can refuse to treat a patient for any reason he wants, just like any other private business can. Refusing to answer questions is a perfectly valid reason to deny service to anyone.

If you're referring to my posts, I've made it perfectly clear a doctor can deny service for any reason. All I said was that it was not right based on the question of whether the parent has guns in the home or not and the patient declining to answer.

HOOfan_1 is right. They can lecture and advise you about anything they want or need to without asking if you own guns, pools, cars, safety seats etc.

In addition, you don't have to be an NRA instructor to tell people that guns should be kept out of the reach of children. Just as you don't need to be a nascar driving instructor to know small children need to be in a car seat.

You're right, you don't need to have that expertise but you need to have common sense which regardless of what questioning/lecturing you get isn't going to fix stupid. And telling is different than questioning. Do doctors require you answer if you own a car before they give you child safety seat advice?
There are stats out there that gun deaths are usually far less depending on the year than car deaths yet the AAP doesn't seem to want to ban cars. If you go and look at their statistics on gun deaths, they usually lump all the gun deaths into one number regardless of self defense or LEO kills.

For some reason there is a segment of society today that feels that doctors are money hungry, selfish, etc. They then go to the doctor and demand a spicific antibiotic, or other medication, and then get upset when the doctor will not prescribe it; refusing to believe that perhaps the doctor, who has had 11 or more years of school after graduating highschool, might know more then they do.

I think anybody with a brain knows there are good doctors and bad doctors just like any profession but you certainly shouldn't demand anything out of them. Does 11 years of schooling guarantee that they're a good person not to mention a good doctor? You're making a straw man argument that has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[MattTheHat]

... doctors now have contracts they require their patients to sign, saying that they will not be treated if they do not comply with medication orders, make appointments on time, etc. Especially with children, why would he want a patient whose parents threaten to sue him if he asks pertinent questions?

In addition, you don't have to be an NRA instructor to tell people that guns should be kept out of the reach of children. Just as you don't need to be a nascar driving instructor to know small children need to be in a car seat.

For some reason there is a segment of society today that feels that doctors are money hungry, selfish, etc. They then go to the doctor and demand a spicific antibiotic, or other medication, and then get upset when the doctor...

I'm just guessing those "contracts" don't provide relief for the patient's lost time when the patient has to wait for the doctor for an hour. I'll also bet these "contracts" don't provide relief for the patient for *anything* the doctor may do wrong.

The whole idea of such a contract is so laughable that it really brings the intelligence of the doctor into question. If you or your child is at the doctor to be treated for an ailment, having to sign the contract in order to get service is the very definition of duress. Any contract signed under duress is null and void.

As far as "pertinent questions", what's pertinent about asking if there are guns in the home? Unless the questionnaire also lists every conceivable safety concern in the home, it belies the claim of being in the patient's interest.

-Matt

 

[DAP90]

I don’t think it’s a big deal. I’ve had this question asked of me by my pediatrician. I answered truthfully and we moved on with our lives. It never came up again. That same doctor asked about hot water temperatures at every visit for the first two years. I didn’t mind, even though he’s not a plumber.

There’s nothing wrong with advice to be safe and keep your firearms under control. There are people out there who actually need to be reminded of this.

Think of it as part of the interview process. If the doctor’s reaction is anti then at least you know and can make a decision about continuing with this doctor.

but the official position of the AAP is:
Quote:
"We believe that handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned."
So they're not against guns, per se, just a great deal of them. Lol

That’s the AAP’s position, not the individual doctors. They may be required to join that organization the same as if I worked for a unionized company. That doesn’t mean I agree with the unions political stances.

HOOfan_1 is right. They can lecture and advise you about anything they want or need to without asking if you own guns, pools, cars, safety seats etc.

It may be related to tailoring the advice to the individual. Why talk about pools if there isn’t one in the home? I answered numerous safety related questions that had nothing to do with guns.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Maybe you missed page two of the first article.

Maybe you missed that in a previous post I quoted from the same passage you did. Not sure it that means you're not careful, or you're trending to sarcasm.

The doctor all but point blank states that she was let go due to their lack of trust and her failure to answer the question.

For your scenario to be true, the doctor did not present the truthful reason for letting her go.

Absolutely wrong on your part. What could better demonstrate a lack of trust than the fact that the patient has threatened to sue? At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become adversarial, and should NOT be continued.

If the threat of suit was most or part of the reason that the doc discharged the patient, it would certainly be true that a lack of trust exists. So the doc did present a truthful reason, in "my scenario."

Why do you imply that she lacks credibility?

She is speaking at her own volition to a news source; heck, she may have called them herself (with or without having spoken to her lawyer first). I should perhaps therefore assume her goal is to give as unbiased a view of the events as she possibly can--portraying her actions correctly, warts and all? Or should I instead assume that she has (unintentionally or intentionally) slanted the facts a tad in her favor?

You can believe what you want. I have already stated (as you pointed out) the doc may be trying to paint himself in a good light by not mentioning her threat as an additional reason for dismissing the patient. If I have doubts about the doc's account, why should I not also have doubts about the mother's account? (Or about anything I read in a newspaper?)

A clear boundary violation being conducted on behalf of "HEALTH CARE."

Absolutely not. "Boundary violation" has a very specific meaning in medical care, and Wheeler's incorrect hijacking of the term is disingenuous at best.

In contrast to Wheeler's opinion stand the opinions of countless medical schools and medical organizations--exactly the type of organizations that in aggregate decide what medical professional standards (and boundaries) are. True: Wheeler's opinion is, while fringe, still a valid individual opinion, yet his contortion of the term hurts his argument.

Do doctors require you answer if you own a car before they give you child safety seat advice?

Maybe, since most people drive to his office, he assumes they have a car?

I'll also bet these "contracts" don't provide relief for the patient for *anything* the doctor may do wrong.

Why should they? The malpractice courts exist for that very thing!

The whole idea of such a contract is so laughable that it really brings the intelligence of the doctor into question.

No. One of the current complaints about American medicine is the passiveness of the patients: they are treated, they receive medications, they are scheduled for tests. And that passiveness is usually blamed, you guessed it, on the doctors.

How about getting a patient actively engaged in his health care? How about a patient who actually changes his diet? Who quits smoking? Who begins and sticks with an exercise program? Sure, some do, but most do not. Contracts are used as a way of communicating to patients: "This stuff is serious--it is NOT optional for good health."

And what about a patient who begins to store a gun more safely?

 

[sqwerl]

Maybe you missed that in a previous post I quoted from the same passage you did. Not sure it that means you're not careful, or you're trending to sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I just didn't know if you missed the second page. I was under that impression since the mention of suing, which you immediately picked up on is on the first page. Again, not being sarcastic that's just the impression I got from your earlier statement:

(It's not even clear to me if this doctor excludes all patients who decline to answer the question, or just those who threaten to call their lawyer when asked.)

The doctor all but point blank states that she was let go due to their lack of trust and her failure to answer the question.

For your scenario to be true, the doctor did not present the truthful reason for letting her go.

Absolutely wrong on your part. What could better demonstrate a lack of trust than the fact that the patient has threatened to sue? At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become adversarial, and should NOT be continued.

If the threat of suit was most or part of the reason that the doc discharged the patient, it would certainly be true that a lack of trust exists. So the doc did present a truthful reason, in "my scenario."

Why am I "absolutely wrong" basing my conclusion on his own words? I never said that threat of legal action couldn't be a reason for him excluding her. He could have let her go for any number of reasons and just blamed it on this "violation of trust" issue. For all we know, he could have accepted all patients that refused to answer questions up until that point and just didn't like her attitude, her shirt, etc. How's that for a scenario or any number of wild conjectures I could come up with? I'm basing my opinion on his own words.

He said the doctor and patient have to develop a relationship of trust and that if parents won't answer such basic safety questions, they cannot trust each other about more important health issues. He said he respected a patient's right not to answer questions, but it was also his right to no longer treat them, and he isn't required by law to do so.

In the context of this case, hence the reason for the interview, he implied that since she wouldn't answer a basic safety question, she lost his trust. Then he implied that even though it was her right not to answer, it's also his right to no longer treat her (or her child) for not answering the question.

Question --> Non-answer --> Lack of trust --> Dismissal. His words, not mine.

Maybe you're saying his statements could be construed as general/vague and want to get into a micro-analysis of the semantics of the articles' wording. That is my opinion of it and you have yours. You wonder why I feel my opinion is more plausible? Because both the patient's and doctor's statements implied or otherwise, indicate she was dismissed due to her not answering the question!

 

[Strykervet]

Funny, I go to the VA for all my medical wants and needs.

Never, ever once has the topic of firearms, shooting, reloading, casting, or anything related to guns been brought up by the Dr.s.

I have asked to have my heavy metal ie: lead, to be tested, and I have mentioned target shooting to the eye Dr.

I would think is anyone would be concerned it would be the Government.

You just haven't been asked yet. I was surprised when my doc asked me. The VA is always the speartip of negative changes in the healthcare industry. If something bad will be adopted, it will be adopted there first.

When you have a hypocritic, lying, secret, omnipotent goverment that is real concerned with mundane daily activities of its citizens, fingerprints and serializes children, takes your DNA for remains ID only purposes in the military, then changes the law to add that to the criminal database (putting all veterans in with convicts to be tested against when a crime occurs) when they are in bed with big corporations and it costs millions to be a "representative" of the people, or billions to be president, you have a problem. A big trust problem.

You know what you tell people that are that secretive, lying, and distrustful? Lies. All lies. I check the wrong race box, wrong birthdate, SSN, everything is made up. The only forms I am honest on are ones that have perjury penalties that I want to fill out --like to buy a firearm or whatever.

But when the law is changed to make it perjury to lie to a corporation, well, I guess you can just add me to the outlaws. Everyone has a line, and they are getting pretty close to mine.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I just didn't know if you missed the second page.

Ah, so you didn't noticed I quoted it (post #67). I am tempted (obligated?) therefore to conclude that you are not a careful reader, at least of my posts.

Why am I "absolutely wrong" basing my conclusion on his own words?

Now that we have established that you may have missed some of what I said in my posts, it becomes easier to suppose why you are confused; so I will (again) explain. You said that--if the doctor said the reason was a trust issue, but that the threat of suit was the actual reason--then the doctor did not make a truthful statement. I pointed out that your statement is logically wrong: a threat of suit means that there in fact is a lack of trust, so that there is no false statement by the doctor.

That threat may have finalized for him that not only was there no trust, but it could not be formed. The threat may have therefore convinced him he had no choice but to dismiss the patient, for the reason of lack of trust.

The rest of your suppositions I have no problem with. Just as I have no problem with my different suppositions. Either or neither may be true, as I have said.

You wonder why I feel my opinion is more plausible?

Actually, uh...no.

 

[sqwerl]

Now that we have established that you may have missed some of what I said in my posts, it becomes easier to suppose why you are confused; so I will (again) explain. You said that--if the doctor said the reason was a trust issue, but that the threat of suit was the actual reason--then the doctor did not make a truthful statement. I pointed out that your statement is logically wrong: a threat of suit means that there in fact is a lack of trust, so that there is no false statement by the doctor.

You just flat out misquoted me. Here's what I actually said:

The doctor all but point blank states that she was let go due to their lack of trust and her failure to answer the question.

For your scenario to be true, the doctor did not present the truthful reason for letting her go.

Now who's the one confused and not reading carefully?

Do you disagree that the doctor implied that letting her go was due to the lack of trust which stemmed from her refusing to answer the question and that she also stated the reason was her refusal to answer the question? Cause/effect...Maybe you want to argue there is a difference between him dismissing her due to lack of trust (which he implied was due to the question) and her stating he dismissed her due to the question alone then you're just twisting my words and splitting hairs at this point.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I had this same question on a state insurance form a while back. I left it blank.