Family Doctor said guns should be locked up or they can hurt people

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Johnson, it all boils down to the approach of the patient. In your case, by presenting your form, in which you attempt to have the physician assume liability, and talking about coverage under their malpractice policy, few physicians will be enthused to take on that patient. Malpractice is a very hot button for physicians these days, and by interjecting that into the therapeutic relationship, you have pretty much screwed the pooch from the outset.

As to the competence of a provider to ask these sort of screening questions, this is a common approach in healthcare today, as noted earlier in this thread. If you disagree with it from a political perspective, fine, but I suspect that you are not a practicing provider, and as such I take your opinion on the standard of care with a grain of salt.
 
Mr./Ms. Chrisher, we have approximately 260 physicians and mid-level providers. Between our main and satellite clinics, surgery centers and imaging centers, we had a little over 600,000 visits last year, and we have a little less than 300,000 active patients. Our patient volumes are not particularly unusual for large, multi-specialty clinics.
 
Doctors may be trained to ask if you have a gun, but you have to wonder why. (Aren't the bullets the actual hazard to your health, anyway?)

Do they ask if you have any sharp knives at home? Any scissors, pencils, sharp sticks, blenders, cleaning chemicals, matches, flammable liquids, flammable clothing, stoves, automobiles, sharp edged furniture, toilets, uncovered electrical outlets, stairs, radon, small objects that can be swallowed, hot water heaters, stupid relatives... ad infinitum.

All of these things can be a hazard to your health.

Did the doc cover all things that may be hazardous to your health? No. Guns are evil, and you gun toters are stupid. You need someone to nanny over you.

Makes me want to spit.
 
My daughter was born just a week ago. At a checkup a few days after her birth, the nurses were commenting on how beautiful she is. The supervising nurse said something to this effect …

“You’re going to have real trouble in about 14 years. You’ll have to buy a gun and clean it when the boyfriends come over. I have three daughters, so I know all about that.â€

I thought you all might appreciate that anecdote. :)

~G. Fink
 
...it all boils down to the approach of the doctor. In your case, by asking these questions, in which you attempt to treat the patient like an idiot, and talking about private, non-medically related topics, few gun owners will be enthused to stay with that doctor. Gun control is a very hot button for gun owners these days, and by interjecting that into the therapeutic relationship, you have pretty much screwed the pooch from the outset.

There, fixed it. :)
 
Relayer said:
Doctors may be trained to ask if you have a gun, but you have to wonder why. (Aren't the bullets the actual hazard to your health, anyway?)

Do they ask if you have any sharp knives at home? Any scissors, pencils, sharp sticks, blenders, cleaning chemicals, matches, flammable liquids, flammable clothing, stoves, automobiles, sharp edged furniture, toilets, uncovered electrical outlets, stairs, radon, small objects that can be swallowed, hot water heaters, stupid relatives... ad infinitum.

All of these things can be a hazard to your health.

Did the doc cover all things that may be hazardous to your health? No. Guns are evil, and you gun toters are stupid. You need someone to nanny over you.

Makes me want to spit.
Click to expand...
+1 ^.^

Justin said:
...it all boils down to the approach of the doctor. In your case, by asking these questions, in which you attempt to treat the patient like an idiot, and talking about private, non-medically related topics, few gun owners will be enthused to stay with that doctor. Gun control is a very hot button for gun owners these days, and by interjecting that into the therapeutic relationship, you have pretty much screwed the pooch from the outset.

There, fixed it.
Click to expand...
+1 ^.^
 
Anyone ever had a physician ask if they maintain their cars properly and lock up the keys so their children won't gain access? Cars kill a lot of children.

John
 
MillCreek,

Thank you for responding to my question. I do have some further observations.

Mr. Johnson, it all boils down to the approach of the patient. In your case, by presenting your form, in which you attempt to have the physician assume liability, and talking about coverage under their malpractice policy, few physicians will be enthused to take on that patient.

Malpractice is a very hot button for physicians these days, and by interjecting that into the therapeutic relationship, you have pretty much screwed the pooch from the outset.
Click to expand...

Please re-read the form that I posted. You will see it is clearly not an assumption of liability. It is a simple disclosure of liability and it is only presented in reaction to a physician's specific question of my ownership of firearms.

A physician is trained, licensed, and insured to provide medical services and counsel. What I want to know is their level of training, licensure, and liability on this NON-MEDICAL topic for which they are suddenly giving advice. If the physician feels so inclined as to inquire about a non-medically oriented issue in the course of a medical exam, then I have no problem asking them to disclose their liability on the issue. If they feels it necessary to dismiss me from their services for simply clarifiying an issue of liability on a non-medically oriented line of questioning, then that leads me to question their commitment to my health care in the first place. In such a case, I am happy to find another provider - one that is concerned about my health and not my ownership of an unrelated object.

If you disagree with it from a political perspective, fine, but I suspect that you are not a practicing provider, and as such I take your opinion on the standard of care with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I am not a practicing health-care provider. Nor did I ever say, or even insinuate, that I was. I am a practicing patient. The fact that you ARE a health care provider and are defending a physicians counsel on non-medical issues is troubling. You mentioned malpractice earlier. Well, when I go to a doctor's office I expect good counsel and I hold the physician responsible for such counsel. That's why I pay such outlandish prices for health care without grousing about it. I know that I am getting the best and that my butt is somewhat covered should the 'best' happen to make a mistake. If the professional counsel on a particular issue is not covered by their professional provider insurance, my opinion is that they should not be broaching the subject in the first place.

If the doctor wishes to give advice for guns in their office during an exam, fine. But they should be aware that we, the general public, expect such counsel to fall under the auspices of the physicians malpractice insurance. If it doesn't then the subject should not come up at all. The physician should certainly not get in a huff because I want to verify the reliability of their information along with their professional liability should the infomation prove to me harmfully incorrect.

I don't see this as an outlandish expectation, just as I don't expect the physician to be all things to all people. However, I do expect them to be professional, knowledgeable, and liable in their particular field of expertise, especially when that field of expertise happens to be my well-being.

Brad
 
"Its not a boundary violation to ask this question."

Attempting to 'medicalize' every societal problem is not a good road to be heading down. While there is a significant amount of politics on both sides, physicians are not entitled to a bigger vote in the issue than anyone else. They have no inherent special expertise.
The number of children injured by firearms accidents has continued the long downward trend that started many years ago (check the CDC website).
Gun violence has never been tied to the easy availability of firearms. Virginia has some of the least restrictive laws, yet the regional ‘gun problem’ around Washington, DC is confined to the city proper and a few suburbs in Maryland. Both of these locales have more restrictive laws, and Washington itself has a long standing ban on handgun possession. It is a violation of Federal law to buy a handgun outside your state of residence and take possession. Transfers of handguns across state lines require the participation of an FFL holder (and sometimes two depending on local laws).
The AMA and other medical societies have already tipped their hands. These questions have nothing to do with safety. Given the millions of firearms in private hands and the un-refuted research by Kleck and others, owning a firearm ranks way down on the list of hazards.
The latest ‘scandal de juor’ in the Washington Post is the failure of state medical boards and societies to adequately police the profession. Doctors have multiple licenses and move around when problems with performance occur. The state boards discipline is weak at best. I have detailed knowledge of a case in Virginia were a doctor diluted vaccines. When caught, he was ordered to re-vaccinate every patient he had mistreated. He was then caught charging the patients for the re-vaccinations. His license to practice was at no time suspended.
While there are many physicians who participate in various shooting sports it appears they do not hold enough sway with the AMA and other groups to influence policy.

The question is out of bounds in my book, and will be treated as such.
 
The things Docs say

I've read this thread and am surprised by some of the parallels to questions that my physicians have routinely asked me over the years. I've never been asked about gun ownership, but certainly I've been asked about other things that are not immediately related to my health status or active disease.

For example, even though he knows the answer, each year my Doc asks me if I smoke. "Sure do," I always reply, "about a cigar a week." He then tells me that I should not smoke, ever. I thank him and respond that I am willing to accept the very low additional risk of cancer and/or cardiovascular disease. He questions my elder daughter regarding her use of safety belts when she drives and has told my younger daughter that she should wear a helmet when riding her bike and that there is some risk in jumping on trampolines when you don't know what you're doing.

At least to me, all of these questions are similar to asking about firearms in the house. That is, they address a small, but measurable environmental risk to health. As 1911Tuner says, guns are supposed to be dangerous -that's their intended purpose.

My physician is a fine GP but not really expert in epidemiology or carcinogenesis, nor in automotive/bicycle safety; certainly, he is no gymnast. But his questions in these areas don't really bother me. I don't think a reminder to secure my guns would either. My Doc does not want to make cigars, cars, bicycles, or trampolines unavailable (well, maybe cigars), but to minimize future "disease" by reducing known risks.

A good physician offers advice constructively and knows the limits of his art. A good patient listens and makes considered decisions .
 
np15cgg,

Your Dr. sounds like a good doc, rightfully concerned about the health of you and your family.

Why do you suppose he has never seen fit to ask you if you own guns, and if you keep them locked up?

I see the question as very different than the other questions you mentioned. Maybe your doc does, too.
 
Brad Johnson,

I think you are getting me wrong here, or have only read some of my replies in this thread.

I am very opposed to physicians asking gun questions. I am a practicing physician, and have never asked about gun ownership, nor do i intend to start.

My opposition to the liability form shown earlier in this thread is that it makes the patient look like a nutcase. The form is antagonistic, and will immediately destroy any hope at a successful doctor-patient relationship. You have given the doctor what he considers a legitimate reason to terminate the relationship, the threat of a lawsuit. He will feel justified in getting rid of you, and not realize that it was his fault by asking inappropriate questions to begin with. He will brag to his doctor friends at lunch that he fired a crazy patient who was threatening to sue. They will all laugh, and then go back and keep asking the gun questions to other patients.

Instead, you need to be the one to terminate the relationship. This gives you the upper hand, and will leave him realizing it is his fault he lost you as a patient. Just tell him it is none of his business, and that you are going to shop for another doctor because of the questions. I guarantee you when he sees patients leaving his office and going to competitors, he will reconsider what questions he asks.
 
My opposition to the liability form shown earlier in this thread is that it makes the patient look like a nutcase. The form is antagonistic, and will immediately destroy any hope at a successful doctor-patient relationship. You have given the doctor what he considers a legitimate reason to terminate the relationship, the threat of a lawsuit. He will feel justified in getting rid of you, and not realize that it was his fault by asking inappropriate questions to begin with. He will brag to his doctor friends at lunch that he fired a crazy patient who was threatening to sue. They will all laugh, and then go back and keep asking the gun questions to other patients.
Click to expand...

I heartily agree with these comments as noted in my earlier posts, especially the part about the other doctors laughing. Been there, done that. I also earlier noted that Mr. Johnson's form is also addressed to 'educators', although the remainder of the form is geared only towards healthcare. Assuming that this form is also presented to teachers, I have to say it is sloppily drafted insofar as it discusses 'medical liability', 'chart', and other terms not relevant to education.

But the answer to all of this is quite simple: if you strongly feel that asking questions about safe firearms storage is not healthcare related (although many healthcare providers do), and this question, along with any other screening question that you deem inappropriate causes you such angst, such as alcohol, tobacco, drug use or whatever, find another healthcare provider. Both you and the original healthcare provider will be happier for it.
 
"As to the competence of a provider to ask these sort of screening questions, this is a common approach in healthcare today,..."

Sufferage only for white male property owners, the use of slavery in Southern agriculture, seperate schools, restrooms, waterfountains, and railroad cars for "colored folks", the collection of Japanese, Itallian, and German descended citizens in interment camps, segregated military units - all were "common approaches" in their day. Female genital mutillation, race and religion based slavery, race-based land confiscation, and tribal genocide are "common approaches" in parts of Africa today. The arrogance implicit in your defense of such an unconscionable and intrusive inquiry in the furtherence of a purely poitical agenda driven by the AMA is atrocious, and if I were denied care on a similar basis, I'm afraid I'd have to "cry havoc and let slip the lawyers".

BTW, Millcreek - do you or physicians use any facilities provided by or funded (completely or partially) by public money?
 
The arrogance implicit in your defense of such an unconscionable and intrusive inquiry in the furtherence of a purely poitical agenda driven by the AMA is atrocious, and if I were denied care on a similar basis, I'm afraid I'd have to "cry havoc and let slip the lawyers
Click to expand...

Unless you are in an emergency condition, you will be wasting your money... but the lawyers won't tell you this, til they send you the bill.

I agree the AMA's attitude toward gun ownership is irrational and leftist, and I do not support it. In fact, I terminated my AMA membership a few years ago when the new AMA president gave his inaugural address and declared guns a matter of public health.

However, threatening lawsuits over questions like these is not the way to handle the problem. That isn't going to go anywhere. You are better off to remain calm and simply decline to answer the question, and tell the physician you are going to find another doctor because of the question.

Nothing changes physician behavior like a swift kick in the pocket book. If he sees this question as costing him business, he will quit asking it.
 
The arrogance implicit in your defense of such an unconscionable and intrusive inquiry in the furtherence of a purely poitical agenda driven by the AMA is atrocious, and if I were denied care on a similar basis, I'm afraid I'd have to "cry havoc and let slip the lawyers".
Click to expand...


Mr. Young, a more careful reading of my posts will reveal that I am not defending the AMA's stance on anything, much less the issue of firearms. I personally disagree with the AMA's stance on this issue and one should not necessarily think that the AMA speaks for all physicians on anything. Except perhaps more reimbursement from the insurance companies, I think just about all the physicians think that is a good idea.

As to the rest of your comments equating this with genocide and the like, all I can say to you is :eek:.
 
Let me get this straight - you disagree with the stance, but you feel free to "fire" patients (deny medical treatment) who attempt to clarify in writting the training and liability resultant from action in support of that stance? Do you likewise "fire" physicians that act on that stance, or is it a one-way street, despite your opposition to it? What would you do different if you were a SUPPORTER of the questioning? Again, what portion, (if any) of the facilities you use are funded (in whole or in part) by public money, and what fraction of your patient's care is reimbursed with public money, either directly through Tr-Care, Medicaid, etc, or indirectly, through medical spending accounts and deductions for health insurance. If signifigant on either account, I should think we should have some say in the conduct of your physicians. Lastely, I wasn't equating the questioning with genocide, rather pointing out that calling something a "common approach" in no way confers legality, desirability, or morality.
 
Let me get this straight - you disagree with the stance, but you feel free to "fire" patients (deny medical treatment) who attempt to clarify in writting the training and liability resultant from action in support of that stance?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Just as the patient has the right to fire their provider at any time for any reason, the provider has the same right, as long as it is not a legally-protected discriminatory reason, such as age, gender, race or the like. There can be some obligations on the part of the provider to arrange for transfer of the care, depending if the patient is in urgent circumstances or in the middle of a course of treatment.

We fire patients all the time for being non-compliant, not paying the bill, drug-seeking, threatening litigation, consistently missing appointments, personality conflicts and making inappropriate clinical demands. The politics of our patients mean nothing to us until and unless they conflict with our ability to provide quality healthcare. Someone who is perceived as threatening us with litigation or who immediately starts out as a personality conflict will not be accepted as a patient. Whipping out this form puts you into both categories.

Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the way it is. Most professions have the right to pick and choose their clientele. If you won't go to an accountant who is not a member of the NRA, more power to you. If your insurance agent asks about the value of your gun collection in order to provide you appropriate insurance, and you refuse to provide it, since you think you will be on some sort of list, fine.

As I have repeatedly said in this thread, if this political issue is important to you, find another provider. Feel also free to find a lawyer or file a complaint with your state medical disciplinary board, and see how far you get.
 
Again, what portion, (if any) of the facilities you use are funded (in whole or in part) by public money, and what fraction of your patient's care is reimbursed with public money, either directly through Tr-Care, Medicaid, etc, or indirectly, through medical spending accounts and deductions for health insurance. If signifigant on either account, I should think we should have some say in the conduct of your physicians.
Click to expand...

How?
 
Am I the only strap-hanger getting uneasy with the direction of this thread???
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. 98 posts pre this one.

I think in fairness the ground has been covered. Holes dug, ground filled in - and holes re-dug!!! The furtherance of the thread would now seem to be not only perhaps heading more toward potentially uncharted waters but, even just seeing seeing L_G's ''How?'' I feel all parties have expressed their opinions and there is probably some need for ''agreeing to disagree''. It could be argued ad infinitum, with such a spread of opinion.

We have progressed much more toward a ''Legal & Polital'' thread drift but I am not inclined to move this just to let it run. Views have been expressed, and in some depth... and I don't want folks to have to reach stage where flame suits are necessary. ;)

This particular one is done. (it might be a subject to discuss further on APS)
 
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
Seminole
  • Locked
Physicians and firearms
Replies
10
Views
744
JohnMcD348
J
H
  • Locked
Took Mother Shooting - Has hearing Loss Now
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
LaVere
  • Locked
Doctors need/want to know.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
152
Views
7K
Dr.Zubrato
D
G
  • Locked
Love it even though it hurts?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4K
Rockrivr1
Rockrivr1
Back
Top