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.
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.
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