“You said that I decide harms and a best way to achieve them”
First, I meant doctors decide which are the harms, and the way to address them (i.e., achieve prevention of such harms). Nice way to ride a collateral mis-statement into the sunset. That out of the way, let’s get to some of the rest ....
LoosedHorse states:
Those who support the state power to limit physician speech should be very comfortable with no-choice, no-opinion-except-state-approved-opinion Obamacare
I have no love for Obamacare, and that kind of extrapolation, i.e., “if you restrict one type of question, you, therefore, must want to control all of the dialogue between physician and patient", is ridiculous.
LoosedHorse also states:
The Court made clear that ONLY speech related to the practice of medicine may be regulated. So to the extent you argue that "gun speech" by doctors may be regulated, it would seem you must admit that such speech is within the practice of medicine.
Even thought many have argued that such speech has nothing to do with medical practice. So, decide: it is medically relevant, and may be regulated, or it isn't, and cannot be regulated.
Nice try offering a false dichotomy. The docs haven’t been too persuasive in convincing
anyone that such inquiries are medically-relevant (except, of course, a portion of their own and the Veterans’ Administration). Enough doctors, nonetheless, have decided ‘within [
their] practice of medicine’ to insist upon inquiring, recording, and disseminating that information, on a bald assertion of 1A freedom, without regard for the ramifications for their patients (there are many, particularly in light of Obamacare). Patients will see no relief, because the medical associations (even if not even 50% of the doctors) insist upon it as well. Hence, the Florida legislation.
Then LoosedHorse states:
The state presumably would be expected to use such power to further good medical care (as it redundantly did in Casey, affirming a "limitation" that had been imposed on docs by themselves and by the malpractice courts 35 years before); but the FL law seeks to thwart and prevent best medical practices, as defined by general acclamation of a very diverse profession.
I remember this argument, Loosedhorse. Don’t you? July 2009, thr.us, Veterans Admin. Docs and Firearms Inquiries, ring a bell? Granted, it was in the context of a Veterans’ Administration physician, asking about firearms for suicidology studies (suicide-prevention being one of the specifically-asserted medically-relevant objectives). The substance of the statement, and its inaccuracy, is the same. Here’s what you said:
Loosedhorse in post #80:
“That's very different from saying that if you feel a question is inappropriate, it is therefore definitively a medically inappropriate question for all physicians, everywhere--especially when the bulk of professional opinion agrees that it is appropriate.”
(emphasis mine.)
And then I responded:
Do you have a citation for any of the above posts? My reading suggests otherwise. See Kaplan, Dr. M.S., J Epidemial Community Health 2007: 619-624.
The link is here:
http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dhpw...anetal2007.pdf
Despite the conceding the fact that it is still a hotly debated issue in the suicidologist and medical communities (whether to conclude that the existence of firearms in a veteran’s home is a significant factor contributing to veteran suicide), the physician-author laments that only %50 of physicians inquire about veteran ownership of firearms and further concludes, conflicting data and contention notwithstanding, that physicians must, nonetheless, endeavor to collect firearms data on veterans.
Kaplan, Dr. M.S., J Epidemial Community Health 2007, at 622-623.
This is the kind of physician people are more likely to deal with nowadays. Even in the face of a 50/50 split on the usefulness of a particular course of inquiry, a contentious policy is still promoted.
So, does the bulk of professional opinion really agree? Then why was the good Dr. Kaplan pleading with doctors to continue their inquiries, unabated, ‘the conflicting data and contention’ notwithstanding?
So, I provided you with a link, two years ago, to a doctor who lamented, in a scholarly medical publication, that not enough doctors were engaging in firearms-inquiry, and you sit, here in 2011, insisting that the “bulk of professional opinion agrees that it’s appropriate”?
Spiral keeps circle honest.
....before I saw the history of skokie Nazi rallies lawsuits, I had no idea why Illinois was so anti gun it all makes sense now....Nazis want your gun rights....In my 1895 Montgomery wards catalogue there's a small note besides the colt new army 1892 model..to buy It states that :any resident of Illinois shall send in a affidavit with 2 witnesses,Illinois residents only"..looks like Nazis have been in Illinois a long time..
