Florida MD restrictions overturned.

[Loosedhorse]

First, I meant doctors decide which are the harms

Well, that does help a little. It still seems to ignore the role for the malpractice courts.

Nice try offering a false dichotomy.

I don't see it as false: I see it as one or the other.

without regard for the ramifications for their patients (there are many, particularly in light of Obamacare).

I see. So when I mention the dangers of Obamacare, you call that ridiculous; but you can mention them.

the physician-author laments that only %50 of physicians inquire about veteran ownership of firearms

Sure, I remember, and your argument has not improved with age. The study's claim that only 50% of physicians actually inquire is not the same as saying only 50% approve of such inquiry. There are many things that "should" be done, many patients, and limited time. So, some things are left out, by decision or by accident.

Further, not all physicians are concerned with shaping policy; not all respond well to policy changes, especially if the change is implemented inexpertly (perhaps you know something about some VA hospitals, or about change management?); not all docs "keep up" on such issues, or even keep up with medicine in general. So, even if a true 50% did not think that inquiring about firearms was important (as opposed to simply failing to complete it, which seems more likely the case), that would not mean that "the profession"--represented by its keen and leading edge--was uncertain at all.

Hmmm. Perhaps not quite the "GOTCHA!" you where hoping for? Such a disappointment, after waiting, planning OVER TWO YEARS to spring this on me? Did you dream about this moment? Was it everything you hoped for?

So, your argument has a spiral alright: a death spiral. At least I now know that I was right: you have a personal vendetta. The loony part, I'll remain hopeful about that one. I try not to go with appearences alone.

You guys have made this so personal

Got to agree. Perhaps unavoidable when someone holds a grudge for two years, starts out claiming that new law is the only way to redress the harms he sees...and also derides me for not doing my homework.

Not sure how long this'll stay open; so talk to you all later (after the decision) if it gets locked.

 

[armsmaster270]

My old Doctor & I used to compare guns when I saw him. My new doctor is having me clean the guns he inherited from his dad.

 

[thesecond]

Loosedhorse: You've an interesting way to discern motive. "He must be after me, since he remembers topics of discussion!"

Nope, this is a subject of interest to me (my dad's a doc, my grandfather's a doc, and I have more aunts/uncles/cousins that are docs than I can count on both hands, and I've not heard of one of them, even in direct conversation, say that the kind of inquiry that is the topic of this thread, is necessary or relevant to patient health.)

I recognize intellectually dodgy behavior when I see it, having done my homework.

Call it a vendetta, call it a ham sandwich, but call it out, nonetheless.

 

[Loosedhorse]

my dad's a doc, my grandfather's a doc, and I have more aunts/uncles/cousins that are docs than I can count on both hands, and I've not heard of one of them, even in direct conversation, say that the kind of inquiry that is the topic of this thread, is necessary or relevant to patient health

I am reminded of Pauline Kael, who almost said, "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." But win he did.

I will accept your internet claim of such family. Perhaps you will in turn accept my claim that I could walk down the corridors of many teaching hospitals, or the offices of the AMA, AAP, or other societies, and find near-uniformity of opinion (over a much larger group) that it is an important inquiry?

But that is immaterial. If your family of docs has a problem with the recs, have them take it up with the societies. If patients have a problem, let them sue (and show harm).

Nobody is requiring the FL docs to ask the question; they are doing that voluntarily. Only the legislature is requiring them to stop: no choice, no discretion, substituing their judgment for the docs'. YOU MUST NOT ASK.

Call it a vendetta, call it a ham sandwich, but call it out, nonetheless.

Oh, I've called it as I see it. But thanks, I guess, for your permission.

I recognize intellectually dodgy behavior when I see it, having done my homework.

This was perhaps a correspondence class at the Institute for Recognizing Intellectually Dodgy Behavior? Well, that is impressive. Your credentials are set!

 

[Owen Sparks]

Suppose you tell the doctor that you do own guns. What can he do with the information?
And if you don't want to tell him what then? You are not under oath and can't be charged with pergery.

 

[whalerman]

Whether Docs involve themselves in this line of questioning might depend on what group or hospital they are affiliated with. I deal with Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse NY. The Docs there are as predictable as if they are reading from a script. Are there guns in the house? How many? What type?........It's part of the State Univ of NY system. Surprise? They must have all attended the same retreat. Or some grad student is collecting numbers for the legislature to pass another law, a completely possible situation here in the Empire State. This is how they justify such stuff.

 

[thesecond]

Continuing to snark-out, and then cry about the thread being closed at the same time? Methinks you protest too much.

So, let's get back to the substance, then.

What harms are doctors preventing by inquiring/recording/disseminating firearms ownership (and their number), and the method of storage of same?

Suicidology? Suicide prevention of patients? Suicide prevention of patient's wife or children?

Negligence discharge of firearms by the patient? Negligent discharge of firearms by the patient's wife/husband or kids?

Violent crime committed by patients? Violent crime committed by the wife/husband of a patient, or by the patient's childrens?

Why not make the case, here, for the benefit of THR membership?

There are 'reasons' (and quite reasonable ones) for the Florida legislature's attempt to restrict inquiry, recordation, and dissemination of this kind of information. And these reasons must be weighed against a doctors need for this information.

What 'health-objective' will doctors tout, to continue legitimizing firearms inquiry?

 

[whalerman]

I didn't realize there was a history here. Overall, the discussion has been constructive. I don't see a winner or a loser. Should there be one?

 

[Loosedhorse]

There are 'reasons' (and quite reasonable ones) for the Florida legislature's attempt to restrict inquiry, recordation, and dissemination of this kind of information. And these reasons must be weighed against a doctors need for this information.

Ah, so you give me a huge list to answer, and then make the above unsupported statement. I give you your own offer: why not make the case, here, for the benefit of THR membership regarding all these mysterious reasons?

Why do you assume that one must be FOR the inquiries and FOR the antigun "advice" to be AGAINST the FL law. I think it's just the opposite. I think the law has effectively polarzed the "I couldn't care less" crowd of both docs and non-docs into the two camps; and most folks and docs don't want a governmental moderator deciding what they can talk about. It has been and will be a political loser for the NRA, gun rights and civil rights in general (which is a good reason to oppose the law right there).

Assuming that there are some harms out there (that you have so far declined to mention, and that I think so far have not been determined by any court) from the docs asking "the gun question", it is hard to imagine that a government gag will make things better.

That cure is worse than the disease, and I simply cannot support it. I find it surprising that so many can.

So you can convince me that the harms of the doc asking are worse than the harms of the doc being gagged. Or we can just wait for the results of the case (I've already given my prediction).

Or, like the Frenchman in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you can threaten to taunt me a second time! Your choice. Oh, the suspense.

 

[thesecond]

It is not surprising that you would continue, for as long as possible, to place the burden upon others to make the case (giving you more post-fuel to simply be content as the dilatory cross-examiner), before you decline to make yours (by making cross-examination the only substance of your argument).

For goodness sake, why not even copy the complainers' (complainants) argument, for discussion. You read the Wollschlaeger/BRADY brief, yes?

 

[Loosedhorse]

And it is not surprising that you attempt to place a burden first only on me (a burden to argue propositions that I have not argued for, that I--as I have explained--consider distracting from and immaterial to the central argument)...

And then, when I ask that a burden be placed also on you (to support your CENTRAL claim, that the law produces harms that cannot be addressed except by the gag law), you claim foul.

I guess you really were paying attention when you took that Intellectual Dodgy-ness course! Was the mirror included?

why not even copy the complainers' (complainants) argument

Please, be my guest! Perhaps you will then treat us to its brilliant dismantling! I am scintillated.

 

[thesecond]

Therein lay reason -

The Florida legislation, HB 155:

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/280442

And the text of HB 155:

1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to the privacy of firearm owners; creating
3 s. 790.338, F.S.; providing that a licensed medical care
4 practitioner or health care facility may not record
5 information regarding firearm ownership in a patient's
6 medical record; providing an exception for relevance of
7 the information to the patient's medical care or safety or
8 the safety of others; providing that unless the
9 information is relevant to the patient's medical care or
10 safety or the safety of others, inquiries regarding
11 firearm ownership or possession should not be made by
12 licensed health care practitioners or health care
13 facilities; providing an exception for emergency medical
14 technicians and paramedics; providing that a patient may
15 decline to provide information regarding the ownership or
16 possession of firearms; clarifying that a physician's
17 authority to choose his or her patients is not altered by
18 the act; prohibiting discrimination by licensed health
19 care practitioners or facilities based solely upon a
20 patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibiting
21 harassment of a patient regarding firearm ownership by a
22 licensed health care practitioner or facility during an
23 examination; prohibiting denial of insurance coverage,
24 increased premiums, or any other form of discrimination by
25 insurance companies issuing policies on the basis of an
26 insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage
27 of firearms or ammunition; clarifying that an insurer is
28 not prohibited from considering the fair market value of
29 firearms or ammunition in setting personal property
30 coverage premiums; providing for disciplinary action;
31 amending s. 381.026, F.S.; providing that unless the
32 information is relevant to the patient's medical care or
33 safety, or the safety of others, inquiries regarding
34 firearm ownership or possession should not be made by
35 licensed health care providers or health care facilities;
36 providing that a patient may decline to provide
37 information regarding the ownership or possession of
38 firearms; clarifying that a physician's authority to
39 choose his or her patients is not altered by the act;
40 prohibiting discrimination by licensed health care
41 providers or health care facilities based solely upon a
42 patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibiting
43 harassment of a patient regarding firearm ownership during
44 an examination by a licensed health care provider or
45 health care facility; amending s. 456.072, F.S.; including
46 the violation of the provisions of s. 790.338, F.S., as
47 grounds for disciplinary action; providing an effective
48 date.
49

50 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
51

52 Section 1. Section 790.338, Florida Statutes, is created
53 to read:
54 790.338 Medical privacy concerning firearms; prohibitions;
55 penalties, exceptions.-
56 (1) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456
57 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 may not
58 intentionally enter any disclosed information concerning firearm
59 ownership into the patient's medical record if the practitioner
60 knows that such information is not relevant to the patient's
61 medical care or safety, or the safety of others.
62 (2) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456
63 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 shall
64 respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain from
65 making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the
66 ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a
67 family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a
68 private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member
69 of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care
70 practitioner or health care facility that in good faith believes
71 that this information is relevant to the patient's medical care
72 or safety, or the safety of others, may make such a verbal or
73 written inquiry.
74 (3) Any emergency medical technician or paramedic acting
75 under the supervision of an emergency medical services medical
76 director under chapter 401 may make an inquiry concerning the
77 possession or presence of a firearm if he or she, in good faith,
78 believes that information regarding the possession of a firearm
79 by the patient or the presence of a firearm in the home or
80 domicile of a patient or a patient's family member is necessary
81 to treat a patient during the course and scope of a medical
82 emergency or that the presence or possession of a firearm would
83 pose an imminent danger or threat to the patient or others.
84 (4) A patient may decline to answer or provide any
85 information regarding ownership of a firearm by the patient or a
86 family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in
87 the domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. A
88 patient's decision not to answer a question relating to the
89 presence or ownership of a firearm does not alter existing law
90 regarding a physician's authorization to choose his or her
91 patients.
92 (5) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456
93 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 may not
94 discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient's
95 exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms
96 or ammunition.
97 (6) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456
98 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 shall
99 respect a patient's legal right to own or possess a firearm and
100 should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about
101 firearm ownership during an examination.
102 (7) An insurer issuing any type of insurance policy
103 pursuant to chapter 627 may not deny coverage, increase any
104 premium, or otherwise discriminate against any insured or
105 applicant for insurance on the basis of or upon reliance upon
106 the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition or
107 the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition. Nothing
108 herein shall prevent an insurer from considering the fair market
109 value of firearms or ammunition in the setting of premiums for
110 scheduled personal property coverage.
111 (8) Violations of the provisions of subsections (1)-(4)
112 constitute grounds for disciplinary action under ss. 456.072(2)
113 and 395.1055.
114 Section 2. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section
115 381.026, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
116 381.026 Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and
117 Responsibilities.-
118 (4) RIGHTS OF PATIENTS.-Each health care facility or
119 provider shall observe the following standards:
120 (b) Information.-
121 1. A patient has the right to know the name, function, and
122 qualifications of each health care provider who is providing
123 medical services to the patient. A patient may request such
124 information from his or her responsible provider or the health
125 care facility in which he or she is receiving medical services.
126 2. A patient in a health care facility has the right to
127 know what patient support services are available in the
128 facility.
129 3. A patient has the right to be given by his or her
130 health care provider information concerning diagnosis, planned
131 course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis, unless
132 it is medically inadvisable or impossible to give this
133 information to the patient, in which case the information must
134 be given to the patient's guardian or a person designated as the
135 patient's representative. A patient has the right to refuse this
136 information.
137 4. A patient has the right to refuse any treatment based
138 on information required by this paragraph, except as otherwise
139 provided by law. The responsible provider shall document any
140 such refusal.
141 5. A patient in a health care facility has the right to
142 know what facility rules and regulations apply to patient
143 conduct.
144 6. A patient has the right to express grievances to a
145 health care provider, a health care facility, or the appropriate
146 state licensing agency regarding alleged violations of patients'
147 rights. A patient has the right to know the health care
148 provider's or health care facility's procedures for expressing a
149 grievance.
150 7. A patient in a health care facility who does not speak
151 English has the right to be provided an interpreter when
152 receiving medical services if the facility has a person readily
153 available who can interpret on behalf of the patient.
154 8. A health care provider or health care facility shall
155 respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain from
156 making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the
157 ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a
158 family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a
159 private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member
160 of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care
161 provider or health care facility that in good faith believes
162 that this information is relevant to the patient's medical care
163 or safety, or safety or others, may make such a verbal or
164 written inquiry.
165 9. A patient may decline to answer or provide any
166 information regarding ownership of a firearm by the patient or a
167 family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in
168 the domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. A
169 patient's decision not to answer a question relating to the
170 presence or ownership of a firearm does not alter existing law
171 regarding a physician's authorization to choose his or her
172 patients.
173 10. A health care provider or health care facility may not
174 discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient's
175 exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms
176 or ammunition.
177 11. A health care provider or health care facility shall
178 respect a patient's legal right to own or possess a firearm and
179 should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about
180 firearm ownership during an examination.
181 Section 3. Subsection (mm) is added to subsection (1) of
182 section 456.072, Florida Statutes, to read:
183 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement.-
184 (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which
185 the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be
186 taken:
187 (mm) Violating any of the provisions of s. 790.338.
188 Section 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.


CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

The case is Bernd Wollschlaeger, et al. v. Rick Scott, et al.: Case No. 11-22026-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF

The Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Wollschlaeger):

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...026/380612/15/

In the interim
The NRA had made an attempt to intervene as a party-defendant to the litigation ….

That plea was denied, the order is here:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...026/380612/55/

(The NRA is not prohibited from filing an amicus brief.)

LAST WEEK ….

Judge Marcia Cooke has ordered the preliminary injunction, suspending enforcement of FL HB 155, pending argument on the merits:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...rearmorder.pdf

Help us out, Loosedhorse; You have an opportunity to make the case for the doctors' unfettered firearms-inquiry.

And seriously, for all the smack you talk (I laughed when I read your post saying that I took a dodgy-ness course by correspondence, and then you edited it, minutes later - the original was actually more funny than the edited version, btw), and all the gratuitous snark, all the while accusing me about personal vendettas, you'll find only a small handful of subjects about which I would gladly take you to task, for you being 'dodgy'.

 

[Sav .250]

They can ask but your not obligated to answer.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I laughed when I read your post saying that I took a dodgy-ness course by correspondence, and then you edited it, minutes later - the original was actually more funny

Hmmm. Should I be concerned? You sound like the interenet version of a stalker...checking both my original post and the one corrected (for grammar, I think). Well, at least you appreciate the humor. What's the phrase: it's only funny 'cause it's true.

all the while accusing me about personal vendettas

You bafflingly accused me--as I understand it?--of attempting to dupe THR by misquoting the Court so that the meaning of the quote was inverted...even though your fuller quote was right above, and the case was linked--and none of my commentary below the quote used the inverted interpretation (in fact, it depended on the clear interpretation). I'm not sure if the accusation of dishonesty or of incompetent dishonesty was meant to be the more offensive?

For you to accuse me so baselessly suggested idiocy on your part (which I doubt) or such a personal agenda that any straw would be grasped at, to try to use against me. And THEN you confirmed the latter, when you told me you've been dwelling on a previous exchange we had over two years ago. And now you deny that your personal attack...is personal.

You have retracted no accusation, let alone apologized for any. Perhaps that sounds to no one else like a festering vendetta, but it has all the marks IMHO.

I do understand that any responses that I make that vary from the script you've been writing in your head for years (like my declining to jump and dance as you command) must be supremely disappointing for you, after months of anticipation, but there it is.

Oh, while I appreciate your listing of the law, that's hardly a useful analysis--or any analysis. Kinda like, after your vaunting your expertise, advertising an omlette but delivering an egg and a frying pan--here you go!

As for my arguments, they've already been given. Was there a particular item you wanted me to re-iterate?

---

You have made a big deal that gun "safety" messages or gun inquires by docs are not "health-related." Is this because you consider that question central to the court's eventual ruling...or because you would like to divert us?

If it is central, then a sad day is coming. Given the reams of literature on the gun subject in the public health and pediatric literature (not to mention smaller amounts elsewhere), it will be easy for a court to conclude:
1. That the subject of gun safety, as part of accidental trauma prevention, is a well-established, legitimate area of medical study annd practice.
2. That, on the whole, the tenor of such studies favors inquiries and an anti-gun message (certainly for those with suicidal history/tendency, and for homes with children).

And that will be another defeat: a delcaration by a court that an antigun message is not just a few doctors' opinion: it is good medical practice! The NRA should be proud. (Yes, that is a prediction, my 2nd. We'll see.)

So: taking indifferent docs and patients---and even a few pro-gun ones, I imagine--and polarizing them against the NRA because of the law's intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship; a ruling that being anti-gun is good medical practice; and an overturning of the statute, showing that the NRA is vulnerable. These are the main things that the law will have as a legacy, that the NRA and "pro-gun" legislators worked so hard to achieve.

Or, if I am wrong, then the law will live on and have the enduring effect of saying that the state can mandate any gun message it wants as part of medical practice; it shouldn't be long before several states draft statutes mandating anti-gun messages as a condition of continued licensure.

Either way, good news for gunnies, right? Ah, Pandora!

You have continued to claim great harms caused by the physicians prior to the law (or was it anticipated future harms? Both?), and claimed that they were unaddressable by any means other than an intrusive, speech-limiting law. And refused to offer support for those claims. That's fine by me; I was just letting you know I noticed.

 

[whalerman]

You guys got jobs?

 

[Art Eatman]

"Judge Marcia Cooke has ordered the preliminary injunction, suspending enforcement of FL HB 155, pending argument on the merits..."

So let's wait and see what's decided and then start over.

After some thought and reflection on the previous ideas.