Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?

[rondog]

I seem to have mellowed a bit in my responses and can usually have a little fun with the asker. I'd probably say something like, "You know, i used to have a lot of guns but I kind of outgrew them, I'm just much more into explosives these days."

There ya go! That was my thought too, "guns? Nah, I'm not into guns....I prefer to collect HAND GRENADES! Older the better. WWI, WWII, US, German, Japanese, Russian, British, Vietnamese, whatcha got?"

Side note - last time I was at my dentist's, we were talking about guns. He asked if I CCW, and I said yeah. He got all excited, "do you have it with you?" I said no, I have more respect for him than that, I'm not bringing my gun into his office. He said he had no problem with it, then told me about an off-duty cop that was in his chair whose gun kept falling out of his shorts pocket onto the floor. He finally took the gun and placed it on the instrument tray!

But I think my GP would pee down both legs if he knew I carried.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here is one you might try.

When he asks if you will answer some questions regarding firearms, say "Sure!"

When the doctor asks how many you have, how often you shoot, and where or how do you store them, answer like this:

"Ah. These are questions about me and not about firearms."

Woody

 

[Onward Allusion]

"None of your business. Have a good day."

If he pushes... say "You're fired."

Say all of the above with a smile...

It's SO satisfying - the look on people's faces when you tell 'em that they're fired. I have had the pleasure of saying it on occassion to employees and service providers who REALLY deserve it. If your doctor pushes the questions - he really would deserve it, too.

DustyVermonter

Leaving Dr.'s office and got nailed with gun questions-Whats going on here?

 

[sarge83]

"None of your business. Have a good day."

If he pushes... say "You're fired."

Say all of the above with a smile...

It's SO satisfying - the look on people's faces when you tell 'em that they're fired. I have had the pleasure of saying it on occassion to employees and service providers who REALLY deserve it. If your doctor pushes the questions - he really would deserve it, too.

I fired a my last doctor. Every month he wanted me to come in for high blood pressure check ups even though it was clearly under control with the meds. On top of that he wanted blood work done every month and it always turned out fine. All this was costing me about $75 a month out of pocket, plus my prescription co-pay.

This went on for a year and finally I said, no to the blood work and the springs flew out of his head. He went into a rant about HIM treating and ordering anything he wanted done in regards to my health. I said really? Tell you what, I have the final say about my health and treatment and I'll be damned if I am going to pay some SOB to talk to me this way, your fired. Asked for a copy of my records and walked out the door.

Twerp never got around to asking me about guns.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // Ask how much he gets paid per survey, then decline due to time crunch.

 

[JoeMal]

Woody, great idea!

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

OP--you should have expounded about that tragic boating accident you had.

I give no un-needed info to anyone.

My Dr doesn't even have my SSN unless they back doored it through the insurance co.

My Census was returned with the number of occupents and nothing more---still haven't heard back from them yet---lol

 

[rainbowbob]

Here is an example of the kind of policy decisions based on these surveys:

Counseling about firearms: proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients.Vernick JS, Teret SP, Smith GA, Webster DW.

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. [email protected]

Abstract
In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.

In other words, the AMA and AAP have concluded that asking patients about gun ownership, and counseling them to remove them from their homes, are a legitimate "aspect of the practice of medicine".

This is NOT legitimate epidemiolgy or medical practice - it is political activism based on erroneous conclusions from discredited "studies".

 

[rainbowbob]

I urge you all to go to the link provided by gdesloge and read the article:

Boundary Violation:
Gun Politics in the Doctor’s Office
Timothy Wheeler, MD


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

 

[WoofersInc]

And that's usually where it stops. Those who think a bit deeper on these matters give some thought to legal ramifications, lawsuits, lawyer fees, etc. Going a little further, we also have the problem of the person who has been shot (could be you, too). Somebody has to patch that person up, oversee their rehab, provide wound care, medication, possibly prosthetics and reconstructive surgery. This is rarely discussed.

But if we had any ER surgeons here who could weigh in, particularly those from an urban area, they'd probably tell us about Friday and Saturday nights when the gunshot wound victims turn up and how much trouble that is. We'd hear more about domestic shootings and self-inflicted wounds and so forth. Somebody has to pay for that care, and it's a burden on the healthcare industry. So you can kind of understand how they might want to get some understanding of the causes of these things and how the incidence of them might be reduced.

The key point here is that all of this is their business. It is reasonable that they would have concerns about this from an epidemiological perspective, just as they do with things like drug and alcohol and tobacco use.

Sorry but I still have to disagree with this assesment of why they are asking.
I am a former Paramedic and a current ER nurse.
Let's look at the above. There are hundreds of things that will bring a person into an ER on a Friday or Saturday night with injuries. I can tell you that gunshot wounds are not one of the biggest concerns of the ER staff. It is the drug overdoses and the fights and the auto accidents.

Trauma is trauma. All trauma patients have a set protocol that they go through when they arrive. You have the same team and pretty much go through the same steps every time. It doesn't matter what caused the trauma most of the time. We are doing the same thing anyway.

Car accidents are by far one of the leading killers in this country as far as accidental deaths. They kill substantially far more people than guns do. Why then under your arguement is my doctor not asking my what type of car I drive? How many airbags does it have? How many tickets have I gotten for speeding? Do I ever drink and drive? This would give them far more info on injury prevention.This is a far bigger burden on healthcare and a far bigger use of medical resources. After all you don't have to spend over an hour with the Hurst tool cutting a gunshot victim out from under a semi.

However you want to read into a doctor asking these questions, It is not for statistical data to better prepare. It is agenda driven by most of the medical associations which are know to be highly anti-gun. The AMA, the New England Journal of Medicine. Heck even the CDC has paid for studies to try to influence the issue against guns. Also as has been pointed out, was the OP having a history of depression. In the lawsuit happy country we have become, if the doctor is still prescribing anti-depressants to the OP and knows about the guns, he would be found liable for anything that may happen. The doctor may also just be looking out for his own butt in this case..

 

[Rxster]

+1 for the boundary violation.
It is something that they should be reported to the medical board for.
None of their business.
Kinda like them having a discussion about why you should vote for their candidate.

 

[ArmedBear]

the AMA and AAP have concluded

Addendum.... These are private clubs that have deliberately cast themselves as representing "doctors", not their boards of directors or members.

 

[rainbowbob]

I am a former Paramedic and a current ER nurse...

...Car accidents are by far one of the leading killers in this country as far as accidental deaths. They kill substantially far more people than guns do. Why then under your arguement is my doctor not asking my what type of car I drive? How many airbags does it have? How many tickets have I gotten for speeding? Do I ever drink and drive? This would give them far more info on injury prevention...

...It is agenda driven by most of the medical associations which are know to be highly anti-gun.

Bingo - we have a winner!

Thanks, WooferInc for your informed insight - and for doing one of those difficult jobs for which you are probably underpaid and underappreciated.

 

[mljdeckard]

That level of questioning makes me VERY suspicious. I would roll my eyes at the initial questionnaire with the question "Do you have a gun in the home?", which is kind of a standard AMA intrusion. But this goes WAY beyond that. This guy is an activist, or is under the influence of activists. Unacceptable. I would (and I'm being very serious and literal here,) send a letter explaining why you can no longer pay him for services, and post on whatever web sites you can find that rate doctors, telling everyone the exact same thing. He asks questions that are medically irrelevant and intrusive to your privacy.

 

[jerryd]

My doctor knows about my guns and i know about his, we shoot together!!!!

 

[gdesloge]

I am posting this again. For some unknown reason, Rainbow's copy of the link does not work.

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

gd

 

[A and O]

Was this Dr. a gov't. Dr? When at the VA Hospital for a routine cu the nurse asked a series of questions to locate a possible mental problem that could be used to deny me my gun ownership rights. Fortunately I was aware that this was happening at VA Hospitals and had prepared answers thought up before hand. I think I had read an article on KABA prior to this happening. One question they asked was "Do you ever feel like you are a victim of the circumstances of life?" and my answer was "No, of course not. I'm a victor over the circumstances of Life".

Just an additional note. With this society we now find ourselves living in it is an imperative to be prepared with a healthy dose of suspect towards any line of questioning from agents/employees of the gov't. Not being paranoid, just trying to point out the obvious. If you can not answer without incriminating yourself then clam up by saying you do not feel a need to answer this line of questioning.

 

[rainbowbob]

Thanks, gd.

I did edit my copy of the link and now it works. I think it's an important article and very relevant to this discussion.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It is logical that they might take an interest. They might also have an interest in orchids, motorcycles, cross-country skiing, sadomasochism, and bootleg liquor.

Insurance companies have a legitimate reason to inquire about these things, since it's all part of their risk assement that determines your premium. Lie to them, you may find yourself without coverage when injured during an activity you said you didn't partake in.

Your doctor, OTOH, does not need to know. For one, general practitioners will not be the ones patching you back together. That'll be the trauma team. And secondly, knowing what activities you participate in will not help them treat you in any way. Assesment of emergency procedure required is determined after examination. There is no ex post facto procedure for making an injury less severe by knowing what sort of dangers were present.

 

[shockwave]

Sorry but I still have to disagree with this assesment of why they are asking.

Feel free. But do note that I'm only referring in particular to several specific items. I don't know what the OP's doctor was doing but based on journal articles I've read and what I see on my job, I can say that some doctors do collect this kind of data and not because they are anti-gun activists. Maybe some are. The study I linked to above has zero agenda and only presented demographic data which may form the basis of further study.

You know, we've all seen the statement that having a gun in the home increases one's risk of injury by some percentage or other but is that really true? Is anybody collecting that sort of data? There are many questions that could be answered if we had information so I don't see any particular problem with practitioners trying to collect it. Nobody has to give it to them.

There are hundreds of things that will bring a person into an ER on a Friday or Saturday night with injuries.

Did I say that the only thing causing injuries were firearms? Did I say that the majority of injuries were firearm related? We aren't disagreeing at all. I do know that when I visit a doctor I am often asked about drinking, smoking, and other behaviors. This doesn't seem all that different (although I've never been asked about firearms and if I were I'd probably decline to answer). That some doctors do take an interest here probably has something to do with the fact that firearms are designed to cause firearm injuries, unlike automobiles, which you mentioned.

Since physicians can walk and chew gum, they are also interested in reducing vehicle injuries and drug overdoses - they are interested in reducing all morbidity and mortality to the extent possible. That some particular subset of them, some individual focus groups spend time examining gun issues with respect to medicine doesn't strike me as a big deal. However...

The AMA, the New England Journal of Medicine. Heck even the CDC has paid for studies to try to influence the issue against guns.

That would be bad science and I doubt that's really the case. NEJM will publish peer-reviewed research but they do not represent individual researchers as journal policy, and as you can read here the CDC found that gun-control laws are ineffective and "has no plans to spend more money on firearms study."

The doctor may also just be looking out for his own butt in this case..

Very possible. Without asking him, there's no way to know exactly what his motivations were. Might have been working on an institutional survey, a small cohort survey with some colleagues, a private research effort, or just personal follow-up study - we see them do this sort of thing all the time. There's lots of possibilities here and most (although not all) of them are likely to be benign .

 

[ol' scratch]

There's doctors and doctors.

Just today, doc spotted an NAA Guardin pin on my jacket... we ended up discussing current gun laws and advantages of the pump-action shotguns over semi-autos for home defense scenarios (doc was inclined toward less-lethal loadings, such as rubber buckshot)

Had a similar situation with my doc. I asked if I could have my lead tested during my annual physical. The doc told me sure and asked why. I told him I reload and shoot. Found out he was a member of the same club and talked him through a problem he was having with his 1911. One of my best friends is a firearms freak and is a pediatric oncologist. A lot more doctors enjoy firearms than you might think. It makes perfect sense to me. Who values human life (including their own) more than a doctor? Who also gets to see more of society's dark underbelly than most other people? Doctors.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Ask for his malpractice provider, you feel the need to inform them that they will have to cover him for bad FA advice.

Then inform him that since he is exceeding his Scope of Practice, as you see nothing on his walls that qualify him to give instruction about gun, you feel uncomfortable taking ADVICE from an amateur, and rather prefer to get it from a professional, then pick up a copy of your medical records and get a new doc

 

[WoofersInc]

That would be bad science and I doubt that's really the case. NEJM will publish peer-reviewed research but they do not represent individual researchers as journal policy,

They may not be stating outright that the papers published are policy but they are publishing them under their banner. It is still support for what is in those papers.

I pulled one article and this was in it.

Gun violence is often an unintended consequence of gun ownership. Americans have purchased millions of guns, predominantly handguns, believing that having a gun at home makes them safer. In fact, handgun purchasers substantially increase their risk of a violent death. This increase begins the moment the gun is acquired — suicide is the leading cause of death among handgun owners in the first year after purchase — and lasts for years.

Legislatures have misguidedly enacted a radical deregulation of gun use in the community (see map). Thirty-five states issue a concealed-weapon permit to anyone who requests one and can legally own guns; two states have dispensed with permits altogether. Since 2005, a total of 14 states have adopted statutes that expand the range of places where people may use guns against others, eliminate any duty to retreat if possible before shooting, and grant shooters immunity from prosecution, sometimes even for injuries to bystanders.

Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates — a position that has been discredited.2 Gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together. Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10.3

Policies limiting gun ownership and use have positive effects, whether those limits affect high-risk guns such as assault weapons or Saturday night specials, high-risk persons such as those who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, or high-risk venues such as gun shows. New York and Chicago, which have long restricted handgun ownership and use, had fewer homicides in 2007 than at any other time since the early 1960s. Conversely, policies that encourage the use of guns have been ineffective in deterring violence. Permissive policies regarding carrying guns have not reduced crime rates, and permissive states generally have higher rates of gun-related deaths than others do (see map).

A Supreme Court decision broadening gun rights and overturning the D.C. statutes would be widely viewed as upholding such policies. By promoting our sense of entitlement to gun use against one another, it could weaken the framework of ordered liberty that makes civil society possible.

Now mind you that this was just one article from the New England Journal. Sounds like it was written by the Brady Group doesn't it? There are quite a few more article just like this one.

Doctors can collect all the data they want but it will not affect what happens in an ER on a Friday night. We will still be staffed by what the hospital budget says is proper staffing. Not some report saying one extra nurse or doctor might help with injury prevention.

You know, we've all seen the statement that having a gun in the home increases one's risk of injury by some percentage or other but is that really true? Is anybody collecting that sort of data? There are many questions that could be answered if we had information so I don't see any particular problem with practitioners trying to collect it.

That is not the Doctors job. I don't expect my doctor to be on some social srevice crusade "for the better good of all". I expect him to treat me for why I am there.

That some doctors do take an interest here probably has something to do with the fact that firearms are designed to cause firearm injuries, unlike automobiles, which you mentioned

Firearms are mechanical machines. They are not programmed or designed to "cause injuries". They are designed to launch a projectile out of the barrel. Nothing more. It is the person holding it that makes it cause injuries just like it is the drunk driver that causes the 5 car wreck, not the car itself.

and as you can read here the CDC found that gun-control laws are ineffective and "has no plans to spend more money on firearms study

."

That is because they were told by the people funding them to stop wasting taxpayer money.
In typical political fashion however the CDC just changed their approach and are again involved in this..

The CDC says it is not funding research on ”guns” or “gun control.” Instead, a CDC spokesman says – whether with a straight face or not I don’t know, since the communication was delivered by e-mail in response to a Republican congressional inquiry – the agency is studying “the web of circumstances” (whatever that is) that surrounds gun violence. Thus, according to this nonsensical gobbledygook, it is proper in the CDC’s eyes for it to study how alcohol sales impact gun violence or the effects of injuries sustained by teenagers as a result of gun possession. In other words, because some people who drink alcohol also might cause an injury or death to themselves or others by misusing firearms, and since alcoholism is a “disease,” it is appropriate for the CDC to study gun control. This subterfuge makes a mockery of the process whereby federal monies are appropriated in a way that reflects at least a colorable relationship with the agencies’ defined missions.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Tinnitus? Take two of these and call me in a month

 

[sig220mw]

Hey jerryd, now that's my kind of doctor.

My doc has talked to me about paint ball because he is interested in it since I told him that I play it with my 2 sons. He talked like he wanted to try it.

This is the deep south and also Texas to boot. We do have our little liberal areas but most people around here no better than to run down gun ownership.

Probably the biggest concentration of liberal anti gunners in this state is in Austin. But even there they aren't the majority.