jcwit
member
After reading some of the posts here I see a shortage of tin foil in the very near future.
Strange question at the VA Hospital.
- Thread starter 7thCavScout
- Start date
- Status
"This is a ethics violation of the "boundary" limits I believe. There are other threads in the shooting forums that address this."
Joe
This is important to understand.
Answering, "None of your business!" will not change the doctors behaviour and will not make this end.
From the AMA website, Opinion 10.01 - Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship:
(4) The patient has the right to confidentiality. The physician should not reveal confidential communications or information without the consent of the patient, unless provided for by law or by the need to protect the welfare of the individual or the public interest.
"How do I file a complaint against a physician" on the AMA website is a good place to begin.
By allowing it to continue, you are part of the problem.
gd
Joe
This is important to understand.
Answering, "None of your business!" will not change the doctors behaviour and will not make this end.
From the AMA website, Opinion 10.01 - Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship:
(4) The patient has the right to confidentiality. The physician should not reveal confidential communications or information without the consent of the patient, unless provided for by law or by the need to protect the welfare of the individual or the public interest.
"How do I file a complaint against a physician" on the AMA website is a good place to begin.
By allowing it to continue, you are part of the problem.
gd
killchain
Member
Sort of off topic, but it involves the VA:
I've spent two years trying to get treatment for a combat injury. Waiting six months to see specialists, waiting three weeks for routine visits... finally, my doctor had moved (maybe fired?) and I got a temporary doctor. He's a Gulf War vet. Only here for two weeks. He calls me in, does an entire patient sit-down and gives me the skinny on that these particular questions.
He told me that yes, treatment for things like PTSD and sleep disorders are flags for things like that.
Yes, you must report to an employer you're a veteran. (You know, "tax issues.")
When they ask you if you have any disabilities, you have to tell them. (For their "tax credits" and for your "accomodations.")
And yes, when they find out you're a two-time combat vet with a combat wound and PTSD symptoms they will find someone "more qualified."
After consulting with me he determined that, in fact, that I had "shift-work" and needed medication to "regulate my sleeping habits, which were now over" and cancelled my scrip for sleep aids. I don't sleep good anymore... but I'll deal. I've got a family to feed.
He also told me that under no circumstances should I seek counseling or help from the VA for mental issues, especially related to combat. He told me to find a private doctor.
He got my MRI I have waited for two years for pushed through within a WEEK, AND a visit to a specialist to get the ball rolling to fix this wound so I can live my life again.
It should be like this all the time... "You're a veteran? I got your back."
THAT, my friends, is a battle buddy helping a battle buddy out.
By the way... I AM taking him a Christmas present.
I've spent two years trying to get treatment for a combat injury. Waiting six months to see specialists, waiting three weeks for routine visits... finally, my doctor had moved (maybe fired?) and I got a temporary doctor. He's a Gulf War vet. Only here for two weeks. He calls me in, does an entire patient sit-down and gives me the skinny on that these particular questions.
He told me that yes, treatment for things like PTSD and sleep disorders are flags for things like that.
Yes, you must report to an employer you're a veteran. (You know, "tax issues.")
When they ask you if you have any disabilities, you have to tell them. (For their "tax credits" and for your "accomodations.")
And yes, when they find out you're a two-time combat vet with a combat wound and PTSD symptoms they will find someone "more qualified."
After consulting with me he determined that, in fact, that I had "shift-work" and needed medication to "regulate my sleeping habits, which were now over" and cancelled my scrip for sleep aids. I don't sleep good anymore... but I'll deal. I've got a family to feed.
He also told me that under no circumstances should I seek counseling or help from the VA for mental issues, especially related to combat. He told me to find a private doctor.
He got my MRI I have waited for two years for pushed through within a WEEK, AND a visit to a specialist to get the ball rolling to fix this wound so I can live my life again.
It should be like this all the time... "You're a veteran? I got your back."
THAT, my friends, is a battle buddy helping a battle buddy out.
By the way... I AM taking him a Christmas present.
incorrect
Let's take a refresher course on the disarmament-and-let's-dismantle-and-destroy-the-Constitution modus operendi. It is the baseline with which to judge things like this. Start with, who introduced and sponsored the bill, HR 2640.
Read the infamous MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center) Report. Sure, it was "withdrawn". And so what; it is the thought that counts. It was ordered in to existance by someone who is still today un-named, commissioned and composed, approved, and then distributed. It didn't fall out of the sky. It was not an "accident". It was not supposed to be for public consumption, but got leaked. Read it.
So let's return to HR 2640, and go to the soothers at military.com for some comfort.
The NRA as opposed to those other "small gun owner groups" who understand what the term "right" refers to in the United States Constitution, and the words "shall not be infringed" mean in the english language. And who further have no inhibitions about some other subjects the NRA are unwilling to address. But that is all another subject for another thread.
So;
What is avoided here, is that the switch from classification of PTSD from being a "disability" to something else, would not require a legislative act. It would be as simple as a redefining of a medical condition. That is it. The U.S. Congress has no authority to challenge any recognized medical institution or authority on such matters. Period.
This is a legal set up.
Wait for the first wave of "incidents" involving vets with PTSD that become national media focal stories.
Remember who introduced this bill, sponsored it, and pushed for it. They are not your friends. Whether or not anyone wants to include the NRA is up to them. But this is a legal set up all the same.
-----------------------------------
Je Suis Prest
Read the infamous MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center) Report. Sure, it was "withdrawn". And so what; it is the thought that counts. It was ordered in to existance by someone who is still today un-named, commissioned and composed, approved, and then distributed. It didn't fall out of the sky. It was not an "accident". It was not supposed to be for public consumption, but got leaked. Read it.
So let's return to HR 2640, and go to the soothers at military.com for some comfort.
Right, there is no act entitled "Veterans Disarmament Act". And we know that making references to the ridiculous is always a good way to throw people off the scent of a real stink somewhere in the current dot gov. Pending legislation is not needed, of course; HR 2640 is already there. Nice diversionary tangent.
More like; the NRA has a history of not opposing "common sense gun laws". "Common sense", which can be anything used to convince enough people that it is really "common sense" - and therefore "no sane person should oppose it".
The NRA as opposed to those other "small gun owner groups" who understand what the term "right" refers to in the United States Constitution, and the words "shall not be infringed" mean in the english language. And who further have no inhibitions about some other subjects the NRA are unwilling to address. But that is all another subject for another thread.
Ah yes; "common sense". Why not instead, let's use our historical base, perceptional skills and intellect to analyse what is being constructed and what the longterm intent is when we read a Bill like 2640.
It was carefully constructed alright. If it were the intent to specifically protect persons with PTSD it would have specifically stated in plain english that "Persons diagnosed with [PTSD] shall never be construed as mentally defective or otherwise a danger to themselves or any other person, nor this otherwise used to prohibit such persons from owning, possessing, using or carrying any firearm for any reason" Or words to that effect. Period. But it does not. Why not?
So;
SEE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321,00.html
What is avoided here, is that the switch from classification of PTSD from being a "disability" to something else, would not require a legislative act. It would be as simple as a redefining of a medical condition. That is it. The U.S. Congress has no authority to challenge any recognized medical institution or authority on such matters. Period.
This is a legal set up.
Wait for the first wave of "incidents" involving vets with PTSD that become national media focal stories.
Remember who introduced this bill, sponsored it, and pushed for it. They are not your friends. Whether or not anyone wants to include the NRA is up to them. But this is a legal set up all the same.
-----------------------------------
Je Suis Prest
Last edited:
7thCavScout
Member
Byron, you can question me all you want. I'm telling you I was flat asked that question, and after reading some of the posts here I'm not the only one who's been asked that either.
double bogey
Member
Consider that our government is wanting a national health database. They promise they can keep these records confidential. I'm sure they also promised our CIA undercover operatives they could keep "secrets" also. I think the personal gun ownership questions are bad for our RKBA. If they want to promote gun safety in the home, they can put posters on the wall or hand out pamplets.
rugerman
Member
No sir, I used to but they were all lost in a tragic boating accident, along with all my knives and ammo.
KosmicKrunch
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- Messages
- 199
I am a wounded and disabled D-Storm vet from 1991. I was asked just recently by the folks at the Cleveland (closest to me) Wade Park VA, that same very question, 2 times now, once every 6 months. I answered NO.
My VA in Cleveland is in the absolute worse section in that town. I am lucky to have a police friend that lives near there and I can drop my carry weapon off with them and pick it back up on the way home. From and to the VA from his house, I feel naked and feel like every BG on earth is watching me LOL
My VA in Cleveland is in the absolute worse section in that town. I am lucky to have a police friend that lives near there and I can drop my carry weapon off with them and pick it back up on the way home. From and to the VA from his house, I feel naked and feel like every BG on earth is watching me LOL
killchain
Member
One of the blessings of my VA is that it's in a Federal building, which my Father happens to work at as a US Marshal. I just find him and give him my CCW, and I get it when I leave... and I know most of the guys in there, I trust them to keep all of us safe.
Many vets are pointing to this question being ask. I was skeptical but a search on the VA website turned this up:
http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va_search.jsp?SQ=&TT=1&QT=firearm+questions&searchbtn=Search
Note the first entry. When I click on it,no page comes up.Was this a question being ask about suicide? I do not know but needs to be looked into more.My apologies to anyone I cast doubt on. Byron
http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va_search.jsp?SQ=&TT=1&QT=firearm+questions&searchbtn=Search
Note the first entry. When I click on it,no page comes up.Was this a question being ask about suicide? I do not know but needs to be looked into more.My apologies to anyone I cast doubt on. Byron
rhetor
Member
When I was asked this question by my VA doc, I declined to answer, but admitted to having a bath tub and a bicycle both of which are pretty dangerous if one looks at injuries associated with them. I suggested he add questions about these dangerous possessions to his survey.
jcwit
member
Here's a thought folks, the VA treat many, many older vets "not all" but many, and Dementia can easily be a problem with the older folks, suppose that just might be a factor?
Another thing to consider guys, a smart aleck remark is a sure way to get on the best side of your caregiver. Putting it as a joke is one thing but being offensively conseited is a whole different thing altogether. Especially for a Dr. who is overworked already with the number of patients they see on a daily basis, most of them old and very hard to get along with.
Furthermore, the VA Dr. has NEVER asked me questions such as this, this is taken care of by the Nurse who takes the vitals and fills out the questions that are referred to the Dr.
Remember, what goes around comes back around.
Another thing to consider guys, a smart aleck remark is a sure way to get on the best side of your caregiver. Putting it as a joke is one thing but being offensively conseited is a whole different thing altogether. Especially for a Dr. who is overworked already with the number of patients they see on a daily basis, most of them old and very hard to get along with.
Furthermore, the VA Dr. has NEVER asked me questions such as this, this is taken care of by the Nurse who takes the vitals and fills out the questions that are referred to the Dr.
Remember, what goes around comes back around.
killchain
Member
This in no way justifies the questions they are asking.
Because, quite frankly, that statement doesn't universally apply to those diagnosed with PTSD. While many are completely harmless and would have no issues owning or using a gun, there are those diagnosed with PTSD that DO potential...even LIKLIHOOD...of hurting themselves and others. A blanket statement that PTSD is NEVER a valid reason to deny one of their 2nd Amendment rights can't and won't fly, because there is no way of promising that theose affected by PTSD are NOT mentally defective or a danger to those around them....It should be handled on a case by case basis. To expect a law would include such a blanket statement automatically excluding a large number of persons is simply silly. While I don't want far-reaching laws that can rob one of their rights without recourse, I also don't endorse a law that says "people with xyz aren't dangerous and should never be denied the right to own a gun under any circumstances whatsoever" with absolutely NO BASIS for that comment. There is NO WAY to accurately state that EVERYONE diagnosed with PTSD is actually truely fully mentally competent and capable of safe gun ownership. Mental illnesses, including PTSD, can casue unpredictable, abnormal behaviors in people. Do you deny this? Do you deny the fact here are those out there suffering from PTSD that may be potentially dangerous? Do you deny the fact tehre have been cases of people with PTSD acting out violently? Yet, you argue this entire class of people should be promised unhindered access to firearms, no matter what? That actually elevates the rights of those with PTSD far above those of the common man ..and dangerously so, IMO.
Lets take a moment to step back and think about this. I can't remember of ever hearing about an elderly veteran threatening someone with a firearm. If that's the justification being used to ask that question of everyone, then it's illogical. It would make much more sense that if a Doctor finds a case of mental illness to treat that on a case by case basis. If you stop and think of all the potentially dangerous things found in a modern household, you may find that firearms are just one of many dangers.
killchain
Member
So you're implying that everyone who has a potential for PTSD should be reviewed and scrutinized for their right to own firearms?
That is a seriously flawed and prejudiced view of people who have post-traumatic stress disorder. You don't just get "PTSD" from wars, you can get it from any kind of trauma, including but not limited to things like a rape, a car crash, witnessing a violent death... etc. etc.
So, essentially you are saying that about half the population needs to be "scrutinized?" Because I guarantee that most people (INCLUDING YOU) have seen something terrible in your life and could POTENTIALLY have PTSD.
ol' scratch
Member
I had a doc ask me the same thing. They actually asked me twice. I guess I just look like 'one of those' people (six-foot, bald, wild-eyed and scary 
). The new doctor I go to never asked. He was concerned when I asked to have a lead screening, but he didn't ask about firearms. He asked whether my home was older and questions about my plumbing. When I told him I shoot a lot and reload, he was more interested in talking 'shop.' Found out he is a member at my club.
). The new doctor I go to never asked. He was concerned when I asked to have a lead screening, but he didn't ask about firearms. He asked whether my home was older and questions about my plumbing. When I told him I shoot a lot and reload, he was more interested in talking 'shop.' Found out he is a member at my club.jcwit
member
Here again is a blanket statement that just doesn't hold water.
I remember seeing it quite a few times and I would imagine usually its not reported because its not part of the case.
I've tried to express this in a logical manner but there are those that seem to fear every little question has a dire meaning behind it. This is not to say to keep a vigil eye out but it also means not to go off like chicken little and being terrified of every little thing. If this is in fact the case that one is terrified of every little thing mayhap that person is mentality unstable enough that they should not own firearms or sharp objects either for that matter.
As I stated earlier, I believe what goes around comes around, and have those of you who go to the VA notice how grumpy a lot of the patiants are. Here they are getting discounted if not free care and they're bitching about it, unblievable.
Bottom line is that one should use common sense, which I realize is in very short supply today.
The thread seems now to perpetuate the sterotype of the combat vet.Society did this well when we were coming home from Nam. The VA care is not free. We earned it. A gripe of the doctors can be resolved through the patient advocate. A switch to another doctor can be done. The VA I go to is well run and I get excellent care.They listen to the vet. Again, I have not been ask as indicated but it appears some are.
Actually I chose my words carfully............sometimes people don't read with the same care.
I said that I hadn't heard of a story where elderly vets had threatened someone with a firearm. I didn't say or imply that you hadn't heard such a story.
I still feel that the VA is addressing a problem that isn't there.
(please note the key words "I" and "feel".)
jcwit
member
True, I should have used the word earned, my mistake. The VA I go to is excellant in their service and the Dr.'s are first rate. I've also gone to the Cancer Center's of America, "prior to going to the VA", and the VA matches or surpasses the care I got there.
84B20
Member
This very interesting. It mimics exactly what I have experienced at my local VA clinic as well as the VA hospital I go to. I have had as good or better care at both places than I had before I retired and had treatment from the doctor and hospital provided by my employer's policy. And I have indicated this to the VA agents I have talked to as well as the doctors and other clinicians at the VA. I think it is important to let them know how much it is appreciated.
XD Fan
Member
None of their business
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
