[RussP]

It appears that U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, a 2004 Bush appointee, believes doctors do have the right to ask patients and parents of minor patients if they have firearms in their homes.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/preventivecare/28529?xid=ob_pcp

Judge Cooke ruled that asking patients about gun ownership was not only irrelevant to Second Amendment rights, but it also did not infringe on their privacy. HOWEVER, she noted that, while .gov can require information for purchasing and licensing firearms, doctors cannot compel patients or parents to provide personal information.

Gov. Scott is going to appeal the ruling.

 

[Patchman]

I really don't see 400 children (nationwide, as cited in article) accidently killed by guns at home as compelling enough reason for the Federal ruling. The numbers are tragic, yes, but not sufficiently compelling.

Let it be the parents' responsibility to learn about firearms safety and to secure their firearms, and leave it at that.

 

[RX7Boricua]

My doctor can ask me all he wants about my firearms, and he will get the same response every time... "I don't see how that's relevant here, and honestly, what I may or may not have in my home is none of your business, or anyone's for that matter."

Jose

 

[PAGunner]

It's the American Academy of Pediatricians, very anti-2a, the psychiatry community is also very anti-2a. The AMA is basically like the AARP for phyisicians, they don't really stand for physicians, most doc's aren't members of the AMA. The AMA does push a liberal agenda, so it wouldn't suprise me if they also had an official anti-2a stand.

 

[guanoman]

My doctor can ask me all he wants about my firearms, and he will get the same response every time... "I don't see how that's relevant here, and honestly, what I may or may not have in my home is none of your business, or anyone's for that matter."

Jose

My kid's doctor asked me that question once - and I stress once. I gave him your same answer, Jose. He's never bothered me since.

Their argument is that gun-related accidents kill lots of kids each year in this country. And this is the argument that certain folks will use to rationalize more gun control. My rebuttal is to ask these folks how many kids die unneccesarily each year in swimming pool accidents. I guarantee you, you'll hear crickets chirping more often than not. Using their same logic about less guns, less dead kids, then we can say the same for pools - which by the way cause many times more deaths in kids than guns do each year.

 

[Dukeboy01]

My doctor can ask me all he wants about my firearms, and he will get the same response every time... "I don't see how that's relevant here, and honestly, what I may or may not have in my home is none of your business, or anyone's for that matter."

Jose

This. I don't see how the government (in this case, the Florida state government) can deny the right of a private citizen to ask another private citizen a question. I mean, the doctors aren't all government employees (yet) so I don't see how the government can limit their speech in this manner.

Cops are government employees, yet we're allowed to walk up and engage you in consensual conversations. How are you going to prohibit a private citizen from doing the same? It's not as if the doctor has any authority to compell you to answer truthfully.

And the correct response is to tell them to MYOB and find another physician who's not a Nosey Nancy if it really bugs you that much.

 

[pmcjury]

My kids doctor asked me once about firearms in the home, if I reloaded ammo, where did I do it, etc. Given the circumstances it was a valid question, so I told her. Other than that she has never brought it up.

The questioning was in regard to a high lead level, so I didn't have a problem answering it. Turns out it was a false positive thank god, but it does show that under some circumstances this can be a valid medical question

 

[coverdog]

Many of the quoted 400 children killed probably weren't accidents either. It doesn't say the were accidents in the article and I would bet many were drug and gang related.

 

[guanoman]

Many of the quoted 400 children killed probably weren't accidents either. It doesn't say the were accidents in the article and I would bet many were drug and gang related.

Read an article once that defined these "kids". It seems that when these pseudo-studies are done, anyone from the age of 19 on down is suddenly considered a "child". And that, as you pointed out, many of these "kids" die in gang- or drug-related incidences.

Funny how "studies" tend to skew the truth simply to push their own agenda. We must all be leery of the information put forth by groups and ask to see their methodology and data related to said studies before drawing any conclusions.

 

[BailRecoveryAgent]

I would follow Nancy Reagans advice and "Just Say No"...

 

[highfructosecornsyrp]

Read an article once that defined these "kids". It seems that when these pseudo-studies are done, anyone from the age of 19 on down is suddenly considered a "child". And that, as you pointed out, many of these "kids" die in gang- or drug-related incidences.

Funny how "studies" tend to skew the truth simply to push their own agenda. We must all be leery of the information put forth by groups and ask to see their methodology and data related to said studies before drawing any conclusions.

Funny how you didn't list any data or methodology for your assumption that most gun deaths amongst children are drug or gang related or the ages that these studies define children as...

 

[Sam Spade]

I was asked once. Hilarity ensued: "Why yes, in fact I'm carrying now."

 

[RX7Boricua]

My kids doctor asked me once about firearms in the home, if I reloaded ammo, where did I do it, etc. Given the circumstances it was a valid question, so I told her. Other than that she has never brought it up.

The questioning was in regard to a high lead level, so I didn't have a problem answering it. Turns out it was a false positive thank god, but it does show that under some circumstances this can be a valid medical question

That was one thing I was going to add actually... If the doctor is in the middle of performing some "House, MD"-style evaluation of toxins in my home to determine a possible diagnosis, then I will readily answer any questions as truthfully as I can. If I bring my 2mo son in for his vaccinations and you ask me about my firearm ownership so you can lecture me on gun safety, then you can shove your stethoscope where the sun don't shine, eartubes first.

Jose

 

[writwing]

My kids doctor asked me once about firearms in the home, if I reloaded ammo, where did I do it, etc. Given the circumstances it was a valid question, so I told her. Other than that she has never brought it up.

The questioning was in regard to a high lead level, so I didn't have a problem answering it. Turns out it was a false positive thank god, but it does show that under some circumstances this can be a valid medical question

Did the doc also ask you about lead paint, copper pipes, having your water tested?

 

[coverdog]

Funny how you didn't list any data or methodology for your assumption that most gun deaths amongst children are drug or gang related or the ages that these studies define children as...

He didn't say "most", he said many. Read

 

[Lord]

Many of the quoted 400 children killed probably weren't accidents either. It doesn't say the were accidents in the article and I would bet many were drug and gang related.

+1 on this. I once saw a documentary on "statistics", and this particular issue came up. Ok, maybe there were 400 'kids' killed with a firearm last year, but as pointed out, anyone below a certain age is a kid, and there are certain factors that usually get left out... for example. One of those kids may very well have been a child aged 6 or 7... they may very well have been killed at home by a bullet to the head. What they leave out of that statistic is that the poor kid was playing on the porch when a drive by went down, and they caught a stray bullet from a thug committing a crime. That's where the statistic gets skewed...

A small child at home got shot and killed by a bullet not meant for her.

vs.

A small child playing at home was shot and killed by a gang banger doing a drive by.

Both would be correct, but only the first one would make the statistic to suit the needs of the statisticians lobbying for gun control. Whereas, the second statement would actually make the argument that keeping and bearing arms might serve as a deterrent to anyone that might do a drive by.

 

[wjv]

I would follow Nancy Reagans advice and "Just Say No"...

Yup!

"What guns?"

"I don't like guns."

Lying to your Dr. is not a crime. . Although, who knows; maybe it's will be under Obama-care. . .

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

It's none of their business, until there's national healthcare. And then they'll make it their business.

 

[BamaBud]

Oh ye of little faith...

Obamacare is mandating that all medical records be made electronic (the better to search them with, my dear) and also follow certain formats. They also have mandated that they be "available" to the government (HHS, FDA, etc) sometime in the future (for unstated reasons).

Wonder how that will play out as to privacy of your medical info?

 

[fastbolt]

It's the American Academy of Pediatricians, very anti-2a, the psychiatry community is also very anti-2a. The AMA is basically like the AARP for phyisicians, they don't really stand for physicians, most doc's aren't members of the AMA. The AMA does push a liberal agenda, so it wouldn't suprise me if they also had an official anti-2a stand.

Interesting comment.

A while back I learned from a friend of mine who is a doctor (and a long time firearms instructor) that something like only 20% of doctors are members of the AMA. He was a bit dismissive of them.

Since I feel the same way about AARP and have never become a member, I can see his point.

As far as statistics? You really have to know the purpose behind the gathering and interpretation of them, I'd think. Context matters.