A Florida gun bill, which the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Florida Pediatric Society have been against, has been approved by both the Florida House and Senate.
The new Florida gun bill, commonly referred to as the 'guns and doctors bill,' was approved by the Florida Senate in a 27-10 vote. It now just needs to be signed by Governor Rick Scott to become a law.
What does the 'guns and doctors bill' do?
Among some other things, it states that 'unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made.'
Since pediatricians often provide gun safety advice, in addition to counseling parents about other safety hazards that together help make accidents the leading cause of death for children, this law will likely affect how they talk to parents.
At routine well child checkups, pediatricians often provide safety advice about:
Kids and Guns
In 2007, there were 122 unintentional firearm deaths in children.
Some more recent gun accidents involving children include:
- an 11-year-old in Indianapolis was accidentally shot by his brother
- three children in Houston who were hurt when a 6-year-old accidentally fired a gun he had brought to school
- an 8-year-old in Alabama died from an accidental shotgun blast
- a 2-year-old in Vermont died after he was accidentally shot with a rifle by a sibling
- a 10-year-old lost use of his right eye after being shot by an older teen cousin while they were playing with a gun that they thought was unloaded
- a 3-year-old in North Carolina shot and killed himself
- a 4-year-old accidentally shot a 12-year-old in Louisiana while playing with a rifle they found in a closet
Gun Safety
In addition to trying to prevent these type of tragedies, all of which occurred in the past few weeks, pediatricians might talk about guns and gun safety if a child was thought to be at increased risk for suicide. Since, according the American Academy of Pediatrics, 'suicide completion rises if guns are used,' it would be important to know about and talk about guns in this situation.
That's 122+ reasons why this law is a bad idea.
Why do they need it? One unsubstantiated report of a Florida pediatrician who reportedly wouldn't see a child because the mother wouldn't answer questions about guns in their home.
Marion P. Hammer, of the NRA, in an interview with the Sun-Sentinel, also states that 'Parents take their children to see pediatricians and doctors for medical care, not to be lectured on safety, not to be lectured by a physician on firearm safety and how to store firearms. They're simply not qualified to do it.' She also thinks the bill is important to protect parents who have great concerns that pediatricians are putting things in their child's medical records that can be 'accessed by insurance companies, or the government, and used against them.'
This contrasts with what AAP President O. Marion Burton, MD, FAAP says about the Florida gun bill - "This bill is a harmful, unnecessary, and unprecedented government intrusion into the patient-physician relationship. Restricting the type of conversations that physicians can have with patients not only violates physician professional standards and clearly flies in the face of our First Amendment rights to free speech, but gravely threatens the health and well-being of patients. Similar legislation has already been proposed in other states, and we urge leaders in Alabama, North Carolina and elsewhere to reject these bills outright."
Parents should join the AAP in calling on Florida's governor 'to veto this legislation and to protect children from needless injuries and deaths by maintaining a strong physician-patient-family relationship.'
If not, what could be next - a law against counseling kids about playing with matches because the cigarette lobby is worried how it might affect future sales?
Politically, you also have to wonder how smart it is to pass a law like this. Won't this law, and the politicians who passed it, be mentioned any time a child is killed or injured by a gun in Florida?
Related:
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Accidents and Tragedies
I am actually stunned and don’t know what to say. A close boyhood and family friend of my son’s accidentally shot and killed himself while playing with his father’s pistol that he found in his bedroom. His father, mother and sister were never the same again; the family was devastated. It was all to an easily preventable tragedy that perhaps a reminder to keep firearms safely secured from children may have prevented; maybe not but we’ll never know. I practice pediatrics (I was not the deceased’s doctor) and I almost never fail to inquire about firearms in the home. I am not antigun, just anti access to guns for kids. The only winner in this law besides the gun makers are the emergency rooms and funeral directors; job security for trauma surgeons and undertakers.
The question becomes why do you need to ask your patients, or their parents if they have a firearm in the home in order to give advice on firearm safety to children and families? The answer is simple: you don’t. I understand your oath as a doctor to heal, but you honestly have no right to know the private business of your patients unless that business is directly related to their health (ie if you have reason to believe a child is being abused, then you have a duty there as a physician). You have no duty at all to counsel or lecture your patients or their parents on their gun ownership or where they choose to store said firearms. Quite simply, unless there is reason to believe something unsafe is happening (for instance if a child is in your office talking about having gotten his mother’s pistol out of the closet.. yes, intervene, and say something to the child’s parents about this.. inform them)…. otherwise, doctor, it’s none of your business. Provide the service you’re hired to provide and don’t invade your patients’ privacy — something you have no legal right to do, which is what this new law codifies.
In the patient-physician relationship, privacy parameters are clearly deliniated before the patient enters the exam room. The patient reviews and signs standardized legal privacy/confidentiality policies before becoming a patient of any medical practice. There are further legal safeguards like HIPAA that specifically protects privacy and confidentiality of medical information. The doctor in providing service can ask anything he or she thinks serves the patients needs. If the patient doesn’t like those questions for whatever reasons – they may refuse to answer, find another doctor, or register a complaint with the state medical board. Asking a patient for a date is professionally and ethically inappropriate. Asking about guns in the home is not. Either way laws like Florida Senate Bill 432 and House Bill 155 are unecessary and redundant. The pateitn has many options and safeguards already in place.
I am a physician spouse. When I heard this law was past I thought who would be stupid enough to waste clinic time to discuss and council patients on something most physicians have no training in. What a waste of legislature and physician time.
But now I want to thank every legislator, senator and the Governor for supporting and passing this law, as now I am living the merits of this statute.
My 16 year old daughter was date raped, by a boy who she had been dating for six months. She is now in a metal ward due to the emotional trauma of losing her virginity to rape/sexual assault. As the forms to release her use to mandate the removal of fire arms from the home as a condition of her release.
If it would have been six months ago and, I complied, I would then have an unarmed home for her armed rapist to visit.
Due to the circumstances of the incident and her relationship there is no way we could have any hope of pursuing charges although the physical findings and presentations clearly present nonconsensual intercourse. She is still healing physically.
Is her committing suicide an issue, yes. Is her controlling manipulative rapist coming over an issue, yes. Now I have a choice and my daughter will not be his victim any longer!
Seems like MD’s should stick to what their trained in and allow those who are qualified and experienced with weapons, security and conflict to protect their families to the best of their ability.
The NRA spokesperson’s comment, “‘Parents take their children to see pediatricians and doctors for medical care, not to be lectured on safety, not to be lectured by a physician on firearm safety and how to store firearms. They’re simply not qualified to do it.’ “, could not be more incorrect.
What are her credentials for evaluating the training and qualifications of pediatricians?!! It is routine Anticipatory Guidance in pretty much every pediatric office that I know of to talk about safety and injury prevention … including gun safety! We are trained in child safety and parental counseling throughtout our residencies. Its a huge part of our jobs. And in what way is preventing injury different from medical care? Her statement is akin to saying that we should not discuss what to feed growing children becuase that is not “medical care”. Anything that promotes a child’s health and well-being is medical care.
That two governmental bodies would pass this kind of legislation is mind-boggling! I hope that all parents in Florida will send a loud, clear message and vote anyone who voted in favor of this flawed piece of legislation out of office!
In an interview for WPTV, Florida Republican State Senator Joe Negron said that “It’s inconceivable to me that my pediatrician would ask me whether or not I have a gun in my home.”
Inconceivable? He can’t ‘imagine or mentally grasp’ why a pediatrician would want to ask questions about gun safety at a child’s check up appointment?
Reminds me of the Princess Bride movie:
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Perhaps because it’s none of the pediatrician’s business? How does being a pediatrician make him/her an expert on gun safety? If a child is talking about a hunting trip he recently took, or target shooting with dad or mom, then yes, by all means, a Dr. would be responsible in asking a question like “you’re shooting in a place where you have something behind the target, aren’t you?” or something to that effect to make sure the child is, in fact being safe, and if not, the Dr. should say something TO THE CHILD’S PARENTS, so that they can be parents. Then again, most parents who let their children target shoot, or hunt, already do these things as a matter of course, because they teach their children to respect firearms, as they themselves do.
As a general rule, however, a Dr. has no business at all intruding into a child’s home life on this topic.
This, I believe is what he can’t conceive of: the need in our society for Drs. to take over parenting our children, or their perceived right to do so.
The appropriate question here, should be “what are the doctor’s credentials for lecturing children or their parents on firearm safety?” A doctor may be qualified to do so.. but not because he is a doctor, and if he is qualified outside his practice (say he is a range safety officer somewhere in his spare time), then asking about firearms in the home is STILL outside his purview as a doctor. It’s none of his business. Most parents in Florida tend to not want the government raising their children. They’d like to do it themselves.
My brother, for instance, has a small child, and owns a hand-gun (the last place he worked would not issue officers a back-up weapon, but insisted they carry them.. so he had to buy a Glock 28). He would tell his pediatrician the same thing: it’s none of your business. Give her her checkup, and stay out of my home.
Of course the AR-15 in the trunk of his patrol car is none of the doctor’s business either.
“Most parents in Florida tend to not want the government raising their children. They’d like to do it themselves.”
How did you now make the jump from pediatricians asking about guns to concerns about the ‘government raising their children?’
One thing in all of your posts that you seem to be missing is that, even after listening and getting some information about gun safety from their pediatrician, parents can still make their own decision about what to do with their gun. Like any other advice, they can choose to follow it or dismiss it.
Its still a free country, at least as long as this NRA/Rick Scott gun law isn’t passed and places limits on what doctors can say.
Your training as a resident I am sure covered “Patient Safety”
Astronaut and physician Jim Bagain’s a expert on “Patient Safety”, research clearly shows that medical errors result in more deaths than firearms.
What were saying is your attention to things you know well like the spread of Mrsa, or the diagnosing “catching” cancer in its early stages by using time on physical presentation, laboratory results, and their suggestions is a far greater use of your many years of training than venturing into the politics, practical use, and constitutional rights.
Limiting medical errors, medical misses and and diagnosing diseases is why patients come to see you.
Here’s a question for all you doctors out there. What classes, certifications, and experience do you have that qualifies you to offer advice and counseling on firearms safety? Would you come to me and ask me if your chest pain was heartburn or a heart attack? Then why would I come to you for firearms safety? Here’s another question. Will your malpractice insurance cover you if someone suffers injury due to following your advice? Will you find yourself up on the stand answering question #1?
Maybe your best bet is to stick to the stuff you are trained in, medicine. If you persist in offering advice that you are not trained to give, I must insist that you complete the following form, to be copied and placed in my medical record.
http://tinyurl.com/3alr6u (PDF)
“What classes, certifications, and experience do you have that qualifies you to offer advice and counseling on firearms safety?…. Then why would I come to you for firearms safety?”
Pediatricians don’t try to offer general gun safety lessons. It is not about what to do if your gun misfires when your hunting or keeping your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. The gun safety advice you will typically get from a pediatrician is usually a much more basic and general tip to keep the gun stored properly – ideally in a gun safe or locked box.
Even the NRA web site says that gun owners should ‘Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.’
I don’t know if pediatricians, who are already considered experts at providing for the health and safety of our kids, need an extra class about gun safety, but I remember gun safety being talked about in several safety lectures.
‘Will your malpractice insurance cover you if someone suffers injury due to following your advice?’
Which incident involving a child shooting himself or another child seemed to involve someone following the advice of a pediatrician? The 2-year-old in Missouri who found a loaded gun on a shelf in the closet and shot himself the other day?
Are you, the legislators who vote for this bill, the governor if he signs it, members of the NRA who support it, or members of the Florida Medical Society who seemed to make a deal to help get it passed, going to take responsibility if a child shoots himself or a sibling or playmate who might have been helped by gun safety advice from their pediatrician?
‘If you persist in offering advice that you are not trained to give, I must insist that you complete the following form, to be copied and placed in my medical record.’
I’m not sure the new law would let me place something like that in your chart.
Since you seem to be into risk management, shouldn’t you add something to your form about understanding the risk of keeping a loaded gun close at hand that a child might get a hold of.
Firearms are NOT ‘a statistically small, nearly negligible
fraction of the items involved in home injuries.’ They are one of the top ten causes of accidental death in children.
Where do you get your data? WISQUARS shows a total of 65 accidental firearm deaths for children age 0-14 in 2007. If we expand the age range to 0-19, it’s 138.
Poisonings are 134 (0-14) and 972 (0-19)
Bicycles are 94 (0-14) and 148 (0-19)
Drowning is 739 (0-14) and 1,056 (0-19)
Suffocation is 1,210 (0-14) and 1,263 (0-19)
Falls are 92 (0-14) and 178 (0-19)
Fire/Burns are 457 (0-14) and 544 (0-19)
Motor Vehicle accidents are 1,960 (0-14) and 6,683 (0-19)
By comparison to other causes of accidental death, firearms accidents are very small.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing a political agenda. Be prepared to get pushed back. If you guys persist in acting like the Brady Campaign instead of as medical professionals, be prepared to be treated like the anti-rights bigots you are.
You cannot take a political agenda and try to cover it with a white coat. When you do that you merely cheapen your profession. And because you are specifically making recomendations outside of your area of expertise, you are violating your doctor-patient relationship.
You make a strong argument for gun safety, so why would you object to a pediatrician supporting you in your efforts to provide professional firearms safety? I think you know that pediatricians are just practicing good preventative care about a wide range of safety issues, guns just being one part of that. If you have not been to a pediatrician with a young child for a check up you might not be aware of the normal standard of care, which appropriately requires preventative care.
Regarding liability, doctors who simply wait to treat a gunshot wound and fail to discuss firearms safety ahead of time could be accused of substandard care. This bill, if it becomes law, puts doctors in an impossible position.
A pediatrician is not, as a pediatrician, qualified to “provide professional firearms safety”. Nothing about being a doctor qualifies you in this regard in a professional capacity.
Regarding liability, as you say, the passage of this law, even if it does not explicitly provide immunity for doctors regarding such liability for not asking questions, provides a prima facie defense against such claims. In short, the defense is that under the law, unless there is reason to suspect a child is in danger because of an unsafe situation regarding a firearm, they are not to inquire. The situation is very clear for doctors under the new law. Not less so.
It is not my eye doctor’s place, not my GPs place, and not the place of the pediatrician to which I’d take my children if I had any to question whether or not I own a firearm. It’s certainly not their place to record my private-non-medical data (which is what my ownership of a firearm is) in my medical record.
Comments on both sides are missing the Freedom issue.
So you don’t like your doctor asking questions about guns? You have the freedom to refuse to answer, or to find another doctor, or both.
How weird that the people who don’t want the government meddling with their right to carry lethal weapons want the government to protect them from being asked a question!
What training does it take to suggest to parents that they look into how to properly store a gun?
Ok, Mr. Smartypants, you tell me how to store a firearm. I assume that you know what firearms I have, what my family situation is, how I plan to use a firearm in the event of a home invasion, how much I can afford to pay for storage solutions, my training and experience, and the training, experience, and my trust level in the people that are in my house.
What? You can’t tell me all those things?
That’s just my point. The pediatrician, following the anti-gun guidelines of the American Pediatric Association will tell me not to own a gun at all, especially a handguns. He will tell me that if I can’t be a good parent and go completely firearm free that I should at least lock the gun up in a childproof safe, with the ammo completely separately contained and locked. Then he will act suprised when I tell him that his one size fits all solution is completely stupid for my situation. Am I going to ask the criminal to hold on a bit so that I can load my weapon?
The problem with people like you is that you discount any trade offs. You assume that the threat of the gun outweighs the threat that I have the gun to defend against. That’s what I mean when I say that you don’t have the training, certification, or experience to opine on the subject of firearms and self-defense.
To further illustrate Sean’s point:
1. Where is the safety on a S & W .40 cal? on a Glock .40 cal?
2. What is the difference in the safe operation of a pistol which uses single action versus one which uses double action?
3. Which of the above scenarios is the safest weapon to carry loaded? The least safe?
4. What are the stages of safe condition of operation of a semi-automatic pistol (pick one).
5. What is the safest condition? The least safe?
These are examples of some of the first and most basic safety-related questions. A doctor, based on his training as a doctor, is not qualified to answer, much less evaluate the answers to, these questions.
Then there is the problem that the issue is being pushed by a political organization (AAP) with an ideological agenda, and for ideological reasons. How you store your firearms, and how you use them to defend yourself, or to target shoot, is NOT the business of the AAP, or your family doctor.
Ok Sean, if you get shot, don’t go the the ER… go to the NRA and see how well they heal you.
That’s my point exactly. I don’t go to the NRA for injuries or illness. I also don’t go to my doctor for advice on self-defense. I won’t tolerate a doctor using his position to push a political agenda. Neither should you.
Let go of your hate.
You cannot regulate responsible behavior which is what gun regulation is attempting to do. Educating our children on Gun Safety does not rest with the medical profession it rest with the PARENTS. To continue to press the issue shows that you are just trying to push your personal anti-gun agenda under the guise of medicine which is disturbing to say the least.
“You cannot regulate responsible behavior which is what gun regulation is attempting to do. ”
You do know that this law was not a response to the AAP trying ‘regulate responsible behavior,’ right? Even if they feel that a child would be safer in a home without a gun, they didn’t try to pass a law that said parents couldn’t own guns.
“Educating our children on Gun Safety does not rest with the medical profession it rest with the PARENTS.”
That is exactly right. Parents are ultimately responsible for what happens to their children. Parents often turn to their pediatrician for advice about safety matters though.
Studies have even shown that parents are more likely to practice gun safety when counseled by their pediatrician. One study found that ‘Seventy-four percent of gun owners said they were “very likely,” and an additional 10% were “somewhat likely,” to comply with a pediatrician’s advice to keep guns unloaded and locked away.’
Another study found that ‘A brief gun-safety counseling session supported with written information along with a gun lock giveaway resulted in significant improvements in safe gun storage behaviors. ‘
As Cassa points out below, this is the true issue: that doctors are intruding into their patients lives on this matter in ways that do not legally, ethically, professionally, or otherwise concern them. If you want to have a pamphlet in your office lobby on gun safety (from a credible source.. say the NRA), then do so, along with your bike safety information, and so on. However, a Dr. has no business questioning his patients, especially young children about such things solely because he is a doctor. Personally, if a Dr. refuses to treat a child without being provided this UNNEEDED information, he or she should immediately lose his or her license, forever. Board, appeals, etc. of course, but this Dr. has failed to do his basic duty as a healer.
Hi,
the trouble is that what the doctor who refused treatment did, was not really about gun safety at all. It was about demanding personal information.
If gun safety was the issue it would have been easy enough for the doctor to say, well if you have guns, lock them away from the kids. End of issue.
Yet there has been no word that the APA censored or criticized the doctor who demanded personal info and refused to treat the child at all. Given this, it is not surprising that it was unfortunately neccessary to persue a legal remedy.
In this case the doctor was figuratively holding a gun to the patients’ mothers head; give me your personal info, or else I will refuse to treat your child.
Those doctors who are understandably still concerned about gun safety can no doubt still put large posters about gun safety up in their office and provide fliers.
I personally think gun safety is very important,but one wonders where the demand for personal information might otherwise have stopped, given that doctors’ organizations were in no way willing to apparently support the basic requirment of the hippocratic oath, to treat those in need.
“the trouble is that what the doctor who refused treatment did, was not really about gun safety at all. It was about demanding personal information.”
The doctor didn’t refuse treatment to the child though. He finished the visit and gave her 30 days to find a new doctor. There is a big difference between refusing treatment and asking someone to get a new doctor.
And gun safety was the issue, but the doctor never got to that point, as the parent had already become defensive and was snapping at him because of the question. That is likely why he didn’t want to see her in his office any more – not because she had a gun in her home.
Also, he has said that he routinely counsels parents about gun safety, but doesn’t tell them to get rid of their guns.
Your pediatrician knows a lot of personal information about his patients and families. Do you really think he or she cares that much, beyond trying to keep his patients safe, whether or not you own a gun?
“given that doctors’ organizations were in no way willing to apparently support the basic requirment of the hippocratic oath, to treat those in need.”
Which version of the Hippocratic Oath are you going by? Is that the Universal Healthcare version?
You might have gotten away with arguing the ‘do no harm’ principle, since the parent in this situation obviously thought she was harmed by the question.
Since you mention it, that same part of the Hippocratic Oath states that a doctor ‘will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment.’
The judgment of most pediatricians is that parents and their children benefit from being counseled about gun safety, so they are most definitely keeping true to their oath.
So when the doctor asked an impertinent question and got told “none of your business,” he got snippy and chucked her out? Maybe he needs to dial down the white coat superiority.
“Do you really think he or she cares that much, beyond trying to keep his patients safe, whether or not you own a gun?”
Where do you get the arrogant idea that you know enough to tell anyone how to be safe around guns? I have asked this before, where is your training, certification, and experience in firearms safety? What about personal security?
You are giving advice outside your field of expertise. You are relying on your position as a trusted advisor to make statements to families that would not be tolerated from the man on the street. You are using your doctor patient relationship to push a political agenda and you appear to be too ignorant to even notice it. Can you say “boundary violation?”
The American Academy of Pediatrics, on their website, specifically tells people
“•Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.” and
“•Remove all guns present in the home.”
Just who the hell do you people think you are?
Thank you for your response, Doctor. In your article you described ” an unsubstantiated report about a Florida physician who reportedly wouldn’t see a child because a mother wouldn’t answer questions about guns”
which did not indicate that this physician apparently saw the child and offered thirty day follow up until the child had a new physician?
This seems to be a different version of the event, in which certainly the physician acted more responsibly and appropriately with regard to the hippocratic oath.
However, it would appear that your assumption that most people would not be offended by such a question, is not shared by the legislature.
I think you are right though, that the personality and attitudes of those people who were involved, both doctor, and patient, would certainly play a part in whether a question was presented, or percieved, as intrusive or as helpful.
As you describe the law, a physician can still offer gun safety advice.However demanding personal information is no longer a potential cause of conflict.
With regard to the views of physicians on guns;as physicians are a subset of the general population, I would expect their views on gun safety to be potentially as diverse as any other subgroup.
Of course seeing the consequences of gun injuries would probably tend to understandably lead some physicians to feel very strongly about gun safety, or perhaps even to dislike guns a great deal.
I guess I’m trying to wrap my head around the idea that gun ownership is private information. Am I incorrect in my understanding that in order to legally own a gun, you need to have a license? From that standpoint, gun ownership is no more private than car ownership.
If a patient presents for a physical examination but declines, for example, a genital examination, that is of course his or her right. But it makes it impossible for the physician to do a proper physical examination. The physician couldn’t certify, for example, that the patient is entirely healthy. In essence, the physician can’t do his or her job.
What makes gun ownership different?
“Am I incorrect in my understanding that in order to legally own a gun, you need to have a license?”
You are incorrect. There are a few states that have firearms licenses, but not many. The vast majority of states do not restrict ownership of firearms to people who have a state issued license, nor do they have firearms registration. Nor will they have either of these things.
What makes gun ownership different (than car ownership)?
http://bit.ly/lzawAU
In addition to Sean’s comments, there is also the fact that your Dr. does not automatically get to know if you have a license. They typically do, because it is the most common form of picture ID. However, if an alternate form is used, the Dr. would not know if you have a license to drive. Furthermore, the purpose of providing a DL is about ID, not driving information. The Dr has NO legal need or right to know if you drive a vehicle or have a license to drive one. Ditto for owning a gun.
To your other statement, that’s just silly. If a patient comes into a Drs office complaining of poor eye sight, the Dr. has no cause to ask for a toe examination, for example. This is inappropriate. It’s even worse, actually, since the Dr. is now demanding information that is in no way medically relevant to the treatment. How would you like it, for instance, if you visited your Optometrist for an annual checkup and he or she began questioning you about your sexual preferences and activities? This is equally inappropriate.
“Guns can kill you, though” you say? Some STDs can make you go blind. Does that give the eye doctor the right to question you about your sexual activities without a valid medical reason? Of course not. Nor does it give him or her the right to question you about whether or not your parents own a gun, without some other COMPELLING reason (such as I’ve mentioned in this thread previously).
“If a patient comes into a Drs office complaining of poor eye sight, the Dr. has no cause to ask for a toe examination, for example. ”
This is where your argument really falls apart and why you have no business getting involved in what doctors can do or say.
Stroke Warning Signs -> sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes
And as part of a complete neurological exam, a doctor would very likely touch a patient’s foot and toes to check their plantar reflex (Babinski sign), check for clonus, and test their position sense by moving their toes up and down.
“Some STDs can make you go blind. Does that give the eye doctor the right to question you about your sexual activities without a valid medical reason?”
I guess it does. When I Goggled ‘optometrist medical history forms,’ this was the first one to come up:
https://aneyetothefuture.com/forms/medhist
Among the questions are:
Have you ever been exposed to or infected with: Gonorrhea Hepatitis HIV Syphilis
Regardless of what anyone thinks of doctors asking about guns in the home, the bottom line about this legislation is that it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Vague concerns about potential infringement of an individual’s right to own guns cannot match the clear and present violation of physicians’ first-amendment rights.
How can a responsible American legislative body think that it can prohibit a specific group of people (doctors and medical personnel) from discussing or asking questions about a specific topic unless it is a matter of urgent national security?
The boundaries a physician’s legitimate concern for his/her patients can be negotiated between the patient and the doctor, but not dictated by the legislature.
Patients can refuse to answer questions, but making it a felony for physicians to ask them? That is really rubbish. It will be declared unconstitutional as soon as the first test case gets to a responsible judge and will have been merely a huge waste of time and money for the people of Florida.
Your doctor does not have a “first amendment right” to harangue you about firearms storage and home defense. He operates under a license, and he must meet the standards set down for that license.
For those gun-grabbers that want to license all gun owners, no you know why we refuse to accept a system of licensure.
see “Petard, Hoist to”
I do agree that it should not be a felony to ask. Possibly a misdemeanor, just to get the point across. Instead, they should be fined by the state board the first time (say 25k), and lose their license for a period of 1 year the second time. The third time, they should have it revoked permanently. There should also be similar penalties and fines for recording such data, even more severe than asking the question. Drs should also be subject to invasion of privacy and possibly malpractice lawsuits for recording the data.
Mr. Sorrentino,
You may call it what you wish, but any citizen has a right to speak with anyone about almost anything. This includes doctors speaking with their patients.
This is freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment and it includes your doctor asking you or, preferably, young parents concerned about their children’s safety, whether they keep guns in their house and, if so, whether they are safely stored. No, he/she does not need to be an expert on gun safety to do this, any more than he/she needs to be an expert on advance directives to ask whether you have written them.
You, with your own freedom of speech, may answer the question, evade it, refuse to answer it, give a false answer, or find another doctor. But neither you nor the state of Florida may forbid the doctor to ask the question or prosecute him/her for asking it. Let’s see how long this idiotic law remains on the books.
The NRA has long had a vendetta against the medical profession. The doctors are the ones fighting in the trenches against the overwhelming carnage caused by our insane gun laws and our culture of gun fetishism, and seeing firsthand how destructive our gun worship is. The NRA would love to silence them and put them out of business. Which of course is incredibly counterproductive and short-sighted, but par for the course with this extremist and unaccountable organization.
Wow Ray, stereotype much?
The vast majority of “gun violence” is criminal on criminal violence, and usually drug related. Almost none of it is accidental, and even less of it is children. Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine.
“Almost none of it is accidental, and even less of it is children”
Of course, that depends on your definition of ‘almost none.’
The two kids shot just this past week with unsecured guns would be more than ‘almost none’ to most people.
Another Shooting Tragedy
One accidental shooting is one too many. A conscientious doctor, especially a pediatrician, pays attention to much more than his/her patients’ physical health narrowly defined. And a doctor or team of doctors has to deal with the results whenever one of these hundreds of statistically insignificant (according to Mr. Sorrentino)–and tragic and totally preventable–accidents occurs.
To people like Mr. Sorrentino, any question about gun ownership is harassment. But to others it is a welcome reminder or opening for conversation. Surely patients who appreciate these questions have as much right to be asked as others have not to be “bothered.” (And no, it is not up to the patients to bring up the subject. Believe it or not it may not occur to them, especially super-busy and sleep-deprived young parents.)
The bottom line is that the doctor, both as a professional and as an ordinary citizen, has a first-amendment right to ask this question and any others he/she considers relevant. Mr. Sorrentino and those who share his views are free not to answer or to find a doctor who will not ask.
The law is unconstitutional and it will not stand up.
Nothing in this bill prevents doctors from sharing safety information with patients. What the bill DOES do is prevent doctors and the politically driven anti-gun AAP from documenting a person’s ownership of firearms in that person’s medical file. I would WELCOME such sharing of REAL safety info, it makes everyone safer. I have firearm conversations with my doctors all the time. But to waste my MEDICAL time with a doctor discussing POLITICAL issues, using BOGUS data is STEALING from me. If you doctors want to force a discussion on politics on me then you should deduct that time from your bill that I am paying. And to foster BOGUS information on unsuspecting and firearm-ignorant patients is both abhorrent and despicable.
Obamacare has already set the stage for data mining of medical records for Tom, Dick and Harry government agency. Such non-medical information in a patient’s file is just ripe for abuse and becomes a defacto firearms registration. Sorry AAP, your ‘freedom of speech’ whine doesn’t fly.
The AAP has long held anti-gun positions. Here are their ‘recommendations’: Advice to parents
The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home. Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun. Remove all guns present in the home.
An AAP spokesman stated “If the government begins to restrict the trust and confidentiality between a physician, a patient, and–for children–a patient’s parents, then the health and well-being of patients is placed in jeopardy.”
When a member of an organization which seeks to rid Americans of a fundamental Right by sly emotional manipulation instead of promoting proper safety measures, then they have lost my trust and violated confidentiality, not protected it.
Shouldn’t a supposedly ‘professional’ organization be publishing FACTs instead of promoting politically driven false information that has been demonstrated to be junk research and propaganda? I refer to their statement on their webpage “Parents should realize that a gun in the home is forty-three times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar or other criminal.” You want me to respect you as a “professional” then stick to REAL facts in your field, not bogus, junk research.
And if “One accidental shooting is one too many.” perhaps you should gaze at your OWN malpractice a bit, pot meet kettle….
A few years ago I was waiting for visiting hours in ICU, and the only open seat was by a young boy, no older than 10, holding a pillow. I sat down and in a minute or so he asked me,”Do you have someone sick in the hospital”? I answered him that my husband was there. “Will he be alright”? he asked. “Yes, he’ll be fine”, I answered. Do you have someone sick here”? I asked.” My younger brother, I shot him, I didn’t mean it”, he said. I told him that I knew he didn’t mean it, and was sorry to hear of it. I asked, “What happened”? He said that they were shooting squirrels with a 22. Then he said” One ran into the culvert, and I was on one end and my brother was standing on the other. Just as I shot the squirrel he had bent over. I could see right through my brother’s head, I didn’t mean it”. I asked if he was sleeping there, as he had a pillow. He said,”No, this is my brother’s pillow, do you think it will help? He won’t wake up”. I said , “Right now, I think the best thing is to pray for God to send his angels, and then you trust the doctors , the nurses and the angels to do their best”. Can you do that”? He answered,”Yes I can do that”.
Then they called visitng hours, I don’t know the child, nor does it matter. No gun safety taught there by a parent. I wish there had been a discussion, as being a retired nurse, I know changes of survival are slim with a shot through the head, even with a small bore. To anyone who says that their protection of family is more important than the death of a child, and the terrible loss, grief and guilt I witnessed, I can only say that your right to own a gun is yours, I agree. But when it happens that a child is killed or maimed, you are in some way responsible. I hope every physician asks about a gun, and you can find medical help elsewhere. To the NRA, you don’t give pillows as part of policy, to hold the wounded head or comfort the hurting child who pulled the trigger. Sleep well.
That’s a heartbreaking story, Pat, and I know it happens over and over and over.
In the case of this law, though, the issue isn’t whether parents should or shouldn’t keep guns in the house (though I agree 100% with the AAP.) That’s a major debate but it’s not the subject of this law.
Neither is this law about what is and isn’t included in the practice of medicine. Some say a question about gun ownership is out of bounds and some say it’s natural and right. That will never be settled in this debate.
The question, completely apart from the subject matter of guns (or swimming pools, or rat poison, or second-hand cigarette smoke) is whether it’s the legislature’s job to define what a doctor can and can’t ask about and to make certain topics off limits.
It isn’t and that’s why this law, like proposed laws making requiring citizens to own guns or making it legal to shoot abortion providers, will be thrown out the minute anyone tries to enforce it.
I agree with you on what is trying to be done in Florida, but if we don’t speak out, and let it be known that legislature needs to stay out of what an MD can say, when he feels it necessary, then each death or maiming has no spokeperson. Unless someone has witnessed such sorrow as I did, it doesn’t quite touch them. There is more than one victim, touching the whole family in different ways. We have many privacy rights attacked in these days, and have accepted them. Why such an issue on advice to a family on gun safety? Tragedy takes many faces, and as a nurse, life is to precious to me to be silent. I was glad to be there for that child, as he was wanting the world to know, he didn’t mean to shoot his little brother So to all who will listen, unload your gun in the house and if you can’t, for God’s sake, tell them never to touch it. But remember, a child will still try to impress a little friend and will take a chance. Will You?