SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Medical Questionnaires
- Thread starter SFCRetired
- Start date
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
SFCRetired wrote:
Just answer as follows:
1. Yes
2. 4,852
3. Various Underground Caches hidden throughout the State.
:lol:
SFCRetired wrote:
Just answer as follows:
1. Yes
2. 4,852
3. Various Underground Caches hidden throughout the State.
:lol:
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
wtf kind of medical questionnaire is that? I recently (well, relatively recently) changed doctors and there was nothing of the sort on the questionnaire. What does that have to do with your health? Were you seeing your general practitioner or checking into a psych ward?
wtf kind of medical questionnaire is that? I recently (well, relatively recently) changed doctors and there was nothing of the sort on the questionnaire. What does that have to do with your health? Were you seeing your general practitioner or checking into a psych ward?
Joxer
Regular Member
imported post
I think that type of question is when you take your child for a check-up. I took my 5 year old about 2 months ago to the doctor and I had the same question on the form. I also would not answer it. I told my doctoer it had nothing to do with a check-up for my daughter.
I think that type of question is when you take your child for a check-up. I took my 5 year old about 2 months ago to the doctor and I had the same question on the form. I also would not answer it. I told my doctoer it had nothing to do with a check-up for my daughter.
VAopencarry
Regular Member
imported post
It's a questionnaire the AMA is telling their Dr's to use.
If my doctor even gave me that questionnaire it would be the last time they saw me. If they got irate at me, well there would be a scene.
It's a questionnaire the AMA is telling their Dr's to use.
If my doctor even gave me that questionnaire it would be the last time they saw me. If they got irate at me, well there would be a scene.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
AMA? Is that the Assinie Meddlers Association?
AMA? Is that the Assinie Meddlers Association?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Very good! But Assistant Meddler's Association, assistant to the Obamination (once the looney-left).
Very good! But Assistant Meddler's Association, assistant to the Obamination (once the looney-left).
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Joxer wrote:
Ahhhh, that makes sense. I still wouldn't answer, but at least I can see some sort of a purpose.
Joxer wrote:
Ahhhh, that makes sense. I still wouldn't answer, but at least I can see some sort of a purpose.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
What is the purpose?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
More 'karma' since there is no credibility.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
buster81 wrote:
From there point of view, obviously it's to see if the child is in any danger. Do you realize how many irresponisble idiots there are out there? If they're truely that stupid, maybe they're stupid enough to tell people how stupid they are on a survey.
buster81 wrote:
From there point of view, obviously it's to see if the child is in any danger. Do you realize how many irresponisble idiots there are out there? If they're truely that stupid, maybe they're stupid enough to tell people how stupid they are on a survey.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Given that many more children die in car accidents and from drowning wouldn't it make more sense (assuming the AMA didn't have an agenda and they do) to ask:
Do you have any standing water 3" or deeper anywhere in our around your home?
Do you ever transport your child in a motorized vehicle and if so do you use car seats and other child specific safety devices?
Given that many more children die in car accidents and from drowning wouldn't it make more sense (assuming the AMA didn't have an agenda and they do) to ask:
Do you have any standing water 3" or deeper anywhere in our around your home?
Do you ever transport your child in a motorized vehicle and if so do you use car seats and other child specific safety devices?
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel
Regular Member
imported post
VAopencarry wrote:
VAopencarry wrote:
That is exactly right.
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel
Regular Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
You are right.
Here are the states for the latest accidental deathsfor children, for 2005 (most current data) for children 0-14
Accidental Discharge of firearm 75
Falls 82
Poison 92
Drowning 810
Fire 1,270
Transportation 2,340
Also I include those for assaults, (though not an accident) 1,022
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm
deepdiver wrote:
You are right.
Here are the states for the latest accidental deathsfor children, for 2005 (most current data) for children 0-14
Accidental Discharge of firearm 75
Falls 82
Poison 92
Drowning 810
Fire 1,270
Transportation 2,340
Also I include those for assaults, (though not an accident) 1,022
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
Well, if you have the gun shoved up a cavity, I guess it could be a relavent question.
After all if she removed the glock, and didn't know about the s&w also stuffed
back there it might mess up the MRI machine. Liabilty is the evil to of us all.
Seem to recall a female prisoneer shooting herself while pulling her well hidden gun,
while in lock up.
But have never seen that one yet myself, if in a good mood I might answer
a howitzer burried in the schoolbus in the back yard.
Maybe ask for clarification if I need to include my plastic explosives?:celebrate:celebrate
It might just be for future revenue collection, when you don't pay your bill.
Yes i'm shure it is just for inocent revenue streams for collection purposes.
Well, if you have the gun shoved up a cavity, I guess it could be a relavent question.
After all if she removed the glock, and didn't know about the s&w also stuffed
back there it might mess up the MRI machine. Liabilty is the evil to of us all.
Seem to recall a female prisoneer shooting herself while pulling her well hidden gun,
while in lock up.
But have never seen that one yet myself, if in a good mood I might answer
a howitzer burried in the schoolbus in the back yard.
Maybe ask for clarification if I need to include my plastic explosives?:celebrate:celebrate
It might just be for future revenue collection, when you don't pay your bill.
Yes i'm shure it is just for inocent revenue streams for collection purposes.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
When my kids were young, similar questions were on the child safety questionaire. However, overall, the questions made sense.
There were simple questions about carseats, smoking, poisons & chemicals stored in the home, and child safety locks. Not only did they ask about firearms,butreloading as well.
These were all just questions to invoke discussion about how to keep the kids safe. Yes, we smoked, but always did it outside the home and away from kids. Yes, we had cleaning chemicals in low cabinets, but all the cabinets had child locks. Yes we had an appropriate carseat, etc. etc.
I asked him about the firearms questions, and he replied it's simply to open discussion about safe firearm storage around the kids, and the reloading question was specifically about the potential for lead exposure. With shooting and reloading, to make sure to wash hands thoroughly before handling the kids, etc. etc.
So I think the question "do you own any firearms" is just as appropriate as any other safety question for a pediatrician to ask and discuss, and it's also within our right to refuse to answer, or givea minimumamount ofinformation.
If this is the only question they're asking, I'd call their professionalism into question, but if it's included in a battery of other safety-related questions, probably they do have your child's safety in mind.
This can also give opportunity to set straight any misconceptions or misinformation and be a good ambassador for firearms owners, rather than get snippy and secretive. Your pediatrician doesn't work for the government, y'know.
...Orygunner...
When my kids were young, similar questions were on the child safety questionaire. However, overall, the questions made sense.
There were simple questions about carseats, smoking, poisons & chemicals stored in the home, and child safety locks. Not only did they ask about firearms,butreloading as well.
These were all just questions to invoke discussion about how to keep the kids safe. Yes, we smoked, but always did it outside the home and away from kids. Yes, we had cleaning chemicals in low cabinets, but all the cabinets had child locks. Yes we had an appropriate carseat, etc. etc.
I asked him about the firearms questions, and he replied it's simply to open discussion about safe firearm storage around the kids, and the reloading question was specifically about the potential for lead exposure. With shooting and reloading, to make sure to wash hands thoroughly before handling the kids, etc. etc.
So I think the question "do you own any firearms" is just as appropriate as any other safety question for a pediatrician to ask and discuss, and it's also within our right to refuse to answer, or givea minimumamount ofinformation.
If this is the only question they're asking, I'd call their professionalism into question, but if it's included in a battery of other safety-related questions, probably they do have your child's safety in mind.
This can also give opportunity to set straight any misconceptions or misinformation and be a good ambassador for firearms owners, rather than get snippy and secretive. Your pediatrician doesn't work for the government, y'know.
...Orygunner...
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Safety is the first act of security theater and the tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.
I hope your kid is not liable to eat bullets like those with Blood Lead Level ingest lead based paint etc. Sad hysteria.
Safety is the first act of security theater and the tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.
I hope your kid is not liable to eat bullets like those with Blood Lead Level ingest lead based paint etc. Sad hysteria.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Yes, there was a question about how old our house was, too, in regards to the possibility of there being lead paint on the walls/trim. I think they also asked about fishing and lead weights.
I agree that safety is a tyrant's tool, but should that mean we also throw out legitimate safety discussions, and eye every mention of "safety" and "firearms" in the same sentence as tyrannical?
We certainly have a right to question when such things are asked. "Why do you want to know?" "Is this a survey?" "Will this information be given to anyone else?" And respond to the answers accordingly. A knee-jerk reaction of "It's none of your damn business and I'm finding another doctor" if any question about firearms comes up is pretty short-sighted and does nothing to help further a positive view of firearms owners, and makes us look like paranoid gun-nuts.
Not to say that's not an appropriate response depending on the circumstances. If the Dr. is obviously a rabid anti-gun freak or some sort of government informantpredominantly focused onwhether or not you have guns so he can try to talk you into getting rid of them, sure, tell them to sit and spin and go find another doctor. However,I would see this as an opportunity for a positive discussion to throw some real facts their way and see if they're really as intelligent as the diploma on the wall claims they are.
I was forewarned (read it on the Internet!) about these "surveys" and was prepared to ask the Dr. why when it came up.After determining no malice in the question, we had a brief discussion withabout the same duration and intent as discussing the fish pond in our backyard and drowning risks for little ones.
...Orygunner...
Yes, there was a question about how old our house was, too, in regards to the possibility of there being lead paint on the walls/trim. I think they also asked about fishing and lead weights.
I agree that safety is a tyrant's tool, but should that mean we also throw out legitimate safety discussions, and eye every mention of "safety" and "firearms" in the same sentence as tyrannical?
We certainly have a right to question when such things are asked. "Why do you want to know?" "Is this a survey?" "Will this information be given to anyone else?" And respond to the answers accordingly. A knee-jerk reaction of "It's none of your damn business and I'm finding another doctor" if any question about firearms comes up is pretty short-sighted and does nothing to help further a positive view of firearms owners, and makes us look like paranoid gun-nuts.
Not to say that's not an appropriate response depending on the circumstances. If the Dr. is obviously a rabid anti-gun freak or some sort of government informantpredominantly focused onwhether or not you have guns so he can try to talk you into getting rid of them, sure, tell them to sit and spin and go find another doctor. However,I would see this as an opportunity for a positive discussion to throw some real facts their way and see if they're really as intelligent as the diploma on the wall claims they are.
I was forewarned (read it on the Internet!) about these "surveys" and was prepared to ask the Dr. why when it came up.After determining no malice in the question, we had a brief discussion withabout the same duration and intent as discussing the fish pond in our backyard and drowning risks for little ones.
...Orygunner...
Slayer of Paper
Regular Member
imported post
Firearms safety should be foremost in the mind of EVERY gun owner whenever they are around firearms.
However, it should NEVER be mandated by government. It rather should be policed by gun owners themselves. I.e., if you see someone doing something unsafe with a gun, correct them (constructively).
Firearms safety should be foremost in the mind of EVERY gun owner whenever they are around firearms.
However, it should NEVER be mandated by government. It rather should be policed by gun owners themselves. I.e., if you see someone doing something unsafe with a gun, correct them (constructively).
DocV
Regular Member
imported post
Some of us do have an agenda!
The following is from Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws
[align=center]Risk Management Advice to Physicians and their Insurers:
Don't Borrow Trouble
By Joe Horn[/align]
[align=left]Since retiring and leaving Law Enforcement, I have been active in Risk Management consulting, a field that has grown rapidly throughout every industry over the past 20 years. Some of the companies I have consulted to for risk management include IBM, Gates Lear jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.[/align]
[align=left]One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of exposure.[/align]
[align=left]Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, but naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.[/align]
[align=left]Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.[/align]
[align=left]To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor Knew, Could have known or SHOULD have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?[/align]
[align=left]Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they get sued.[/align]
[align=left]Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:[/align]
(c) 2000
Joe Horn
6th Mesa Risk Management,
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired[/align]
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
http://www.dsgl.org/
Mission Statement
Our mission is to educate our fellow doctors and their patients, the public, about gun laws that are counterproductive and the deceitful tactics of those who advocate gun control. We offer a healthy dose of common sense to the national gun debate by shedding light on what gun laws are sensible, and which ones most certainly are not.
Doctors:
[align=center]
[/align]
[align=center]"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
~~ Lyndon B. Johnson[/align]
[align=center]Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws[suP]TM[/suP] resulted from the collaboration of members of KeepAndBearArms.com. [/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
Some of us do have an agenda!
The following is from Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws
[align=center]Risk Management Advice to Physicians and their Insurers:
Don't Borrow Trouble
By Joe Horn[/align]
[align=left]Since retiring and leaving Law Enforcement, I have been active in Risk Management consulting, a field that has grown rapidly throughout every industry over the past 20 years. Some of the companies I have consulted to for risk management include IBM, Gates Lear jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.[/align]
[align=left]One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of exposure.[/align]
[align=left]Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, but naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.[/align]
[align=left]Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.[/align]
[align=left]To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor Knew, Could have known or SHOULD have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?[/align]
[align=left]Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they get sued.[/align]
[align=left]Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:[/align]
[align=left]One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer. [/align]
[align=left]How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them. [/align]
(c) 2000
Joe Horn
6th Mesa Risk Management,
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired[/align]
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
http://www.dsgl.org/
Mission Statement
Our mission is to educate our fellow doctors and their patients, the public, about gun laws that are counterproductive and the deceitful tactics of those who advocate gun control. We offer a healthy dose of common sense to the national gun debate by shedding light on what gun laws are sensible, and which ones most certainly are not.
Doctors:
- Need to know that their organizations do not speak for all of them.
- Need to know that support is available from their fellow doctors.
- Need to know that "junk science" is being used for political gain in many of their organizations.
- Need to be reminded of "boundary violations" that can occur for political reasons in their offices.
- Need to know the facts about firearms, self defense, the Constitution, freedom and liberty.
- Need to know about "boundary violations" by politically correct doctors.
- Need to know about good vs. junk science, and how the latter is used to drive politically correct programs that have serious unintended consequences.
- Need to know what to do if their physicians do commit boundary violations.
- Need to be reminded of the lessons of history.
[align=center]
[/align][align=center]"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
~~ Lyndon B. Johnson[/align]
[align=center]Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws[suP]TM[/suP] resulted from the collaboration of members of KeepAndBearArms.com. [/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]