How would boundary violation legislation fare in Olympia?

Evergreen State gun owners who have been alarmed about questionnaires in doctors’ offices that inquire about guns in the home might want to check what’s going on in Florida’s Legislature right now, and wonder how the same matter might be handled in Olympia.


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/how-would-legislation-like-this-be-greeted-olympia


Or try this:


http://tinyurl.com/4hkexmr

Never been asked, and as far as I am concerned a doctor can ask whatever question he likes as long as he accepts "none of your business, next question" as an answer.

I think your right however, a doctor has no business giving advice on something he likely has no practical knowledge about beyond the effect of a gunshot wound. If a gun had any kind of passive health threat, I'm pretty sure I would have gotten "cancer of the holster hip" years and years ago.

So...as the old saying goes, if guns hurt and kill people, all of mine are defective.

I honestly don't see the point of this. I agree they can ask me anything I want, and I can refuse to answer any question they ask. Also everything between you and your doctor is considered privilaged information. This does not rise to the standard of needing to be regulated by the state.

Jayd1981 said:

I honestly don't see the point of this. I agree they can ask me anything I want, and I can refuse to answer any question they ask. Also everything between you and your doctor is considered privilaged information. This does not rise to the standard of needing to be regulated by the state.

Click to expand...

The idea behind it is that doctors are giving unsolicited advice about firearms to those who don’t know any better based upon answers to questions about firearms that are largely irrelevant. Doctors are using their position of "perceived authority" to present firearm information as fact on a topic they are not qualified to comment on in any official capacity.

You don’t see ANY problem with that?

I think it is dumb for doctors to give advice on firearms, much as I don't give people I know medical advise. But you are not required to even see a doctor let alone see a specific doctor. If my doctor continually wants to lecture me on my firearms, then I'll change doctors. I am not a big fan of passing a bunch of laws just because someone decides it would be a good idea if they restricted <insert behavior>. There needs to be a standard that should be met to require passing a law. To me this would be a feel good law that really does nothing.

Jayd1981 said:

I think it is dumb for doctors to give advice on firearms, much as I don't give people I know medical advise. But you are not required to even see a doctor let alone see a specific doctor. If my doctor continually wants to lecture me on my firearms, then I'll change doctors. I am not a big fan of passing a bunch of laws just because someone decides it would be a good idea if they restricted <insert behavior>. There needs to be a standard that should be met to require passing a law. To me this would be a feel good law that really does nothing.

Click to expand...

The only thing it prevents is to keep the dumb from leading the deaf and blind.

You and I are neither deaf nor blind on the topic, so we don’t have to worry. What we don’t need, are more people that don't even know the difference between a semi-auto rifle and an "assault rifle" then already are, disseminating firearms "information".

Is that best served by legislation? (shrug) I don't like the idea either.

Just ask the Doctor who's doing this if his "License" covers this activity and his "Risk Underwriter" (insurance carrier) knows he's offering advice in an area he's untrained.
If I ever see that question, or one similar on the questionnaire given me before treatment , I just write the letters N-O-Y-F-B in the space.

One aspect is that it could constitute criminal malpractice.

Follow my logic for a moment.

For a person to be convicted of malpractice it has to be shown that they did not act as a "reasonable" man would act. A "reasonable" man is defined (at least in the lectures I had on the subject) as one with the "same education, experience and training" as the accused.

In this case, the doctor, having no education, experience or training in the subject of firearms or firearms handling giving medical advice on the subject is walking on very thin ice... A good lawyer (is that an oxymoron?) could prove a case of malpractice with one hand tied behind his back, in the event that a patient followed the doctor's advice,someone broke into his home and assaulted the patient.

But, that is just my opinion....I think any doctor who gives advice like this would never get a return visit from me. Of course, I still get my care from MAMC, so asking about firearms would be kinda redundant.