Clips Clips Clips
See how many errors you can find!
A federal court has blocked a new Florida law that limited the ability of doctors to ask patients if they had guns in the home. Judge Monica Cooke, a Republican appointee, rightly said that the law interfered with both doctors' right to free speech and patients' right to receive information.
The ruling, which came down last week, struck an important blow for freedom of expression. But it did something more: it dealt a rare setback to a gun-rights lobby that is increasingly using its considerable political power to support policies that have little to do with the right to bear arms and needlessly put innocent people at risk.
(See TIME's video over the origins of the Second Amendment.)
Rule #(11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz1YQq6MuCI
Clips Clips Clips
Well according to my essay researched on CDC's own website, this writer is absolutely wrong. The number one cause of children's death is their parents (by neglect or abuse), and 4 times more likely to be the mother than father when acting alone.
Nothing but fluff and Brady unfacts being reported to scare people into given up more to the government.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
I estimated the article length as about 900 words so that means there was about 900 errors in it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, "safety" is being used as an excuse for the state to gain more control over children, among other things. In a free country, children's safety is no one's business but the parent's.
So.. that would mean that this article contains more errors than the summation of its words and punctuation.
Last edited by georg jetson; 09-19-2011 at 11:00 PM.
His misuse of the word "brandishing" was most apparent....and this guy teaches law at Yale?????
Is American society really so brainwashed (or brain dead) that people are afraid to tell their doctor that something is none of their damn business? I had one of these doctors, a lady who was very competent and had a great personality, but her practice's policy was to ask about guns in the home.
She never said anything, but one of her nurses took it upon herself to order me to answer the question. She found out two things: 1. I quit taking orders the day I retired from the Army. 2. Although I had retired, I had not forgotten how to chew someone's butt out.
The doctor and I had an intense little conversation shortly thereafter and nothing was ever said again about me not answering that question.
Doctors have no more right to know if I have guns in my house than they have a right to know if I wear a tutu and fry bacon in the nude. There might be a valid legal argument against the State restricting their right to ask - frankly I agree with the judge's decision based on that line of thought. But a right to know? I think not.
And where did anyone find that a parent has the right to receive information? If the doctor wants to withhold data that might adversely effect my kid's medical care they they are free to do so, knowng that I might just sue them. But beyond that I do not see anything that compels the doctor to tell me anything because I have a right to the information.
However, there are several aspects that seem to have been ignored. Medical societies are putting pressure on their members to become involved in this intrusion into prvate lives, and are setting up mandates for how the doctor must respond if they a) learn that there are firearms in the home or b) the parent tells them it is none of their business. Right now those policies are bordering on defining the refusal to respond to the question as being medical child neglect, and the information that there are firearms without trigger locks/other incapacitatng devices as child abuse. Doctors are being put between the rock of complyng with a professional association's demands and losing their membership in the organization which can mean as much as losing their license to practice.
The whole thing is just another example of Big Nanny sticking its nose into what should be the private relationship between a doctor, a pediatric patient and the parent(s) of that patient. And Big Nanny is represented both by the State for enacting that law and by the medical soceties for getting involved in social engineering as opposed to improving the quality of medical care delivered.
If an individual doctor wants to warn his patients about some perceived danger they can put up posters in the waiting room, or staple pamphlets to the patient's receipt.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
Oklahoma passed a law last session that goes into effect Nov 1 to deal with this. As of Nov 1, it will be illegal for a doctor to refuse service if this question is refused to be answered or if the answer is yes.
Sad thing that we have to create a law where someone who took the Hippocratic oath can't deny health care because of a gun in the home.
skid, it ain't just the pediatricians. I was well into my fifties and the practice that asked the questions about guns in my home was a general practice. They also knew I had no children in the home.
The AMA is the driving force, from what I understand, about a lot of this "guns in the home" questioning. There are also several other medical groups that are decidedly anti who are pushing this agenda.
Since we can't really boycott all doctors, we can at least try to find doctors who do not ask, or at least don't get pushy about asking, these questions.
It shouldn't be needed, but I can see why it sadly is.
Funny how this thread was deemed "off topic" when any number of others are off topic. Somebodys ***** still hurt?
By my figuring, all you have to do is make the doctor feel like an idiot for asking a question of which they in all likelihood have no practical knowledge, before it ever gets to that point. If they ever ask the question, one might simply ask them what they think they know about guns that might give them any insight as to the relevance of the question. If they start quoting Brady baseline "22 times more likely" propaganda, you simply shut them down and tell them they need to go back and do their homework based upon facts instead of misquotes and statistic twisting before asking again.
Anyone who starts quoting that bull obviously will believe anything they are told, and I'm not sure I would want them for a doctor. Strangely, in dealing with military doctors, such a question has never come up. I wonder if any others here that have been, or are currently in the military have been asked these types of questions.
Overall, I have no problem with a doctor asking me once, as long as "none of your business, next question" or "you are not sufficiently qualified to assess that risk factor, next question" is an acceptable answer, and frankly, any self respecting doctor that doesn't have training specific to firearms should be ashamed in even asking, and any doctor that insists that the question be answered as a condition to treatment should be barred from practice.
The risk factors I expose myself, or my children to, but choose not to disclose, in whole or in part, are my liability, not a doctors.
And the VA asks the question also.
Used to be, there was such a thing as "doctor-patient priviledge" which protected the information between a patient and the physician. That is what is being violated and eroded by this latest push to socialize medicine. The priviledge was codified because patients were reluctant to disclose to physicians that they were recreational drug users which caused some dangerous situations during treatment for other illnesses.
Today, I have seen interviews with inner city physicians, especially ER physicians, where they automatically assume certain patients are already on some sort of rec drug, test for it, but begin treatment as if that is so ... they choose to use a certain class of pain meds rather than a more effective one just in case.
I was a 'victim' of this after my last car wreck when I ended up at ViaChristi in Witchita ... in the ER during the evaluation, they discussed the meds to give me, and whether to do a MRI, or whether to keep me in the ER until the highway patrol or sherrif got there to arrest me. I was absolutely POd!!!!! The wreck wasn't my fault, the other driver already admitted to fault at the scene, and before the ambulance took me, the hp had already told the sherrif that, along with 3 other witnesses.
But, evidently, at the ER, I was either being confused with someone else, or the physicians were ready to detain me for LEO ... not part of their job description AT ALL!
cheers - okboomer
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!
My son's new doctor asked if there were guns in the house (along with chemicals, and a bunch of other stuff). The answer was that everything in my house that the AMA feels might be a risk is secured to my satisfaction. Since I'm the only one responsible for my sons safety until he is old enough to take responsibility for it himself, I'm the only one who's opinion on household safety matters. We then moved on.
Anybody can ask - it's up to me how to answer. Isn't there a statistic somewhere about docs doing more harm than weapons do?
My physician has never asked me about guns...h e knows my viewpoint and I think shares it.
While listening to NPR this past Sunday, they threw out a pre-commercial teaser: "Would you allow your child to visit a house that had guns?"
After the break, the commentary was that a child is 100x more at risk if the house has a swimming pool vs. a gun!
I believe that meme has been discussed ad nauseum on this board before.
Why are doctors asking OC folks if there are firearms in the home? Do they think we leave it in the car?
I liked John Canuck's approach, but just out of curiosity, when asked if there are any firearms in the home, what's to keep someone from simply answering, "No" and moving on to the next question? It'd seem preferable to me to just avoid any hassle entirely.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand
Of course buried in there somewhere is that most people don't go to the hospital unless they really need to...
My physician is an avid shooter. We talk shop, what little we can get in during our max session limit.My physician has never asked me about guns...h e knows my viewpoint and I think shares it.