twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Your scenario is outside the scope of the law because the question is outside the doctor/patient relationship.
Small talk is outside the doc/patient relationship? I don't understand.
Your scenario is outside the scope of the law because the question is outside the doctor/patient relationship.
When is gun ownership relevant in any medical discussion?Well said +1.
They shouldn't be asking unless its relevant.
...coming out of left field...If you go in and say... " hey I'm a little under the weather I'm thinking about killing myself and/or others". They yea by all means ask.
Bit if you walk in with sore throat it shouldn't be "how many guns did you buy last week?".
Doctors must be prohibited from asking. They are asking as a representative of the state
Absolutely correct.OC for ME;2078325[B said:]Doctors must be prohibited from asking. They are asking as a representative of the state, whether or not you agree, because they are (could/would) report this to the state.[/B] My doctor brought this topic up and is of the opinion that any doctor that asks about gun ownership is violating the oath he took as a doctor.
§ 1.10 Trial for crimes; witness:
Except in cases of impeachment, cases arising in the army and navy, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, and cases involving offenses for which the penalty provided is less than imprisonment in the penitentiary, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and the number of persons necessary to constitute such grand jury and the number thereof necessary to concur in finding such indictment shall be determined by law. In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to procure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; but provision may be made by law for the taking of the deposition by the accused or by the state, to be used for or against the accused, of any witness whose attendance can not be had at the trial, always securing to the accused means and the opportunity to be present in person and with counsel at the taking of such deposition, and to examine the witness face to face as fully and in the same manner as if in court. No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; but his failure to testify may be considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
I hope twoskinsonemanns starts to understand the error of his ways. But, he is free to believe whatever he wants.
Your state may be different.This is insane. Your doctor is a rep of the state? Holy captain Kirk's nipples!
Vote for who you like. Doctors work at the pleasure of the state and they are actors of the state when their livelihood is in jeopardy. This is a serious issue and your understanding of sanity comes into question based on your comment quoted above.HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND FIREARMS - 571.012
This act specifies that no licensed health care professional or person under the supervision of the professional may not be required by law to ask a patient whether he or she owns or has access to a firearm, document firearm ownership or access in a patient's medical records, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on the patient's status as a firearm owner or the patient's access to a firearm.
Under this act, licensed health care professionals, their supervisees, and anyone who possesses or controls medical records are prohibited from documenting or disclosing information regarding a person's status as a firearm owner except under certain specified circumstances.
Under this act, licensed health care professionals may not use an electronic medical record program that requires the entry of data regarding firearms.
Thank you for explaining your position. The terms "hypocrisy" and "far left" are synonymous; which leftest refuse to acknowledge. Leftest don't understand that their rights end at the point my rights begin.I understand the hypocrisy of the far right pretty well. It's the reason I will never vote for someone with an R next to their name ever again.
You're willing to sacrifice the rights of the doctor to support your political view.
I am for liberty. I will not try to oppress those I do not agree with. I couldn't stomach looking myself in the mirror if I became like that.
-90 day stay granted. get out of DC with your firearms NOW.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/federal-judge-grants-90-day-stay-dc-gun-case/
I'd like to say I'm surprised anyone would actually ADVOCATE for restricting a private business of their rights but I'm not. And it's the reason the conservatives are just as bad as the liberals. It's fine and dandy for the government to oppress the rights of those that disagree with you... as long as the ones you find favorable are protected.
It's not enough your right to refuse answering a question is protected. no... you want the feds to forcibly STOP them from being able to ask the question lmao.
Here's another Scenario.
Doc..."Hey I saw you reading my Guns and Ammo magazine I leave in lobby for my customers. I'm a big 2A advocate. You a gun owner?"
You..."You just broke the law. Thank God the government protects me."
I am for liberty. I will not try to oppress those I do not agree with.
I couldn't stomach looking myself in the mirror if I became like that.
^^^since9, you are pointing out twoskinsonemanns's hypocrisy. So, according to twoskinsonemanns he is a republican. And if that is the case, then twoskinsonemanns is synonymous for hypocrite.
Most of the posts are misrepresenting the the issue as is common when justifying taking rights away from the "other side". Things like comparing a doctor to a government employee or justifying limiting his rights because he's performing in a "licensed" capacity. (as if you would be okay having your rights trampled when you're doing something licensed). I'm not going to try to waste time arguing against them.
Your first paragraph is an excellent explanation for your last sentence of your third paragraph.Most of the posts are misrepresenting the the issue as is common when justifying taking rights away from the "other side". Things like comparing a doctor to a government employee or justifying limiting his rights because he's performing in a "licensed" capacity. (as if you would be okay having your rights trampled when you're doing something licensed). I'm not going to try to waste time arguing against them.
When you post an Ohio law about criminal trials that states if you plead the 5th your doing so can be "considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel", as if that is remotely relevant, it's too far out of the scope to bother with.
I'll just say that the way the government is using the medical industry to further control people is disgusting and abhorrent. Repealing/Fixing the 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act would be progress and doing more to extract the gov out of the medical care industry would be great. However this attack against the doctors rights is stupid and useless. You do not have to tell the doctor you have guns (and he doesn't have to ask) to get your gun rights taken away. This law sacrifices the doctors rights just to play the political game of petting the GOP sheep's head and telling them they are protecting them without doing a damn thing.
Arguing with zealots from the left or right is generally insane especially when they start braying like a donkey in response to valid arguments.
Even so I would like an explanation of why you call me a hypocrite.
You mean like how military members can't do or say specific things? Or how being on a base means you are allowed to be searched at any time for any reason? Or how when licensed you have to abide by certain rules or else risk getting your license revoked (see the outburst from Yaeger and what happened to his CHP). Not that I expect you to respond since you seem to have no counter-point.
This is also why I said it is a very fine line. Medical care is privatized but yet works with the government and very much can affect one's rights. What if law enforcement were to become privatized as well, then what? There would still need to be things in place to prevent these non-government cops from violating peoples rights. By your line of reasoning it would be even easier for a private cop to lie or enforce "color of law" and then claim that they were simply exercising their 1A rights.
So again, the doctor as an individual has 1A rights. The doctor when acting as a doctor can't do things that would potentially infringe upon his patient's rights unless it specifically relates to the medical visit. There's also nothing stating that they can't give out a blanket statement about guns. I've actually had a doctor before say "I don't want to know if you have guns, but if you do..." and then went on to talk about sun safety and storage since I have little kids in the house.
gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.Your first paragraph is an excellent explanation for your last sentence of your third paragraph.
P/S And what Aknazer says......
Unless you can explain how doctors are government employees these are simply strawman arguments. There is a horrible problem in the medical care industry related to taking peoples 2A rights away. Making a law telling a private doctor what he can't ask his patients not only does nothing to help the horrible problem but violates the doctor's rights. Just a little help for ya... You do not have the right not to be asked a question. So the argument that you have to take the doctor's rights to preserve your own isn't right.
gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.
Unless you can explain how doctors are government employees these are simply strawman arguments. There is a horrible problem in the medical care industry related to taking peoples 2A rights away. Making a law telling a private doctor what he can't ask his patients not only does nothing to help the horrible problem but violates the doctor's rights. Just a little help for ya... You do not have the right not to be asked a question. So the argument that you have to take the doctor's rights to preserve your own isn't right.
gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.