doctors cannot ask about guns

[jillio]

Files? You mean the same files that will be part of the government database under obamacare?

That is a completely absurd statement and completely false. But to be expected.:roll:

 

[jillio]

You saying child abuse and gun ownership go hand in hand? I wouldn't think so.....bulletholes are difficult to hide. I can't even hide my scar.

Where exactly do you see that in my post? I am truly curious as to where you became so confused.

 

[jillio]

It's not always that easy. People using government health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, VA) don't always get to pick and choose their doctors. Same for people in some insurance programs. Not to mention the delay and inconvenience that adds to getting medical service.



Owning a gun is a Constitutional right; seat belt use is not.

For that matter, why does a doctor need to know if you wear a seat belt? What does that help him diagnose?



I prefer the printed material because usually there are so many different things being discussed during my doctor visits that I'm overwhelmed with information and might forget something. I'd rather have something that I can read in the quiet of my home later.

If I'm in a waiting room long enough, I usually read everything on the walls, and pick up the interesting topic pamphlets to take home.

Given the first part of your post, you should be very happy that Obamacare passed.

And regarding those pamplets: there is a reason that you see the same ones year after year.:roll:

 

[jillio]

passing that pamphlet out at gun shops rather than the Dr. Office might save some paper. Oh wait....they already do that.....so Drs are already wasting paper.

Dr: are you aware sir that guns fire bullets and bullets can make large holes that cause people to bleed or even DIE!

Gun owner: Duh

Right. And the gunshop gives out statistics on how many kids are killed and maimed every year from guns kept at home, too, don't they?

What is your problem with a parent being informed? Do you think that because someone owns a gun, it automatically plays out that it is kept safely and they use intelligence in access?

 

[jillio]

none at all. I'm saying that a mark in file can influence Police Chief in deciding whether or not to issue you a firearm license.


no. not at all.


why more gun laws then?


lolity.

How many times do you have to be told that the police have virtually no right to access your medical records?

 

[jillio]

Whoa, more than 20 pages on this thread??? I am bemused. Is there something wrong with me when I think that a doctor has no business asking me if I have a gun at home? I would likely joke and say Nope, I have a nuke. Then what?

The doctor would no doubt laugh at your sense of humor and move on. Like I said, no one is mandated to answer these questions. In fact, when I do a social history, which is very, very similar to the ones done by physicians, I begin by saying "I have several questions I am going to ask. If any of them make you uncomfortable, or you prefer not to answer any of them, just tell me and we will move on. But, the more information you give me, the better I am able to serve you." Why anyone would have a problem with me being permitted to ask if they own a gun or not is beyond me, when they are told up front, they do not have to answer any of the questions being asked.

 

[jillio]

Hmmm, I think Reba posted a case where there WERE repercussions for a woman who did not reply to the good doc's query concerning her gun ownership. So there is precedence. It sounds rather simplistic, but the law will prevent that doctor from further mischief. :P

What repurcussion? She left and found another doctor. Sounds like a solution to me. She obviously wasn't able to work as a team with the other one.

 

[jillio]

That's understandable, and in that case if, for some reason, you find a doctor who's an asshole... then you can sue him for all of the things you mentioned. The exact same situation could happen if I saw a doctor who decided not to treat me because I an unmarried and sexually active. That's an issue of someone being a bad doctor, not the questions being asked.



A doctor isn't going to somehow prevent you from owning a gun. I fail to see how there's a constitutionality issue with the situations whatsoever. In regards to the seat belt thing... honestly, I don't know, because I'm not a doctor. I could make uneducated guesses, but they'd honestly probably sound silly. The reasons for asking about gun ownership presented in this thread (ie to inform those who might not already know about gun safety around small children) seem entirely reasonable to me.



Hah, well, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have pamphlets at all. That's perfectly fine, maybe something along the lines of the NRA website link posted, with more details on more in-depth safety classes, too. That's fine. I don't see why it has to be only one, though.



Okay, walk me through your nightmare scenario, because it doesn't make any sense. You go to a doctor. You currently do not have a firearm license. The doctor asks if you own a gun, because you brought your kid in for a checkup. Since you don't have a license, presumably, you don't own a gun. If you do, it's an illegal weapon, and you're likely admitting to committing a crime, but the doctor doesn't know that, they just "mark it in your file". You later decide to go get a firearm license. If you don't already own a gun, there's no "mark in a file" anywhere indicating anything at all for them to go on. If you do already own a gun, then it's illegal due to not having a license, and while I don't see how the licensing bureau (or police or whoever gives those out) would get access to your child's full medical history, let's just say they magically get it (by stealing it or threatening you or whatever), then I would say that already owning an illegal weapon should count against you when applying for a license, just as having a police record for having gone on a joyride before even getting your temps would count against you when applying for a driver's license.



I don't think anyone in this thread (well, maybe jillio, I mostly skimmed the middle 10 pages or so, ) is specifically advocating in favor of more gun laws. We're advocating against laws that make the topic of guns special and undiscussable.

I'm not advocating in favor of more gun laws. I am advocating in not tying the hands of medical professions over something as innane as addressing child safety issues with a parent. But from what I've seen from a few posters, maybe stricter laws would be in order.

 

[jillio]

I agree. There are people who are pretty lax with gun safety. Here's a good example.

Toddler fatally shoots himself with father's gun - New Philadelphia, OH - The Times-Reporter

This one wasn't even 3. To make matters worse, the father was a police officer. I would expect a police officer to know how to secure a gun and keep it out of the child's reach.

Here's another.

Child Killed Playing With Gun - News Story - WSB Atlanta

This one was 7, she got killed playing with a gun upstairs while the adults were downstairs.

Even more...

Child Killed in Gun Accident | 1150 KRMS Radio

A 2-year-old boy went in his parents' closet and found a handgun. He shot himself in the head and died.

In 2006, 20 children between the age of 0 to 4 were killed, 50 in the age range of 5 to 14, 140 in the age range of 15 to 24. All caused by firearms injuries in or on home premises.

Here's the report.

https://www.usw12775.org/uploads/InjuryFacts08Ed.pdf

According to the National Safety Council, in 2007, the total firearms-related deaths among the children and teenagers was 3,067. Keep in mind that the number is for at or on home premises. 85 in the age range of 0 to 5, 313 in the age range of 5 to 14, 2,669 of them were teens and young adults in the range of 15 to 19.

Frequently Asked Questions

Firearms-related deaths at home is pretty much preventable.

As I keep saying, it would not be an issue if there were not a significant number of children loosing their lives every year as the result of accessing a gun in their homes. The issue here is not doctors being nosy, it is parents being unsafe to the degree that the American Academy of Pediatrics has gotten involved.

 

[jillio]

Yeah a pamphlet from an inquisative Dr would have saved them
. :roll:

No, but a simple talk at a well child check up might have. It certainly has been shown to be more effective in other areas of safety.

 

[jillio]

I think it's a shame that people have to interpret it as if it was a political agenda created by rabid bleeding heart anti-gun liberals, at least that's what some would say, for instance, Ann Coulter. The doctors' priority is the health and safety of their patients.

Exactly. And it simply amazes me how many people are more concerned over their Second Amendment rights somehow improbably being violated than in having a physcian that is concerned about their health and safety to the degree that they don't just look down their throat and hand out a prescription. First they complain about doctors not being concerned enough about their patients, then they bitch about them being too concerned. Can't please some people.

Oh, well. Leave them to their paranoia about their firearms being taken away and pass a law that they can't bitch when their doctor doesn't even bother to call them by name and is in and out of the exam room in 10 minutes.

 

[jillio]

1. gun lock is for child safety reason
2. it's a felony if child had an access to firearm
3. gun lock is not always unlocked by a key. there's a gun safe that can be unlocked quickly within 2 seconds.

The felony cannot be charged until the child has already gotten ahold of the gun and done some damage, either to himself or someone else. It is an after the fact thing. Again, how many kids are you willing to sacrifice? What the hell is wrong with prevention of deaths instead of punishment after the death?

 

[Jiro]

How many times do you have to be told that the police have virtually no right to access your medical records?

and how many times did I tell you that they do once I signed a consent form?

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

and how many times did I tell you that they do once I signed a consent form?

Um, okay.

I did not know there's a government conspiracy of the State police collaborating with your private doctor.

Tell me, do you have an obsession with Catcher in the Rye as well?

 

[Jiro]

The felony cannot be charged until the child has already gotten ahold of the gun and done some damage, either to himself or someone else. It is an after the fact thing. Again, how many kids are you willing to sacrifice? What the hell is wrong with prevention of deaths instead of punishment after the death?

actually no. There are few ways to get a felony charge.

example of Illinois gun law

Will I be held responsible for my child who has access to a firearm?

Yes. Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/24-9) states "(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for any person to store or leave, within premises under his or her control, a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a Firearm Owners Identification Card is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is:
(1) secured by a device or mechanism, other than the firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or
(2) placed in a securely locked box or container; or
(3) placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor under the age of 14 years.
(b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $1,000. A second or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply:
(1) if the minor under 14 years of age gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or
(2) to any firearm obtained by a minor under the age of 14 because of an unlawful entry of the premises by the minor or another person."

NJ - Child Access Prevention and Safe Storage Law

New Jersey's child access prevention law generally requires that no person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premise under their control if it is known or reasonably should be known that a minor age 15 and under is likely to gain access to the firearm without permission unless the firearm is properly stored. New Jersey law requires retailers to inform firearm purchasers of this law through a written public warning.

I'm in support of this strict gun safety law regarding children.

 

[Jiro]

Um, okay.

I did not know there's a government conspiracy of the State police collaborating with your private doctor.

Tell me, do you have an obsession with Catcher in the Rye as well?

see Post #644

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

see Post #644

Do you not understand what the HIPAA is? Do you realize how difficult it is to get committed to a mental ward?

Unless you have been committed to a mental ward, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, the reason why you are required to consent to the State police being required to check on you for mental health is because: if someone called the suicide hotline on you, the State police is better adapted to handling the situation than a metro police. The State police would not intervene unless someone makes that call.

 

[KristinaB]

Seems to me, that if a parent has a gun in the house, then there should be some way to secure the gun from the child. I know my father used to keep a gun in our house and we always kept the gun (before safety locks) locked in one chest and the bullets in another chest in a different room. That was mainly due to my father's and my brother's explosive tempers. After my father died, we took the 357 magnum and ammunition to the police station for a weapons drop off. In my house, guns are not allowed for any reason. My son never even had any toy guns or water guns. Currently, son prefers knives and swords. He wants to build a collection. He has time as he will be 16 next week.

 

[Jiro]

Do you not understand what the HIPAA is? Do you realize how difficult it is to get committed to a mental ward?

Unless you have been committed to a mental ward, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, the reason why you are required to consent to the State police being required to check on you for mental health is because: if someone called the suicide hotline on you, the State police is better adapted to handling the situation than a metro police. The State police would not intervene unless someone makes that call.

um..... what???? what in god's name are you talking about??? mental ward??? It's best you sit on the bench for this one and reread Post #644 again.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

um..... what???? what in god's name are you talking about??? mental ward??? It's best you sit on the bench for this one and reread Post #644 again.

No. I don't need to take a shit. I just don't see why the Chief of Police would have access to your medical records.