An idea as dumb as it sounds: Make it a crime for doctor to ask you about guns (Florida)

[shadowrider]

Here in Florida, we see so many outlandish political ploys that it's hard anymore to get too worked up about any particular one.

We do stupid like Nebraska does corn.

Still, one Central Florida legislator's proposal for a new law is so box-of-rocks awful that it's worth highlighting.

Freshman state Rep. Jason Brodeur wants to tell doctors what they can say — in their own offices.

Specifically, he wants to criminalize questions about guns.

Right now, many pediatricians ask questions of parents to make sure their kids are safe.

"Do you have a pool? Is it fenced in?"

"Do you have any dangerous chemicals in the house? Are they locked up?"

"Do you have a handgun? Is it secure?"

Brodeur wants to make asking the last question a crime.

Any doctor who dares to ask it could be thrown in prison for five years and fined ... up to $5 million.

To put that in perspective, murdering someone in this state carries a fine of up to $15,000.

It's like someone asked Austin Powers' Dr. Evil to randomly choose the penalty level for House Bill 155, and he randomly shouted: "Five meel-yun dollars!"

Brodeur's entire proposal seems so obviously beyond the pale that I assumed the Sanford Republican was simply trying to make a name for himself.

But no, Brodeur assured me Friday that this was all very serious. He's even got himself some co-sponsors to prove it. Brodeur said he was open to debate about the penalties and other specifics, but that he was convinced that asking questions about guns was a violation of privacy.

Privacy? For heaven's sake, man. These are doctors! These guys who don rubber gloves to check prostates and remove hemorrhoids. And you're worried about invasive … conversations?

Brodeur responded that some patients worry that doctors will compile registries of gun owners and then give that information to the state.

I simply don't believe that happens, I said.

"It's hypothetical," he said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/os-scott-maxwell-guns-n-docs-011611-20110115,0,56050.column

Patients are worried the information will be compiled and given to the state.
I simply don't believe that happens, I said.

It will, once some knucklehead decides to make it law the doctor MUST turn the info over to the state.

It's nobodys business whether or not I have a weapon in my house, truck or on my person. Period.

[shadowrider]

1. I can see it now (The old slippery slope)

Knucklehead legislator: I don't understand what the problem is. The doctors already have information on who owns guns so it stands to reason law enforcement should have access to those records, for public safety and for the children (GOTTA have that last bit in there).

We're already doing A, so B should be allowed
We're already doing A and B, so C should be allowed
We're already doing A, B and C, so D should be allowed

etc. etc.

[dmallind]

8. Yes seems silly but I can understand the fear.

After all you are unlikely to know in most cases what strange crusades your doc supports, let alone all staff with access to records. If I hadn't seen proof that a completely innocent persom had his DL revoked because he toLd his doctor he drank a six-pack (equivalent to 3 large draft beers) a day *AT HOME* I'd be more likely to see this overreaction as completely baaeless. Maybe the next doctor is hooked by Brady's insane propaganda instead of MADD's.

[shadowrider]

9. +10,000

That's the point. What's to say alcohol consumption wouldn't be next.

[dmallind]

15. Next?? Already there as far as being abused by doc's

Not sure they could or should criminalize asking about it as alcohol unlike guns does have actual physiological effects on the body doctors should consider. However it damn well should be criminal to report alcohol consumprtion answers to the DMV.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Or illegal drug use.

That's the point. What's to say alcohol consumption wouldn't be next.

[shadowrider]

38. Or any other of a number of personal activities

those in charge deem a danger to kids or people to themselves.

We've increased the chocolate ration from 30 grams to 20
2 + 2 = 5
We've always been at war with East Asia

Big brother doesn't just take over in one fell swoop, it's one small step at a time until suddenly everyone looks around and says, "How in the hell did this happen?".

[Katya Mullethov]

42. They're meticulously gutting the Bath Salt Cartels as we speak

I hope they don't shoot any dogs .

[Liberty Belle]

2. So if a mental case like Loughner gets treatment, the doc can't ask if he owns guns?

Now that's insane.

[shadowrider]

3. IF he's required to be asked as a result of a mental health accessment

that's ORDERED and REQUIRES him to answer, I have no problem with it.

It is a case by case basis.

Besides, EVERYONE has 20/20 hindsight vision regarding this madman. What would YOU have done to identify the threat beforehand?

[DrDan]

4. but if a child's safety is the reason for asking the question - now that's a different story

can't be allowin' that.

[safeinOhio]

5. How about lowering the fine

from 5 million to 5 bucks? Kind of like decriminalizing speech? You want to trash the 1st to protect the 2nd? Now it might make more sense to make a law about what is done with the information and if the answer is mandatory.

[shadowrider]

6. While I agree the fine is high

I've heard enough of government saying, "It will be held strictly confidential", that is, until someone somewhere "accidentally" releases it.

[safeinOhio]

7. I can also see this as a mental health question.

If one is depressed and needs meds for it, that could be a relevant question. Docs ask about drinking and home violence all the time. I could see not putting on the chart, but not just asking. If a patient is terribly depressed or acting very unusual, as the Tucson suspect was, it might make a difference as to having the person committed for his own and the publics safety.
There are already laws about medical confidentiality on the books. Perhaps you think we need more and more redundant laws on the books to just make a political statement?

[shadowrider]

10. You make a point and I think we FINALLY agree on something

Yes, there are medical confidentiality laws on the books, but those CAN be over-ridden with legislation REQUIRING the doctor turn over just that one itsy-bitsy piece of info.

As far as more and more redundant laws on the books, that's the way I feel about increased "common sense" gun control legislation. The same concept applies to both scenarios, IMHO.

[safeinOhio]

11. While I have been asked personal questions

by doctors all of my life, I seldom remember them writing them down on my chart. I have looked over my charts many times when I have changed doctors and have never seen any of those questions on them. I think this state senator is just grandstanding.

[RSillsbee]

23. Not putting it on the chart

I could see not putting on the chart, but not just asking.

The Patient Visit Notes (PVN) are a legal document that can be subpoenaed. The standard I've always heard is "If you didn't chart it, it didn't happen". (In the days before EMRs there was also a standard of "If your paperwork is sloppy your care was sloppy")

The point is that (if your Physician is in the least competent) everything you say to him is going into that chart in some form or another. If I write your SOAP note I promise you it is.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Why would owning a gun make a difference?

I could see not putting on the chart, but not just asking. If a patient is terribly depressed or acting very unusual, as the Tucson suspect was, it might make a difference as to having the person committed for his own and the publics safety.

Look, either a person is crazy enough to be dangerous, or they aren't. Whether they own a gun should not have anything to do with anything. Because if he's crazy enough to be dangerous and doesn't own a gun, what's to stop him from getting one?

And here's another question:

If a person goes to the doctor and the doctor says, "Yes, this person is mentally dangerous to society", what can they do about it? Do they have the power to involuntarily commit someone to an institution, without due process of law?

[safeinOhio]

41. Yes, in most states

a doctor or family member can have a person put in the hospital for 48 hrs for observation without a trial. At that point the person has to be released, if asked to, or have a court order to be held. In most cases the court will go with what the hospital reports as to the mental condition from that period of observation and what it requires.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. So in that case...

So in that case, again, either a person is dangerous or they aren't. If they are mentally unstable enough to be dangerous they should be put in a hospital, regardless of whether or not they own firearms. And owning a firearm would not make someone more mentally unstable. So there is no reason for a doctor to ask whether or not the person owns them.

In fact, if I were a doctor, I'd be asking myself, "Is this person a danger to himself or others assuming he can obtain the means to do so?"

[pipoman]

12. Maybe it would help if the American Academy of Pediatrics

didn't issue statements such as this:

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement this month reaffirming their longstanding position on gun control. They would like to see handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons banned and a much stricter regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of all firearms. The rationale for this position is that firearm related deaths are at such a high level that this is a public health problem. In 1997, 32436 deaths resulted from firearms, including 4223 deaths in children under 20. In 1997, firearm related deaths accounted for 22.5% of all injury deaths in children and adolescents. Handguns are responsible for the large majority of these deaths in children and adolescents. The United States has the highest rates of firearm related deaths among all industrialized nations. The overall rate of gun related deaths in children under 15 in the U.S. is 12 times greater than that in 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of gun related homicide is 16 times greater than all these other countries combined. In addition, approximately 20,000 people are left paralyzed by a bullet from a handgun each year. This is comparable in number of lives changed and medical costs to the polio epidemic of the 50’s.



We are aware of the argument that people kill people, not guns; but it is hard to imagine that the American people are 12-16 times meaner than all these other countries. These other countries do not have the availability of firearms that the U.S. does. The argument that we need guns to protect our families actually has proven to be an invalid argument. Guns are 43 times more likely to kill someone who is known to the family than to kill an intruder. The constitutional argument that it is a right to own guns is certainly a debatable issue because the intent of the founding fathers was to insure the ability to establish a “ state militia” not to guarantee the personal use of firearms. I recognize that winning an argument to control guns, even handguns, in rural Kentucky is unlikely. But the tragedy of gun related deaths is real, and we have to do something to change this trend.

http://www.pediatricclinic.com/guns.html

It is a political stand. There is no call to ban backyard swimming pools even though, as cited yesterday in another thread, 1 in 11,000 swimming pools kill a child, yet the number for guns in the home is 1 in over 1,000,000, no call to ban ATVs, or sports, or any of the many dangers of childhood. If they were consistent in their opposition to all significant childhood threats, I wouldn't have the apprehension about their motives. Politics do not belong in the clinic, imho.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

[Hoyt]

14. Nice to see medical societies taking a stand for patients, rather than just protecting MD's income.

I agree completely with the society's statement, "But the tragedy of gun related deaths is real, and we have to do something to change this trend."

The trend will increase as gun ownership and toting in public increases.

[pipoman]

18. Any stats?

Funny how there has been a constant decrease in gun accidents to our current 40 year low, and violent crime has decreased for 20+ years even as we have gone from 3 states with ccw to 46 and there have been more, and more guns every single year....14 million last year iirc. Your prediction has thus far failed.

[Hoyt]

20. "Anticipatory Guidance" seems to be working regarding accidents.

As to decreasing violence -- I don't think more and more people packing has anything to do with it.

[pipoman]

22. Whether it does or not, your statement,

"The trend will increase as gun ownership and toting in public increases." has already been proven false...there is no trend, but a downward trend.

[Hoyt]

24. Have not seen that proof. Maybe you have a link.

Clearly as more and more "Sign up" to buy and carry guns, we will get more and more of those who either can't handle guns properly or acquire guns for the wrong reasons. We have enough of those now, but it will increase.

Shoot, it's hard to believe gun owners are upset because physicians are trying to protect little kids.

[shadowrider]

26. Ah yes, when all else fails, pull out the "You hate children" card n/t

[Hoyt]

27. That card makes more sense than "I can't live without my guns" card.

[shadowrider]

30. Sterilize everyone. That way kids will be safe from everything, including the boogey man n/t

[Hoyt]

32. "Boogey man." Funny you mention the reason most of you feel the need to carry in public.

[shadowrider]

33. Why don't you quit while you're behind n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Here's the link. Prove your argument. The CDC's WISQARS site:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Welcome to WISQARS

WISQARS(Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) is an interactive database system that provides customized reports of injury-

[Hoyt]

53. Don't see any proof of significant downward trend of gun deaths and injuries as guns increase.

But nice try.

[X_Digger]

54. What criteria did you use? (Did you do more than just click on the link?)

Rrrrrrroll your own.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Then that should be evident in the data you claim to have seen. Show it to us, please.

You have not only failed to cite *any* data from a primary source, you have blatantly moved the goalposts:

First it was (emphasis added by me):

14.
I agree completely with the society's statement, "But the tragedy of gun related deaths is real, and we have to do something to change this trend."

The trend will increase as gun ownership and toting in public increases.

Both gun ownership and carrying in public have increased (and you certainly have complained about it in many a post).

So where is the increase in gun injuries and deaths for children? And if it has not increased, on what basis do you claim it

will? Is there a certain 'critical mass' of guns that will be reached Real Soon Now, to cause such a thing?



And later, you again claim:

24.
We have enough of those now, but it will increase.

I gave you the primary source of data for injuries and deaths from all causes in the United States (and a source you yourself

quoted, albeit indirectly.) and asked for hard data to back up your claims.


Instead, you answer a question that was not asked- and as a topper, failed to show any evidence for that answer:

Don't see any proof of significant downward trend of gun deaths and injuries as guns increase.

You have the unquestioned right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts.

[Hoyt]

56. Here for starters. Also, I would suggest "thinking" might help you.

"The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth" (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

Stats and graphs at: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf


Think about it: If there is a norm of gun related injuries per 100,000 and the population increases and gun ownership increases, would you not expect an increase in the number of injuries (the rate/100K might fluctuate a bit, but the total will likely rise). Further, as we make it easier to carry -- like no requirements for permits -- then it is likely more and more Loughners will routinely carry. And what do you think will happen with that. Finally, there has certainly been an increase in mass murders and massacres in recent years. Plot that for us against gun ownership.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Thinking showed you were wrong. Is that why you avoided primary sources?

Think about it: If there is a norm of gun related injuries per 100,000 and the population increases and gun ownership increases, would you not expect an increase in the number of injuries (the rate/100K might fluctuate a bit, but the total will likely rise).

That turns out not to be the case (at least for the last two years of available data. Cross-checking CDC data for mortality

and gun deaths with population data from the Census Bureau shows a decline in gun deaths- and nearly three million more

people living in the US:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_02.pdf

Preliminary Data for 2008

Page 45

Method

12,209 homicide by firearm

18,251 suicide by firearm

276 firearm deaths of undetermined cause, which gives:

30,736 deaths by firearm in 2008

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

Deaths: Final Data for 2007

Page 91

Deaths via firearm

1999 28,874

2007 31,224

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/files/1999/chap02.pdf

Page 7

As of July 1, 1999, the resident population of the United States was 273 million

273,000,000 / 28,874

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2009-01.xls

July 1, 2007 301,579,895

301,579,895 / 31,224 deaths via gun

July 1, 2008 304,374,846

304,374,846 / 30,736 deaths via gun


Obviously, the number of gun deaths in 2009 and '10 are yet to be determined- but remember, there are far more guns

in the United States now then there was in 1999.

[krispos42]

62. Really?

:rofl:

[Hoyt]

13. It's called "Anticipatory Guidance" and a good idea for the kids. Dads with guns are a problem if

guns are not properly safeguarded in the house. I have no problem with it and it would be difficult to require physicians to provide registries of who owns a gun. In fact, it would likely be a violation of federal law to provide that information to the government without the patient/guardian's explicit authorization.

Besides, extreme paranoia and gun ownership are a tragedy waiting to happen. The pro-gunners are really getting out there nowadays.

[dmallind]

17. so how did this happen then

if it's a violation for doc's to provide info to authorities without permission....

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-15/news/17432894_1_irregular-heartbeat-doctors-license

I cite....

Pennsylvania is one of six states that require doctors to report motorists with medical conditions that could affect their driving, according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The other states are California, Delaware, Oregon, Nevada, and New Jersey.

All other states and the District of Columbia allow physicians to submit reports on a voluntary basis.

So what basis do we have to assume gun ownership data will never be demanded/revealed?

[Hoyt]

19. Don't think it will. But, if some immature dad has guns laying around with kids, wouldn't bother me

The motor vehicle reports are required by law. It wouldn't bother me if laws were enacted on guns. But, that would require a legislative process. You can register your dissatisfaction with protecting children. Contrary to you, I don't think guns are so precious that we should ignore the impact on little kids of unsafe handling. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee that.

[dmallind]

28. And of course you or the doc would know the dad was "immature" and the guns were"laying around" how?

The dad could be a paragon of mental health and rationality who uses the finest security options. Just like the guy who drinks at home should never face driving penalties (for the love of all tht is holy everyone should agree there) why should the responsible gun owner face sanctions because a politically-motivated doctor thinks guns are scawy?

[Hoyt]

31. By asking, of course.

Mrs. Jones, do you have guns in the house, are they locked up? Can Jimmie get them and stick them in his little mouth?

[Katya Mullethov]

16. Fire him

Move on for fucks sake .



While we are on the subject .

Ask me , saw bones , ask me , your future employer who is auditing YOU , if I have a gun in MY home .

[pipoman]

21. Oh,

and really, why do they need to ask. Why not simply give out a brief paper or pamphlet regarding gun safety, pool safety, alcohol safety, car safety, ATV safety, etc. Why couldn't it be general information rather than a personal log.

[Hoyt]

25. Because firearms injure too many kids.

"The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth" (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).


But, hey, trying to do anything about it will scare the begeebers out of those who can't see life without a gun -- even if a lot of people die unnecessarily because of their irrational fears and desires.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Prove it. Here's the primary source:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Welcome to WISQARS

WISQARS(Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) is an interactive database system that provides customized reports of injury-

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guitar man]

29. I don't need the govt to protect me from questions

If somebody asks a question I don't want to answer, I won't, that simple.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately, to many people, doctors are gods.

[guitar man]

44. Not to me they're not

My daughter's first pediatrician had a godlike complex, right up to the point where I informed him who was working for whom and fired his ass :)

[Atypical Liberal]

34. It's nobody's business.

Right now, many pediatricians ask questions of parents to make sure their kids are safe.

"Do you have a pool? Is it fenced in?"

"Do you have any dangerous chemicals in the house? Are they locked up?"

"Do you have a handgun? Is it secure?"

I don't see why my pediatrician would need to know whether or not I have a gun, nor whether or not I have a pool. Unless my child has an ear infection, in which case I could see how he might ask if my child has been swimming recently.

It is not my pediatricians responsibility to make sure my kids are safe.

[d_r]

39. I'm all for the right to own guns

But I think this is idea is nuts.

I guess pediatricians could just assume everyone has a gun and tell them to lock guns up.

The government can mandate child restrain seats, and mandate the width of space between rails on a crib or a staircase, but a pediatrician can't ask if a family has guns in the home? Its nuts, and the only purpose of it is because of a an agenda to treat guns as sacrosanct.

[Maine_Nurse]

40. It was always funny

Before I got into psych, I always laughed at the docs and residents from out of state (most of them) when they'd first ask about firearms and Mom or Dad would say that Little Johnny didn't have access to any firearms that weren't his. The questioning would continue and they'd explain that 10 year old Jonnhy got a nice deer rifle last Christmas or something like that. About half of the docs looked like they were going to stroke out. We (the local nurses) would always have to take the docs aside and explain that it's a way of life around here and nothing to worry about.

[spin]

45. My doctors always know that I own firearms ...

I always start a conversation about shooting to avoid a prostate exam.

[shadowrider]

46. Dude

A lot depends on the doctor and his definition of what constitutes a "gun" when talking about/undergoing a prostate exam.

:hide:

[TPaine7]

47. Sounds unconstitutional on its face.

A doctor can ask me anything; he might not like the reply and his employment might be summarily terminated, but he can ask.

All of the Bill of Rights deserve respect. The First Amandment is as authoritative as the Second. A doctor should be able to ask PARENTS anything.

[pipoman]

48. Exactly right..

[petronius]

58. I agree - this proposal is at best stupid and useless

If someone doesn't want to tell a doctor something, then don't - but don't start interfering in my conversations with my doctor because of a nebulous and unsupported fear that somewhere down the road someone might figure out a way to use your doctor against you.

Actually, it's like the flip side of the high-cap magazine ban proponents - a solution in search of a problem...

[lawodevolution]

59. If you are worried all the sudden about the first amendment rights of doctors where were you when

HIPPA was passed which made it illegal to have public conversations about patients?

[NewMoonTherian]

52. Okay, so, doctors can ask...

if I have guns, toxins, pools or other dangers in my home.

Does anything compel me to answer truthfully? Is there a federal law against falsifying superfluous facts to a medical professional? What if I just say "It's none of your damned business; please annotate my record to that effect?"

[SteveM]

57. Dat legislater just cuttin' duh cheese. nt

[lawodevolution]

60. Sorry, all of you gun hating saviors of "liberty" (Aka misguided authoritarianism)

Where were you when HIPPA was passed? Lol. Docs already are told what they can say and what they cannot say.

I'm not sure the first amendment applies to the situation in which speech is designed to get information from a client by a service provider (doctor).
They way around this is for the doctor to assume the parents or patient owns a gun and tell the patient or parents to be sure to secure weapons and keep them out of reach. The first protects your rights to make statements but I'm not sure it protects your ability to demand information from someone. Some activist doctors who are insensitive to the values of others and who lack cultural competence may try to shame a parent who owns a firearm.