Florida bars doctor advice to patients

[billvon 3,030]

In the latest case of Newspeak, Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children, in direct opposition to statements by the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association on the topic.

"The measure, the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, was passed in 2011 in response to an American Medical Association policy that encouraged doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in homes with children. The AMA policy was designed to help raise awareness and protect children from gun-related accidents. . . .

In a dissent, Judge Charles Wilson said he would find the Florida law unconstitutional as a legislative act that seeks to silence doctors’ “disfavored message about firearm safety.”

“This law is ... designed to stop a perceived political agenda, and it is difficult to conceive of any law designed for that purpose that could withstand First Amendment scrutiny,” he said.

“Simply put, the Act is a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms,” Judge Wilson said.
=================


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0725/Florida-doctors-cannot-discuss-gun-safety-with-patients-says-court-video

[lawrocket 3]

The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,063]

lawrocket

The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Does the First Amendment require a legitimate purpose before an American can say something? I wasn't aware of that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

billvon

Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

[kallend 2,063]

Shotgun

***Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries.
A. That would generally be doctors.

Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims?
A. That would generally be doctors too.

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

kallend

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

And the act doesn't prevent a doctor from discussing guns for legitimate reasons.

[kallend 2,063]

Shotgun

***Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

And the act doesn't prevent a doctor from discussing guns for legitimate reasons.

I gave you two reasons that would apply to just about any doctor who has patients. Which makes the Act pretty pointless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

******Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries.
A. That would generally be doctors.

Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims?
A. That would generally be doctors too.

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

There are also a number of crib related fatalities/accidents every year. Doctors would treat those that suffer injuries due to cribs, or God forbid, sign the death certificate. Should doctors also become experts in cribs? What about training wheels, should doctors be advising parents on when to take the training wheels off of their children's bikes? Your argument is ludicrous.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[jakee 1,534]

Quote

Doctors would treat those that suffer injuries due to cribs, or God forbid, sign the death certificate. Should doctors also become experts in cribs? What about training wheels, should doctors be advising parents on when to take the training wheels off of their children's bikes?

So do you think there should be a law regarding when and how doctors can talk to patients about cribs?

Do you think there should be a law regarding when and how doctors can talk to patients about bicycles?

Quote

Your argument is ludicrous.

Clearly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Does the First Amendment require a legitimate purpose before an American can say something? I wasn't aware of that.

No. But there is the issue of privacy. You know, like asking if a parent consented to an abortion for a 14 year old. There is the issue of legitimate medical cause. The practice of medicine can be regulated because it is licensed.

This isn't just a First Amendment thing. You know it. Haven't you mentioned the whole fire in a crowded theater thing before? To which I've responded what if there is a fire?

If I'm at a bar and some guy who happens to be a doctor wants to know whether j have a gun then fire away. Pun intended. If a guy is hallucinating about the Jews coming to kill him and will defend himself then it is wholly legitimate for the physician to ask whether the guy has a gun because it involves his safety and the safety of others

You know the difference.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries.
A. That would generally be doctors.

Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims?
A. That would generally be doctors too.

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

You aren't a real doctor, though. What would you know about medical advice and the propriety?

Sorry. I know your feeling about physicians being called doctors and could resist.

But a question: what medical advice could a doctor give that woukd be the practice of medicine? Seriously. Would that mean that gun safety classes can only be taught by physicians?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,030]

>There are also a number of crib related fatalities/accidents every year. Doctors
>would treat those that suffer injuries due to cribs, or God forbid, sign the death
>certificate. Should doctors also become experts in cribs?

It would be simpler to ban them from talking about crib deaths. That way crib manufacturers would not be at risk.

[Andy9o8 2]

lawrocket

The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Are you equally shocked that trial judge Cooke and appellate judge Wilson have a problem with it? Rebut them, Jerry, not Bill.

[kallend 2,063]

lawrocket

******The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Does the First Amendment require a legitimate purpose before an American can say something? I wasn't aware of that.

No. But there is the issue of privacy. You know, like asking if a parent consented to an abortion for a 14 year old. There is the issue of legitimate medical cause. The practice of medicine can be regulated because it is licensed.

This isn't just a First Amendment thing. You know it. Haven't you mentioned the whole fire in a crowded theater thing before? To which I've responded what if there is a fire?

If I'm at a bar and some guy who happens to be a doctor wants to know whether j have a gun then fire away. Pun intended. If a guy is hallucinating about the Jews coming to kill him and will defend himself then it is wholly legitimate for the physician to ask whether the guy has a gun because it involves his safety and the safety of others

You know the difference.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you equate shouting "fire" in a crowded theater with asking someone if their kids are adequately protected from potential danger in their homes.

Come on, My Learned Friend, even you know that is a ridiculous comparison.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Driver1 0]

kallend

*********The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Does the First Amendment require a legitimate purpose before an American can say something? I wasn't aware of that.

No. But there is the issue of privacy. You know, like asking if a parent consented to an abortion for a 14 year old. There is the issue of legitimate medical cause. The practice of medicine can be regulated because it is licensed.

This isn't just a First Amendment thing. You know it. Haven't you mentioned the whole fire in a crowded theater thing before? To which I've responded what if there is a fire?

If I'm at a bar and some guy who happens to be a doctor wants to know whether j have a gun then fire away. Pun intended. If a guy is hallucinating about the Jews coming to kill him and will defend himself then it is wholly legitimate for the physician to ask whether the guy has a gun because it involves his safety and the safety of others

You know the difference.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you equate shouting "fire" in a crowded theater with asking someone if their kids are adequately protected from potential danger in their homes.

Come on, My Learned Friend, even you know that is a ridiculous comparison.

No more ridiculous than using the argument that 500 murders in a town of 500 makes it more dangerous than Chicago.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[lawrocket 3]

Prof:

You'd mentioned that you didn't think a legitimate purpose was ever required to say something. I brought up the fire in a crowded theater as a well known example.

I personally don't like any restrictions like this. I think a better system would be one that educates people that when a doctor asks a question about how many guns a person has, etc, that you don't have to answer that. I think there is an easier and better way

But I do see the issue of a captive audience

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,063]

Driver1

************The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Does the First Amendment require a legitimate purpose before an American can say something? I wasn't aware of that.

No. But there is the issue of privacy. You know, like asking if a parent consented to an abortion for a 14 year old. There is the issue of legitimate medical cause. The practice of medicine can be regulated because it is licensed.

This isn't just a First Amendment thing. You know it. Haven't you mentioned the whole fire in a crowded theater thing before? To which I've responded what if there is a fire?

If I'm at a bar and some guy who happens to be a doctor wants to know whether j have a gun then fire away. Pun intended. If a guy is hallucinating about the Jews coming to kill him and will defend himself then it is wholly legitimate for the physician to ask whether the guy has a gun because it involves his safety and the safety of others

You know the difference.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you equate shouting "fire" in a crowded theater with asking someone if their kids are adequately protected from potential danger in their homes.

Come on, My Learned Friend, even you know that is a ridiculous comparison.

No more ridiculous than using the argument that 500 murders in a town of 500 makes it more dangerous than Chicago.

So you'd prefer to live in a town where everyone is murdered. You are weird.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

No. I'm shocked that bill calls it a bill to ban doctor advice. Doctor advice and questions from a doctor are pretty different things. Framing the issue in that way is disingenuous

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Coreeece 2]

kallend

******Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries.
A. That would generally be doctors.

Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims?
A. That would generally be doctors too.

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

I don't see how guns are a legitimate conversation during a Gynecological exam, unless....you know...she's into that kinda thing.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[kallend 2,063]

Coreeece

*********Florida has outlawed doctor advice to patients on gun safety for children

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety?

Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . .

Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries.
A. That would generally be doctors.

Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims?
A. That would generally be doctors too.

Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations.

I don't see how guns are a legitimate conversation during a Gynecological exam, unless....you know...she's into that kinda thing.

The OB/Gyne would certainly know if there are likely to be children in the home.

And the Act isn't about forcing a conversation, it's about a GAG.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,063]

lawrocket

No. I'm shocked that bill calls it a bill to ban doctor advice. Doctor advice and questions from a doctor are pretty different things. Framing the issue in that way is disingenuous

Nonsense - that is a totally artificial distinction. Any doc needs to ask questions before knowing what advice to give.

"Where does it hurt"?
"When did you first notice the lump?"
"Is it just on the left side or on both sides?"
"Have you been vaccinated?"
"Is there a family history of heart disease?"

etc.

etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Glitch 0]

Maybe I'm just distrusting of the govt... but I'm envisioning Docs being used to audit and record who has firearms in the house, recording an affirmative response in their medical records, thus allowing TPTB to query and know who has a firearm (regardless of it being registered) for when they decide that its in the publics best interest to confiscate them in the event of a natural disaster or something...

Sound far fetched?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[kallend 2,063]

Glitch

Maybe I'm just distrusting of the govt... but I'm envisioning Docs being used to audit and record who has firearms in the house, recording an affirmative response in their medical records, thus allowing TPTB to query and know who has a firearm (regardless of it being registered) for when they decide that its in the publics best interest to confiscate them in the event of a natural disaster or something...

Sound far fetched?

Is this you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***Maybe I'm just distrusting of the govt... but I'm envisioning Docs being used to audit and record who has firearms in the house, recording an affirmative response in their medical records, thus allowing TPTB to query and know who has a firearm (regardless of it being registered) for when they decide that its in the publics best interest to confiscate them in the event of a natural disaster or something...

Sound far fetched?

Is this you?

First off, it is none of the Dr's damn business

Second off, he asked and honest question and you have to play being an ass?

Nice John
Real nice

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Andy9o8

***The act prevents a physician from asking a patient about gun ownership unless the provider believes in good faith that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care, safety, or the safety of others.

So no, a doctor is not precluded from inquiring so long as there is a legitimate medical purpose for the knowledge. If there is not a legitimate medical purpose then it is not the care provider's business.

I am shocked that you would have a problem with this.

Are you equally shocked that trial judge Cooke and appellate judge Wilson have a problem with it? Rebut them, Jerry, not Bill.

lawrocket

No. I'm shocked that bill calls it a bill to ban doctor advice. Doctor advice and questions from a doctor are pretty different things. Framing the issue in that way is disingenuous.

First, when you cut through the b.s. and cosmetic veneer of the loophole, it really is a de facto ban, so (I think) the framing is reasonable and not disingenuous. That's because the net effect of the law and its vague, ambiguous language would be to constantly intimidate doctors into a chilling effect to discuss the subject, for fear of being sanctioned or harrassed by people with an ideological agenda. Indeed, trial court judge Cooke made that very point when she struck down the law, and I think she's right.

Second: again - I'm less interested in your debate with Bill and more interested in your rebuttal of the two judges who believe that the law does unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment. Yes, the two judges who voted to uphold the law are the current appellate majority, so they prevail for now; but of the total federal court judges who've officially opined on the matter thus far, it's evenly split at 2 to uphold and 2 to strike down. Your rebuttal to the 2 who would strike down?