Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Aug 19, 2014.
Tell me again why arming paranoid Americans is a good idea?
Oh Florida, the state that I try to avoid as much as possible.
Wait a minute, did I get this right? Grand kids visiting, apparently sleeping in another room, Grandmother props a chair against her bedroom door for her own protections and when the door opens, she shoots the intruder? If it is as described, charges should be filed. This should not be written off as an accident or "one of those unfortunate things" as our forum gun lobby likes to suggest.
who armed her?
woman should face charges for negligence at the least.
In some states and circumstances, physicians are forbidden to discuss gun safety issues with parents of children hospitalized over gunshot wounds. A federal judge tried to stick a permanent injunction against enforcing such laws in Florida a few years ago. At the federal level HHS (Health and Human Services) remains forbidden to collect stats on gun ownership, storage, etc.
Anyway that court's assessment was based on potential interference with the physician's First Amendment Rights. So far when the 1st and 2nd amendments are seen as bumping into each other, the NRA's use of the First Amendment to defend squashing doctors' use of the same amendment seems to be winning.
Hopefully the kid will be okay.
I wonder what HIPAA would have to say about that. Because that is absolutely disgusting.
Actually I think it's HIPAA's privacy laws that the NRA uses in part to maintain its so far successful campaigns to prevent federal collection of data that conjoins info on gun ownership / storage and incidence of death or injury due to gunshot wounds. I believe there have been various efforts to separate the very idea of collection of gunshot stats from concepts of patient privacy laws, but so far to little avail.
What the hell. It is not and cannot be some huge secret that tens of thousands of people die or are killed by gunshot every year in a country with so many weapons in so many hands. I guess the NRA would like to keep the publicity down to a dull roar. Shovelling sand against the tide, I say.
Meanwhile I guess we are supposed to think of guns as things that outdoorsy people have in their hands at the edge of the forest on a crisp late autumn day with a 12-point buck in the background. God knows what a doctor thinks when he's treating yet another sub-teen shot by a relative, but apparently our laws still largely prefer that he keep those thoughts to himself and just mind his stitching.
I'm actually thinking the other way around. How is the NRA knowing about what is being discussed between a doctor and their patient and/or parent/legal guardian of the patient without violating HIPAA? They can not know that without discussing medical issues with someone, which is a violation of HIPAA in itself. So HIPAA could theoretically be thrown back in their face and give them their own smacking down for even talking about this to begin with.
Hah. I like it!
Anyway you want to look at it, telling a doctor what he can and cannot discuss with a patient is just theatre of the absurd.
A doctor who sees kid after kid come in dead or injured by other kids, or by relatives cleaning the gun or relatives discovering the gun and fooling around with it, or by relatives bent on punishing someone for being alive.... whatever....
How many times before this doctor naturally starts figuring the way to cut that down in his own experience is to start talking it up. At professional meetings. With the patients. With the patients relatives. With law enforcement. With the media.
Who is the NRA to tell a physician he cannot seek to help prevent gun violence by discussing gun safety and storage issues? He sees the results of silence and suppression of this dialogue in his practice year after year, and should have every right to try to mitigate it.
It's quite simple. NRA simply asks people if their doctors bring up firearm ownership during visits. There is nothing remotely illegal about this.
It's not a violation of HIPAA to ask someone a question. Patient's are free to share (or not share) any of their health information with whoever they want, and whenever they want.
It is a violation of HIPAA for the physician or staff to share health information without the patient's consent.
The NRA doesn't do this, at least not to my knowledge. We are all taught to bring up firearm ownership with patient's and parents during our well visits etc.
There are some folks who think this is a government method of collecting info on who does and who doesn't own guns. It's not, at least not officially; though the NSA could probably spy on my records if they really wanted to. But the physicians are not asking these questions to build a database of gun owners. We do it so we can talk to kids and adults about safety and risky behaviors. It's good if you've already had the conversation with the patient who presents with suicidal thoughts; you can try and put something in place to keep the gun from being used in a suicide attempt.
I'm very pro-2nd ammendment, but as a soon to be physician, guns are something I make every effort to discuss with my patients. They can choose to answer me or not, or whether or not to answer truthfully. It's up to them.
It isn't the NRA's business, nor anyone else's business to know if their doctors bring up firearm ownership during visits. The fact that they do that and try to shroud it under the context of free speech is highly unethical.
Let's take her out and shoot her too! Grandmother shooting grand kids Despicable.
Well, I dunno. Here's another clip on Florida and its effort to keep docs from discussing guns with patients.
This one quotes an NRA lobbyist as saying just the pediatrician's question about gun ownership is an intrusion on 2nd-A rights. (!?)
Why? Because you don't like it?
You ask people many questions a day, most of which someone else would consider "none of your business".
Pro tip: if anyone asks you if your doc collects info on firearm ownership, just refuse to answer.
In 2011, Florida passed a law that restricted doctors from asking if guns were in the home.
This law was declared Constitutional by a 11th Circuit court decision.
No, it's because it isn't the NRA's business. There are some things, and by some I mean most, that don't depend on whether somebody likes it or not.
Because in working at a doctor's office, I know how much it would cost from a liability and litigation standpoint it would be to discuss such information to those who should not be privy to it, such as a 4th party to your medical records (1st, 2nd, and 3rd parties being doctor, family, and health insurance company). You should know that as well, being a doctor yourself.
Your doctor, as you have chosen him, has helped to take on the responsibility to keep you healthy. When the NRA has done the same and earned the degree for it, then they can be considered the same.
Unbelievable finding: that the law was a legitimate regulation of professional conduct and that the limits it imposed were incidental.
Heres a longer piece from Tampa Tribune about the ruling, which was 2-1 with a feisty dissent from the minority vote.
Federal court upholds Fla.'s docs vs. glocks law
You didn't read my first post on the matter properly. I'm saying that the NRA can ask patients if they are asked about gun ownership by their physicians. Those patients are free to respond or not. This is not a HIPAA violation.
Now if the NRA comes to me and asks about Steve Jenkins, my 46 year old patient. Giving them info WOULD be a HIPAA violation (if I did so without first obtaining Mr. Jenkins consent).
And the NRA is not trying to be a health care provider. I'm not sure how that last comparison is valid. They are merely collecting data that they are interested in, not giving out medical advice. This is no different than any other organization that asks questions about the doctor patient relationship.
Whether or not you (the literal and collective you) think it's their business or not really has no bearing on the matter.
These types of questions are asked every single day, by many different people and organizations. I don't see you condemning the practice elsewhere.
I mean any poll could be considered "none of their business" depending on who you ask. The folks that feel that way usually indicate as much when they refuse to answer/participate.
Not a complicated concept.
Until the day I die, I will not be able to comprehend what the hell is so hard about saying two words: "Who's there?"
I don't condemn things I don't know about, no.
And feel free to add, "Don't come a step closer. I have a gun and I know how to use it."
But then they know where you're at by the sound of your voice, and open fire in your general direction. YOU'LL DIE! Better to shoot first and not risk anything.
I hope you're being sarcastic.