Doctors should have right to ask you about your guns

[mikegideon]

This is real simple to me. Lying to a liberal is not illegal, and can even be lots of fun. Just tell them what they want to hear. That's how they live their entire lives anyway.

[dats82]

TMF,

Another way to look at it is that the communication between a doctor and patient is crucial. If a patient refuses to answer a question, regardless of how trivial it may seem to them, it would be completely logical for the doctor to be concerned about the patient's honesty or thoroughness in answering other questions. If I have a busy and successful practice, why would I want to waste my time with patients who are not going to be open and truthful with me? This is obviously true for any type of question, not just those involving guns.

Personally, I am not a pediatrician or anything, but in the litigiousness society that we live in today, I could see why a pediatrician would what to know about various "dangers" in the home. I could see how an anti-gun malpractice laywer would love to paint a physcian as not taking to reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the patient, i.e. educating the parents on the dangers of children and guns.

I will say this, if I remember correctly, the only time that it would be absolutely reasonable to inquire about guns in the home would be in the case of treating a domestic violence victim. Otherwise, from a medical stand point, I don't really see the point, but I also would not be all up in arms if my physcian did ask.

Edited July 6, 2012 by dats82

[TMF]

Personally, I am not a pediatrician or anything, but in the litigiousness society that we live in today, I could see why a pediatrician would what to know about various "dangers" in the home. I could see how an anti-gun malpractice laywer would love to paint a physcian as not taking to reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the patient, i.e. educating the parents on the dangers of children and guns.

I will say this, if I remember correctly, the only time that it would be absolutely reasonable to inquire about guns in the home would be in the case of treating a domestic violence victim. Otherwise, from a medical stand point, I don't really see the point, but I also would not be all up in arms if my physcian did ask.

I wouldn't be up in arms about it either, but it's the principle of it. I would have no problem answering that question, but some might not want to or feel that the question is prying into their personal beliefs and doesn't pertain to treatment or routine scheduled care for children. Even still, it seems severe to dump a patient for not answering a question unless it directly relates to a medical issue that the patient is being treated for. To me that sounds like activism, which should have no place in a patient/doctor relationship, which leads to my feeling that the practice is unethical.

What if the doctor inquires about religious preference? If you refuse to answer would it be ethical to get dumped by the doctor? A doctor may feel that their religious preference has bearing on the childs health. For example, the doctor might feel as if certain sects of Mormanism are dangerous for a child due to child marriages being conducted at that FLDS compound.

I believe the scenario you painted above (domestic violence or history of) would be a reasonable case for a medical provider to inquire about gun possession, but if the question is unrelated to an existing condition I don't see it's relevance.

[dats82]

What if the doctor inquires about religious preference? If you refuse to answer would it be ethical to get dumped by the doctor? A doctor may feel that their religious preference has bearing on the childs health. For example, the doctor might feel as if certain sects of Mormanism are dangerous for a child due to child marriages being conducted at that FLDS compound.

If it is activism, so be it. Docs are human and citizens of this country, as are you and I. They are free to be activist and have political or religious positions, and are free to choose how to live their lives, personal or professional, based on that. It is a choice as to which doctor you use, just as it is your choice which friends to have or which church to attend.

This is taken straight from the AMA website, regarding principles of medical ethics.

Principles of medical ethics

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

[TMF]

This is taken straight from the AMA website, regarding principles of medical ethics.

Principles of medical ethics

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

[dats82]

Supporting access to care is not synonymous with the doctor has to provide care to all. This is probably going to open a whole new can of worms, but it is the first example that comes to mind. Many doctors refuse to perform abortions. Is that to say they are denying that person access to that procedure? No, they are just simply not going to be the ones to do it. The "ethical" course of action in such cases is to say, "I do not provide (service x); however, I will refer you to another physcian who may better provide that care for you."

[tnhawk]

My doctor didn't ask if I have guns at home, however we did discuss carry preferences. He also said I was welcome to carry concealed in his office.

[Guest adurbin]

TMF,

Another way to look at it is that the communication between a doctor and patient is crucial. If a patient refuses to answer a question, regardless of how trivial it may seem to them, it would be completely logical for the doctor to be concerned about the patient's honesty or thoroughness in answering other questions. If I have a busy and successful practice, why would I want to waste my time with patients who are not going to be open and truthful with me? This is obviously true for any type of question, not just those involving guns.

Personally, I am not a pediatrician or anything, but in the litigiousness society that we live in today, I could see why a pediatrician would what to know about various "dangers" in the home. I could see how an anti-gun malpractice laywer would love to paint a physcian as not taking to reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the patient, i.e. educating the parents on the dangers of children and guns.

I will say this, if I remember correctly, the only time that it would be absolutely reasonable to inquire about guns in the home would be in the case of treating a domestic violence victim. Otherwise, from a medical stand point, I don't really see the point, but I also would not be all up in arms if my physcian did ask.

If the question is pertaining to a medical problem, so be it. A doctors duty is to treat and prevent MEDICAL issues. Not to interrogate. Now, one could argue that the doc could ask to try to prevent an accident to the patient, but then we step in a whole nother pile. I.E., "you shouldn't ride in, or drive a car, because you could have an accident..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The AMA doesn't speak for all Doctors, not even a majority of them, last time I checked, FWIW.

This whole thing about docs asking about a gun in the house doesn't have anything to do with a

child's safety. It's political activism. A doc does have to ask questions to gain information about an illness,

but, unless the illness came from a gun, it's irrelevant and is none of his or her business.

[mikegideon]

The AMA doesn't speak for all Doctors, not even a majority of them, last time I checked, FWIW.

This whole thing about docs asking about a gun in the house doesn't have anything to do with a

child's safety. It's political activism. A doc does have to ask questions to gain information about an illness,

but, unless the illness came from a gun, it's irrelevant and is none of his or her business.

Even if it DID come from a gun, it ain't their job. I have no problem telling them either.

[JayC]

So you don't think the government already knows you own firearms? You are posting in a gun forum, you have probably had a background check for a new gun, and you might have a permit.

I completely agree that the government does not need to be involved or know anything else about my life, but this issue just seems to be kind of inflated. If you are worried about answering questions, just tell them no. By the way, when is the linked EMR requirement going into effect? I am completely unaware of such requirement, and I work in medicine. Such a requirement would be in blatant violation of HIPAA laws. Not saying that doesn't mean it won't happen; we all know the government isn't known for following the rules. However, I would think it would cause more of a stir within the medical community.

The federal government? Not likely...

I'm posting on a gun forum, unless they've requested the subscribed information on every visitor (and assuming I'm not smart enough to not visit a gun forum from my home), they have no clue who is visiting this forum. But Internet privacy is and should be a serious concern.

Background checks for firearms, are deleted by the state every 24 hours, it's illegal for the state to turn those over to anybody else without a warrant, and illegal to create databases of firearm purchases... Yes the fact we have an unconstitutional TICS system in this state is a very valid reason for concern.

If you're talking about the 4473's, then yes the ATF can come in and request to copy those, but they're prevented by law from compiling a database of firearm purchases. So they are required to comb through stacks of paper to track things down.

As for my carry permit, yeah that is in a database the feds probably can get access to... maybe a good bit of legislation we should have passed, blocking access without a search warrant?

I believe the regional ERM data clearing houses are supposed to go into effect in 2015... Many of the regulations haven't been released yet, but it's clear they're headed towards patient record sharing between helathcare providers... You do the math on what that exactly means...

I spent 7 years working in computer security of a large healthcare company, I can read the tea leaves from obamacare, online medical records that are available to any provider is where all of this is headed.

[dats82]

Even if it DID come from a gun, it ain't their job. I have no problem telling them either.

Actually, depending on the circumstances, it is their job. The laws vary slightly by state, but basically, it is mandatory for a physcian to report a GSW.

I'm just messing with you; I'm sure you already knew that.

I guess what I still don't understand about it all is what is the big deal about someone knowing you have guns? Like I said before, if we are trying to hide that we have guns or we don't want people know that we have guns, why are we on a gun forum talking about? I understand what everyone is saying about activism, but does anyone have any personal experience with a doctor refusing care based on questioning regarding firearms? I know that one story gives a case as an example, and I agree it is stupid. I am certainly not saying the doc is rational in such action, but I do not think he is wrong or unethical either. To me, it would be just the same as a restuarant not wanting to serve one group or the other (i.e. if they are posted). Who really gives a damn? It's this man's decision, poor as it may be, to not offer his services to whom ever he chooses. Just like the posted restuarants, if you don't agree, then don't support the business. It seems like people are making this a big deal just bacause it involves medical professionals. If that makes it a big deal, I guess that is what I am missing.

[bigwakes]

My pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home are they secured and out of reach of children. I have refused to answer the question, but usually just give a truthfull answer. Not sure how they would respond if I said I keep them on the coffe table. Maybe the BATFE would raid my home. In the times I have refused to answer I have not gotten questions or even a strange look. Probably a common response to a common question.

[mikegideon]

Actually, depending on the circumstances, it is their job. The laws vary slightly by state, but basically, it is mandatory for a physcian to report a GSW.

Yep. Report, not investigate. I have a ton of respect for what doctors do. I have no respect for overreach. If a doctor is worried about my guns, their logic is flawed, and I need another doctor. Not that I'm paranoid either. Any doctor that thinks he can guide me on guns needs to have all his sharp objects taken away. As you know, a doctor without sharp objects is useless.

Edited July 7, 2012 by mikegideon

[mikegideon]

My pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home are they secured and out of reach of children. I have refused to answer the question, but usually just give a truthfull answer. Not sure how they would respond if I said I keep them on the coffe table. Maybe the BATFE would raid my home. In the times I have refused to answer I have not gotten questions or even a strange look. Probably a common response to a common question.

I would have to ask, "Do you insult everybody's intelligence like that, or do I just look funny?".

[chances R]

First, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and those caused by doctors.

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. ( Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. © Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. ( There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. © The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners are.

old data, but I bet it hasn't changed much.

[dats82]

I was looking for some numbers like that the other day, can you provide a link to that?

[TMF]

I would have to ask, "Do you insult everybody's intelligence like that, or do I just look funny?".

Yep, don't like it when they do that. Before they would discharge my son after his birth I forced to watch a video lecturing me on not shaking a baby and then sign an "agreement" stating that I won't kill my child in a fit of rage. Overstepping? Yeah, seems like it is totally acceptable now. But hey, it's the patient that is wrong if he/she doesn't want to be treated or talked to like a child.

I know the difference between right and wrong, and generally what is wrong would be classified as "unethical." I don't need a list to tell me that. Whether or not a medical provider has the right to ask you questions that have nothing to do with treatment, then refuse treatment when you don't want to answer said question is a quack and should be rejected by the medical community.

What's to stop a doctor from asking your political affiliations? It is well within their rights to refuse treatment if you don't answer, right? But it is somehow okay because some made up code of ethics says that it is? No. Like I said, I know the difference between right and wrong, and this is wrong and unethical.

Using the example of performing abortions doesn't make sense either, because that is a procedure that the doctor must perform. If the doctor doesn't believe in performing that procedure he doesn't have to. The patient owning firearms doesn't automatically force the doctor to condone gun ownership, nor does it make him a gun owner.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep, don't like it when they do that. Before they would discharge my son after his birth I forced to watch a video lecturing me on not shaking a baby and then sign an "agreement" stating that I won't kill my child in a fit of rage. Overstepping? Yeah, seems like it is totally acceptable now. But hey, it's the patient that is wrong if he/she doesn't want to be treated or talked to like a child.

I know the difference between right and wrong, and generally what is wrong would be classified as "unethical." I don't need a list to tell me that. Whether or not a medical provider has the right to ask you questions that have nothing to do with treatment, then refuse treatment when you don't want to answer said question is a quack and should be rejected by the medical community.

The odd thing about the shaken baby thing-- Kids up to toddler age tend to giggle and enjoy it. Like tossing the kid up in the air then catching the kid. They tend to like that too, though it would be unfortunate if one time you miss and drop the kid on his head. A person who didn't know it could hurt the child, would think he was playing with the kid in a harmless fashion. I'm sure if it was done furiously and in anger a child would not like it and cry and such, but there is the chance that one could shake the baby and the baby is giggling and having fun, but still maybe there could be brain damage or spinal damage. Not everybody is smart enough to "just naturally" know what is safe unless somebody tells them about it.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

The odd thing about the shaken baby thing-- Kids up to toddler age tend to giggle and enjoy it. Like tossing the kid up in the air then catching the kid. They tend to like that too, though it would be unfortunate if one time you miss and drop the kid on his head. A person who didn't know it could hurt the child, would think he was playing with the kid in a harmless fashion. I'm sure if it was done furiously and in anger a child would not like it and cry and such, but there is the chance that one could shake the baby and the baby is giggling and having fun, but still maybe there could be brain damage or spinal damage. Not everybody is smart enough to "just naturally" know what is safe unless somebody tells them about it.

The mandatory "training" was aimed at temper control and how to deal with an inconsolable child. While I agree that hospitals and pediatricians should make an effort to educate, presenting such material in a "mandatory" way is wrong. If I was asked to participate I would gladly do so. However, I'm a big boy and I don't like being told what to do as if I'm a child.

Kinda like the 4th Amendment. I have no problem with agreeing to a police officer searching my vehicle so long as he asks nicely. It doesn't mean that I think the 4th Amendment should go away though. And if the police officer "demands" it, or implys that the search is mandatory, then I will cease to cooperate and make a stink about it. Nobody likes being told what to do or being forced to do anything against their will. Unfortunately, it has become an acceptable part of our society to allow it to happen to the point when someone calls attention to it being wrong they are suddenly the oddball. Madness.

[chances R]

TMF....got to ask, were you on active duty at the time of the mandatory training session? My point being, if so, is IMO, this is a perfect example of socialized medicine. Making a requirement for the 'subjects'. Who knows where the obamacare mandates will end?

[TMF]

TMF....got to ask, were you on active duty at the time of the mandatory training session? My point being, if so, is IMO, this is a perfect example of socialized medicine. Making a requirement for the 'subjects'. Who knows where the obamacare mandates will end?

As a matter a fact I was. I always use those experiences to explain to my wife what socialized medicine looks like. I remember breaking my finger when I was a private and not going to to the TMC simply because I didn't want to deal with the hassle of waiting amongst all the malingering profile seekers. I just got a finger splint and tape from a guy with a previous finger break. It's amazing how many people with non-problems will seek medical treatment when they aren't having to pay for it.

[dats82]

I know the difference between right and wrong, and generally what is wrong would be classified as "unethical." I don't need a list to tell me that. Whether or not a medical provider has the right to ask you questions that have nothing to do with treatment, then refuse treatment when you don't want to answer said question is a quack and should be rejected by the medical community.

What's to stop a doctor from asking your political affiliations? It is well within their rights to refuse treatment if you don't answer, right? But it is somehow okay because some made up code of ethics says that it is? No. Like I said, I know the difference between right and wrong, and this is wrong and unethical.

You still have not said why this is wrong. Why is it wrong for person a running their own business to make a decision on who they serve and who they don't serve regardless of what that decision is based on? Is it wrong or unethical for a donut shop to say they will only serve cops or more realistically that they get free services? Is it unethical for a restaurant to be posted, and if so, is it equally unethical to require you to be carrying while dinning? What makes it right to force a person, running their own business, to serve every person who walks in the door?

Just for the record, I too think it is poor practice and unreasonable. However, just because you do not agree with something, that does not make it inherently wrong or unethical. If this were the only care a person could receive or there were no other doctors to see or in the case of an emergency, then absolutely, I would agree that it is unethical because you are then denying a person access to care. Otherwise, you have not denied anything but your service, and the patient is still free to receive care elsewhere.

[TMF]

You still have not said why this is wrong. Why is it wrong for person a running their own business to make a decision on who they serve and who they don't serve regardless of what that decision is based on? Is it wrong or unethical for a donut shop to say they will only serve cops or more realistically that they get free services? Is it unethical for a restaurant to be posted, and if so, is it equally unethical to require you to be carrying while dinning? What makes it right to force a person, running their own business, to serve every person who walks in the door?

If you could please point to where I said that a doctor should be forced to serve every person who walks through their door. I don't enjoy having words put into my mouth more than anyone else.

I've made it clear in regards to my opinion on legalities, but I've also made clear what I believe to be wrong. Yes, I think it's wrong to refuse someone service based on their beliefs or aspects of their personal lives. If someone is refused service because they have a shirt on that says "Jesus Saves" and the business owner happens to be an athiest I would classify it as wrong and unethical. Should the business owner have the right to do that? Yes, absolutely. Just because you have the "right" doesn't make it "right."

This physician refused service because he is an activist, in my opinion. I think it is more wrong for a medical professional to refuse service based on such beliefs than most other professional service providers because of the role medical professionals fill in our society. Their personal/political/religious beliefs should never interfere with how they treat a patient. Their concern should simply be with the well-being of that individual.

[mikegideon]

The mandatory "training" was aimed at temper control and how to deal with an inconsolable child. While I agree that hospitals and pediatricians should make an effort to educate, presenting such material in a "mandatory" way is wrong. If I was asked to participate I would gladly do so. However, I'm a big boy and I don't like being told what to do as if I'm a child.

Kinda like the 4th Amendment. I have no problem with agreeing to a police officer searching my vehicle so long as he asks nicely. It doesn't mean that I think the 4th Amendment should go away though. And if the police officer "demands" it, or implys that the search is mandatory, then I will cease to cooperate and make a stink about it. Nobody likes being told what to do or being forced to do anything against their will. Unfortunately, it has become an acceptable part of our society to allow it to happen to the point when someone calls attention to it being wrong they are suddenly the oddball. Madness.

What about shaking doctors? Did they cover that?