Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDocs v. Glocks: government regulation of physician speech
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/docs-v-glocks/"...
As finally passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Rick Scott, the 2011 Firearm Owners Privacy Act subjects physicians to disciplinary action for making verbal or written inquiry into a patients firearm ownership when the physician does not in good faith believe such inquiries are relevant to the patients medical care or safety of others. The Act included amendments to the Florida Patients Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, adding similar provisions. (The Act also applies to health care facilities, but here we will discuss only its effect on physicians and their patients.) Physicians may not enter any information regarding firearm ownership into the patients medical record if they know this information is not relevant to the patients medical care or safety, or the safety of others. They may not discriminate against a patient based solely on the patients Second Amendment right to own firearms or ammunition. Finally, physicians must refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient regarding firearm ownership during an examination.
Shortly after Gov. Scott signed the Act into law, several physicians filed suit in federal district court challenging its constitutionality (Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida). The controversy was dubbed Docs v. Glocks, a term widely adopted by the media. Similar legislation has been introduced in at least 12 other states.
The Act, the physicians said, was an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and was unconstitutionally vague because they were not fairly put on notice as to what they were expected to do to comply with the Act. (Well mostly focus here on the First Amendment issues.)
...
loser to the SBM home, my concern about legislative bodies making medical judgments is reinforced by state laws promoting politically-favored messages not necessarily consistent with evidence-based medical practice. (I do not include the SOCT bans in this category. There the legislatures judgment was medically sound.) As weve discussed a number of times on SBM, legislators sometimes wander far outside the boundaries of science in making decisions affecting healthcare: Legislative Alchemy, the 21st Century Cures Act, non-medical vaccination exemptions, and Right to Try statutes. Physician questioning about gun ownership is, in my view, based on a reasonable judgment that discussing it is, at least arguably, a medically sound preventive medicine practice. Yet, the court, in requiring relevancy to a specific patients medical care based on a some particularized information about the individual patient effectively overrules the physicians judgment. The same is true of state laws requiring physicians to make scripted speeches containing medically irrelevant information. Perhaps we need a constitutional right to science to protect the public against scientifically unsound legislative decisions."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When some Republican tries to talk about "smaller government," remind that individual that the GOP works to tell health care workers how to do their job, and it doesn't care about best practices when doing so. It's just pushing ideology via bad laws.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 818 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Docs v. Glocks: government regulation of physician speech (Original Post)
HuckleB
Jan 2016
OP
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)1. The Gungeoneers were sure upset about docs -- mostly pediatricians -- asking about gunz in the home.
Gunners apparently don't really care about saving lives if their guns are involved.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)2. Pharmacists can unprescribe medications...
...but medical doctors can't offer medical opinions.