Federal Judge Denies (moran) NRA Intervention In Doctor Gun Question Law

[jpak]

http://www.northescambia.com/?p=61096

A federal judge has rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to formally intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Florida’s new “docs v. glocks” law.

U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke issued an order turning down the NRA, which lobbied to pass the law during the spring legislative session. Cooke said state lawyers could adequately defend the law without the NRA intervening.

“The NRA seeks to defend the constitutionality of the Firearms Owner’s Privacy Law,’’ Cooke wrote, using the name that lawmakers attached to the measure. “The State Defendants, as representatives of the State of Florida, have the same objective. The NRA has not presented any evidence to suggest that the State Defendants may not adequately represent its interests.’’

The controversial law is aimed at restricting doctors from asking patients about gun ownership. A group of doctors filed the lawsuit, because they charge the law violates their First Amendment rights

<more>

good - they suck and hate Freedom of Speech

yup

[Hangingon]

1. Who hates freedom of speech? NRA wants to talk ...

Guess the judge is afraid of their ideas.

[flamin lib]

5. They want to talk and to tell others not to talk unless, like this forum,

they contribute to the echo chamber.

[eqfan592]

7. *cough* bullshit *cough* nt

[flamin lib]

11. So cogent! Speaks volumes! nt

[Hangingon]

35. Call it like you see it.

It is his modest 1st rights.

[Hangingon]

9. They want to uphold the Bill of Rights.

People have a sceond amendment right to own arms. Doctors have speech rights too. I have a a problem with doctors who refuse the patient his right to not respond to the question and then refuse treatment. The "questionaire" is on my doctor's software too but he does not use it and does not tell patients to find another doctor on ideological grounds.

[flamin lib]

13. Which amensment guarantees you the right to see a doctor that

doesn't want to see you?

Dr's have rights too and yours stop at their nose.

[Hangingon]

18. Wow! Clean the spittal on your screen.

Okay, the Bill of Rights has no specific articulated right to medical care. Guess the Obamacare stuff led me to believe we did or at least access to a doctor was important. I see that your vision is that the doctor asks a question and it must be answered - or you can go off and die a painful, suffering death. Sort of like the Inquisition. My rights "stop at their nose(sic)". Most interesting and scholarly. Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr?

[flamin lib]

21. There's no spittle on my screen.

Your inability to see a doctor that doesn't want to see you does not mean that "you can go off and die a painful, suffering death". It means that you must find a doctor more to your liking.

I don't understand why the protections of the 2nd are extended to carry without a permit where liquor is served, but the modest 1st rights of a doctor to ask questions related environmental health concerns for his patients are considered an abridgment of mere ownership of guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. re: rights

Why are the 1st amendment rights of a Human Resources worker constrained to not asking the age, religion... of anyone applying for a job?

[flamin lib]

28. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids those questions. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. A new civil rights act is needed.

It seems rights enumerated in the 2A and the need for their enforcement and protection under the 14A are now applicable analogously with those issues which prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I have no problem with the doctor's personal views nor his right to believe them but would no more welcome his questions than perhaps a gay man would welcome questions about his lifestyle and actions.

[flamin lib]

65. So go get a new civil rights act. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. I see it coming.

But between now and then, all related civil rights violations are less than summary offenses, particularly if they're government sponsored.

:sarcasm:


Without the acceptance of suffrage, I wonder if Alice and Lucy would have died at Occoquan.

[Hangingon]

30. Love that last para - nice dodge but fail

"I don't understand why the protections of the 2nd are extended to carry without a permit where liquor is served"... I assume you have read the Texas CHL regs - likely a bad assumption. Here in Texas, as you should know, we cannot legally carry without a permit where liquor is served or elsewhere. For CHLs, we have the 51% prohibition and severe penalties for carrying under the influence.

"but the modest 1st rights of a doctor to ask questions related environmental health concerns for his patients are considered an abridgment of mere ownership of guns. " What about the modest "1st rights" of the patient to answer? When did guns become an environmental health concern? Like, "Do you live next door to a refinery?" If a restaurant posts a legal (30.06) sign, I can go to the next restaurant. What will you say when an invasive question is asked about something besides guns? A physician is not a restaurant. Simply switching doctors is not so easy. Health insurance limits available doctors. Some doctors do not take medicare. Many doctors are not accepting new patients. Specialists are not everywhere. Not all of this state is like the Metroplex. And I guess I am a victim of age and the values of earlier times - physicians have a higher responsibility.

[flamin lib]

32. What is so hard to understand? You have the right to refuse to answer.

Dr has the right to drop you as a patient. Medical care by the doctor of your choice is not guaranteed because the doctor has a say in who s/he accepts as a patient.

[petronius]

33. How do you feel about pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraception?

They claim a 1st Amendment right as well... :shrug:

[flamin lib]

36. I think it sucks. When a court says it's illegal or unconstitutional I'll

applaud. 'Til then it remains their right.

[petronius]

39. And yet in this case you think a physician refusing a patient over a non-medical

social/political issue is just peachy. Why the difference?

[flamin lib]

42. Because so far it is his/her right according to a federal court and because

the doctor sees guns in a home with children as a possible health issue. It is only after there is a child/gun interaction that it becomes a medical issue. Just as a doctor will council you not to drink to excess even though there is no medical indication of current health effects some doctors may council about guns in the home before they become a medical issue.

A doctor may choose to advise on swimming pools, pesticides, household chemicals and a host of other "non medical" considerations which can become medical issues.

[petronius]

50. There is nothing in the law that interferes with the flow of information

from doctor to patient - the doctor is still free to provide as much safety-related info on any topic s/he chooses that the patient is willing to receive. Patient safety is absolutely not the issue here.

The issue is a physician refusing a patient over a social/political issue, and you've skirted the question: why do you think it sucks in the case of the anti-choice pharmacist, and applaud it in the case of the anti-gun doctor?

The first amendment claim is a tenuous one in my opinion: all rights have limits (as anti-RKBA posters are fond of pointing out) and I suspect that, in the case of a licensed and regulated commercial activity, the First will not protect a provider's right to demand answers from a patient on a question of gun (or any other potentially hazardous) ownership...

[flamin lib]

53. Suspect as you will, a federal judge has issued an opinion.

Unlike the color of drapes in the living room a firearm may be considered a health concern. By misuse or accident they instantly become a medical issue. Thus it may fall within the concerns of a doctor.

Several posters have said I applaud, support, or otherwise have a bias against guns and for the doctor. None of that is true.

I have consistently said that it is the 1st A right of the doctor to ask (federal court ruling), it is anyone's right to refuse answering, and that it is your right to find a doctor more to your liking as it is the doctor's right to manage his/her patient list as s/he sees fit.

Your opinion is at odds with the opinion of at least one federal judge. This may change but until it does you're stuck with the inconvenient fact that it is protected speech.

[petronius]

58. As far as I can tell, the only thing the judge said was that the NRA couldn't intervene

Have you seen any court rulings about the law itself? Absent that, the protected speech claim is still wide-open.

There are many items in a typical household that can be hazardous - it's a stretch to call any of these health issues (let alone medical). You could call them safety-issues, I suppose, which is moving beyond the purview of the medical profession. Despite that, doctors are free to dispense any safety-related info they want, even with this law. Do you recognize that fact?

The question is whether a doctor is right to refuse a patient over a refusal to answer a non-medical question. You're being accused of bias because you consistently refuse to answer a simple question: do you think it sucks for a doctor to behave that way? (You've already said so in the case of the anti-choice pharmacist, and the justification is the same.)

[flamin lib]

64. The reason I haven't answered that question the way you want me to

is that I don't really care if the doctor asks about guns or not. Nor do I care if the doctor uses refusal to discuss guns as reason to end the doctor/patient relationship.

The reason I don't care, beyond the points made in other posts, is that gun ownership for me is a right not a religious tenant.

The justification for refusing contraception and asking about guns is the same only so far as it rests on the freedom of speech. The outcome of exercising that right is vastly different. In one case the outcome might be an unwanted pregnancy with all the attendant risks/responsibilities. In the other case the outcome might be safer environment for a child depending on the knowledge and responsibility of the parent. Should I be asked about my guns I can assure the doctor that all of them are secured under lock and key with the ammunition secured separately under lock and key. At that point if the doctor still has a problem I'll ask for a referral.

For me the refusal to even discuss guns in the home with a doctor whose only concern is the health and safety of a patient isn't reasonable. Nor do I think it reasonable to force a doctor to maintain a relationship with a patient that doesn't respect the doctor's concerns for health and welfare.

You are entitled to your views and I respect your right to hold them. The same goes for my doctor.

[petronius]

67. My view is that it's wrong for a medical professional to deny service to a patient

over a non-medical, non-health issue, and I support regulation to enforce that if need be. In this case, the outside issue is firearm ownership, but I feel the same no matter the topic. To me, access to health care and patient privacy take precedence over the doctor's desire to end the relationship over a social/political opinion (whether it's birth control, gun ownership. or anything else)...

[beevul]

69. Except that ISN'T what any one wants, and you well know it.

"For me the refusal to even discuss guns in the home with a doctor whose only concern is the health and safety of a patient isn't reasonable."

Except that ISN'T what any one wants, and you well know it. The issue isn't "discussing guns in the home".

The issue is whether a doctor NEEDS to ask whether a patient has guns in the home, and furthermore whether he to ask in order to have a discussion about it.

The doctor can discuss guns in the home to his hearts content with any patient he likes, without having to know whether any of those patients actually have guns in the home.

Sort of like how doctors discuss safe sex and STD's with patients that aren't actually having sex or carrying an STD at that time.


It does you no service to refuse to acknowledge what the issue actually is, and even less to pretend the issue is something it isn't. So you might try...I don't know...not doing those things?

[Hangingon]

34. Okay got it. You are for ending the traditional

doctor patient relationship. Why? Make it easier to push the new healthcare? And just to punish those who are for personal rights? When I go to the issued doctor, do I get to ask about more than one problem or do I have to make an appointment for each malady? You really should broaden your view.

[flamin lib]

40. Bit melodramatic, don'cha think? Issued doctor?

The traditional doctor patient relationship is just that; a relationship. If you don't like the relationship, end it and that goes both ways.

At this point the federal judiciary comes down on my side. That may change. If it does I may or may not bitch about it. 'Til it does how 'bout calming down some?

[Hangingon]

52. Not agitated, more amused.

You seem to be in a high warble - witness the misspells. As to issued physicians, been to Parkland or a VA clinic?

[flamin lib]

54. Misspelling are typos--I hate this laptop keyboard! I've used an ergonomic

keyboard for years to combat corpal tunnel. With the laptop I'm constrained to hunt-n-peck.

Yes, I've been to both. I've also been to the ER. All this hoopla is over family practice.

[Hangingon]

57. You seem very ready to end family practice and go socialized.

It is not my preference. Hunt and peck and laptop keyboards work fine if you take your time.

[flamin lib]

60. Yeah, I like single payer. Not germain to this discussion. nt

[PavePusher]

43. The doc can offer information all day long, but s/he may not invade my privacy...

by asking about personal possesions not directly affecting my health and may not drop me as a patient for refusing to answer said boundary violation.

Why is this so difficult for your to wrap your head around?

[flamin lib]

51. They can ask anything they want. It is your choice to answer. As part of

their treatment they ask all sorts of personal questions. You can refuse to answer any of them.

Firearms and any manner of other possessions may be considered a health issue. Motorcycles, skydiving and bungee jumping are all health concerns which may become medical issues.

Dr may ask, you may refuse to answer. You may choose another doctor. It is not a violation of your rights for a doctor to ask, nor is it a violation of your rights for the doctor to manage his patient list as s/he sees fit.

[PavePusher]

38. And theirs stop at their office door. n/t

[flamin lib]

44. The inside of the office door. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

15. In case you have forgotten

What started the whole pissing contest was a Florida pediatrician while examining a child asked the mother about guns in home. When she declined to answer, Doctor Douchebag told her to GTFO and find herself and her kid another doctor.

Whether or not there are guns in the home is not germane to a case of diaper rash. His churlish behavior invited the backlash.

It was not like he was simply providing a pamphlet with safety tips. e.g. don't keep dangerous household chemicals where your kid can drink them; lock up guns and ammo; or don't lay the kid face down on a plastic mattress cover.

[flamin lib]

25. Really? You know that the doctor used that verbiage? You know

that s/he acted churlishly?

As evidenced by the many posts about children and guns it is reasonable for a doctor to be concerned about guns in the home. S/he could ask about swimming pools or dangerous chemicals and no one here would bat an eye. If s/he told the patient to either secure the pool or find another doctor no one here would object. However, if the question involves a firearm, everyone treats it as a full on assault on RKBA.

Treat it for what it is; an issue that may affect your choice of doctors and may affect the doctor's choice of patients.

[RSillsbee]

41. To be fair

The Doctor did not kick her out of the office then and there that would be illegal.
There is a very specific protocol the Doctor must follow when dismissing a patient.

In Colorado the Doctor must send you a letter informing you that he/she intends to terminate service and why. Then, they must give you sufficient time to find another Doctor (usually thirty days).

Stopping an examination and throwing a patient out because they refused to answer a question would be considered Patient Abandonment.

[Hoyt]

70. Actually law was about right wingers who are afraid "Obamacare" might impact gun ownership.

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/blog/BreakingNews/pages/post.aspx?PostID=28

"In published reports, Rep. Brodeur said he introduced the legislation because he feared that the new federal health reform legislation would allow such information to become part of a federal or insurance company record, although the act, in a section titled “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” forbids anyone in government from using the law to collect information about gun ownership and insurance companies from raising rates because of that information."

[ananda]

2. Good.

I'm tired of all the lives lost . . . .

[one-eyed fat man]

3. Me too

Criminals should be able to prey on defenseless victims. Victims that fight back just cause hard-working criminals to suffer stress. They shouldn't have to worry that every time they kick in a door or smash a window during a burglary that some inconsiderate lout of a homeowner might shoot at them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of01WttdEHQ

[flamin lib]

4. What has this to do with a Dr's right to ask about guns? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

6. There is a case of a FL doctor who refused to have gunowners as patients.

This law was intended to stop that.

[Hangingon]

8. Thanks GSC Antis forget this in the rush to hate guns.

[flamin lib]

10. It's the Dr's business who he treats just as it's your business who

you choose as a doctor. Don't like thr question just go to another doctor. Just as you shouldn
t be deprived of your 2nd rights s/he shouldn't be deprived of the 1st.

What's wrong with that?

[eqfan592]

12. Any other non-medical questions you think docs should be able to ask...

...as a basis of providing service? Is that really a road you want to go down? Nobody is saying these doctors can't speak their thoughts in public or even to their patients on the subject, only that they cannot pry into their patients non-medical private life as a basis of providing service.

[flamin lib]

14. It is a health related question as shown by the numerous posts

about children finding/shooting/being shot with guns.

How is a doctor to know if a patient needs counseling in gun safety if s/he can't ask? Why should a doctor be forced to treat someone who withholds information about possible environmental risks?

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Is he an expert on guns? If not, then why should I listen to him?

Likely his "knowledge" will be drawn from the discredited Kellerman study. I go to him for medical advise.

[flamin lib]

22. I've made that point. You don't. You can go find a doctor that

is an expert in firearms or that doesn't ask the questions that offend you.

[Hangingon]

20. I am still puzzled about when doctors got into gun safety.

[eqfan592]

24. The problem isn't counseling, it's the denial of service.

I doubt the doctor would similarly deny service to a patient that had a swimming pool, even though those lead to far more accidental deaths of children than firearms do, by several factors.

A doctor can easily make information about firearms safety (and other possible environmental risks) available to all his patients without needing to ask direct questions about such risks as they would with true health related issues.

[flamin lib]

26. Supposition about other environmental concers isn'y germain.

If a doctor refuses to treat a patient, for any reason at all, that is her/his right. Just as a doctor may refuse to offer abortions even if qualified to perform them.

This isn't about anyone's 2nd rights, it's about the dr's 1st rights and his/her choice to treat or not treat a patient.

[eqfan592]

27. LOL, you are seriously opening up a massive can of worms...

..and what is so funny is you don't even realize it.

The irony of your name right now must be clear to all who are even remotely rational on this subject.

:hi:

[flamin lib]

29. Explain? nt

[RSillsbee]

45. I'd be willing to bet that guns had nothing to do w/ it

Most of the Doctors I've ever worked for are incredibly arrogant. I bet it was more that the patient's mom refused to answer the question than what the question was about.

[flamin lib]

47. Makes no difference. nt

[RSillsbee]

48. Why not?

Personally, I think it's a stupid law. I'm a big boy I can tell a Pediatrician "That's not your business" all by myself. I don't need a law to protect me.

I'd like to see a law along the lines of "The Doctor may not dismiss a patient solely on the ground of refusal to answer a question."

Generally a Physician has to have a pretty good reason to dismiss a patient.

1. Failure/ refusal to follow treatment protocols

2. Non Payment of bills

3. Insurance fraud.

4. Drug seeking behavior

5. Patient completes course of therapy.

A Doctor can't just throw you out of his/ her office "just because"

[flamin lib]

55. There are laws preventing patient abandonment. nt

[RSillsbee]

59. I've already stated that numerous times

care to discuss the rest of what I said?

[flamin lib]

61. I don't really se anything else to discuss. You listed reasons to dismiss

a patient. There are others as well. A doctor cannot be forced to see a patient beyond the time it takes for the patient to find other care. Or do you know something I don't? That's a serious question, not a snark--is there a law against doctors trimming their patient load?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. ...is there a law...

...against landlords trimming their tenant load?

No not unless someone's rights are being trampled.

The courts will be busy and the lawyers paid.

[RSillsbee]

68. A Physician can announce that he/she is not accepting new patients

but they cant "trim the rolls" If the practice is so overwhelmed that patient care suffers patients will generally go elsewhere on their own. Even if a Doctor is ending his/her practice he must announce that they are doing so in a reasonable amount of time ( usually three months) so that their patients may make other arrangements. The physician must also forward a copy of the patient's chart to the new provider w/in a reasonable time.

I had a patient call to make an appointment at an Ortho clinic I worked at who went absolutely balistic when we told her we were booked solid 1 month out and the best we could do was put her on stand by. she started raising Hell and tols us she was going to take her business elsewhere. I hung up the phone thinking " I just told you we were booked solid for the next month, do you really think we need yourbusiness to survive?"

[rrneck]

16. Hiw libertarian of you... nt

[Hangingon]

19. What about my 1st amendment rights? And the doctors

responsibility to treat the sick? Your solution is great if there is another doctor at hand. What if there isn't?

[flamin lib]

31. What if there isn't a gun store near by to help you fulfill your 2nd rights?

What if you live in Kansas and need an abortion?

In either case you go where you can get the services you want or, as in the case of abortion, you do without.

[Hangingon]

37. I won't die if I cannot buy a gun.

[flamin lib]

46. A woman might if she can't get an abortion. Yet it is legal to restrict access

as in Kansas. Yeah, I think it sucks that a Constitutionally guaranteed right can be effectively abridged.

That said, you won't die if you don't have a gun. If that is the only choice you have in your world make it, it's up to you.

[Hangingon]

49. The Kansas decision to restrict abortion rights was an

action of the state government. If I were a citizen of the state, I would at least have had a say in the matter through my vote. I make no argument for or against their decision since is does not apply here. In the present case, the "questionnaire" gives me no say. I would imagine it is the product of a software company with heavy influence form parts of the medical profession which is anti-gun. That is the difference. Please no more rabbit trails.

[flamin lib]

56. As I have repeatedly said, you have a choice as does your doctor.nt