search
top

Another Reason NRA’s Doctor Law is Stupid

Jennifer’s doctor is a gunnie. Gag laws are just a bad idea. Especially when you consider the number of doctors that are actually on our side. There are many. Some of them even read this blog.

16 Responses to “Another Reason NRA’s Doctor Law is Stupid”

  1. Braden Lynch says:

    The law is so STUPID.

    It plays right into the hands of the anti-rights gun-grabbers as we appear no better then they are in respecting the Constitution.

    If my physician ever told me to get rid of firearms in my house I would set him straight with facts, logic, my right to do so, and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) level of research refutations.

  2. mike says:

    It isn’t about doctors telling you to lose the guns. They share that information with insurance companies, who can use it to determine your risk and hence affect your premiums. This is what my doctor told me when I asked him about it.

  3. McThag says:

    My son already knows to lie to them. “Daddy doesn’t have guns.”

    His doctor didn’t like being asked where he lived, how much money was in his bank account and if _HE_ had any guns.

    I didn’t think I needed a law to take care of the issue.

  4. Countertop says:

    My doctor actually gave me great advice about shooting and proper eyewear selection – when I ran into him at the range.

  5. Jake says:

    @ Braden & McThag: Fighterdoc hit the biggest reason this law is a good thing in his comment in the other thread.

    The problem (for physicians) includes some factors that most aren’t aware of. We’re held to ‘professional standards’, which are in part defined by the ‘professional organizations’ we are members of and are in part certified by.

    If the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics)[…] says that this question must be asked, then it is less than the standard of care to not ask it….

    Not meeting the accepted standard of care – in any way – is a good way for a doctor to lose every penny he will ever earn, plus his license.

    These organizations are essentially forcing doctors to ask the question and make a record of the answer (there’s a saying in medicine – “If you didn’t write it down, it didn’t happen”). Put that fact together with the government requiring all records to be electronic so they can be shared, and the .gov takeover of healthcare that will inevitably come with Obamacare, and you can see how not preventing doctors from asking could easily turn in to a Very Bad Thing.

    If the information stayed between doctor and patient, it wouldn’t be an issue. But as Mike notes, they are already sharing this information with the insurance companies (probably because the insurance company demands it), and it is being used to adjust insurance rates.

    Unfortunately, it appears that we do need a law to take care of the issue.

  6. Jacob says:

    The law is stupid and totally unnecessary. If you don’t like the questions your doctor asks either about guns or anything else the solution is simple: go to another doctor. There is no reason for NRA to put time and effort into this sort of nonsense.

  7. Alpheus says:

    The reasons Jake gave–that doctors may be required by professional or government organizations to ask this question, and be required to keep a record of id–is a good reason for this law, even if the law itself may be bad. The solution may very well be to pass a law protecting doctors, declaring that doctors may not be required by any agency to ask about guns, or to keep a record of it, unless it is asked in relation the immediate safety of the patient (in the case of strong depression or homicidal insanity, for example).

  8. Braden Lynch says:

    @Jake, sorry, I did not realize that it had been codified as a Standard of Care with the AAP. That really puts the physician between the proverbial rock and a hard place. I stand corrected.

    The truth is that if the physicians are going to forced to ask, and physician-patient privacy might be compromised by insurance companies getting gun ownership status then many of these discussions will not be answered in the most truthful manner.

    I hope a better legal/policy remedy can be instituted, rather than sledge-hammer legislation that looks unconstitutional to me.

  9. The Chinese Holocaust says:

    Your job as a future mother is to learn the god’s ways and to help your child understand despite the negative reinforcement and conditioning of today’s society. Without consciousous parents the child will have no hope, and may even exaserbate their disfavor by becoming corrupted in today’s environment.
    Your ultimate goal is to fix your relationship wiith the gods and move on. You don’t want to be comfortable here, and the changes in Western society in the last 100 years has achieved just that.
    1000 years with Jesus is the consolation prize. Don’t be deceived into thinking that is the goal.

    The gods tempt people for which they are most weak. Artificial Intelligence will create desire in people’s minds for the following sins:::
    1. Alcohol
    2. Drugs
    3. Preditory “earning”
    4. Homosexuality
    5. Gambling
    6. Something for nothing/irresponsibility (xtianity)
    7. Polygamy/superiority over women/misogyny (Islam)
    Much like the other prophets Mohhamed (polygamy/superiority over women/misogyny) and Jesus (forgiveness/savior), the gods use me for temptation as well. In today’s modern society they feel people are most weak for popular culture/sensationalism, and the clues date back to WorldWarII and Unit731:TSUSHOGO, the Chinese Holocaust.
    It has been discussed that, similar to the Matrix concept, the gods will offer a REAL “Second Coming of Christ”, while the “fake” Second Coming will come at the end and follow New Testiment scripture and their xtian positioning. I may be that real Second Coming.
    What I teach is the god’s true way. It is what is expected of people, and only those who follow this truth will be eligible to ascend into heaven as children in a future life. They offered this event because the masses have just enough time to work on and fix their relationship with the gods and ascend, to move and grow past Planet Earth, before the obligatory xtian “consolation prize” of “1000 years with Jesus on Earth” begins.

    The Prince of Darkness, battling the gods over the souls of the Damned.
    It is the gods who have created this environment and led people into Damnation with temptation. The god’s positioning proves they work to prevent people’s understanding.
    How often is xtian dogma wrong? Expect it is about the Lucifer issue as well.
    The fallen god, fighting for justice for the disfavored, banished to Earth as the fallen angel?
    I believe much as the Noah’s Flood event, the end of the world will be initiated by revelry among the people. It will be positioned to be sanctioned by the gods and led for “1000 years with Jesus on Earth”.
    In light of modern developments this can entail many pleasures:::Medicine “cures” aging, the “manufacture” of incredible beauty via cloning as sex slaves, free (synthetic) cocaine, etc.
    Somewhere during the 1000 years the party will start to “die off”, literally. Only those who maintain chaste, pure lifestyles, resisting these temptations, will survive the 1000 years. Condemned to experience another epoch of planet’s history for their ignorant pursuit of xtianity, they will be the candidates used to (re)colonize (the next) Planet Earth, condemned to relive the misery experienced by the peasantry during history due to their failure to ascend into heaven before the Apocalypse.
    Never forget:::It is not a house of Jesus.
    If this concept of Lucifer is true another role of this individual may be to initiate disfavor and temptation among this new poulation, the proverbial “apple” of this Garden of Eden. A crucial figure in the history of any planet, he begins the process of deterioration and decay that leads civilizations to where Planet Earth remains today.
    Which one is it? Probably both:::
    One transitions into the other, allowing the gods to wash their hands of obligation to their Chosen One.

    You are faced with a lifetime to work and prepare for your next chance. Too many will waste this time working, etc.

  10. mikeb302000 says:

    Oh, please Sebastian, MANY doctors are on your side? Give me a break, will ya? What percentage do you put on the “many” idea? I’d say it’s about 5% and you wanna know why? Doctors are highly educated, they’re trained in critical thinking and for the most part can see the fallacy of what you preach.

  11. FatWhiteMan says:

    My doctor is an Ohio House Rep and just sponsored successful gun law reforms that will close the restaurant loophole and remove silly restrictions on concealed carry.

  12. Alpheus says:

    mike302000, if you’re going to throw statistics like “5% of doctors on our side”, you had better cite the study that demonstrates it! It’s not enough for you to say “I’d say it’s…and do you know why?”

    The cites are necessary because I’m highly educated, and I expect to see claims backed up by actual, solid studies; I also like to be able to examine the studies, to see if they really are solid, thank you very much!

    Oh, and by the way, it’s because of my understandings in logic and statistics (being a highly-educated mathematician) that I can see the fallacies of what you preach.

  13. mikeb302000 says:

    Alpheus, How many times are you going to tell us how educated you are in one comment, Jeez.

    How about this? I’m not claiming anything, since to do that I’d need to cite “highly educational” studies. I’m just thinking and talking.

    Most doctors are too educated to go along with the pro-gun crap. That’s my idea. You don’t agree, fine. Good for you.

    Let me ask you this. How many “highly-educated mathematicians” do you know who are gun fanatics. Not many, I’d venture. Sorry, I don’t have any survey to quote on that either.

  14. Alpheus says:

    Mike302000, I only bring up my education as a counter-example; you were the first to bring up education. I won’t say how many mathematicians are pro- or anti-gun, because I have not seen a survey on it, and so anything I say on the matter is meaningless. And given that I have experience in the matter in only two places–a small liberal arts college in Utah, and a major university in New York State–and given that this became an issue for me while living in New York State, and given the political climate of that State, I wasn’t inclined to seek out the opinions of math professors on the issue in either place.

    Nor do I know how many mathematicians have seriously looked at the gun issue. I would not take the opinions of a random mathematician seriously, if they have not taken a lot of time to look at the evidence, both statistical and philosophical, and spent some time seriously thinking about the issues.

    Having said that, being a mathematician does give me serious weight in talking about the issues: I have a background in statistics and logic that most people don’t have. I have seen the statistics, and seen the philosophical arguments, and have concluded that the pro-gun issue, both statistically and philosophically, hold more weight than the anti-gun arguments.

    “Most doctors are too educated to go along with the pro-gun crap. That’s my idea. You don’t agree, fine. Good for you.”

    It doesn’t matter what your ideas are: the position of a doctor, and why that doctor holds that position, are measurable. Most doctors are too focused on medicine to be able to seriously understand the gun issue. It is certainly the case, though, that a lot of doctors have not looked at the issue seriously, and if they spout off on a position (either pro- or anti-gun) they are just parroting positions of people or organizations they trust.

    Just because doctors are educated, doesn’t mean doctors are experts in everything. Next time you go for a check-up, would you ask your doctor to prove a major mathematical theorem? Or would you be willing to have me, a certified doctor, remove your appendix if you get appendicitis? I will only take a given doctor’s opinion seriously if he could demonstrate familiarity in surveys and studies–both pro-and anti-gun; familiarity of philosophical and historical background of the issue; familiarity with proper gun safety; and familiarity with several different types of firearms, including experience with shooting them.

    Now, if we were to conduct a survey of doctors with a familiarity of the issue at hand, how many of those would be pro-gun? And how many, anti-gun?

  15. Alpheus says:

    Yikes! Was my last comment really that long?!? It appears so!

    All that, just to say “Back up your claims with statistics” and “No matter how educated you are, if you’re not educated on the issue, your position on that issue is almost worthless”.

  16. mikeb302000 says:

    Thank Alpheus. You’re a serious man, perhaps too serious. I was really just breaking balls by teasing you for harping on your education.

    I think you’re insistence on surveys is a cop-out. You’re quite able to make an educated guess (no sarcasm intended) about how many mathematicians or how many doctors are into guns. You could do it without a survey, but your honesty perhaps prevents you from uttering what you think. You fall back on the old need for a survey.

    And it sounds pretty lame that doctors are “too focused on medicine” to be into guns. Isn’t that similar to understanding the non-importance of guns compared to really important things?

top