Jan23
Doctors And Guns
on January 23, 2013 at 7:53 amWhy doctors shouldn’t ask their patients about them, let alone be required by the government to do so.
Why doctors shouldn’t ask their patients about them, let alone be required by the government to do so.
Comments are closed.
©2001-2013 Transterrestrial Musings | Powered by WordPress with Easel | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑
As Paul says….
If the socialist gun-grabbers want to claim that doctors can and should ask their patients about gun ownership as a feature of medicine, then the doctor-patient confidentiality rule immediately applies and the doctor can not and should not report the answer to anyone.
Except that the government always grants itself exemption from those rules. If the doctor is required to ask those questions, then he or she will be required to document the response in those mandated electronic medical records. Does anyone honestly believe the government will restrict its own access to that data due to HIPPA or other medical privacy regulations?
If asked, the proper response is “That’s none of your damned business. Next question.” It’s like my approach to those racist “Specify your race” questions. I select “other” and write in “human.” Just because they ask a question, it doesn’t mean they deserve an answer of their liking.
Larry,
The government has no such power and it should be clamped. But I realize that with this crowd that’s wishful thinking.
The government exempts itself from the law as standard operating procedure. Do you think any corporation in America could run its accounting the way the government does? If any insurance company tried to operate like Social Security, the officers would be in prison. The same applies to elected officials – they exempt themselves from as many of the laws they pass as possible because they can. Examples include insider trading laws, laws for dealing with employees, bribery (call them campaign contributions and they’re perfectly legal), ObamaCare and Social Security.
As medical data migrates from paper to electronic means, the government will have access “for research purposes” and other made-up reasons. I’ll give you 1000:1 odds on that.
Larry,
I think you misunderstand me: I’m agreeing with you
It’s just that I believe government’s self-exemption is wrong and unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
It’s just that I believe government’s self-exemption is wrong and unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The Constitution only means whatever you can get 5 or more Supreme Court justices to say it means. The odious Kelo decision is but one example of that.
I think the most radical act you could possibly do would be to force the government to live under the same laws, regulations and constraints that it puts on everyone else. You’d see whole cohorts of politicians and bureaucrats being frog-marched to prison and we’d be better off for it. That’s why – short of a revolution – it’ll never happen.
Maybe the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation is the only redoubt of an absolute confidentiality rule? Or maybe what is said between spouses, but your spouse hasn’t taken an oath to that effect.
There is an attorney-client confidentiality, but your attorney is legally and ethically bound to make certain evidentiary disclosures, just as the prosecuter is not allowed to keep a lid on potentially exculpatory evidence, althought there are suggestions that prosecutors have done just that and gotten away with it. Not to mention unscrupulous defense attorneys regarding incriminating evidence, but such can get a lawyer up on charges.
There is doctor-patient confidentiality, but I have the impression that a counseling theraptist or a physician can, will, and shall report to authorities if you disclose certain thoughts indicating a threat to the safety of yourself and indeed others.
Paul,
The article covered this. Sure if there is a real possibility of a threat to others the doc t=can talk and I have no problem with that.
I have a real problem with violation of d/p confidentiality when there is no real threat. Otherwise we might as well report that the patient has steak knives, hammers, rope, and fertilizer.
In the UK, they are seriously talking about licensing kitchen knives. (they already require a license for a TV set). So, I can see that they might have docs asking about knife ownership as well. Or as Gregg says, hammers, rope, etc.
And let’s not forget all those people who presently have access to another deadly weapon, rocks.
If my doctor asked me questions about guns, my response won’t be “none of your business”. It’ll be “You’re fired”, then “for asking questions that are none of your damn business”.
BTW, I put “Human” as my race on the census too. I encourage others to do likewise.
My primary care doc knows I carry. They have no anti-gun stickers on the building they are in, or on their office door either. He told me, when I asked on my first visit after receiving my CCH, that he had no problem with guns. His father was career Army and the doc regularly shoots his own guns. He’s fairly conservative and is not an Obama supporter at all.
That’s a doctor who will fight against ‘mandatory’ reporting.