US Court Upholds "Safe Space" for Florida Gun Owners

[Paratus]

Due to the inherent power imbalance between gun owners and their doctors and pediatricians Flordia passed a law restricting doctors speech when it comes to guns. There are restrictions in asking about gun ownership and gun safety around children for example.

Several doctors sued due to the first amendment implications to their speech. The US district court upheld the law.

They upheld it because of the obvious restrictions this would place on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights. Now obviously this isn't because the doctor can take your guns or prevent you from buying them. It was for the following reasons

• Privacy - because the doctor my go and willy-nilly release information about your ownership status as they do with other health related information
• The chilling effect on you exercising your 2nd Amendment rights after a brief discussion of the health risks with your doctor or child's doctor. Basically people may not buy weapons if they understand the risks of ownership.

Thank goodness the court has upheld this law so the doctors office remains a safe space for gun owners. Where your right to not hear speech remains sacrosanct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...glocks_bans_doctors_from_discussing_guns.html

 

[ivwshane]

Wow! Well, I see two possible positive outcomes here. The first is that since the doctor can't discuss the dangers of owning a gun that these special snow flakes we call gun owners, may just help increase the amount of suicides by guns and maybe their kids will be killed and their bloodlines will be ended. I kid of course.

However the other possible positive of this, is now right to choose advocates and planned parenthood will now have a solid talk track and case against all these abortion laws where the government is actually forcing doctors to say certain things about abortion.


Luckily for us, Florida will probably not exist because of global warming and the rising seas.

 

[sandorski]

This is a clear violation of the First. Appeal it all the way.

 

[ivwshane]

This is a clear violation of the First. Appeal it all the way.

It sounds like they've tried...three times now! Normally the courts pass it on, I guess, but instead of doing that they gave three separate rulings.

 

[MagickMan]

Wow! Well, I see two possible positive outcomes here. The first is that since the doctor can't discuss the dangers of owning a gun that these special snow flakes we call gun owners, may just help increase the amount of suicides by guns and maybe their kids will be killed and their bloodlines will be ended. I kid of course.

Nah, you're not kidding, you're a nasty evil little shit, we know it too well. :\

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a clear violation of the First. Appeal it all the way.

You think doctors want to be invasive against people's rights?
These transgressions are mandated by Obamacare. If anything this is to strike down the requirement from that law.

 

[crashtech]

You think doctors want to be invasive against people's rights?
These transgressions are mandated by Obamacare. If anything this is to strike down the requirement from that law.

Would like a cite for that.

I think there used to be a higher degree of confidence in regards to what can be discussed with a physician or care provider. The real casualty of this fight is trust, imo.

Now that I think about it, it might be more appropriate to pass a law requiring care providers to Mirandize their patients before every visit, rather than trying to enforce a crass restriction on speech.

 

[Jaskalas]

Would like a cite for that.

"it will be required under Obamacare"

Apologies, it would appear the only two sources found via google were connecting dots with no concrete substantiation. Mixed in with confusion of an ACA provision rejecting data collection on the subject, while others argue that text does not prevent asking the question. Moreover, Obama himself issued an executive order making it clear that these questions be asked, that they are not prevented.

Long story short, whether it is explicitly mandated by a specific law I cannot say.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nah, you're not kidding, you're a nasty evil little shit, we know it too well. :\

I cordially invite anyone and everyone here to review your posting history and decide for themselves who is really a "nasty little shit."

 

[DrPizza]

Could it be a result of some doctors refusing to take on patients who owned guns in their household? Seems that would make sense, since people could be denied health care as a result of exercising a Constitutional right.

 

[sandorski]

You think doctors want to be invasive against people's rights?
These transgressions are mandated by Obamacare. If anything this is to strike down the requirement from that law.

This Law clearly is Government dictating/forbidding Speech. How does that not violate the Constitution?

 

[glenn1]

This Law clearly is Government dictating/forbidding Speech. How does that not violate the Constitution?

Certain speech is already restricted, you can't ask about marital status during job interviews for example. Medical Doctors asking about firearms ownership is also an unnecessary question IMHO. If you want to give out an informational pamphlet to all your clients then go for it. Asking this question continues the trend of improperly considering firearms to be a "public health" issue when they are not.

 

[fskimospy]

Certain speech is already restricted, you can't ask about marital status during job interviews for example. Medical Doctors asking about firearms ownership is also an unnecessary question IMHO. If you want to give out an informational pamphlet to all your clients then go for it. Asking this question continues the trend of improperly considering firearms to be a "public health" issue when they are not.

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

Are gun owners really so insecure that they don't even want to hear information about how they may have made a foolish decision?

 

[Strk]

Certain speech is already restricted, you can't ask about marital status during job interviews for example. Medical Doctors asking about firearms ownership is also an unnecessary question IMHO. If you want to give out an informational pamphlet to all your clients then go for it. Asking this question continues the trend of improperly considering firearms to be a "public health" issue when they are not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121-story.html

Even if you don't think it is ok as a general question (in the same sense of 'do you wear a seatbelt?'), do I get to ask a patient if they own a gun if they are feeling depressed and are contemplating suicide?

 

[1prophet]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121-story.html

Even if you don't think it is ok as a general question (in the same sense of 'do you wear a seatbelt?'), do I get to ask a patient if they own a gun if they are feeling depressed and are contemplating suicide?

And then what, do you report it to the police so they can confiscate their guns or bar them from ever owning a gun in the future?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

From your first link

The authors -- Andrew Anglemyer, PhD, MPH; Tara Horvath, MA; and George Rutherford, MD -- came to a few common sense conclusions, namely that firearms that are unlocked or loaded are more likely to be used than those that are locked and not loaded, especially among adolescent suicide victims.

My father always kept his guns locked and unloaded, I also do the same thing. No one in the house knows the combination* to the safe nor can they open the pistol safe in the nightstand.

*Should I die my family can find the combinations in the safe deposit box at the bank.

 

[glenn1]

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

Are gun owners really so insecure that they don't even want to rhear information about how they may have made a foolish decision?

Lots of things are linked to bad health outcomes and still inappropriate for a doctor to ask. For example, divorced women create a vastly higher risk of abuse or violence towards their children when they date men who aren't the children's father. Should we have doctors ask about their relationship status also?

 

[glenn1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121-story.html

Even if you don't think it is ok as a general question (in the same sense of 'do you wear a seatbelt?'), do I get to ask a patient if they own a gun if they are feeling depressed and are contemplating suicide?

Honestly dude in cases like that a doctor is probably the last person we want talking to people about this unless the patient is seeking expert advice

 

[fskimospy]

Lots of things are linked to bad health outcomes and still inappropriate for a doctor to ask. For example, divorced women create a vastly higher risk of abuse or violence towards their children when they date men who aren't the children's father. Should we have doctors ask about their relationship status also?

So now you've shifted from claiming it isn't a public health issue towards saying a doctor shouldn't ask about it. Goalposts successfully moved.

Face facts: owning a gun is related to a higher risk of injury or death in the household. While not owning a gun is probably the smartest choice, absent that there are concrete steps an owner can take to mitigate this risk. It is entirely appropriate for a doctor to discuss this with their patient.

 

[KB]

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

Are gun owners really so insecure that they don't even want to hear information about how they may have made a foolish decision?

Owning a pool, eating hotdogs, using a ladder and having stairs also increase the risk of injury and death. Should we be forced to review every decision we make with our doctor?

I actually dont agee with the rulng. I think the doctor should be able to speak their mind and the free market will dictate who visits a doctor that annoys their clients with ridiculous questions.

 

[fskimospy]

Owning a pool, eating hotdogs, using a ladder and having stairs also increase the risk of injury and death. Should we be forced to review every decision we make with our doctor?

I actually dont agee with the rulng. I think the doctor should be able to speak their mind and the free market will dictate who visits a doctor that annoys their clients with ridiculous questions.

No one is being forced to do anything with their doctor. It would not be at all ridiculous for your doctor to ask if you had taken appropriate steps to make your pool safe or if you were engaging in a healthy diet either. All that of course ignores the fact that pool ownership, ladder use, etc, all carry with them benefits. The benefits of owning a gun, at least in terms of protection, are dubious at best. (This is why gun ownership is generally a foolish choice for people doing so for self defense purposes)

Even if you want to ignore the research and think owning a gun is a smart move, this is a pretty blatantly unconstitutional limitation on free speech that should be overturned. I hope the 11th circuit hears this en banc and strikes down this ridiculous law.

 

[boomerang]

My Doctor can ask me whatever he wants. I will choose to answer only if I wish to. And if he wants to start asking questions that I find inappropriate, I can come up with a slew of them to ask him in return and mine will eclipse his on the intrusiveness scale.

 

[Strk]

And then what, do you report it to the police so they can confiscate their guns or bar them from ever owning a gun in the future?

No, you determine the seriousness of their claim and take the appropriate course of action (hospitalization, therapy, medication etc).

 

[cubby1223]

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

Are gun owners really so insecure that they don't even want to hear information about how they may have made a foolish decision?

Thanks again for showing how you really just are on these forums for ego boosting.

The issue at hand is the question of will the doctor provide the same level of care to the child regardless of gun ownership status of the parents.


You always brag about how close you live to dangerous neighborhoods. Imagine bringing your own child into a doctor for a routine checkup, having the doctor ask you questions about your neighborhood, lecturing you every visit on your bad choices you make continue living where you are. And then left to wonder if the doctor is providing your child with sub-par service because you continue to live where you do. (and if you do believe service providers treat everyone equally, you really are fucking stupid )

You proudly enjoy living where you do. Same situation.

No need to continue displaying your consistent need for an ego trip. We all understand it. You have a shitty life just like everyone else who lives on internet forums. But you somehow need to constantly believe you are actually better than the rest of us. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

I'm sure you feel the same way should a doctor suspect their patient is a gay male and begin asking about their sex life. Then begins to lecture them on the higher risk of illness and death due to AIDS.

A colleague of mine had this happen to him. He had begun taking blood thinners after a mild stroke and was experiencing anal bleeding. The doctor immediately suspected he was gay and the bleeding was due to anal sex, then proceeded to lecture him on the potential issues associated with unprotected gay anal sex.