[Taurus92]

US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of the State of Florida and Law-Abiding Gun Owners Over Activist Doctors and the Gun Control Lobby

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...te-of-florida-and-law-abiding-gun-owners.aspx

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has ruled that doctors do not have the right to ask patients if they own a firearm when unnecessary to a patient's care. This ruling is a significant defeat for the gun control lobby and its allies. The Florida chapters of the American Academies of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians, along with a number of other groups and individuals backed by the anti-gun community, filed this lawsuit against the State of Florida after Governor Rick Scott signed a bill backed by the National Rifle Association in 2011.

In the ruling, the three judge panel ruled: "In keeping with these traditional codes of conductâ€"which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacyâ€"the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters. As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care."

NY Times notified:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/upshot/do-you-own-a-gun-in-florida-doctors-cant-ask-you-that.html Nothing you wouldn't expect.

 

[Taurus92]

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-court-upholds-fla-docs-vs-glocks-law-213010665.html

Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor had asked them about guns. The couple say they refused to answer and the physician refused to see them again.

"The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners when they seek medical care," Hammer said in an email.

A main attorney who filed the appeal said the decision would cause Florida physicians to curb their own speech on safe gun ownership.

What BS. Why would you want advice from a physician about a topic that is not their profession?

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters

That pretty well sums it up. As far as I'm concerned, the doc can ask whatever he wants - he just needs to accept the fact that I'm not providing information on things I feel are irrelevant to my ailment.

 

[Taurus92]

Right, I'm just a little surprised a physician refused to see the couple when they refused to answer his gun ownership question. It's simply pushing a political agenda by physicians. The anti's have stated they will appeal of course.

Now, if we look ahead at single source socialized medicine and the medical database that is being worked on, we will end up with a form of national registry.

A similar privacy law might be something GCO should think about pushing, if they're not already, while there is momentum.

 

[mountainpass]

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nake...g-in-challenge-to-2011-docs-v-glocks-law.html

In the one-page ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to grant an en banc hearing to reconsider a 2-1 decision that upheld the controversial law in July.

The hearing means that the full 11-member panel will rehear the case decided by three of its members. The court generally conducts en banc hearings in cases considered matters of exceptional public importance or to resolve conflicts in the law.

The hearing is a victory for medical groups that argued that the law infringed on doctors' First Amendment rights and a setback to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates who pushed for the law.

 

[Phil1979]

The Obamacare bureaucrats overseeing the healthcare industry that they own 1/6th of are not gonna like this at all.

Well, too bad. :lol:

That pretty well sums it up. As far as I'm concerned, the doc can ask whatever he wants - he just needs to accept the fact that I'm not providing information on things I feel are irrelevant to my ailment.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I don't see this ruling as a win for freedom. It's a law restricting people's private speech.

 

[bubbageek]

Just remember, it is not against the law to lie to your doctor.

 

[Wings06j]

I open carry to my son's pediatrician so they really don't need to ask. I'm still waiting for the ok to carry on base (not holding my breath) in which case I'll start carrying to my doc as well.

 

[Janus]

I don't see this ruling as a win for freedom. It's a law restricting people's private speech.

I disagree. I see it more as regulating professional behavior, where state grants license to practice.

If there was no license requirement, then yes 1st ammendment applies.

 

[45_Fan]

I disagree. I see it more as regulating professional behavior, where state grants license to practice.

If there was no license requirement, then yes 1st ammendment applies.

There is a difference between limiting questions and limiting the gathering of information. The doctor can ask "how's the car/boat/horse/business", but those don't have any business being on my charts unless I'm there for a car/boat/horse/business related injury. The distinction is very small but quite important to me.

If the government starts controlling my doctor's non-medical dialog with me, we've got a discriminated-against caste, not a protection of rights. Now if the government decides it's not legal for my healthcare provider or my health insurance company to record my ownership firearms, that's another thing entirely.

 

[Taurus92]

I'm sure there are a lot more injuries from power tools, hover boards, stairs, bicycles, kitchen knives or bathtubs than firearms, so this is really just fulfilling a political agenda.

 

[moe mensale]

I don't see this ruling as a win for freedom. It's a law restricting people's private speech.

When this law was first passed I was against it for that same reason. But after seeing the extreme anti-gun positions taken by various medical groups (eg, American Pediatrics Association) I changed my position. If my doc wants to discuss what I'm carrying, how it shoots, etc that's OK with me. Same as if we'd discuss a new putter (if I golfed). But none of that information has any business being in my medical records for some unknown bureaucrat to screw around with for whatever reason.

My current doc has no problem with me OCing in her office. She's asked about help choosing a gun for herself, where to practice locally, etc. No agendas being pushed, as it should be.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

When this law was first passed I was against it for that same reason. But after seeing the extreme anti-gun positions taken by various medical groups (eg, American Pediatrics Association) I changed my position. If my doc wants to discuss what I'm carrying, how it shoots, etc that's OK with me. Same as if we'd discuss a new putter (if I golfed). But none of that information has any business being in my medical records for some unknown bureaucrat to screw around with for whatever reason.

My current doc has no problem with me OCing in her office. She's asked about help choosing a gun for herself, where to practice locally, etc. No agendas being pushed, as it should be.

We get asked about guns all the time by our docs and pediatricians. We literally say, "I'm sorry, we don't discuss subject matter outside the field of medicine with our medical professionals." The docs jump back into the field of medicine, and we move on with the rest of the appointment.

 

[moe mensale]

We get asked about guns all the time by our docs and pediatricians. We literally say, "I'm sorry, we don't discuss subject matter outside the field of medicine with our medical professionals." The docs jump back into the field of medicine, and we move on with the rest of the appointment.

I understand that but do they also ask how you store your steak knives or your household cleaning products or the ubiquitous sh*t that little kids always manage to stuff into their mouths? No, they don't. And they shouldn't. Having a medical degree doesn't make them any better or worse at parenting than you or I. It's just another approach for the gov to enforce its mandate on us.

 

[45_Fan]

I understand that but do they also ask how you store your steak knives or your household cleaning products or the ubiquitous sh*t that little kids always manage to stuff into their mouths? No, they don't. And they shouldn't. Having a medical degree doesn't make them any better or worse at parenting than you or I. It's just another approach for the gov to enforce its mandate on us.

Are we talking about private doctors and private industry or government doctors and a government healthcare system?

If we're talking government doctors in official government capacity, they should already be bound by the 1A to not push their religion onto me, the 2A to not interfere with my RTKABA, the 4A for searches and privacy, the 5A for self incrimination, the 10A and so on. No additional law should be needed.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I understand that but do they also ask how you store your steak knives or your household cleaning products or the ubiquitous sh*t that little kids always manage to stuff into their mouths? No, they don't. And they shouldn't. Having a medical degree doesn't make them any better or worse at parenting than you or I. It's just another approach for the gov to enforce its mandate on us.

These are private (non governmental) medical practices. They all seem to use a computer based electronic web form when they go through the questions. The gun questions are embedded as part of a series of other health related questions. Yes, I've asked why they don't ask if I keep my tires properly inflated, operate heavy machinery in the yard or have high ledges around the house. They say they just input answers for the standard questions included with their software package. It seems like the electronic forms and questions are part of a software/web suite almost every doctor uses to manage patient data. Every doctor seems to have the same software and exact same list of questions. It's as if the AMA has mandated them.

If there are any doctors here, please help shed some light on what or who is driving the questions. I personally think it's the AMA.

 

[Phil1979]

I also believe it is the leftist AMA, either "inspired" by or asked to do so by the federal government.

 

[moe mensale]

It seems like the electronic forms and questions are part of a software/web suite almost every doctor uses to manage patient data. Every doctor seems to have the same software and exact same list of questions. It's as if the AMA has mandated them.

If there are any doctors here, please help shed some light on what or who is driving the questions. I personally think it's the AMA.

Noticed that too, huh? My doc's office manager called me several weeks ago asking if I would be interested in signing up for their "electronic medical portal" so that I would have all kinds of control over my medical records, blah, blah, blah. I said OK thinking it's for her practice only and she sends me the web link. I start looking the thing over and discover my records end up being managed by some firm in MI that I never heard of along with thousands of records from thousands of other practices all over the country. WTF? Needless to say I haven't signed up.

 

[tmoore912]

Attorneys for several Florida doctors are in Atlanta Tuesday to argue in front of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, tackling the issue of whether freedom of speech conflicts with the right to bear arms.

Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida

Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/32268298...e-takes-center-stage-in-atlanta#ixzz4CE44Lnsd

ETA: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01/wollschlaeger-v-governor-of-florida/