2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: mrgaf on February 19, 2017, 02:00:49 PM
-
Just read this on Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/19/florida-doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html
Hmmmm well no problem. Just tell your doctor what I told mine when she asked about a year ago....
"None of your business, understand"
Subject was closed immediately and the rest of the vist went on as usual... :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
Just read this on Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/19/florida-doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html
Hmmmm well no problem. Just tell your doctor what I told mine when she asked about a year ago....
"None of your business, understand"
Subject was closed immediately and the rest of the vist went on as usual... :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
None of mine ever asked.
I will answer, "Does that have any bearing on my health or the purpose of my visit today?"
If they can't justify the question beyond, "We were told to ask," or "It's on the list of questions," then no answer is required.
The government is taking great pains to paint gun ownership as a health-related issue so they can backdoor the second amendment.
-
I take two glocks every morning for health and vitality.
-
The government is taking great pains to paint gun ownership as a health-related issue so they can backdoor the second amendment.
As U. S. Attorney Eric Holder explained in 1995, there needs to be a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns.
"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."
-
Not possessing guns can also be detrimental to health.
Looking forward to medical practitioners who will advise their patients: "Now, let's talk about firearms. Has anyone mentioned to you how important they are to your well-being?"
(Yeah right).
-
Not possessing guns can also be detrimental to health.
Looking forward to medical practitioners who will advise their patients: "Now, let's talk about firearms. Has anyone mentioned to you how important they are to your well-being?"
(Yeah right).
There ARE some doctors who are educated on the issues and thus advocates for firearm ownership, or at least the freedom to choose to be an owner of a firearm.
https://drgo.us/
(https://drgo.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cropped-new-new-new-drgo-header1.png)
-
We were asked during physicals for our young boys. We were prepared for it and just said no, and moved on.
There is a good reason for the question. The healthcare provider is often dealing with reasonable people like us, :wacko: but also the lowest common denominators at times. Some people they see may have guns in the house, and simply have never thought about a youngster gaining access to it. Just like when they ask the question about how much TV your kid watches. Some people have no idea that it's bad to let the TV babysit all day while you smoke, Facebook, and eat bon bons.
Of course, now that the gov't is all over healthcare, I'm sure there's a way for them to get a hold of the electronic records to see which way you answered. :thumbsup:
-
My kid's pediatrician asked about guns. When I said yes she gave a short spiel about safe storage, etc. I am going to steer clear of the government conspiracy train for now.
This was a stupid lawsuit to begin with, to suggest that doctors could legally be prevented from asking such a question is ridiculous.
-
My kid's pediatrician asked about guns. When I said yes she gave a short spiel about safe storage, etc. I am going to steer clear of the government conspiracy train for now.
This was a stupid lawsuit to begin with, to suggest that doctors could legally be prevented from asking such a question is ridiculous.
Do you also answer general health questions at the gun shop when buying a gun, too?
Are you over-weight?
Do you smoke?
How often do you exercise?
Have you ever been diagnosed with HIV, Hepatitis, or any STD?
I mean, if the doctor has no expertise in guns or gun safety (evidenced by having to read you a general safety "lecture"), then the gun store should also be allowed to ask medical questions and offer general advise from flash cards.
I don't go to my doctor for gun safety training, because they are not trained or experienced enough to analyze my situation and provide tailored advice and answer specific questions I might have. Same reason I don't ask OGC for training on preventing, identifying or treating diseases.
It's not a conspiracy theory (favorite label of the Left to dismiss concerns of government overreach). It's about giving personal, private information to the people who do not need it and who do not have the training to properly advise you in those areas. We live in a world where the more information you allow to be stored in one place, the greater the chance the information can be abused or stolen.
-
Do you also answer general health questions at the gun shop when buying a gun, too?
Are you over-weight?
Do you smoke?
How often do you exercise?
Have you ever been diagnosed with HIV, Hepatitis, or any STD?
I mean, if the doctor has no expertise in guns or gun safety (evidenced by having to read you a general safety "lecture"), then the gun store should also be allowed to ask medical questions and offer general advise from flash cards.
I don't go to my doctor for gun safety training, because they are not trained or experienced enough to analyze my situation and provide tailored advice and answer specific questions I might have. Same reason I don't ask OGC for training on preventing, identifying or treating diseases.
It's not a conspiracy theory (favorite label of the Left to dismiss concerns of government overreach). It's about giving personal, private information to the people who do not need it and who do not have the training to properly advise you in those areas. We live in a world where the more information you allow to be stored in one place, the greater the chance the information can be abused or stolen.
Doctors ask because enough kids die from unsecured guns. Pediatricians are doctors for children. Getting shot ends up being an issue involving doctors. Do I have to spell it out for you or can you get it through your thick skull yet?
If you don't want to answer then don't, no one is forcing you to do so.
-
Doctors ask because enough kids die from unsecured guns. Pediatricians are doctors for children. Getting shot ends up being an issue involving doctors. Do I have to spell it out for you or can you get it through your thick skull yet?
If you don't want to answer then don't, no one is forcing you to do so.
I'll ignore your attempt to be offensive and insulting.
ONCE AGAIN ..... Doctors are not experts in the storage or use of firearms by trade. Saying they see the aftermath, which gives them some special right to be involved in something they are not qualified to do, is ridiculous.
Cops see the effects of drug abuse daily. Does that give them the right to randomly stop your kids on the street and question them about any drugs they might be carrying or abusing without probable cause?
-
I'll ignore your attempt to be offensive and insulting.
ONCE AGAIN ..... Doctors are not experts in the storage or use of firearms by trade. Saying they see the aftermath, which gives them some special right to be involved in something they are not qualified to do, is ridiculous.
Cops see the effects of drug abuse daily. Does that give them the right to randomly stop your kids on the street and question them about any drugs they might be carrying or abusing without probable cause?
The freedom of speech gives them the right to ask about firearms. The freedom of speech gives you the right to refuse to answer.
Regardless, one does not need to be an expert to remind a parent about the danger of an unsecured firearm. They don't need to be a driving instructor to tell you not to drink and drive, they don't need to be a chemist to tell you to lock up your anti-freeze, etc etc.
-
The freedom of speech gives them the right to ask about firearms. The freedom of speech gives you the right to refuse to answer.
Regardless, one does not need to be an expert to remind a parent about the danger of an unsecured firearm. They don't need to be a driving instructor to tell you not to drink and drive, they don't need to be a chemist to tell you to lock up your anti-freeze, etc etc.
Once again, you still don't get it .....
The doctor can SAY anything the doctor wants. For example, "If you ever decide to buy a gun, here is a list of safety tips which are also on our website. We want to make this available to all our parents, both current gun owners and those who might be friends with gun owners. You should make sure your child is safe even when visiting their friends homes."
Nothing wrong with that.
"Mr. Fish, do you, or does anyone else in your home, own, possess, or in any way have access to firearms stored there?" That is specific information that's not necessary for your doctors to collect.
-
Once again, you still don't get it .....
The doctor can SAY anything the doctor wants. For example, "If you ever decide to buy a gun, here is a list of safety tips which are also on our website. We want to make this available to all our parents, both current gun owners and those who might be friends with gun owners. You should make sure your child is safe even when visiting their friends homes."
Nothing wrong with that.
"Mr. Fish, do you, or does anyone else in your home, own, possess, or in any way have access to firearms stored there?" That is specific information that's not necessary for your doctors to collect.
Fine, don't answer then.
Also, you are assuming that they collect data, as opposed to merely using your answer in guide their next set of comments.
If there is evidence that they are reporting numbers to the government then by all means don't answer. If you are paranoid that they might be collecting data for the government then don't answer. But bottom line is the doctor is free to ask and comment based on the answer. You can try to dictate medical doctor morality if you want, I am not going to go down that topic, but bottom line is that they are free to ask and you are free to refuse to answer. There is nothing to "get" beyond that.
-
Fine, don't answer then.
Also, you are assuming that they collect data, as opposed to merely using your answer in guide their next set of comments.
If there is evidence that they are reporting numbers to the government then by all means don't answer. If you are paranoid that they might be collecting data for the government then don't answer. But bottom line is the doctor is free to ask and comment based on the answer. You can try to dictate medical doctor morality if you want, I am not going to go down that topic, but bottom line is that they are free to ask and you are free to refuse to answer. There is nothing to "get" beyond that.
Spoken exactly like someone who doesn't get it, and refuses to get it.
"If there is evidence?" The evidence will be after the information is abused/misused/used against you. Then it's too late to fix. You can't unring tat bell.
Unless, of course, some anonymous person told you there is a process to take your information out of the records, just like RAPBACK! :rofl:
-
Spoken exactly like someone who doesn't get it, and refuses to get it.
"If there is evidence?" The evidence will be after the information is abused/misused/used against you. Then it's too late to fix. You can't unring tat bell.
Unless, of course, some anonymous person told you there is a process to take your information out of the records, just like RAPBACK! :rofl:
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it. Non Sequitur.
You know what the simple solution to the hypothetical situation of doctors gathering gun data for the government? Don't answer the question. The answer is right there in front of you.
-
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it. Non Sequitur.
You know what the simple solution to the hypothetical situation of doctors gathering gun data for the government? Don't answer the question. The answer is right there in front of you.
Hypothetical? The OP's comment says it's real, not hypothetical.
The answer is, you trust the system -- any system -- in spite of a multitude of examples of information being stolen, leaked, sold, abused, and used against the owner of that information.
It's great you have an opinion, but the purpose of these discussions is not to win (which you seem to have an obsession over). The purpose is to back up your opinions with real facts. That way others reading it can make a better informed decision on who they agree with.
Being this is Hawaii, I know there are many who agree with you, that information collected by doctors is perfectly safe. I take the more informed approach -- that any information stored anywhere is subject to abuse and should therefore only be collected and stored if there is a specific need related to the purpose of your relationship with the collector. In this case, the need should be healthcare.
But, you just don't get any of that. Move along....
-
Hypothetical? The OP's comment says it's real, not hypothetical.
The answer is, you trust the system -- any system -- in spite of a multitude of examples of information being stolen, leaked, sold, abused, and used against the owner of that information.
It's great you have an opinion, but the purpose of these discussions is not to win (which you seem to have an obsession over). The purpose is to back up your opinions with real facts. That way others reading it can make a better informed decision on who they agree with.
Being this is Hawaii, I know there are many who agree with you, that information collected by doctors is perfectly safe. I take the more informed approach -- that any information stored anywhere is subject to abuse and should therefore only be collected and stored if there is a specific need related to the purpose of your relationship with the collector. In this case, the need should be healthcare.
But, you just don't get any of that. Move along....
There is nothing in the original article to prove or even suggest that the question is being recorded and sent to the government so yes, hypothetical.
I am backing up my opinion with facts. Specifically the 1st amendment. That is all the fact that is relevant, that is what you don't seem to get.
-
There is nothing in the original article to prove or even suggest that the question is being recorded and sent to the government so yes, hypothetical.
I am backing up my opinion with facts. Specifically the 1st amendment. That is all the fact that is relevant, that is what you don't seem to get.
So is the claim that the government is collecting information on every single electronic communication (as per Snowden, et al.) "hypothetical" or "a fact"?
Please outline in detail what you see as examples of speech that could legally be censored or abbreviated despite the existence of the First Amendment. And I don't care, either "subjective" or "objective", whichever side of fence you are arguing on today.
-
My doc should know the answer since his office has gotten all the questionnaires by HPD about me over the years. Never did ask me anything and I wouldn't answer anyway..
-
My doc should know the answer since his office has gotten all the questionnaires by HPD about me over the years. Never did ask me anything and I wouldn't answer anyway..
As most people have said, depending on the HMO/Doctor, the HPD forms normally go to clerical staff. The doctors don't see them. There's supposed to be a review of any HPD requests that are flagged to see if they should be denied, but as we know, that process isn't really error-free!
-
So is the claim that the government is collecting information on every single electronic communication (as per Snowden, et al.) "hypothetical" or "a fact"?
Please outline in detail what you see as examples of speech that could legally be censored or abbreviated despite the existence of the First Amendment. And I don't care, either "subjective" or "objective", whichever side of fence you are arguing on today.
Some appear to believe that it is a method of data gathering. Flapp suggested it could be stolen or misused. I was just saying that absent evidence that it is being used as a data gathering method I am not going to address this as some sneeky program using doctors to spy on us.
I am not making the case that speech can be limited. I am saying that for the government to prevent a doctor (or anyone for that matter) from asking you whether you own a gun is a violation of the 1st amendment.
-
My kid's pediatrician asked about guns. When I said yes she gave a short spiel about safe storage, etc. I am going to steer clear of the government conspiracy train for now.
This was a stupid lawsuit to begin with, to suggest that doctors could legally be prevented from asking such a question is ridiculous.
No, it wasn't. The American Academy of Pediatrics is on record as recommending that guns not be in the house of those that have children. Amazing that they don't say the same thing about pools when drownings far outnumber kids killed by guns.
-
My doc should know the answer since his office has gotten all the questionnaires by HPD about me over the years. Never did ask me anything and I wouldn't answer anyway..
My doctor hasn't asked me anything and he's been getting the questionnaire for all of my handgun purchases since I moved back to HI, which has been a "good" amount.
Maybe 2-3 years ago, he did start asking about depression, saying that it was a mandatory question from HMSA. I had and still do have a suspicion that that question is tied to gun ownership, but I have not asked specifically. I have never discussed gun ownership or involvement in shooting with my doctor nor has he every asked. I assume that he knows that I am an gun owner from the number of questionnaires that he has at least received with my name on it, but he has so many patients that I would think the it's not something that he actively remembers, at least enough to chat with me about it. He does chat with me about work and other hobbies, like golf.
Not sure how I would respond if he asked me about guns all of a sudden. It would depend on the context and how it came up. If it came up out of the blue, of course I wouldn't lie, but not sure how forthcoming I would be. If he mentioned that a friend of a friend or something mentioned my being an avid shooter, I would approach differently, but probably still err on the side of sharing less.
-
I remember people talked about this in another thread before but I always put "no doctor" for my permits because I don't think any doctor should get to receive the questionnaire. I don't know if it is "legal" to lie about that, but it's a valid answer they accept, and I really hadn't seen any doctor in decades at the time I applied. Since then I've injured myself once badly enough that I went to see a doctor, but they messed up and left me with a nasty scar. I'm never going to that doctor again so I'll still put "no doctor" for my permits, though temporarily that does not matter with rap back in place.
The doctor and other staff who treated me asked me how I got injured but I lied.
-
I remember people talked about this in another thread before but I always put "no doctor" for my permits because I don't think any doctor should get to receive the questionnaire. I don't know if it is "legal" to lie about that, but it's a valid answer they accept, and I really hadn't seen any doctor in decades at the time I applied. Since then I've injured myself once badly enough that I went to see a doctor, but they messed up and left me with a nasty scar. I'm never going to that doctor again so I'll still put "no doctor" for my permits, though temporarily that does not matter with rap back in place.
The doctor and other staff who treated me asked me how I got injured but I lied.
I look at it like having a lawyer. If you don't have a regular lawyer you use, nor have one on retainer, then simply using a lawyer of your choice when needed would be, "I don't have a lawyer."
If you pay premiums to an HMO every paycheck, or if you have had the same family doctor your whole life, then you'd be lying if you say, "No doctor."
However, if you pick a doctor whenever you need one, and it's not the same doctor or clinic each time, then you don't "have a doctor."
Just my non-legal opinion.
-
No, it wasn't. The American Academy of Pediatrics is on record as recommending that guns not be in the house of those that have children. Amazing that they don't say the same thing about pools when drownings far outnumber kids killed by guns.
Your point about pools is absolutely true and the AAP may be anti gun but it is still a freedom of speech issue. (not sure if you were disputing that)
-
Your point about pools is absolutely true and the AAP may be anti gun but it is still a freedom of speech issue. (not sure if you were disputing that)
And I suppose that you support a doctor's "freedom of speech" to ask someone the race of their spouse/partner? Or their religion? How about "What is your "sexual orientation"?" or that of your children or parents? And to terminate the doctor-patient relationship if they hear an answer they don't particularly like?
-
Some appear to believe that it is a method of data gathering. Flapp suggested it could be stolen or misused. I was just saying that absent evidence that it is being used as a data gathering method I am not going to address this as some sneeky program using doctors to spy on us.
I am not making the case that speech can be limited. I am saying that for the government to prevent a doctor (or anyone for that matter) from asking you whether you own a gun is a violation of the 1st amendment.
How is a doctor asking a patient a question about guns a violation of the first amendment? I can see how the views of said doctor or group of doctors on their views against guns as being protected by the first amendment. I don't see the first amendment as a card to allow freedom for anyone to put their nose where it doesn't belong. The relationship between patient and doctor is confidential. Yeah, you can add in court of law stuff. That said, I don't really see how the government has any business asking about anything that goes on between a patient and doctor. Yeah, if a patient has a history of mental illness or expresses desires to hurt themselves of others, it is my understanding that medical professionals have certain duties in that regard. But isn't privacy another right?
Not sure about what is legal or ethical in what a doctor can ask a patient. Usually, any information that can help a doctor help diagnose any condition, I would think is relevant. But I don't think gun ownership is relevant to any of those and therefore none of my doctor's business. Am I legally obligated to inform my doctor about my gun ownership?
-
Until the AMA determines positively there is a link between gun use or ownership and some physical or mental disease, they have no valid reason to question anyone about gun ownership.
If the doctor believes someone is "dangerous," they need to contact law enforcement. HPD already knows if you possess a gun legally. If you have a gun illegally, I doubt you're going to tell the doctor that!
Bottom line, personal information should never be shared without knowing the reason and whether it's being stored or shared elsewhere. Without a valid reason to ask, the doctor should keep his questions to himself. If he's asking on behalf of his employer or any government agency, they should disclose that up front before asking.
I don't tell my gun dealer all my medical issues, nor do I tell my doctor what guns I own. "Need to know" must be paramount.
BTW, the doctor doesn't have 1st amendment protection for asking questions of a private individual. That's ridiculous! I suppose Cops also have a first amendment right to question a private citizen not detained for any reason, but just to find out where he's going, where he's been, what's in his pockets, who does he hang out with. Seems reasonable. Since the Cop has to see the results of crime, he should be able to use questions to obtain probable cause.
-
This doctor-asking-questions thing is definitely a First Amendment issue but whether or not it violates the First Amendment depends upon its interpretation and enforcement. In my unique view of what the First Amendment should be, I would say that it's okay either way here.
It's okay to prevent doctors from asking such questions because doctors and medical organizations are in a position of power. I believe that powerful organizations (such as the government, or large corporations) must not suppress the free speech rights of the weak (individuals) and at the same time must necessarily relinquish their own speech rights to do so. In this case the doctor is functioning as a representative of the government, or of medicine, therefore his free speech rights can be lessened while he performs in his official capacity. It's his job to provide physical treatment, not impose his views onto clients.
On the other hand, a doctor is still an individual, and not quite equal to the government itself, so it may be sufficiently harmless to allow him to say stupid things even while he is on the job. Is a male doctor prevented from asking a female patient whether or not she has a boyfriend? (I don't know the answer, just saying this is a similar situation to consider). Are all teachers and counselors forced to tell students that being gay is proper these days? (The answer is yes under current case law, though it should not be). Can a male teacher ask his underage female student if she has a boyfriend? (NO he will be instantly banned from being a teacher forever).
-
And I suppose that you support a doctor's "freedom of speech" to ask someone the race of their spouse/partner? Or their religion? How about "What is your "sexual orientation"?" or that of your children or parents? And to terminate the doctor-patient relationship if they hear an answer they don't particularly like?
I support freedom of speech even if I don't like the speech. I also support freedom to change doctors if I don't like my doctor ;)
-
How is a doctor asking a patient a question about guns a violation of the first amendment?
I am not saying that it is a violation of the 1st amendment, I am commenting about the law that the news story was about. The court case said that the government cannot pass a law preventing doctors from asking about gun ownership, that is a violation of the 1st amendment.
-
I support freedom of speech even if I don't like the speech. I also support freedom to change doctors if I don't like my doctor ;)
Well, since "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". And "If you like your plan you can keep your plan". And "The average family of four will save $2,500 a year on their health insurance", I'm sure you're free to change doctors too! Because it's a free country and stuff. Oh, wait...:geekdanc:
-
Well, since "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". And "If you like your plan you can keep your plan". And "The average family of four will save $2,500 a year on their health insurance", I'm sure you're free to change doctors too! Because it's a free country and stuff. Oh, wait...:geekdanc:
You could always do what others do and just decline to answer.
That is what I do on any form asking for the racial makeup of me or my kids.
-
Some appear to believe that it is a method of data gathering. Flapp suggested it could be stolen or misused. I was just saying that absent evidence that it is being used as a data gathering method I am not going to address this as some sneeky program using doctors to spy on us.
I am not making the case that speech can be limited. I am saying that for the government to prevent a doctor (or anyone for that matter) from asking you whether you own a gun is a violation of the 1st amendment.
I am not saying that it is a violation of the 1st amendment, I am commenting about the law that the news story was about. The court case said that the government cannot pass a law preventing doctors from asking about gun ownership, that is a violation of the 1st amendment.
I guess I meant how is the first amendment applicable to protection of a person's right to ask a question? I guess you are free to ask me whatever you want, but I'm free to either not respond at a minimum or tell you do [fill in choice words here].
How is freedom of speech, or say expression of views or opinions, on the same level a protection of asking questions?
Then I'll counter with:
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
I don't think that's what the Fourth Amendment was intended for, against a doctor asking about something irrelevant to my healthcare and generally none of his business. But if you're expanding the first amendment, then. . .
-
See my above response. The First Amendment is a tricky issue and the one Americans understand the least, whether they are judges, legal scholars, or the general populace. The majority of people claim they support the First Amendment but really don't, and have no idea what it truly means, could mean, or should mean. Eyeeatingfish is not expanding the First Amendment, that's his interpretation of it, and it's very similar to the interpretation of both judges and legal scholars these days. However in my opinion that interpretation is misguided or incomplete. The judges and doctors think to themselves "Yeah I have free speech rights so I can tell others what is right and wrong and no one can shut me up." There are horrible flaws in that thinking but since the judges are issuing the rulings, we've screwed ourselves.
-
See my above response. The First Amendment is a tricky issue and the one Americans understand the least, whether they are judges, legal scholars, or the general populace. The majority of people claim they support the First Amendment but really don't, and have no idea what it truly means, could mean, or should mean. Fish is not expanding the First Amendment, that's his interpretation of it, and it's very similar to the interpretation of both judges and legal scholars these days. However in my opinion that interpretation is misguided or incomplete. The judges and doctors think to themselves "Yeah I have free speech rights so I can tell others what is right and wrong and no one can shut me up." There are horrible flaws in that thinking but since the judges are issuing the rulings, we've screwed ourselves.
I saw your post. Same question.
You are certainly free to state your opinion or position, express your beliefs, etc. Ok, so your freedom to ask a question is protected. Outside a legal proceeding, police investigation, etc, where does it say that I have to respond? Even in that scenario, it is my understanding (albeit limited that I admittedly may be misguided on) that you are afforded protections.
-
You don't have to respond. That's why Flapp and I both said that we will tell our doctors to [choice words] if we are asked those kinds of stupid questions from our doctors.
You might have read my previous post backwards. In one sentence, I took your side of things and said the doctors/judges/Eyeeatingfish are misguided. I know it is confusing because I am taking both sides in this debate. Free speech is complicated.
-
You don't have to respond. That's why Flapp and I both said that we will tell our doctors to [choice words] if we are asked those kinds of stupid questions from our doctors.
You might have read my previous post backwards. In one sentence, I took your side of things and said the doctors/judges/Eyeeatingfish are misguided. I know it is confusing because I am taking both sides in this debate. Free speech is complicated.
What complicates it is, if my doctor asks a question, I have to assume it's related to my health and in my best interest to answer. If I have to guard against "inappropriate" or "invasive" questions unrelated to the purpose of my visit or my health in general, then the doctor-patient relationship and trust is strained.
You can couch anything in "health related" nuance if you stretch it far enough, but as I keep saying over and over, a doctor is not trained nor paid to teach me gun safety. I should therefore not be discussing gun safety with my doctor., The Constitution is not even part of that aspect of the equation. The Constitution comes into play when the government uses doctors as agents to ask the questions, whether the information is recorded or not.
-
Exactly. In this scenario the doctor is an agent of the government, and the government in my opinion is not supposed to have free speech rights. (The government is supposed to protect the free speech rights of its people, not the other way around). So he can constitutionally be prevented from asking the question, as I mentioned earlier.
The problem is that our legal system is corrupt, as I've said many times recently. The judges are agents of the government. Therefore they rule in favor of the doctors, who are also agents of the government. There is some kind of undocumented, sinister political system that controls the judicial system.
-
I guess I meant how is the first amendment applicable to protection of a person's right to ask a question? I guess you are free to ask me whatever you want, but I'm free to either not respond at a minimum or tell you do [fill in choice words here].
How is freedom of speech, or say expression of views or opinions, on the same level a protection of asking questions?
Then I'll counter with:
I don't think that's what the Fourth Amendment was intended for, against a doctor asking about something irrelevant to my healthcare and generally none of his business. But if you're expanding the first amendment, then. . .
I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.
-
I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.
That's not a given.
Gov't requires diagnosis of certain STDs be reported to the CDC by law.
Based on that, anything the government believes is in the public's interest can (must?) be shared by your doctor.
-
You don't have to respond. That's why Flapp and I both said that we will tell our doctors to [choice words] if we are asked those kinds of stupid questions from our doctors.
You might have read my previous post backwards. In one sentence, I took your side of things and said the doctors/judges/Eyeeatingfish are misguided. I know it is confusing because I am taking both sides in this debate. Free speech is complicated.
I reread your response. When I read it initially, it was quickly before I had to head off somewhere.
I didn't pick up that you were taking both sides of the issue. Ultimately, I don't see it as any of my doctor's business, professional or private, whether or not I own guns. Yeah, maybe in some House scenario where a specific chemical in a gun lube may cause an illness, it might be relevant.
About the issue of doctors imposing their beliefs on the people, yeah, it happens all the time. I would like to think that generally their guidance is for the welfare of people as a whole, but I do see many cases where that guidance was eventually proven to be misguided or even wrong.
-
I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.
I guess I was thinking about this in the context of needing "clearance" from a doctor in order to acquire firearms, which isn't exactly what the article in the OP was about.
Yeah, in general, I guess anyone is free to ask me anything they want. I am free to respond with "none of your damn business" or flat out not answer, or at least should be. That's where I was thinking where a non-response to a doctors question about gun ownership could be misused.
-
No, it is NOT a "Conspiracy Theory." It's only called that when certain people want to discredit someone's knowledge/belief which doesn't conveniently have a room full of evidence to prove it true!
Comey: 'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America'
"Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,"
Comey added. "In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/james-comey-privacy-cybersecurity/index.html