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...

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...

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.