HB2823 Introduced. Prohibit physician questions re firearms.

[rotor]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

What if I changed the title of the post to read
"HB2823 INTRODUCED. PROHIBITS PHYSICIANS TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH PATIENTS"
Would you still be in favor of it? What sane ( no implication here ) person would be in favor of allowing the government to control what we are allowed to discuss with our physicians or actually anyone. This is still (I hope) the land of the free, home of the brave. We can still say ( within reason) what we want. I don't need a government agency telling me what I can say. My doctor should be able to say or ask me anything without restriction and not be forced to ask or restricted to not ask.

Your wording is just a hair off, but it makes a HUGE impact. The word in the bill is "inquire into, or ask a patient to disclose", NOT "discuss". Legally they could discuss firearms with you all they wanted, just not ask or force you to answer in order to be treated.

I'm perfectly sane and I'd have no problem with the bill as you described above. There is no medical need for a doctor to ask my religious beliefs, and if he insisted I disclosed that information before treating me...I'd walk out the door before he could finish his sentence. If I decide to discuss either - that it's up to me.

I believe you are splitting hairs here. Once the subject of firearms would be brought up the doc would be subject to penalty. And religion is important in treating a patient frequently. Are they vegetarians? Do they eat pork? Etc. People who support the 2nd amendment need to remember there is a 1st amendment too.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

What if I changed the title of the post to read
"HB2823 INTRODUCED. PROHIBITS PHYSICIANS TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH PATIENTS"
Would you still be in favor of it? What sane ( no implication here ) person would be in favor of allowing the government to control what we are allowed to discuss with our physicians or actually anyone. This is still (I hope) the land of the free, home of the brave. We can still say ( within reason) what we want. I don't need a government agency telling me what I can say. My doctor should be able to say or ask me anything without restriction and not be forced to ask or restricted to not ask.

Your wording is just a hair off, but it makes a HUGE impact. The word in the bill is "inquire into, or ask a patient to disclose", NOT "discuss". Legally they could discuss firearms with you all they wanted, just not ask or force you to answer in order to be treated.

I'm perfectly sane and I'd have no problem with the bill as you described above. There is no medical need for a doctor to ask my religious beliefs, and if he insisted I disclosed that information before treating me...I'd walk out the door before he could finish his sentence. If I decide to discuss either - that it's up to me.

I believe you are splitting hairs here. Once the subject of firearms would be brought up the doc would be subject to penalty.

That's not correct. (Read the Bill below.) Nothing in the Bill makes it a violation to discuss firearms in general. The only conduct prohibited is 1) asking whether a patient has a firearm and how it is stored on the property; and 2) refusing to treat a patient unless they answer the question. That's a far cry from the sweeping claim you are making. There is a concerted effort by many in the medical community to have firearms designated as a public health issue, followed closely by a declaration that they are a risk to public health. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for a healthcare provider to inquire about firearms ownership and storage.

And religion is important in treating a patient frequently. Are they vegetarians? Do they eat pork? Etc. People who support the 2nd amendment need to remember there is a 1st amendment too.

Religion will very rarely be an issue in treating a patient. Questions about one's diet can be asked without inquiring into their religion, if any. The only time that religion is likely to be an issue is when a person refuses treatment on religious grounds and a doctor need not have that information in their files. The patient will bring that up if and when it becomes an issue.

People who support the 2nd amendment need to remember there is a 1st amendment too.

It always amazes me when people make this argument in such a broad context. Sure, the First Amendment is invaluable to a free society. However, no constitutional right is absolute and the SCOTUS has so held in numerous cases. You can't threaten to assault someone, then argue you cannot be charged with a crime because First Amendment protections. One cannot solicit prostitution, then defend against a criminal charge by claiming First Amendment protection.

Chas.

Sec. 164.0525. INQUIRY INTO GUN OWNERSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) In this section, "patient" has the meaning provided by Section 159.001.
(b) A physician, other than a psychiatrist, may not:

• (1) inquire into, or ask a patient to disclose, whether a firearm is located or stored on property owned by or under the patient's control, including the patient's home; and
  (2) require that information described by Subdivision (1) be disclosed before providing treatment to the patient.

(c) The board may take disciplinary action against a physician who violates Subsection (b).

[K5GU]

You can do your own research. The AMA and NRA are entirely different from one another.

Mojo, I have. I couldn't find anything that said doctors are compelled to ask these questions other than 2nd-hand antidotes, which is why I asked. It was a legitimate question. I'd feel differently if they ARE being compelled to ask. Your type of response solidifies my position, rather than providing me some data that I might need to see things differently.

I'm well aware of the AMA's historical record on anything firearm related in the political arena. I assume that indicating I need to compare to the NRA is just a great example of civil discourse and constructive suggestion, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA compiles statistical information around firearms. And regardless of who is complaining that data, it's almost certainly not going to be a positive story. I don't want my physicians bound and gagged around the subject just because we're scared of the political spin. When I'm compelled to answer, then I'll want physicians compelled not to ask.

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

I'm not sure how the linkage among insurance companies and doctors works, but a co-worker of mine who was a stunt pilot had his insurance cancelled. When he did the inquiries, his insurance agents said their database flagged him as a high risk client. He claimed he'd never disclosed his hobbies to his insurance companies, but he did say his doctor was a good friend, and he and the doc talked about his stunt flying all the time. I guess a similar linkage might exist for firearm ownership data too.

It takes 2 seconds to check the FAA pilot database. They even have a smartphone app for this. How hard do you think insurance companies have to work to see if your friend is a pilot? Getting the doctor's records is tough though.

The pilot license is registered there, and shows a person has a license and type of license, but I'm not sure if that FAA database would classify the type of flying he did - aerobatics, races, stunts, etc., nor would the FAA probably care, but his insurance company surely did.

[rotor]

Charles, hypothetically if I were a physician (non psychiatrist) under this bill and I was about to see a patient that I suspected might be a Muslim jihadist would I be able to ask him if he had an AK-47 at home? Or would I be prosecuted by the Texas Medical Board for asking? Sounds ridiculous of course but a hypothetical. Or would it depend on whether I used the answer to decide on whether I treated him or not?

[C-dub]

Since the wording of the bill says that it cannot be required prior to being treated, is there anything that prevent them from continuing with this inquiry while being treated or after and then recorded? I see a huge hole in this bill if not.

The only time I've seen this topic brought up by a doctor was at a checkup for my daughter. It was on a questionnaire given to my daughter to complete before being seen that we would give to the doctor in the exam room. We left those questions blank and weren't asked about that when we turned it over.

[maintenanceguy]

I don't want anyone infringing on my 2nd amendment rights.

I don't want to infringe on anyone's 1st amendment rights either.

[G.A. Heath]

A doctor can not ask you about your dietary habits unless it is relevant to your treatment, unless they are a dietitian, because it would be a boundary violation. Boundary violations occur when a doctor asks questions, performs treatments, or otherwise conducts themselves in a manner where they deal with issues they are not qualified to handle. Essentially a neurosurgeon can not ask you to consider a vasectomy, because he is not qualified to do so.

If my doctor was a NRA certified instructor I would consider him to be qualified to discuss firearms, if they are not qualified they do not need to ask questions on the issue.

[cb1000rider]

Perhaps a law should say "no doctor may be required to ask." That preserves everyone's freedom no?

I really like that suggestion.

It's shameful what we need legislation for... Piles on piles of it.

[rotor]

Perhaps a law should say "no doctor may be required to ask." That preserves everyone's freedom no?

I really like that suggestion.

It's shameful what we need legislation for... Piles on piles of it.

What a simple solution.

[android]

Link: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 02823I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Question: Why?

Those of you who are screaming for "less" government, here's a perfect example of more government. I'm not compelled to answer my physicians questions. If I don't like my physician's politics, I'm free to find another one. What's the point?

Less government means fewer agencies, gov employees and resources that cost the taxpayers more money.

Passing a law that prevents fed gov or insurance providers from intruding in a doctor patient relationship is for the most part self enforcing. They take the stupid questions off the forms and doctors quit asking the questions. It takes minimal gov resources to make this happen.

[cb1000rider]

A doctor can not ask you about your dietary habits unless it is relevant to your treatment......

Are you serious? Diet and exercise habits are irrelevant to what medical conditions exactly? I fully expect you to come up with at least one, but diet and exercise are relevant to most medical issues.

Passing a law that prevents fed gov or insurance providers from intruding in a doctor patient relationship is for the most part self enforcing. They take the stupid questions off the forms and doctors quit asking the questions. It takes minimal gov resources to make this happen.

More laws require more government, not less. You're also taking away the freedom of professions who have their own agendas and opinions, just like you and me. Even if I don't agree with those opinions, I don't want mine taken away.



In general, I'm not buying the slippery slope argument here. And even if I did, this isn't the issue that I want to spend my time or anyone's political capital on. There are bigger more important fish. I buy that the AMA isn't gun friendly. Blame the AMA if you want, but statistical data on guns in the home isn't gun friendly... That data doesn't remove the 2nd amendment nor should it remove the right for us to be able to protect ourselves, even at the statistical risk of personal injury. Maybe I shouldn't even talk about it?

I think the pediatric issue is relevant. We're offended, because as a whole, we're responsible gun owners that know we need to lock up firearms where kids are around. My guess is that there is an entire segment of society that has firearms, doesn't understand the risks, and contributes to the overall statistics that I know I cringe when I look at... Do I want a lecture? No. Will I stand for a lecture if it changes someone else's behavior? Yes. Can I pick another doctor? Yes.

I really like CPD's suggestion - maybe that makes everyone happy.

[G.A. Heath]

A doctor can not ask you about your dietary habits unless it is relevant to your treatment......

Are you serious? Diet and exercise habits are irrelevant to what medical conditions exactly? I fully expect you to come up with at least one, but diet and exercise are relevant to most medical issues.

Yes I am serious. If you are going in to have a wound caused by, who cares what, treated or a followup visit to check it the doctor can not ask you about your diet unless he thinks it is impairing the healing process. If it has no bearing on the treatment then he is prohibited from asking about it. More importantly imagine a neurosurgeon suggesting a vasectomy, he most likely isn't qualified to suggest it, and since it does not relate to a neurological condition he might be treating you for then he is committing a boundary violation.

[rotor]

I missed CPD's solution earlier. Much better to have a law that says the government will not restrict what a physician says.

On the other hand, I expect to see if it is not already present, that the electronic health records (EHR) will start to contain firearm related questions and that physician's income may be related to how completely these are filled out. I would prefer that our legislators now start addressing these issues and start banning these questions from the electronic records or at least make sure that physician's incomes are not related to the completeness of these charts as these are the databases that Mr. Obama will be putting together for future use. It's the government not the doctor that we have to watch out for. Just don't give the doctor any firearm related info.

[mojo84]

Here's an interesting article discussing the Florida law. I believe the comments are very interesting as well. I think it is important to read the entire articles. Therefore, I did not quote portions.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2 ... bout-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One more

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ns/375566/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


More doctors on the subject from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

http://www.drgo.us/?page_id=913" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.drgo.us/?page_id=916" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[maintenanceguy]

A doctor can not ask you about your dietary habits unless it is relevant to your treatment, unless they are a dietitian, because it would be a boundary violation. Boundary violations occur when a doctor asks questions, performs treatments, or otherwise conducts themselves in a manner where they deal with issues they are not qualified to handle. Essentially a neurosurgeon can not ask you to consider a vasectomy, because he is not qualified to do so.

If my doctor was a NRA certified instructor I would consider him to be qualified to discuss firearms, if they are not qualified they do not need to ask questions on the issue.

I saw my doctor Tuesday morning. He asked how my wife was and asked if I still rode my motorcycle. I guess I'll report him.