Doctor Interrogation warning!

[fxk]

I can understand being upset about the gun question, but smoke detectors?

Part of me thinks it would be hilarious to answer these questions with the most random answers i could ever imagine. The looks on their face would be priceless.

Nothing I have seen from the AMA about this recently. They DO recommend that we ask these questons. It is just a recommendation. Some people do take what the AMA says to heart.

Why let this kind of dumb stuff get in the way of getting good healthcare? Just say no, and move along. It is of no consequence.

Many, many years ago a priest relayed this story: Kid selling magazines - you know, high priced. The priest said he could not afford them. He had the money...

He posed the question: Did he lie?
Answered "lying is a falsehood told to someone who deserves to know the truth". I've taken this to heart.

teratos is right, as are the others I quoted. Give them the answer that is least offensive to you. Yes, I have smoke detectors. Yes, I walk to work. No, I do not fly private planes. No. I don't own firearm(s). Get on with the exam.

 

[Brooklyn]

I have NOT read through all 347 postings to this thread, so berate me for being lazy, but has anyone asked "why" a physician may be asking this question or how the information will be used?

I would caution answering untruthfully because it may affect insurance coverage if you are found to have lied, as well as not answering at all. I really don't have an answer, though I would choose to probably decline answering such a question. However, you need to decide for yourself what to do.

The "danger" comes from some new government requirement to ask the question. If that is the reason given, it is certainly worth bringing to the NRA's, or even the ACLU's, attention as an invasion of privacy unrelated to health care.

Yes.
Who cares. That's the big O problem now.
To late..

 

[almiller1963]

I think we all agree that firearms should be stored in a particular manner when there are children in the home. While there may be some variations on what we believe, most of us would choose not to store a loaded firearm where young children would have easy access to it. The audience reading these posts....enthusiasts, shooters etc. actually take the time to think. Consider the people out there who have a loaded gun in the home, have never been to the range, been taught gun safety by their mom or dad, and have never thought that their kids might open their night stand drawer. There are probably more of them than there are of us. They give us all a bad name.

I agree the world is filled with morons - we elected Obama --- twice.

I don't think my Dr needs to provide me or anyone voting advice either.

My real point is this.... as admirable as it is for DRs to save the world.... that's not their role....the world doesn't want to be saved......

I'm pretty new to guns but the main agreement my wife and I have is.... the first time I ever have a gun loaded or not laying around unsupervised I will sell all of them.

Needless to say my guns are locked in a safe. I never leave them laying around.

I totally see your point what if the guy next door doesn't lock his guns up then we are all in danger...... I just don't view that as his DRs job to fix.



With any luck Darwin will reward the right folks instead of innocents.

 

[teratos]

I agree the world is filled with morons - we elected Obama --- twice.

I don't think my Dr needs to provide me or anyone voting advice either.

My real point is this.... as admirable as it is for DRs to save the world.... that's not their role....the world doesn't want to be saved......

I'm pretty new to guns but the main agreement my wife and I have is.... the first time I ever have a gun loaded or not laying around unsupervised I will sell all of them.

Needless to say my guns are locked in a safe. I never leave them laying around.

I totally see your point what if the guy next door doesn't lock his guns up then we are all in danger...... I just don't view that as his DRs job to fix.



With any luck Darwin will reward the right folks instead of innocents.

FWIW, I agree. I am here to give people advice on their health issues. I like what I do and I try to do the best I can for my patients. As adults, they should have the sense to buckle up, not have loaded guns where children can get them, be careful with power tools etc. I can't save the world, and don't even want to try.

 

[DanGuy48]

I haven't read this entire thread so not sure if this was already posted but, Hey! Obamacare to the rescue. I believe the NRA-ILA Was successful in getting this language into the final ACA. There are actually two pages but I couldn't get both to copy. Just search for firearm if you have a copy of ACA. Mine was just prior to passage so I assume this language is still in the bill.

"?..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2038
mented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relat- ing to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the resi- dence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu- nition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am- munition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Sec- retary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain..."

 

[JettaRed]

As I read the ACA law (a.k.a. Obamacare), it seems that such questions concerning gun ownership are a violation of the law. If my physician asks about gun ownership, I think I'm going to ask under what authority they are asking.

 

[teratos]

As I read the ACA law (a.k.a. Obamacare), it seems that such questions concerning gun ownership are a violation of the law. If my physician asks about gun ownership, I think I'm going to ask under what authority they are asking.

It's called the First Amendment. I can ask anything I damn well please in my place of business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If we want people to respect our Second Amendment Rights, we can't pick or choose which others will be enforced. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean it should be deemed illegal. Choose not to answer, but don't try to infringe on my Rights.

Read closely. The law says you cannot REQUIRE disclosure or collection of the information. It doesn't make it illegal to ask.

 

[MikeTF]

It's called the First Amendment. I can ask anything I damn well please in my place of business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If we want people to respect our Second Amendment Rights, we can't pick or choose which others will be enforced. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean it should be deemed illegal. Choose not to answer, but don't try to infringe on my Rights.

Read closely. The law says you cannot REQUIRE disclosure or collection of the information. It doesn't make it illegal to ask.

I think it should be a two way street and that you as a doctor can refuse to accept patients. I don't know if that is how things work in your office, with your medical license, or under the law.

I think you're right, as a patient, politely say, 'This is a topic that I deem private, there's no reason to discuss it further.'

It's perfectly okay to push back when asked a question. A while back I was asked to provide some rather intrusive financial information for a mortgage application. I told the mortgage company that I was not going to provide that information because I considered it private and not needed in order to determine my qualification for the loan. He told me that everyone was requiring it. I told him that I was not going to provide it and if that meant I wasn't going to get the loan, than so be it. He than quickly volunteered that he would try to work around the requirement. It turns out that he didn't need the information after all.

 

[Benanov]

It's called the First Amendment. I can ask anything I damn well please in my place of business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If we want people to respect our Second Amendment Rights, we can't pick or choose which others will be enforced. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean it should be deemed illegal. Choose not to answer, but don't try to infringe on my Rights.

I think HR departments would love to try to use that argument when they start asking questions in a job interview.

Free speech doesn't mean interrogatories where employment decisions can be made based off the information. (Plus a candidate can simply tell you, nothing against that.)

 

[JettaRed]

It's called the First Amendment. I can ask anything I damn well please in my place of business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If we want people to respect our Second Amendment Rights, we can't pick or choose which others will be enforced. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean it should be deemed illegal. Choose not to answer, but don't try to infringe on my Rights.

Read closely. The law says you cannot REQUIRE disclosure or collection of the information. It doesn't make it illegal to ask.

My comment wasn't to try to get your panties in a wad, I just asking under what authority such a question was being asked. And, no, you can't ask anything you damn well please if you want to keep your license to practice. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." The First Amendment doesn't protect or allow your asking personally invasive and unrelated questions with respect to my health or wellness.

In the weird, rare instance that I show the symptoms of lead poisoning, then it would be perfectly appropriate for you to ask questions concerning the handling of lead. But as a general intake question unrelated to a specific health condition or complaint, the question would be totally inappropriate.

If it makes you happy, I can revise my statement to say "it seems that such questions concerning gun ownership are a violation of the law or the spirit of the law."

 

[teratos]

My comment wasn't to try to get your panties in a wad, I just asking under what authority such a question was being asked. And, no, you can't ask anything you damn well please if you want to keep your license to practice. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." The First Amendment doesn't protect or allow your asking personally invasive and unrelated questions with respect to my health or wellness.

In the weird, rare instance that I show the symptoms of lead poisoning, then it would be perfectly appropriate for you to ask questions concerning the handling of lead. But as a general intake question unrelated to a specific health condition or complaint, the question would be totally inappropriate.

If it makes you happy, I can revise my statement to say "it seems that such questions concerning gun ownership are a violation of the law or the spirit of the law."

I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree. Questions regarding gun ownership are not in violation of any laws. Read through the thread, there is justification for this being a public health issue (though, IMO, it is weak). In my place of business, I can ask you what I choose to ask you (within reason). Show me some law by which my medical license can be taken away for asking questions. The American College of Physicians recommends this be asked.....

Asking questions about gun ownership are not forbidden by the law. The government just can't use the answers.

 

[FreeState]

All the Hopkins facilities ask similar questions.

 

[JettaRed]

I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree. Questions regarding gun ownership are not in violation of any laws. Read through the thread, there is justification for this being a public health issue (though, IMO, it is weak). In my place of business, I can ask you what I choose to ask you (within reason). Show me some law by which my medical license can be taken away for asking questions. The American College of Physicians recommends this be asked.....

Asking questions about gun ownership are not forbidden by the law. The government just can't use the answers.

OK. That's fair. And you probably won't lose your license over a gun-related question. I just don't understand why gun ownership is relevant question. (I'm assuming that it is part of a general intake or update question, and it is being asked by a general practitioner.)

However, if you ask the question, I will assume my answer, if recorded, is confidential and protected as PHI under HIPAA.

 

[teratos]

OK. That's fair. And you probably won't lose your license over a gun-related question. I just don't understand why gun ownership is relevant question. (I'm assuming that it is part of a general intake or update question, and it is being asked by a general practitioner.)

However, if you ask the question, I will assume my answer, if recorded, is confidential and protected as PHI under HIPAA.

Absolutely, It would be protected under HIPAA. One of the problems, however, is insurance companies have access to the medical record.what happens when we have a wound care system, and the government is the insurance company? None of the charts in my office have anything about firearms documented. I probably tend to be a little bit more suspicious than the average physician.

I answered the question about gun ownership being a relevant question earlier in this thread. In a nutshell, physicians are responsible for treating accidental and intentional gunshot wounds. Physicians, particularly in the inner cities, get tired of seeing it. The cases where a loaded firearm is left in the reach of children garner particular attention. The recommendation that a firearm be secure when there are children in the home is an effort to "save just one life".

 

[Free]

Absolutely, It would be protected under HIPAA. One of the problems, however, is insurance companies have access to the medical record.what happens when we have a wound care system, and the government is the insurance company? None of the charts in my office have anything about firearms documented. I probably tend to be a little bit more suspicious than the average physician.

I answered the question about gun ownership being a relevant question earlier in this thread. In a nutshell, physicians are responsible for treating accidental and intentional gunshot wounds. Physicians, particularly in the inner cities, get tired of seeing it. The cases where a loaded firearm is left in the reach of children garner particular attention. The recommendation that a firearm be secure when there are children in the home is an effort to "save just one life".

My hunch is that the subject area is a reflection of changing times in society for the most part and is not really an avenue for government gun confiscation. Another hunch is that most health care providers and especially pediatricians are doing far more good than harm when emphasizing that guns be locked up with kids in the house.

One example of "going to extremes" was the Florida law that forbade physicians from asking about gun ownership. Seriously? What if a patient is known to drink, get high and exhibit major depression?
That particular trifecta is not exactly rare in this country.

 

[JettaRed]

Your examples are in the context of a specific situation where there are indications that warrant asking about firearms. My objection was based on asking about firearm ownership where there are no indications or as part of the general intake or patient update process. Of course, if someone comes in with a gun shot wound it is appropriate to ask how it may have happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Omaha419]

Just reading this pissed me off. You did the right thing. I would've been more rude and told her to go **** herself.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I answered the question about gun ownership being a relevant question earlier in this thread. In a nutshell, physicians are responsible for treating accidental and intentional gunshot wounds. Physicians, particularly in the inner cities, get tired of seeing it. The cases where a loaded firearm is left in the reach of children garner particular attention. The recommendation that a firearm be secure when there are children in the home is an effort to "save just one life".

Anecdotally at least I see power tools i.e. drills and power saws as causing far more injuries than guns yet I don't see doctors asking about their ownership or suggesting they be locked up "To save one child". Therefore I put on a tinfoil hat and suspect an ulterior motive.

In your experience in practice what do you see as the greatest dangers to patients? And where do you think your colleges should be expending their preventative energies?

 

[teratos]

My hunch is that the subject area is a reflection of changing times in society for the most part and is not really an avenue for government gun confiscation. Another hunch is that most health care providers and especially pediatricians are doing far more good than harm when emphasizing that guns be locked up with kids in the house.

It may get some people to think. The there are probably other areas of counseling that would make more of a difference.

Your examples are in the context of a specific situation where there are indications that warrant asking about firearms. My objection was based on asking about firearm ownership where there are no indications or as part of the general intake or patient update process. Of course, if someone comes in with a gun shot wound it is appropriate to ask how it may have happened.

It's about prevention. Once someone has been shot, that goes out the window. You do understand that a large portion of the population are mouth breathing cretins. They NEED someone to hold their hand through things most MDS members consider second nature/common sense. Those are the people who this question is intended for. Sometimes, it takes a while to catch on to who is really stupid. Some stupid people appear to be normal at first.

Just reading this pissed me off. You did the right thing. I would've been more rude and told her to go **** herself.

Grow up. She is doing what the AMA tells her is going to save a child's life. She has the best intentions, even though they are misguided. She doesn't need a troglodyte like you telling her to **** herself.

Anecdotally at least I see power tools i.e. drills and power saws as causing far more injuries than guns yet I don't see doctors asking about their ownership or suggesting they be locked up "To save one child". Therefore I put on a tinfoil hat and suspect an ulterior motive.

In your experience in practice what do you see as the greatest dangers to patients? And where do you think your colleges should be expending their preventative energies?

I have never seen a small child with a power tool injury. Sadly, I have seen small children with gun shot wounds. I don't think the vast majority of physicians want to do anything but council people on something they believe can add to the overall safety in the home. The danger is not at the provider level. The danger of this is the fact that the answer is recorded in a searchable database that the government could gain access to. That said, if you ever bought a firearm anywhere other than in a face to face transaction, they already know EXACTLY what you have, so the point is moot.

 

[JettaRed]

It's about prevention. Once someone has been shot, that goes out the window. You do understand that a large portion of the population are mouth breathing cretins. They NEED someone to hold their hand through things most MDS members consider second nature/common sense. Those are the people who this question is intended for. Sometimes, it takes a while to catch on to who is really stupid. Some stupid people appear to be normal at first.

In all seriousness, using your logic, shouldn't you also ask about ownership and safe storage of power tools, poisons, and other dangerous objects, as well? Do you ask about ownership of in-ground swimming pools and whether they're fenced in?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk