Doctors required to ask about guns in the home. Do you have to answer?

[IndyDave1776]

They aren't definitive in themselves, but rather a subjective standard based upon metrics of past statement and/or behaviors and circumstances.

Though its a good bet whenever they state an extreme opinion (ie: someone or everyone has an unconditional right to do something or anything OR nobody or only a few people have an unconditional right to do something or anything) its generally a good bet that they meet the criteria.

So then my belief that no one who is fit to be roaming free should be denied his or her Second Amendment rights and those who cannot be trusted with a full set of rights should not roam free would fit me into one or both of those categories?

 

[ashby koss]

I'd be responding with "nope, none in my house. I prefer to rely on rabid badgers for defense."

Knee jerk response is "none of your damn business" but thats pretty much a "yes" when you read between the lines. Most anti gunners are just going to say no, and only pro gunners (for the most part) would put up a fight.

My kids are taught not to talk about our guns, and the wife knows if anyone asks the answer is no. My angle is even if a worried mother asks "Do you have any guns in your house?" over concern about a play date we are hosting the short answer is "NO".

Long answer is "No guns in the house that are not under lock and key at all times and are therefore out of reach, so effectively there are no guns you need to worry about in our home. Due to my secure storage, my guns are no more accessible to your kids than my neighbor's guns."

+1

 

[HotD]

So then my belief that no one who is fit to be roaming free should be denied his or her Second Amendment rights and those who cannot be trusted with a full set of rights should not roam free would fit me into one or both of those categories?

I merely stated that is was a good bet. Not an absolute certainty.

How about these instead:

• Nobody incarcerated should be armed.
• The government has a special relationship with those incarcerated, to have a duty to protect them.
• Nobody under disability for a violent criminal conviction should be armed, unless good reason is established by competent authority to have that disability restored.
• Nobody under disability for a mental disease or defect should be armed, unless good reason is established by competent authority to have that disability restored.

 

[Lex Concord]

There is enough anecdotal evidence to question the validity of Snopes.com as being worthy of trust by objective standards.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sno...80,d.dmQ&fp=8526038e809b8fdf&biw=1366&bih=598

I just checked Snopes.com...clearly stated all those allegations are false

 

[Lex Concord]

As I said, a mad man.

Do not listen to him, INGO.

Hell of an argument 11, love the supporting facts

 

[j706]

If I was asked that question I would answer with "Don't worry or concern yourself with what types of tools I have in my home".

 

[dhnorris]

My kids pediatrician asked them and of course they answered "yes, daddy has guns" she then asked my wife if they were locked up. Fishing for child endangerment perhaps? Brave new world.

 

[BoldCourageousWoman]

Lying on any federal matter is a federal crime.



Smallest Lie to Federal Agent Is a Crime, High Court Rules - Los Angeles Times

18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

No need to lie, just get in the practice of not answering any non-health related questions. I did not put the government on my list of those who can have access to my medical info! Oh wait! I suppose HIPPA doesn't apply under Obamacare!

 

[HotD]

I just checked Snopes.com...clearly stated all those allegations are false

On a related note: The Daily Caller: Obama asks Holder to investigate Holder’s investigation

 

[Lex Concord]

On a related note: The Daily Caller: Obama asks Holder to investigate Holder’s investigation

I rest my case.

 

[Liberty1911]

Here's what I want to know: Those of you who said your doctors asked about guns, what exactly are the doctors doing with that info? Are they reporting it to someone?

I have never had a doctor ask that from me or anyone in my family.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Let's see... Who do I believe? Snopes, a trusted anti-hoax site? Or a blog site no one has ever heard of. I trust Snopes. 13C? Not so much. It was a nice try to try to (right off the bat) discredit Snopes by claiming old information. Guess that was 13C's only hope at any credibility. Spectacular fail...

I do not trust snoops, they have been wrong before and tend to word things so that phrase is not correct but the context is.. One of the 23 executive orders signed by Obama does ask doctors to ask about guns and share the info. not law yet.

From Fox news...

The idea that your doctor would ask you if you have firearms in your house as part of an examination of your health is repugnant," National Rifle Association President David Keene told Fox News on Thursday, accusing the administration of trying to "demonize firearms" by implying that owning them is a "health problem."
One of the 23 executive actions Obama approved Wednesday was to "clarify" that the federal health care overhaul "does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about gun in their homes."
An overview of the plan said "we should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands."
Coupled with the language on asking patients about guns was a decision to "clarify" that no federal law prevents doctors from warning law enforcement about "direct and credible threats of violence."
The latter provision is actually in line with the policy of most states. All but a few allow mental health professionals to report information about patients they believe may become violent. Of them, most have laws requiring that information to be disclosed -- New York was one of the latest to update its law to mandate that doctors report when patients might pose a danger.


Read more: Does White House plan enlist doctors in gun control fight? | Fox News

 

[VN Vet]

At the VA Hospital, our answer, if asked is always no. I found all us Vets gave up firearms when we received our discharge. This is the gods honest truth. No lie. We gave'em up cold turkey. Never gave it a second thought. Same thing with cigarettes, booze and beer.

 

[88GT]

While I agree with the fact that the patients share some responsibility for their healthcare and that many of us do not do due diligence, the healthcare providers do not make it easy for us to make informed choices. This is probably due to the large bureaucracies running these hospital networks and insurance companies.

Like I said up-thread, really truly informed consent is a pipe dream unless the consumer/patient is willing to do the legwork. But I don't expect the docs to make it easy for me. Their job is to recommend a course of action. My job is to determine if that's the best course when I consider more than just the disease being treated.

On one doctor's visit, I ask for what it would cost for the visit. The reaction was one of a deer in the headlights. They could not answer my question; they have no idea. How am I supposed to make an informed choice if I cannot even get such basic information upon request?

Sounds like incompetence and your informed decision should have been to find a new doc. I've never had a doc not be able to provide that kind of information. They might have to get back to me if there is a need to figure the total based on the insurance carrier, but I've never had a doc not have that info available for a quick look up. His office visit price cash should be on the tip of their tongues.

My kids pediatrician asked them and of course they answered "yes, daddy has guns" she then asked my wife if they were locked up. Fishing for child endangerment perhaps? Brave new world.

No, it's the standard follow-up question.

Here's what I want to know: Those of you who said your doctors asked about guns, what exactly are the doctors doing with that info? Are they reporting it to someone?

I have never had a doctor ask that from me or anyone in my family.

I've only had the pedi ask it. None of my other docs or any of the docs I see for one-time procedures have ever questioned it. Not even when I was being treated for PPD. I don't believe it's a standard question on anything other than pediatrician well-child visits or family practice general health.

I don't believe they are doing anything with it either. At this time. But when the feds get control of the health care records, that will change. Guaran-damn-tee it.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't believe it's a standard question on anything other than pediatrician well-child visits or family practice general health.

I don't believe they are doing anything with it either. At this time. But when the feds get control of the health care records, that will change. Guaran-damn-tee it.

Why are they asking it then? Is it a government checklist thing? State government thing? If they don't report it, then what's the point? Just nosey doctors trying to implement their sense of morality on others?

I agree with you about fed control. I think we'll see stuff like this standardized, and abused.

 

[88GT]

Why are they asking it then? Is it a government checklist thing? State government thing? If they don't report it, then what's the point? Just nosey doctors trying to implement their sense of morality on others?

I agree with you about fed control. I think we'll see stuff like this standardized, and abused.

Liability. AMA. Probably the two biggest factors.

I think I'm going to ask why they ask that the next time it's asked.

 

[tgmorris99]

I've only had the pedi ask it. None of my other docs or any of the docs I see for one-time procedures have ever questioned it. Not even when I was being treated for PPD. I don't believe it's a standard question on anything other than pediatrician well-child visits or family practice general health.

I was asked the question during an ER admittance a bit over a year ago and I pointed out that I didn't think the question was pertinent to the treatment I was seeking at the time - so they moved on to more relevant questions.

Perhaps it depends on the group to which the facility belong.

 

[forgop]

I'll clue you in on a secret that we know in the medical field: patients lie.