Appeals Court: Yes, Doctors can inquire about Firearm ownership
Maybe one of our resident lawyers can weigh in here, but it seems to me that the justices in this case were way more concerned about evidence of actual speech rather than the principle that it is none of a doctor's business. I also found the claim that someone can find a different doctor not only insulting, but specious given that the doctors are being pressed by legislators to make their treatment conditional.
My hoping is that this goes to the Supreme Court and gets overturned.
My hoping is that this goes to the Supreme Court and gets overturned.
But the important fact that I've been bringing up and you haven't addressed - there are documented cases where activist doctors have interrogated children on this subject, without the presence of a parent. That makes it a captive audience, for one, but probably also brings up a slew of legal and moral issues, as well. Perhaps a better phrasing would have been a directive to nullify the federal requirements, as opposed to preventing a discussion if both parties are willing to participate. But either way, it would have been challenged by the activists with their unlimited resources.
And your hypothetical is overstating the actual case, since a professional association’s guidelines do not have the force of law, and the government is not requiring doctors to actually advocate for gun control within the doctor-patient relationship.
As to solutions: At the individual level, the patient can either refuse to answer any intrusive questions or lie. The doctor can make it clear that he is bringing up the subject under duress, and do the minimum necessary to satisfy the government’s criteria. At the state level, the legislature can pass a state law upholding the rights of doctors and patients to discuss any subject they mutually agree to, and pledging to protect these rights in court against any federal incursion. This will bypass the disadvantages of the Florida law that was overturned. And at the political level, people can work to elect candidates who oppose the government’s bias. In respect to the gun issue (and several others), this was accomplished with the election of Trump, and may make the whole issue of doctors’ freedom of speech moot.
Yes. I generally see no advantage to sharing with people what kind of guns I have. I can think of all kinds of disadvantages.
- Someone wanting to put the blame a crime on me or just harass me could say they saw me threatening someone with a specific gun, and their knowing the right type of gun would make their lie more credible.
- Someone wanting to attack me would have information I'd rather they not have.
- Someone might get a notion to steal the guns.
- Someone could use it to poison the well about me to those who don't like guns.
I just don't see the upside of sharing weapons info with strangers.
Is it not clear that the socialists will use any and all means to push their agenda? When they can con enough people, they pass the laws; when they can't con the people, they wait until their activist judges are in position and then do it through the judiciary; they'll buy votes with millions and millions spent in a small district to set a precedent; lying, cheating and occasional murders to eliminate unwanted people are the tools. And above all else, the total control of the education system is now bearing fruit - well over a 100 million people who can be certified as morons, but who will march, demonstrate, break windows and attack people when given an order. When the Regressives spent as much effort as they did on Obamacare, you know there is an agenda, and it is not for the purpose of helping your grandma to get access to a better doctor.
If we lived in a perfect Objectivist world, this wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree. So wave your magic wand and change the world! ;) What we actually live in is a nation that has seen the abuse of patient information to arbitrarily limit the Second Amendment rights of SS recipients and veterans as a matter of fact. That needs to stop and this ruling doesn't help that process.
"You can question any judicial decision you please, but until it becomes settled law your opinion and mine are both just that – opinions."
I don't disagree. The reason I posted this is because I believe that the judges came to their conclusion not based on the facts of the case, but based of their own personal bias of interpretation. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has been posted to this forum. You obviously disagree and have made cogent arguments and I applaud you for that. We disagree in our interpretation of these events. That's life.
You can question any judicial decision you please, but until it becomes settled law your opinion and mine are both just that – opinions. And in the philosophical rather than the legal sense, I don’t think an Objectivist argument can be made that an adult patient interacting with his or her doctor is a “captive”.
Load more comments...