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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Yes, I support this bill because a doctor has no right to ask these questions to their patients in the first place. The First Amendment is not an unlimited right and does not give everyone the right to say anything to anyone at any time. There is an appropriate venue for every conversation. A doctor's office is not the place to play politics.
In your Scenario B, the patient also has the option of lying to the doctor or refusing to answer the question. And for an adult, the absence of physical or legal restraint means he is not “captive” in any meaningful sense of the term. The inconvenience of leaving does not equate to captivity.
The court that overturned the Florida law is right on point in dismissing the “captive audience” argument (see pages 35-36):
“First, ‘the Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer’ . . . and where adults are concerned the Supreme Court has never used a vulnerable listener /captive audience rationale to uphold speaker-focused and content-based restrictions on speech . . . Second, doctors and patients undoubtedly engage in some conversations that are difficult and uncomfortable, and the first sentence of § 790.338(4) already gives patients the right to refuse to answer questions about firearm ownership. There is nothing in the record suggesting that patients who are bothered or offended by such questions are psychologically unable to choose another medical provider, just as they are permitted to do if their doctor asks too many questions about private matters like sexual activity, alcohol consumption, or drug use.”
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinio...
Scenario A: two friends get together at a bar for drinks. One happens to be a doctor and his friend brings up his bad back. The doctor gives his friend some free advice and then the conversation turns to politics, wherein the friend tells his doctor friend about a new Mossberg pump shotgun he just purchased. The doctor says that he can't ethically own firearms because of his commitment to the Hippocratic Oath. The conversation ends there.
Scenario B: a patient goes to see a doctor about a bad back. After being taken back to a private examination room, the doctor comes in with a clipboard and starts asking the patient what the problem is. The patient mentions the back problems and the doctor then says "So, do you own any firearms?" The patient looks at the doctor, confused, trying to figure out what owning firearms has to do with his/her bad back. The patient needs some medication or treatment, however, because their bad back is interfering with their ability to hold down a job. They had to wait two weeks just to get this appointment, and now they are uncomfortable about this new line of questioning.
Scenario A? First Amendment protection, absolutely. Either has the option to get up and leave at any time with no repercussions.
Scenario B? Freedom to leave the situation isn't absolute. The doctor controls the conversation and even failure to answer is an answer in and of itself - therefore captive audience doctrine applies. Coupled with the privacy concerns and the divulgence of this information to third parties, and we compound the dangers inherent in the situation for the arbitrary infringement of rights.
In an ideal world, yes, they are. I agree. But until our doctors aren't beholden to the government for their livelihoods and patient records are truly confidential, we have to deal with the system we have. I'd like nothing more than to get the government out of healthcare entirely, but until that happens, I have to look at things with a jaundiced eye.
“And because the panel majority is applying the general First Amendment test, its reasoning would set a precedent for many other restrictions. Indeed, the opinion validates many arguments that are already urged to restrict “hate speech,” justify campus speech codes and the like. Free speech being trumped by the supposed need to protect other constitutional rights — that’s exactly the argument given for restrictions on supposedly bigoted speech, on the theory that bigoted speech undermines the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...
(1) HIPAA, giving the Feds access to everyone's medical records, were repealed and a privacy right of the consumer in his records were accepted.
(2) The government stopped intentionally limiting the supply of doctors, so that they would have to compete enough to give consumers power.
So if you are on disability for bipolar disorder or depression you won't be buying a firearm and could easily land on the no-fly list.
How many acts of terror from either? Neglible or zero. How many from Islamic fanatics or schizophrenia? Quite a few, but those are political third rails, so we'll make ourselves feel better and go after someone on Lamictal or a CPAP machine or if they served in the military and have PTSD, declare the vet an enemy of the state.
It sounds ludicrous, but that is the legislation in place.
If we want to stop crime and terrorism, ask if they live in a crime prone neighborhood, are on public assistance, or affiliate with a radical Muslim mosque.
Load more comments...