I haven't had a Doctor ask the question to me because of the State of Gun we live in.

A state law forbidding doctors from interrogating children without a parent or guardian present would have a better chance of passing Constitutional muster. As would a state law attempting to nullify the federal requirements. And neither of these laws would impinge on doctors' freedom of speech.

I agree with you that the FL law, being a reaction, is not the best that one can hope for in an ideal world. Ideally, or as has been practiced in the US for only a few years, the 10th Amendment would have prevented this activism by the federal government (and most other activisms). But we are way past that; FL cannot stop the federal juggernaut, so it reacted. Perhaps going to the Supreme Court and arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional... wait, they tried that already...

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.

I applaud the fact that you did not succumb to the anti-Second Amendment disease. Many doctors have, and are using their position as a pulpit. Even if not all cases get recorded and reported, the agenda is political and not related to healthcare (except, obviously, if someone has indications of being suicidal or homicidal). The government puts its tip in, gets the public used to the new norm, and then pushes further. The most villainous part here is when the gun ownership questions are pried from the children, which has been reported to have happened. This has also been happening in schools, with so called counselors asking these questions.

What will not work is a law similar to Florida’s. Even if upheld by the courts, it exposes the law’s proponents to charges of censorship, causes unfair hardship to doctors (who will now be in danger of losing their licenses regardless of what they do), reinforces the view that governments have the right to regulate the content of speech within the context of free market transactions, and is not an effective means of countering the government’s bias since it closes only one, relatively small avenue of propaganda.

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.

we do not directly send information to the ACA. The billing for counseling is nonspecific, except BMI/obesity measures which are sent. Not what we say just the %. if someone were to read my note the safety aspect would say" safety information provided guns, household bike helmets etc. ". The only time I would be more specific is if there was a direct risk suicide risk that had to be immediately addressed

My experience has been with large scale health records, like the VA. There, everything you say is recorded and can be used against you. For a small office, if you pass the information as part of ACA, e.g., bill for any time used for counseling, doesn't that go into the transmitted record? One thing to keep in mind is that the ACA was intended as a form of government control; not all control mechanisms were fully implemented and if it were allowed to fester, it would have metastasized and achieved full control. I think it is an error to look at the ACA and pick some useful parts; the entire device is malignant, intended on destroying whats left of the Constitution.

So what would be your solution if the federal government, exceeding its 10th A limitations, were to direct doctors to discuss Scientology, record your answers and keep it in its database? Oh, and the government were to have a specific bias towards Scientology.

No, but neither would a state law forbidding a doctor to talk about Scientology.

No one prevents any doctor from getting on a soap box, or getting on a tv show, or running a blog and speaking his or her mind. But not in a workplace, while on my time and my money, while devoting less useful time to the health issues at hand. Through political activism, Regressives have managed to label gun ownership as a supposed health risk, which has about as much credence as the Global Warming religion. If, for example, the government and professional associations pushed a Scientology agenda, would that be OK, in the name of free speech?

There's a big difference between government censoring speech between two adults in the free marketplace, and government (or any employer) setting out rules governing the conduct of its employees while on the job.

"evils of "volunteering" information"
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.

Not disagreeing that that the govt has no business in my exam room but we must be very specific in our discourse of what they are trying to do and sometimes doing vs all the time

" All healthcare records pass through government servers (mirrored onto them). Do you really think that the government will ask your permission to use the data that it already has access to?" last I checked i do not send any record information outside my enclosed server other than billing which does not indicate what I screen for as I own the practice and it is self contained.

Do you really believe that? OK, let's turn on logic here: The ACA requires doctors to ask gun related questions. The ACA is not concerned with patient safety. Why would the ACA require gun-related information to be collected? If you do, for a moment, believe that child safety is the driving force here, does the ACA require collection of information on patients' bathtubs and pools? (there are many more children drowning than dying due to accidental or suicidal use of guns). All healthcare records pass through government servers (mirrored onto them). Do you really think that the government will ask your permission to use the data that it already has access to? Do you really believe that any of our information is private and cannot and will not be accessed by an interested government entity?
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.

That the government seeks to make pawns of doctors is an egregious violation into their rights as well - I don't think anyone is debating that.

do understand you concern as this is also a battle for many physicians to remain autonomous with govt "quality concerns" as they so label it

keep in mind that the data on private servers is not sent to the govt. The insurance co may come and and look but most of time all they see is that it was discussed not the specifics

"I find nothing in the Objectivist theory of rights to support your assertion..."

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.

I have no doubts that many pediatricians approach this subject with the best intentions and the questions that you listed above are reasonable in some cases (it is amazing how dumb some parents are; some of them are not adults and will never be adults). However, the government agenda has nothing to do with safety, of the parents and the children, that is. Their agenda is something else entirely. In fact, the quote that I have shown, regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of firearms education, is one example of that agenda. Healthcare records, residing on government servers, is a backdoor to gun registration. I sure hope that no one here is so naive as to think that the government has no access to the information on its servers or that the government will ask the patient's or the doctor's permission to use that information.

Sure, ask Snowden how well the adjudication of government invasion of privacy works.

from a ped who is in private practice we screen for risk assessment eg do the parents have locks case etc as many parents do not teach the respect.or if teen has access who might be a suicide risk. This is how private peds view the situation in my areas. I grew up with guns and hunting as well and learned the respect aspect first unfortunately many parents do not teach that aspect

I find nothing in the Objectivist theory of rights to support your assertion that “a doctor has no right to ask these questions to their patients in the first place.” Especially since a doctor-patient relationship is consensual. Nor is any government entity entitled to define an “appropriate venue” for a discussion between two voluntarily interacting participants, or threaten removal of a doctor’s license for disobeying such an edict. This is true for the state of Florida as much as for the federal government.

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”.

Sorry, I must disagree with your definition of Free Speech. Free Speech does not mean anywhere at anytime. Federal government workers, for example, are routinely disallowed to discuss certain [hot] topics in their workplace. No one is complaining about free speech violations in those cases, since the argument is that those topics are not relevant to one's job and the person is not being paid to bullshit. Likewise, I pay my doctor for medical expertise, not political opinion.

If and when such events occur, they can be adjudicated just like any other invasions of privacy. They do not constitute justification for setting aside the First Amendment rights of all doctors.