rcdavis Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The new executive orders by obama include the assertion that it is a physicians job to inquire and record on the EMR ( where, oh I guess any government agency which wants, or insurer which wants, can get easy access) the presence of guns in the home, and where those guns are located. The pediatric academy and your president somehow take offense to anyone's exercising what is a national RIGHT. Unless there is a reason connected to the patients current visit( suicidal, homicidal, psychotic, ), I do not see gun ownership as a medical issue... And do not desire being asked to act as a police force. What's next? Porno? ( they will have to grasp that playboy from my cold dead hand...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2305 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The question is how many of us are packing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Steve Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The well child form in the clinic as had that question in it for quite some time. It asks "firearms in the house? Are they secured safely" in the same question block asking about bicycle helmets, child seats, smoke detectors...it is there as a prompt to engage a discussion about kids and firearm safety. This clinic is in rural Washington and most of our clients hunt. I see the parent one day for their back pain after elk hunting, then the next week for their kid's well child. When I ak about guns, they simply say no, no guns in the house. I just assume they borrowed that hunting rifle and leave it at that. Feds don't mandate that patients have to tell the truth any more than they will be doing spot checks to see if the question was asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsfelder0417 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Unless they are a clear danger, i'm leaving guns alone. I firmly believe in gun rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_me Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Asking if there is a gun in the home is denying someones rights? You may not see them for a psychiatric issue, but the provider requesting records from you might.... **added** and before anyone jumps on my case, I have no plans to have a gun in my home, but if my neighbors want to have legally obtained firearms with proper permits that's their choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 If you read the actual executive order summary, it doesn't in anyway force any healthcare provider to ask these questions. Here is what it says: "16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I see he got around to the start of disarming law abiding citizens. Be glad when he gets around to disarming criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I see he got around to the start of disarming law abiding citizens.Be glad when he gets around to disarming criminals. I am a gun owning law abiding citizen. How do the recently announced executive orders in anyway disarm me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Personally, I have NO problem asking questions about ownership in the context of safety. I work in mental health and actively seek to keep firearms OUT of the hands of MOST of my patients. One GLARING problem I see is the emphasis on inanimate objects (GUNS)... Why not put all/most of that focus on Mental Health...??? Where is the presidential task force led by the VP on access to mental health services...??? We all don't own firearms, but we do all have mental healthcare issues/concerns. I am a gun owning law abiding citizen. How do the recently announced executive orders in anyway disarm me? Re-read what I wrote. Focus on the word "START".... Then wait for it... its coming. The law, defined an assault weapon as "any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Does anyone have a more detailed text from the executive order? Inquiring about gun ownership is not a violation of rights And there are other rights we exercise that we question/counsel pts about or is this a slippery slope concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Re-read what I wrote.Focus on the word "START".... Then wait for it... its coming. You, being a PA and all, seem like you would be a reasonable person. Someone who values evidence and a discriminating perspective in recognizing facts. But what is it about this issue that brings out the paranoia and hyperbole in people? People need to remember that whatever legislation that may be proposed has to pass both houses of Congress. There is no way any new sweeping gun control laws that actually disarm the public (as some of the more paranoid have suggested) would ever pass in the Republican-controlled House. Just won't happen. The numbers are not there. They don't even have the numbers to reenact the 1994 Assault Weapons ban (a terrible law to begin with.) If anything did pass, it would have to be so watered down anyway that it wouldn't really affect anybody. As it is, every single piece of proposed legislation that has been announced has grandfather provisions for all existing firearms and magazines. That's right. We all get to keep our arsenals. This means that law abiding citizens have no reason to fear any sweeping policy of disarmament or confiscation. I am not a psychic. I have never met our President. I don't have some magical window into the scary soul of our President nor do I profess to know his secret shadowy nefarious plans. I have to go off of what has actually been presented and what is politically possible. Back to the subject of public health, I have been asked and have no problem with any healthcare provider asking about gun safety just as I have no issue with them asking about pools or car seats. At the end of the day, we are all trying to promote health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Personally, I have NO problem asking questions about ownership in the context of safety. I work in mental health and actively seek to keep firearms OUT of the hands of MOST of my patients. One GLARING problem I see is the emphasis on inanimate objects (GUNS)... Why not put all/most of that focus on Mental Health...??? Where is the presidential task force led by the VP on access to mental health services...??? We all don't own firearms, but we do all have mental healthcare issues/concerns. Here is the list of 23 areas covered in the forthcoming Executive Orders: 1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 11. Nominate an ATF director. 12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. Notice how none of them disarm anybody. Also notice how many of them (20-23) are indeed focused on mental health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToppDog Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 ...what is it about this issue that brings out the paranoia and hyperbole in people? Understanding history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Notice how none of them disarm anybody. Also notice how many of them (20-23) are indeed focused on mental health. Again... not everyone owns a firearm but we all own brains... so Notice how mental health care isn't the priority... Illinois generally and Chicago specifically, was VERY successful in disarming "Law Abiding" citizens (Can't own a Gun in Chicago unless you are Law Enforcement or the MAyor's Cronny)... but is still often the Murder Capitol of the USA. Also... with all you think you know about legislature and such required to disarm the citizens, had you considered that some of us lived in places (Illinois/DC/NY) with the strictest gun control laws in place for decades... but these places regularly ranked in the top 5 "murder capitols" of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathwizard Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I carry my Biceps/big guns everywhere doc lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Again... not everyone owns a firearm but we all own brains... so Notice how mental health care isn't the priority... What more would you suggest the independent Executive do for mental health? Sure, more needs to be done, but any large scale funded policy will require legislative support. These executive orders are a first step and hopefully not the complete picture. Illinois generally and Chicago specifically, was VERY successful in disarming "Law Abiding" citizens (Can't own a Gun in Chicago unless you are Law Enforcement or the MAyor's Cronny)... but is still often the Murder Capitol of the USA. That is a state and local issue. We are talking about federal policy here. Also, yes you can own a gun in Chicago. I have a few shooting friends from Chicago. All they had to do was get a background check, get a firearms ID card, license, and register their firearm. Also... with all you think you know about legislature and such required to disarm the citizens, had you considered that some of us lived in places (Illinois/DC/NY) with the strictest gun control laws in place for decades... but these places regularly ranked in the top 5 "murder capitols" of the USA. Somalia has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive laws and enforcement yet they also have an unbelievably high murder rate. The point? Correlation does not equal causation. These are complex issues that are difficult to solve. They involve culture, health, socio-economics, population density, class, and yes... guns. But these issues are made even more difficult to address when normally level heads give in to paranoia and hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Does anyone have a more detailed text from the executive order?Inquiring about gun ownership is not a violation of rights And there are other rights we exercise that we question/counsel pts about or is this a slippery slope concern Matt, of course, asking anything does not infringe, nor violate a right. Is a slippery slope. The progressive movement here is to lay, or firm up a foundation previous laid. Seems innocuous, lie " for the safety of children" until... You look at JustMe's noting that "another provider requesting your records..." might find that information .... And then realize that with the ACO and HIPPA, governmental agencies are not prohibited from looking at any part of the EMR.. And can gather any information, screen any data they want from the record ( I believe that data analysis was one of the ACO's more 'exciting' features for those folks who liked it... They naively assume that te government always has your best interest at heart.. Never its own we'll being..). The government may not, I maintain, want to know who has a gun in the home for "psychiatric safety reasons". I maintain it more likely that it is a first step to them trying to disarm the people... Much easier to disarm those who you know have weapons than going searching for it... In that sense, it is a threat to a right. And on a different level, I do not think it is my job to invade the home and lifestyle of my patients, unless it pertains to the scope of the visit. I do not ask patients their sexual orientation, unless it is directly pertain able to a visit... And you have been in the game long enough when the emphasis, in response to HIV/AIDS was to do just that.. " so we can build a profile of those patients that may need special counselling, screeing and safety considerations". Sound familiar. Looking at the executive orders in total, they are EXTREMELY dangerous to our liberties. They will make the Patriot Act look like a bill of rights. Their danger in implicit in the vagueness... They are creating a multifaceted platform of general guidelines which very soon after will be enforced, with teeth. It may be I am unable to be impartial in matters Obama. But in fairness to myself, I hated the patriot act also. I am not against family doctors wanting to assess the general safety of their patients.. And I guess you can include home life and style determination in that effort " does your husband beat you? "how much do you drink, do drugs, screw around? " do your kids help around he farm? Etc But I am EXTREMELY hesitant to record these answers... Feeling as I do that what I write in the record is no longer a note to myself helping me recall the salient history taken between me and the patient, ... What I write is being read by TENS if not HUNDREDS of faceless people, ... Computers searching for phrases... Insurance companies... If JustMe wants my records to assess psychiatric risk, he does so because he does not believe the answers he is getting from the patient... Or, he is too lazy to ask the questions himself, or -worse yet- he isn't seeing the patient at all, but wants to know how many gun owners live in zip code 29732 as part of a masters thesis, or a police screening in response to a firefight situation... See where this all goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemegroup Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Well, if the patient is suicidal and/or homicidal then I would hope that it would be an obvious point of concern. 'Do you have the means', right? And yes, guns in the house has been a standard question in my Peds exam since my first Peds preceptor had it on his checklist sheet. The leading cause of death in children related to firearms is their finding guns which aren't locked up and/or don't have the safety on. See where THAT goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 That is a state and local issue. We are talking about federal policy here. Also, yes you can own a gun in Chicago. I have a few shooting friends from Chicago. All they had to do was get a background check, get a firearms ID card, license, and register their firearm. Urrrr... I was born and raised IN Chicago .. and until recently (June 2010 supreme court fight) getting a FOI Card was near impossible. And its been this way for 28 yrs... So for those of us who actually lived there (not what we heard from "friends") ... there was a BAN on gun ownership for more than 28yrs in the city with the HIGHEST murder rate. So acting like it can't happen is ... ummm... silly. U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively, and instantly, shot down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. The opinion, issued by a narrow 5-4 majority, said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a handgun for self-defense, a decision that overrides state and municipal restrictions. Otis McDonald, a South Side septuagenarian and the namesake plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, was among several local petitioners in the suit sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association. McDonald argued he had the right to protect himself and his family in his Morgan Park neighborhood, which he described as crime ridden.“The number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year [2010] equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq,” justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 Well, if the patient is suicidal and/or homicidal then I would hope that it would be an obvious point of concern. 'Do you have the means', right? And yes, guns in the house has been a standard question in my Peds exam since my first Peds preceptor had it on his checklist sheet. The leading cause of death in children related to firearms is their finding guns which aren't locked up and/or don't have the safety on. See where THAT goes? Yup, I do. So ask it, if you decide your role is to be The shield of safety for kids. And ask whether or not there are pediphiles, alcoholics, drug addicts in the home. Two issues, the nanny state mentality of doing this, and The recording of having done it. If you do ask it, I would suggest keeping it off te official record... After all, if it is only for you and your zeal in protecting kids ( either parent ever had a DUI?), then merely keeping that info off he official record impedes.. Who? The answer is of course whomever it is that really wants the data.. The American academy of pediatrics, and any governmental organization which may decide this info warrants "prophylactic action" Got a swimming pool? Use sharp knives in the kitchen? How many hours a day is tv watched? Any climbing of trees? Where does it stop? Again.. Two issues: nanny doctors and Nanny doctor documentation. The first, tho intrusive, can be acceptable if the interest is truly and solely imparting safety info to the family, and not acting as a police state, or trying to enforce anything... The second is fraught with danger from the state. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 Urrrr... I was born and raised IN Chicago .. and until recently (June 2010 supreme court fight) getting a FOI Card was near impossible. And its been this way for 28 yrs... So for those of us who actually lived there (not what we heard from "friends") ... there was a BAN on gun ownership for more than 28yrs in the city with the HIGHEST murder rate. So acting like it can't happen is ... ummm... silly. . And I believe both ,MCDONALD and heller in dc have YET to be allowed their permits and or gun ownership. Interesting, all police retires and politician cronies, have no difficulty owning and carrying. Somehow, the existence of a legal gun in the hands of a legal gun owner/ citizen is interpreted by the Police as somehow a threat to them personally. Btw, if there were no legal gun ownership in Chicago ( as was the case), why do the police and government retires need to be packing? Typically progressive, liberals... " we rule . The rules don't apply to us. You are the ruled. What we say rules. You." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68W2PA Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 And I believe both ,MCDONALDand heller in dc have YET to be allowed their permits and or gun ownership. Interesting, all police retires and politician cronies, have no difficulty owning and carrying. Somehow, the existence of a legal gun in the hands of a legal gun owner/ citizen is interpreted by the Police as somehow a threat to them personally. Btw, if there were no legal gun ownership in Chicago ( as was the case), why do the police and government retires need to be packing? Typically progressive, liberals... " we rule . The rules don't apply to us. You are the ruled. What we say rules. You." McDonald was a gun owner. He owned multiple shotguns and was a hunter. The issue was over the prohibition of handguns, not all firearms or guns as your previous posts implied. And in DC, one was able to own shotguns and rifles, but the law required gun locks or the weapon to be disassembled and unloaded. The SCOTUS ruled both were too restrictive. Regulation is OK, but states and localities have to walk a fine line to not result in a functional prohibition. If anything, instead of fearing some fascistic federal confiscation program, you should recognize that nothing is really going to change on the federal level. The reality is that different states and localities will have different needs. The needs of Montana will not be the same as the needs of New York and the democratic process will do its thing. But relax... if you don't like Chicago's rules, you are free to move somewhere more in tune with your shooting preferences. And as for those evil progressives trying to take your guns... I live in Portland, OR - quite possibly the most liberal progressive city in the country. We also have relatively relaxed gun laws and are even allowed to get ATF stamps for automatic weapons and suppressors. There are annual machine gun shoots not far from where I live on public land of all things. It is a great city and state for firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 McDonald was a gun owner. He owned multiple shotguns and was a hunter. The issue was over the prohibition of handguns, not all firearms or guns as your previous posts implied.And in DC, one was able to own shotguns and rifles, but the law required gun locks or the weapon to be disassembled and unloaded. The SCOTUS ruled both were too restrictive. Regulation is OK, but states and localities have to walk a fine line to not result in a functional prohibition. If anything, instead of fearing some fascistic federal confiscation program, you should recognize that nothing is really going to change on the federal level. The reality is that different states and localities will have different needs. The needs of Montana will not be the same as the needs of New York and the democratic process will do its thing. But relax... if you don't like Chicago's rules, you are free to move somewhere more in tune with your shooting preferences. And as for those evil progressives trying to take your guns... I live in Portland, OR - quite possibly the most liberal progressive city in the country. We also have relatively relaxed gun laws and are even allowed to get ATF stamps for automatic weapons and suppressors. There are annual machine gun shoots not far from where I live on public land of all things. It is a great city and state for firearms. Sorry I wasn't more clear. McDonald's, and chicago's, isissue is, and always was of course handguns. I understand this, and was referring to the handguns and carry laws. my statement otherwise stands. Dc police seem to take it as a personal jihad that citizens should not be armed ( as the recent case of the marine driving into dc with ammo, locked, in his trunk, and being arrested, can attest.) Nice to see there are some progressive/liberals which agree with gun ownership. Honest men can disagree. My suspicion is that, underlaying all liberalism is a form of socialism in the least, and an unfettered need for more government and "mother may I" mentality. The reaction of liberals to my suspicions about the government speaks for itself.. Liberals love government, restrictions and think the government provides rights... Which in my philosophy, it does not. WE have these rights to protect us FROM the government. I do not think you should be "allowed"... I believe it is your RIGHT... Of course, where you are progressive leaning towards socialism, I am antigovernment, leaning towards anarchy. For us there will be little middle ground. I should not have to "move" in order to keep my rights of citizenship. Or should I? Do I have less rights in Chicago than in Montana???? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMPA Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 well maybe the provider requesting records should go ask the patient themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMPA Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Abortion kills and has killed more defenseless children than all the shootings combined. And yet it is promoted and considered a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.