Doctors *can* ask if you have guns in the house

[Heffay]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/15/w ... bout-guns/

I guess the law in Florida was unconstitutional after all. Or at least it has a temporary restraining order against it, and odds are it won't pass muster.

So if a doctor asks you, feel free to not answer. Or find another doctor. You know... let the invisible hand guide your actions.

[Hammer99...]

Hudson WI clinic asks if you have firearms in the home. I didn't answer. In fact I didn't answer a bunch of questions. Like, do I wear my seatbelt? If it doesn't help them treat me it's none of their business...

[justaguy]

There are few things people can ask you that are illegal and few insistences where not answering or lying are illegal.

[ricks8251]

Hudson WI clinic asks if you have firearms in the home. I didn't answer. In fact I didn't answer a bunch of questions. Like, do I wear my seatbelt? If it doesn't help them treat me it's none of their business...

I agree with 100%. Most people need to start asking themselfs before answering questions from people, Am I required to provide this information? and by who or what athority. .Gov can ask what ever they would like but it does not mean we are required to give an answer to many of these scocial engineering questions.

[cobb]

Hudson WI clinic asks if you have firearms in the home. I didn't answer. In fact I didn't answer a bunch of questions. Like, do I wear my seatbelt? If it doesn't help them treat me it's none of their business...

I just write "N/A".

I want to make it clear that I have read the question and determined it was not applicable to my visit.

[12smile]

This is a Hoot. Available here in public domain for printing and bringing to doctors office.

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/Fir ... 20Form.pdf


FIREARMS SAFETY COUNSELING REPRESENTATION:
PHYSICIAN QUALIFICATIONS AND LIABILITY
Part One: Qualifications
I affirm that I am certified to offer (Name of Patient: ), herineafter referred to as
"the Patient", qualified advice about firearms safety in the home, having received:
Specify Course(s) of Study:
_________________________________________________________________________
from:
Specify Institution(s)
_________________________________________________________________________
on:
Specify Course Completion Date(s):
_________________________________________________________________________
resulting in:
Specify Accreditation(s), Certification(s), License(s) etc.:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Check one, as appropriate:
___ I represent that I have reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of private
firearms ownership. I further represent that I have reviewed all other relevant home safety issues with the Patient, including those
relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks
for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools,
power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, etc. I also acknowledge, by receiving this document, I
have been made aware that, in his inaugural address before the American Medical Association on June 20, 2001, new president
Richard Corlin, MD, admitted "What we don't know about violence and guns is literally killing us...researchers do not have the data
to tell how kids get guns, if trigger locks work, what the warning signs of violence in schools and at the workplace are and other
critical questions due to lack of research funding." (UPI). In spite of this admission, I represent that I have sufficient data and
expertise to provide expert and clinically sound advice to patients regarding firearms in the home.
OR
___ I am knowingly engaging in Home/Firearms Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk
Management, and; I have not reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of
private firearms ownership.
Part Two: Liability
I have determined, from a review of my medical malpractice insurance, that if I engage in an activity for
which I am not certified, such as Firearms Safety Counseling, the carrier (check one, as appropriate):
___ will
___ will not
cover lawsuits resulting from neglect, lack of qualification, etc.
Insurance Carrier name, address and policy number insuring me for firearms safety expertise:
_________________________________________________________________________
I further warrant that, should the Patient follow my firearm safety counseling and remove from the home and/or disable firearms
with trigger locks or other mechanisms, and if the patient or a family member, friend or visitor is subsequently injured or killed as a
result of said removal or disabling, that my malpractice insurance and/or personal assets will cover all actual and punitive damages
resulting from a lawsuit initiated by the patient, the patient's legal reprerentative, or the patient's survivors.
Signature of attesting physician and date: __________________________________________________
Name of attesting physician (please print):__________________________________________________
Signature of patient and date: ____________________________________________________________
Name of patient (please print):____________________________________________________________
Patient: Indicate if physician "REFUSED TO SIGN." Have physician place a copy in your chart/medical record.
Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble
© 2000 by Joe Horn crowtalk@theriver.com
One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians
and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of
those new areas of liability exposure.
Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically
inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even removal of those
firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why
these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.
Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They
may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without
certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the
practice of medicine.
Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors,
garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning
chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks,
knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one
of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.
To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to
concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a
lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the
occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in
the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible
fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider
themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with
their patients?
Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice
insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.
Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:
• One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned
them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving
preventative advice about ll the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home
safety risk management? You know their answer.
• How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician
or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.
Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not
borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance
carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation
problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example,
E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.
Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and
liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them
entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm
available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't
arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk
Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.
It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's
advice.
Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state
that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no
longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home
defenseless against violent crime.
The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home
defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person
would have surmised.
If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising
patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it
is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.
It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve
counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political
issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is
considerable......
Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if
this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting. Among
other firms, he has consulted to IBM, Gates Learjet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.

[EllisW]

Unless the doctor is a trained and licensed firearms expert, they have no professional knowledge with which to make a judgment on my (potential) health based on whether or not I own a gun. That's unethical as (profanity filter) heck and, while I wouldn't go so far as to report them to an ethics committee, I'd certainly give the doctor a piece of my mind if (s)he gave me any guff about it.


That being said, living in Mayo Clinic City, it has never come up.

[ComradeBurg]

I never understood the purpose behind this law. First is sacrifices one right (freedom of speech) in the name of protecting another (right to keep and bear arms). Second the solution to this potential problem is easy, don't answer questions you don't want to answer. Instead of wasting time and effort passing and enforcing this law it would have been easier if people would have just realized that they're not required to answer questions.

[Heffay]

I never understood the purpose behind this law. First is sacrifices one right (freedom of speech) in the name of protecting another (right to keep and bear arms). Second the solution to this potential problem is easy, don't answer questions you don't want to answer. Instead of wasting time and effort passing and enforcing this law it would have been easier if people would have just realized that they're not required to answer questions.

There is something to the argument that when an authority figure asks you a question, there is a certain compulsion to answer it whether or not it is in your best interest.

They really have no business asking that question, short of anonymously for study (is the rate of death in a home with guns higher or lower than without?). But the whole violation of the First Amendment is just as troublesome.

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. It's annoying, but that's part of what we signed up for.

[EAJuggalo]

It's also not just you they are asking, they are asking your kids and anyone else that lives there. Kids are generally taught from a very young age to tell the Dr. everything they want to know. I don't see how it's a first amendment issue in a licensed and strictly regulated industry. There are many things in many other industries that those practitioners are not allowed to tell their clients and even many other things in Medicine.

[Northern Gal]

I'm sure you're all going to blast me for this, however, as a parent, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a pediatrician asking if there are guns in the house, and whether they are kept secure from the kids, any more than I would take issue with the pediatrician reminding me that my child should always wear a helmet when riding his bike. Kids rely on the adults in their lives to make sure they are safe, and it is a pediatrician's responsibility to look out for the total care and safety of each child that is his/her patient. In the ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with parents who are complete idiots and should never have reproduced; but in the real world, that isn't the case, and for some of these kids, the pediatrician is the only responsible adult these children see until they start school.

The question regarding guns and the subsequent reminder that they must be kept secure is not a judgement call by the physician, nor is it an opening to lecturing you about whether or not you should have guns in the house; if a physician took it to that level, there would be reason to bitch, and believe me I would! However, some of the responses I've seen on here take offense because the physician isn't a certified gun instructor; that isn't the point here. They are only asking questions to determine that you are responsible and are making sure that your child is living in a safe environment. Again, I see no problem with that.

Now, if MY physician were to ask me about whether or not I own a gun, that's a different story. I'm the only one responsible for my own safety, and if I'm stupid enough to handle my gun in an unsafe manner - one that results in me being hurt or killed - well, that's nature's way of weeding out the stupid. That's none of my physician's business before the fact!

[grousemaster]

I'm sure you're all going to blast me for this, however, as a parent, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a pediatrician asking if there are guns in the house, and whether they are kept secure from the kids, any more than I would take issue with the pediatrician reminding me that my child should always wear a helmet when riding his bike. Kids rely on the adults in their lives to make sure they are safe, and it is a pediatrician's responsibility to look out for the total care and safety of each child that is his/her patient. In the ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with parents who are complete idiots and should never have reproduced; but in the real world, that isn't the case, and for some of these kids, the pediatrician is the only responsible adult these children see until they start school.

The question regarding guns and the subsequent reminder that they must be kept secure is not a judgement call by the physician, nor is it an opening to lecturing you about whether or not you should have guns in the house; if a physician took it to that level, there would be reason to bitch, and believe me I would! However, some of the responses I've seen on here take offense because the physician isn't a certified gun instructor; that isn't the point here. They are only asking questions to determine that you are responsible and are making sure that your child is living in a safe environment. Again, I see no problem with that.

Now, if MY physician were to ask me about whether or not I own a gun, that's a different story. I'm the only one responsible for my own safety, and if I'm stupid enough to handle my gun in an unsafe manner - one that results in me being hurt or killed - well, that's nature's way of weeding out the stupid. That's none of my physician's business before the fact!

and I see no problem telling the doctor it's none of their business. Do these doctors also ask about a swimming pool, knives, poisonous materials, etc? Guns become the doctors business once someone gets shot and they have to fix them.....and not until then.

[Northern Gal]

quote]

and I see no problem telling the doctor it's none of their business. Do these doctors also ask about a swimming pool, knives, poisonous materials, etc? Guns become the doctors business once someone gets shot and they have to fix them.....and not until then.

Actually, pediatricians do ask about swimming pools, knives, poisonous materials, and many other hazards that have the potential to cause injury or death to children. They aren't just selecting guns to ask parents about, and they aren't interested - at least not in their roll as a physician - in taking away our Second Amendments rights.

[grousemaster]

quote]

and I see no problem telling the doctor it's none of their business. Do these doctors also ask about a swimming pool, knives, poisonous materials, etc? Guns become the doctors business once someone gets shot and they have to fix them.....and not until then.

Actually, pediatricians do ask about swimming pools, knives, poisonous materials, and many other hazards that have the potential to cause injury or death to children. They aren't just selecting guns to ask parents about, and they aren't interested - at least not in their roll as a physician - in taking away our Second Amendments rights.

the list of things that could potentially harm a child is quite long....I'm surprised they have the time to worry about it.

[Heffay]

What do they do with this information? Data collection can be extremely valuable. Is there a benefit to knowing overall? Is there a benefit to having responsible people with guns admit they have them? Lowers the number of negative gun incidents in homes with guns.