1984 Update

[robeiae]

Okay, so some time ago, I started a thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79979). It was about doctors asking questions of child-patients re the habits of parents. Please note the first response.

Now today, I took my daughter in to see a doctor that she had never seen before. Her original doctor--that she's had since birth--is just too far away to justify going there, what with her, her brother, and the baby. This doctor came highly recommended and is outrageously close by.

So in we went. The nurse saw us first and it being our first time there, she informed us that she would need to ask us(my daughter) some questions. Now I was right there, within earshot, since she was doing this at a station, not in an exam room.

One of the questions was--ready?--"are there any unlocked guns in your house?"

It's built in to the questionnaire!!!

Is this really the business of a pediatrician's office? And what happens if my daughter says "yes"? Do they refuse to see her? Report me to some secret organization? Add my name to a database?

ETA: And for those that must know, the only gun in my house is my grandfather's shotgun, in a locked trunk in the attic. And there isn't a single shell in the house.

[TerzaRima]

Report me to some secret organization?

The first rule of Leftie Quacks Against Your Second Amendment Rights is that no one talks about Leftie....never mind.

Anyway, breathe into a paper bag. If you had answered yes, you would have gotten a short pep talk about keeping the guns locked up, unloaded. Because you do run into the odd knuckledragger who doesn't understand that guns aren't coffee table knickknacks.

Golly. It's on the same questionnaire with things like "does kid wear bike helmet" and "does kid watch more than two hours of TV a day."

[Joe270]

This is really scary stuff, Rob.

There is no way that this can be legal.

[benbradley]

I remember that other thread, I vaguely recall hearing something about the AMA suggesting doctors do this. I probably heard it from Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com) or read about it on his "nuze" (daily show notes/blog), but I can't find anything about it on his site.

I did a more general search and found this concerning the AMA and guns:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/5/201025.shtml

If they really want to save lives, they should ask if there's a teenager in the house who drives a car, and other questions such as "How often do you ride in the car when the teenager is driving?" I have no doubt asking THOSE questions will prevent more injuries and save more lives than asking about guns.

Gee, looks like I killed that other thread with my other Hobby Horse, I hope my mention of teen driving doesn't kill this one...

ETA: I might as well share my Secret Search Strings (not surprisingly, conservatives are writing a lot about this):
http://www.google.com/search?q=AMA+asking+children+about+guns
(newsmax link above is first result)
http://www.google.com/search?q=doctors+child+question+gun
(second result is conservative writer Michelle Malkin piping in)

[Plot Device]

How old is your daughter, Rob?


And what is the age-cut-off for even asking such questions of a child?

[Joe270]

Can't we sue these doctors for invasion of privacy?

It's none of their business how much I drink, or if I have a thousand weapons in my home. I'm not their patient, my child is.

So are they gonna have kids turn in their parents for smoking marijuana?

[Don]

Academy Award for most accurate thread title goes to rob. :Trophy:

Joe, they've been asking about drugs at school for a while now. Read the thread rob pointed to. The story about a young child learning eggs=drugs will scare you to death if you have young children. It freaked me out, and I rarely even see a small child. :D

[TerzaRima]

So are they gonna have kids turn in their parents for smoking marijuana?


You know it. Also for eating fast food every night. And if I find a kid who says his parents watch porn, I have me a hat trick and I will call the social worker who will probably yank that little cherub into a foster home.

All this is pretty eye opening. Talking of privacy and such, I propose that police no longer ticket drivers who don't have little kids in car seats or who bump down the road with a bunch of kids bobbling up and down in the truck bed. It's nobody's damn business what I do in my car with my kid.

[Plot Device]

Back in the mid-1980's, which was when sexual abuse was getting its initial attention by social workers, educators and healthcare profesionals, there was NOT YET such a thing as Pull-Ups (disopsable underwear for young school-aged children). Meanwhile, there was a five year old girl who still wet the bed at night, so her mother helped her daughter with actual diapers every night and every morning.

This little girl was asked by the doctor: "Does Mommy ever touch your private parts?" to which the little girl replied "Yes." And Mommy next got a visit from Social Services.

[MacAllister]

Speaking as a Leftie Quack - I find that completely outrageous, Rob. Gahhhhhh.

Maybe I'll make a Quaker Libertarian, yet.

[TerzaRima]

she informed us that she would need to ask us(my daughter) some questions.

Okay, I goofed and missed this part. I agree that they have no right to ask your daughter about your habits, and I've never seen anybody do screenings that way. But I do think they have the right to ask you.

[Don]

Speaking as a Leftie Quack - I find that completely outrageous, Rob. Gahhhhhh.

Maybe I'll make a Quaker Libertarian, yet.
I always knew there was hope for you, Mac. :Hug2:

I was a leftie in my youth, and then I realized that government is horribly incompetent at anything it does, and the vast majority of people running it have no interest in the 'general welfare.' I guess you could say I'm a pragmatic libertarian. :)

[maxmordon]

When I was applying for a US tourist Visa, some of the next questions were made:

Are you or were you a member of the Nazi Party?

Are you or were you a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organization?

Are you planning on smuggling drugs from/to the United States of America?

[Alpha Echo]

Can't we sue these doctors for invasion of privacy?

It's none of their business how much I drink, or if I have a thousand weapons in my home. I'm not their patient, my child is.

So are they gonna have kids turn in their parents for smoking marijuana?

Yup. My husband recently went to a doc's office for the first time and was asked:

How much do you drink and how often?

Do you do drugs and if so which ones and how often?

Do you work out? What types of workouts? How often? How intense?

Are you married or single?

Are you gay or straight?

He refused to answer. His point was it's none of their business - unless say for instance, his liver is bad. Then, they need to know that he drinks a lot. (He doesn't at all, I'm just making a point). But the gay and straight? Working out? I get that they want to know how healthy you are, but how about waiting until there's a heart problem or a liver problem or an obesity problem before asking some of those questions, and some of them are just plain unnecessary ever.

[Ageless Stranger]

When I was applying for a US tourist Visa, some of the next questions were made:

Are you or were you a member of the Nazi Party?

Are you or were you a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organization?

Are you planning on smuggling drugs from/to the United States of America?


I wonder how they'd react if you said yes?

'Are you or were you a member of the Nazi Party?'

'Yes, you have have caught me. I am Adolf Hitler and I have been living in Germany under the name Joe Kerr."

Questioner blinks. 'Seriously?'

'Of course not, you stupid prat. I'm Osama Bin Laden and I'm here to sell heroin to your children."

[robeiae]

How old is your daughter, Rob?Ten.


And what is the age-cut-off for even asking such questions of a child?
I have no idea.

[robeiae]

Okay, I goofed and missed this part. I agree that they have no right to ask your daughter about your habits, and I've never seen anybody do screenings that way. But I do think they have the right to ask you.
Why? What business is it of my daughter's or my doctor if I own a gun?

[Stew21]

My kids' Pediatrician has a similar questionnaire. When my boys went in for physicals before the school year, they were both asked about guns in the house (Are there any guns in the house?" and then asked "Are they locked up?". I was startled to say the least. My husband is a hunter and the guns are always unloaded and locked away. the kids wouldn't even know where to find a gun.
Here is the list (somewhat) of what they asked - how much milk they drink, what kind of food do they eat, do they have bikes, do they wear helmets when they ride their bikes, do they sit in a car seat or booster seat in the car, in the back seat, do we have an escape plan in case of fire, do we practice it, do they ever go outside alone, have they taken swimming lessons, are there any guns in the house, and are they locked up.

My kids are 5 and 3 years old. when asked about how much milk they drink - are they really going to know the answer - they asked what kind of milk - pink, red or blue lid on the milk. If they want to know what kind of milk I'm giving my children, and if they are eating their vegetables, they should ask me. Not a three year old. They don't know if guns are locked up. they don't even know where they are (not in the house btw - locked in a gun cabinet in the garage - ammunition locked in a separate location) not to mention if they are locked up.

[Joe270]

'Of course not, you stupid prat. I'm Osama Bin Laden and I'm here to sell heroin to your children."

:roll:


Hey, wait a minute, ya don't think Bin Laden is hanging out in Key West, do you? I'd imagine hiding in the US Federal bureaucracy would be better than hiding in caves in Pakistan. I can see it now:

"Mr. Amaso Nib Nedal?"

"Yes, Infid. . .informed official?"

"Country of Origin?"

"Norvay. Vee haf som weery nice fjords dere."

[cethklein]

I feel the Leftie Quacks are getting a bad rap here. We all know this is the work of the Bavarian Illuminati.

[kuwisdelu]

Talk about taking proactive too far. >_<

Although, unless anyone is suggesting that the AMA is some secret liberal front group, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with Leftie Quacks. Yeah, conservatives are more vocal in their anger about it, but I think it's a bit too far, too.

Yup. My husband recently went to a doc's office for the first time and was asked:

How much do you drink and how often?

Do you do drugs and if so which ones and how often?

Do you work out? What types of workouts? How often? How intense?

Are you married or single?

Are you gay or straight?

He refused to answer. His point was it's none of their business - unless say for instance, his liver is bad. Then, they need to know that he drinks a lot. (He doesn't at all, I'm just making a point). But the gay and straight? Working out? I get that they want to know how healthy you are, but how about waiting until there's a heart problem or a liver problem or an obesity problem before asking some of those questions, and some of them are just plain unnecessary ever.

I think that's pretty different, though. I can understand if it's a routine check-up (which, ok, it probably was), but if there's something actually, these kinds of things become pretty important for diagnosis. (Not to mention, for argument's sake, even if it were just a regular check-up, it could be just as important for prevention's sake, letting the doctor know certain things to check for.)

When you *are* the patient, it's a different story. When it comes to things that are related to medicine, as these things are, it's important to ask these questions. Doctors don't give a shit about trying to get you arrested if you're a druggie--that's not their job. And there are thousands of confounding variables that can relate to medicine in far more ways than we lay people assume. Drinking can mean many more things to a doctor than liver problems. Yes, even married or single, gay or straight, suggests different risks of things that may be important when you least expect it.

[benbradley]

You know it. Also for eating fast food every night. And if I find a kid who says his parents watch porn, I have me a hat trick and I will call the social worker who will probably yank that little cherub into a foster home.
That's another thing too, there are many horror stories of anonymous (not to the agencies, but the ID of those who make the allegations are protected) and false allegations of abuse, and the invasion of state-paid social workers into the home with the authority to decide whether the child is taken from the home.

How old is your daughter, Rob?


And what is the age-cut-off for even asking such questions of a child?
I presume the cutoff age that they would stop asking such questions of "children" is 18.

[LaceWing]

Considering the backlash, this seems to work too much against pro-active children's health care. Good intentions wielded by very heavy hands. Which I foresee being justified further with national health coverage.

[Don]

Considering the backlash, this seems to work too much against pro-active children's health care. Good intentions wielded by very heavy hands. Which I foresee being justified further with national health coverage.
There's nothing to keep them from slowly modifying the healthcare system if it's nationalized.

"Well, Mr. Jones, you realize that smoking is dangerous, and we have to think of everything. That new $10,000 per year surcharge on smokers is more than fair, it was voted for, afterall."

"Gee, Mr. Smith, your body fat ratio's too high. You'll have to lose 15 pounds by your next exam, or you'll be assessed the fatty penalty, $5000 a year."

Nah, it could never happen here.

[benbradley]

There's nothing to keep them from slowly modifying the healthcare system if it's nationalized.

"Well, Mr. Jones, you realize that smoking is dangerous, and we have to think of everything. That new $10,000 per year surcharge on smokers is more than fair, it was voted for, afterall."

"Gee, Mr. Smith, your body fat ratio's too high. You'll have to lose 15 pounds by your next exam, or you'll be assessed the fatty penalty, $5000 a year."

Nah, it could never happen here.
Well, just in case, it's been anticipated for a while - I forget when I first saw this video, but it was several years ago (I'll make the link big so you can see it):

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/


ETA: The text to the right looks a bit ironic to me (it's probably five years old): " ... The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society." But it's Obama and a Democratic Congress that's more likely to bring this to pass with national healthcare.

ETA again: To try to date the thing, I found these references to the video from August 2004:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0809-07.htm
and October 2004:
http://fairfaxcountyprivacycouncil.org/Alert20045.html.htm

ETA a third time: An earlier text version found on the Usenet newsgroup rec.humor.funny from April 2004:
"A Glimpse Into The Future...."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.humor.funny/msg/93dbc8d33ebc5ce8?pli=1

[Bartholomew]

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/


The minute there was a hiccup in the system, they'd be unable to sell you something. That's not a good business plan.

[donroc]

Well, just in case, it's been anticipated for a while - I forget when I first saw this video, but it was several years ago (I'll make the link big so you can see it):

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/


ETA: The text to the right looks a bit ironic to me (it's probably five years old): " ... The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society." But it's Obama and a Democratic Congress that's more likely to bring this to pass with national healthcare.

ETA again: To try to date the thing, I found these references to the video from August 2004:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0809-07.htm
and October 2004:
http://fairfaxcountyprivacycouncil.org/Alert20045.html.htm

ETA a third time: An earlier text version found on the Usenet newsgroup rec.humor.funny from April 2004:
"A Glimpse Into The Future...."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.humor.funny/msg/93dbc8d33ebc5ce8?pli=1

The Last Enemy recently shown in our area on Masterpiece Theater dealt with possible total surveillance -- a microchip implant that allows the computers and monotors know exactly where you are and what you are doing 24/7.

[Don]

Well, just in case, it's been anticipated for a while - I forget when I first saw this video, but it was several years ago (I'll make the link big so you can see it):

Thanks for finding that. I thought of it after I posted the message above. Glad you found it, it's worth a laugh, sort of.

[Don]

The minute there was a hiccup in the system, they'd be unable to sell you something. That's not a good business plan.
Since when has that prevented government from doing whatever they decide to do? :roll:

[TerzaRima]

Since when has that prevented government from doing whatever they decide to do?

There's always a plan B. (http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php)

[rugcat]

Unlocked guns in the house are considered a health hazard to children. That's the point of the question. If you ask that question of parents, they'll lie.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's the rationale.Yup. My husband recently went to a doc's office for the first time and was asked:

How much do you drink and how often?

Do you do drugs and if so which ones and how often?

Do you work out? What types of workouts? How often? How intense?

Are you married or single?

Are you gay or straight?

All of these questions relate to health, and to help interpret test results. If the levels in the liver of a non drinker are elevated, it may signify something different than the same levels that are seen in a heavy drinker, and point in different directions.

If you are gay, you are at an increased risk for AIDS. If you've had a heart attack, anal sex (recipient) may cause dangerous heart rhythm irregularities.

All these questions are intrusive, but they're all directed toward health concerns, nothing more. If you choose not to answer them, that's your choice, but there's no point in getting offended.

[astonwest]

Just wait until they start asking questions like:

Have your parents ever made you feel bad about yourself?

Have your parents ever raised their voices in the house?

[Joe270]

All these questions are intrusive, but they're all directed toward health concerns, nothing more. If you choose not to answer them, that's your choice, but there's no point in getting offended.

Sure, there's no reason to get offended if Child Services comes knocking on your door. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother you.

Sure. Nothing whatsoever to get bothered about.

Like Don said, it can't happen here, so why wonder about what might happen with this sort of invasion of privacy gets mixed into a government funded health care plan?

Nothing to get bothered about.

[TerzaRima]

It's darn lucky, then, that Child Protective Services workers have such a low case-to-staff ratio that they can sit around twiddling their thumbs until people call them about a gun in somebody's attic. That's like a basket of puppies and Christmas morning for social workers.

[rugcat]

Sure, there's no reason to get offended if Child Services comes knocking on your door. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother you.

Sure. Nothing whatsoever to get bothered about.

Like Don said, it can't happen here, so why wonder about what might happen with this sort of invasion of privacy gets mixed into a government funded health care plan?

Nothing to get bothered about.Do you think asking a child ,"how did you get that broken arm Billy" is intrusive? Why not just ask the parents? What business is it of the doctor's how billy broke it. Just treat the damn thing. Next thing you know, CPS will be sticking their noses in asking about all those old bruises.

[mscelina]

"Do you have a gun in the house?" is only useful for diagnosis if the kid shows up with a bullet wound. As most children don't present with bullet wounds for annual checkups, I fail to see how such a question could provide useful medical information.

[Joe270]

Do you think asking a child ,"how did you get that broken arm Billy" is intrusive? Why not just ask the parents? What business is it of the doctor's how billy broke it. Just treat the damn thing. Next thing you know, CPS will be sticking their noses in asking about all those old bruises.

The difference, Rugcat, is that the kid has a broken arm, not a healthy kid going in for a check-up and getting grilled on firearms in the home, alcohol consumed by parents, etc.

One is a reaction to an injury, the other is some nanny state crap to preempt some 'possible' injury to the child.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it takes a village to raise a child. Us parents aren't allowed to do that any longer.

[Bartholomew]

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it takes a village to raise a child.

Children creches have their value. But parents have more. CPS could become a very bad thing if they were suddenly allowed access to any information. Somethings just sound worse than they are, especially since children are capable of being bluntly inarticulate.

"Does your father ever touch you?" She asks, meaning something horrible the child has no idea about.

"Yes," the child responds, thinking of when he gets tickles.

The possible horror scenarios for this are close to endless.

[rugcat]

The difference, Rugcat, is that the kid has a broken arm, not a healthy kid going in for a check-up and getting grilled on firearms in the home, alcohol consumed by parents, etc.

One is a reaction to an injury, the other is some nanny state crap to preempt some 'possible' injury to the child.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it takes a village to raise a child. Us parents aren't allowed to do that any longer.I'm not unsympathetic to your viewpoint. It's just that I've seen so many parents who are abusive and totally unfit to have kids. Or dogs, for that matter.

If you are a good, or even halfway decent parent, most likely your friends are as well. That's the paradigm you see, what you think of when you think of parents and children. And the idea of the state even questioning your abilities and decisions is enraging.

But that's not the way it is for many, many kids. Some merely have any chance for a normal life destroyed, others are in actual danger. Somebody has to look out for these kids -- they are voiceless and powerless, and however imperfectly the state does this, they're the only ones who can.

[cethklein]

I'm not unsympathetic to your viewpoint. It's just that I've seen so many parents who are abusive and totally unfit to have kids. Or dogs, for that matter.

If you are a good, or even halfway decent parent, most likely your friends are as well. That's the paradigm you see, what you think of when you think of parents and children. And the idea of the state even questioning your abilities and decisions is enraging.

But that's not the way it is for many, many kids. Some merely have any chance for a normal life destroyed, others are in actual danger. Somebody has to look out for these kids -- they are voiceless and powerless, and however imperfectly the state does this, they're the only ones who can.

Agreed. Also, let's face it, CPS and DFACS aren't exactly threats even to those who do abuse kids. So I wouldn't worry too much about them showing up on your doorstep. My former neighbor regularly beat the shit out of her four year old daughter. I could hear it right through the walls of my apartment. You know what DFACS told me when I reported it? "We're sorry, but unless the child is taken to the hospital, there's nothing we can do."

Seriously.

I told them "listen, I've heard the abuse, I've seen the bruises on the little girl. I watched the woman drag her out the door by her hair." Their response: "It doesn't mater. Until the police see it or she's taken to a hospital, it doesn't matter." In other words, they'll give a shit when the little girl is dead or severely wounded. DFACS and CPS are two of the most worthless organizations in existence. They make the Securities and Exchamge Commission look useful.

[SC Harrison]

How very ironic. We Lefties have been complaining about the Bush administration engaging in warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, dismissal of habeas, the exemption of the Executive Branch from laws via signing statements, etc.

What's the answer from Righties? "Pooh. We haven't lost any civil rights."

But let a child's nurse or doctor ask questions about safety, and it's, "Oh my God!" Gimme a break.

Here's where this "Big Brother" initiative came from:

http://www.paxusa.org/ask/index.html

[robeiae]

How very ironic. We Lefties have been complaining about the Bush administration engaging in warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, dismissal of habeas, the exemption of the Executive Branch from laws via signing statements, etc.

What's the answer from Righties? "Pooh. We haven't lost any civil rights."

But let a child's nurse or doctor ask questions about safety, and it's, "Oh my God!" Gimme a break.
It's not ironic. It's two very different set of propositions: specific initiatives from an admin that can be easily reversed/ended vs. the expansion of a mindset that sees the "greater good" as the province of those with authority and will--by slow machinations--destroy liberty in the name of serving that "greater good."

Beyond that, the signing statement stuff is a bunch of nonsense, as I've explained before (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2071422&postcount=21).

[SC Harrison]

the expansion of a mindset that sees the "greater good" as the province of those with authority and will--by slow machinations--destroy liberty in the name of serving that "greater good."



Alright, who are you and what have you done with Rob?

You can't be Rob, because he hates ambiguous, paranoid, slippery-slope arguments about the powers of "authority" being subverted by some liberty-destroying ideology. And of course, Rob would never use George Fricking Orwell to flavor said paranoid ramblings, even if he did have a lapse in his detached observance of those silly human beings, because a reference like that comes knocking with a whole suitcase full of logical fallacies.

And now you've forced me to engage in an ad hominem attack, but it's not my fault. :(

I just want Rob back safe and sound, if you don't mind sir (or madam), and I'll give you a 24 hour start before notifying the local pediatrician/political officer. :)

[robeiae]

Alright, who are you and what have you done with Rob?

You can't be Rob, because he hates ambiguous, paranoid, slippery-slope arguments about the powers of "authority" being subverted by some liberty-destroying ideology. And of course, Rob would never use George Fricking Orwell to flavor said paranoid ramblings, even if he did have a lapse in his detached observance of those silly human beings, because a reference like that comes knocking with a whole suitcase full of logical fallacies.

And now you've forced me to engage in an ad hominem attack, but it's not my fault. :(

I just want Rob back safe and sound, if you don't mind sir (or madam), and I'll give you a 24 hour start before notifying the local pediatrician/political officer. :)Sorry. I've always maintained that Freedom is being lost through the growth of bureaucracies and the expansion of the enlightenment-spawned utilitarian mindset that informs the ideas of those that see government as a problem-solver, a good thing, etc.

And only Haskins references Orwell more than me...

[kuwisdelu]

I've always maintained that Freedom is being lost through the growth of bureaucracies and the expansion of the enlightenment-spawned utilitarian mindset that informs the ideas of those that see government as a problem-solver, a good thing, etc.

But what you are criticizing is the mindset that it's up to individuals to take personal responsibility to solve problems. The doctors aren't looking to government to solve the problems; they are being pro-active in encouraging safe behavior completely outside the bounds of government or bureaucracy.

[robeiae]

But what you are criticizing is the mindset that it's up to individuals to take personal responsibility to solve problems. The doctors aren't looking to government to solve the problems; they are being pro-active in encouraging safe behavior completely outside the bounds of government or bureaucracy.
Nope. They're not doing it individually. It's an AMA thing. And the office I was at has twelve doctors. It's built in to the form. THAT is bureaucracy.

And they aren't encouraging safe behavior; they're making a fucking list and sitting in judgement. If we have nationalized healthcare, where will that list end up, I wonder.

Personal responsibility doesn't involve you prying into the affairs of others that have absolutely no bearing on the job you're being paid to do, regardless.

[kuwisdelu]

Nope. They're not doing it individually. It's an AMA thing. And the office I was at has twelve doctors. It's built in to the form. THAT is bureaucracy.

Still, no one's making them do it, and it's not the government yet. I see your point, but it's not the same as the one you just tried to make.

And they aren't encouraging safe behavior; they're making a fucking list and sitting in judgement. If we have nationalized healthcare, where will that list end up, I wonder.

This is the first time this "list" has been mentioned. Doctors really keep lists of parents with guns and small children? Please correct me if I misinterpreted.

Personal responsibility doesn't involve you prying into the affairs of others that have absolutely no bearing on the job you're being paid to do, regardless.

Honestly, I agree. I don't think guns are a doctor's business unless they're treating a bullet wound.

[Joe270]

It's an AMA thing.

Just one more reason for me to never see an MD again. If I have a choice, I'll always choose a DO.

Hopefully everyone else in the country will change to DOs, too, and these MDs will understand that we don't appreciate their meddling.

[SC Harrison]

Nope. They're not doing it individually. It's an AMA thing. And the office I was at has twelve doctors. It's built in to the form. THAT is bureaucracy.

And they aren't encouraging safe behavior; they're making a fucking list and sitting in judgement. If we have nationalized healthcare, where will that list end up, I wonder.



Alright, it is a product of the bureaucracy, but it's not just the AMA or the AAP. You still live in Florida, right? Unless they've overturned it, Florida has a CAP law (Child Access Prevention) mandating gun locks & keeping them unloaded. So even if safety wasn't their main intent (I believe it is), those specific questions would merely be an extension of the law. A doctor isn't a policeman, but neither is the driver who notices a drunk driver and calls 911 on a cell phone.

But as I understand the program, it's educational in nature. If a child (or parent) answers "yes" to the loaded & unlocked gun in the house, the doctor gives them a talk about gun safety, gives them a brochure, and some of them even give away free gun locks.

It is...somewhat intrusive, and I'm willing to cede that this trend should be monitored. But considering some of the bad experiences I've had in my life where medical treatment is concerned, I'll take a doctor (especially a pediatrician) who cares too much over one that doesn't care enough every time.

[TerzaRima]

If we have nationalized healthcare, where will that list end up, I wonder.


On the mailing list for the Mandatory Sex Education and Urine Drug Testing Program, to begin in kindergarten.

[TerzaRima]

Doctors really keep lists of parents with guns and small children?

I probably need to update mine.

[rugcat]

Just one more reason for me to never see an MD again. If I have a choice, I'll always choose a DO.

Hopefully everyone else in the country will change to DOs, too, and these MDs will understand that we don't appreciate their meddling.I hope you remain healthy, Joe. Without MDs I wouldn't be alive today.

[Joe270]

DOs are doctors, too. I've gone to DOs exclusively for about fifteen years now.

I don't know if MDs have specialties which DOs do not, but I know there are DO sport surgeons.

[Bravo]

DOs and MDs are both physicians, the real difference is that DOs are also taught how to do muscoloskeletal manipulations.

personally, i think it should be called an MD/DO degree, but that's a different story.

[Bartholomew]

I like the philosophy behind a DO better. Prevention is the best medicine.

[Joe270]

I like the philosophy behind a DO better.

I like what I've heard about their philosophy. I understand they also try to get past symptoms to root causes.

Lord knows the pharmaceutical companies must not like that bit from DOs.

Sorry for the derail, however my kids also go to DOs. I asked them if they'd ever had questions like this put to them, and they said absolutely not.

[Bartholomew]

I like what I've heard about their philosophy. I understand they also try to get past symptoms to root causes.

Lord knows the pharmaceutical companies must not like that bit from DOs.

Heh.

Know that old phrase, "An Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away?"

Here's a munchee for thought. A Vitamin C capsule is just L-ascorbate stuffed into a pill. Nothing else.

An apple has L-ascorbate in addition to several thousand other complex molecules that help the body work better.

You're damn straight the pharmaceutical companies don't want people out there teaching that.

[Joe270]

An apple has L-ascorbate in addition to several thousand other complex molecules that help the body work better.

You're damn straight the pharmaceutical companies don't want people out there teaching that.

So, it's an apple a day keeps the MDs and the big pharmaceutical conglomerates away?

It's got a nice ring to it.

[robeiae]

Still, no one's making them do it, and it's not the government yet. I see your point, but it's not the same as the one you just tried to make.
Nnnng. I see the future...

Regardless, it's certainly nit the same as the point you just tried to make. It has nothing to do with taking on "personal responsibility."

This is the first time this "list" has been mentioned. Doctors really keep lists of parents with guns and small children? Please correct me if I misinterpreted.Well, a database of info is just a bunch of lists waiting ot happen, know? AS I NOTED, it's built in to the form, now. They aren't asking on the fly. It's right there with date of birth and sex.

Honestly, I agree. I don't think guns are a doctor's business unless they're treating a bullet wound.
And how often does one go to a primary care physician to treat a bullet wound?

Look, lots of people "agree" that they shouldn't do it. But they do it, anyway. And if you look at the original thread, it's going beyond just guns.

[kuwisdelu]

Look, lots of people "agree" that they shouldn't do it. But they do it, anyway. And if you look at the original thread, it's going beyond just guns.

As for the things "beyond just guns," (assuming I know to what you're referring) I agree far more with the asking of those (gay, straight, drinker, druggie, etc.) because, as rugcat and I have pointed out, they are relevant to medicine.

[Joe270]

My daughter had a sports physical today with her DO.

I asked him about these questions. He considered them unethical and dangerous.

One DO's view, sure, but it seems to nullify any of the AMA's justifications.

[astonwest]

As for the things "beyond just guns," (assuming I know to what you're referring) I agree far more with the asking of those (gay, straight, drinker, druggie, etc.) because, as rugcat and I have pointed out, they are relevant to medicine.
If they were asking the patient in particular, I could see it...but I would think that asking about another person in the family could violate all sorts of privacy rules.

[Bravo]

And how often does one go to a primary care physician to treat a bullet wound?


primary care physicians are just focused on preventing diseases as they are treating them.

i think these questions are problematic and unethical, but i can see why someone thought they were a good idea in the first place.

[robeiae]

i think these questions are problematic and unethical, but i can see why someone thought they were a good idea in the first place.
EGG-friggin-ZACTLY!

That's the ticket: slow machinations. It's not some nefarious plot. It's the continued expansion of bureaucratic controls and intrusion. No one will see it coming, not even those that end up in charge.

Accidental tyranny...

[kuwisdelu]

primary care physicians are just focused on preventing diseases as they are treating them.

i think these questions are problematic and unethical, but i can see why someone thought they were a good idea in the first place.

EGG-friggin-ZACTLY!

That's the ticket: slow machinations. It's not some nefarious plot. It's the continued expansion of bureaucratic controls and intrusion. No one will see it coming, not even those that end up in charge.

Accidental tyranny...

Are we still talking about gun questions or gay/straight/drink/drugs questions?

I can see where you're coming from with the former.

But the latter can be pretty important, as rugcat and I have pointed out.

[Don]

EGG-friggin-ZACTLY!

That's the ticket: slow machinations. It's not some nefarious plot. It's the continued expansion of bureaucratic controls and intrusion. No one will see it coming, not even those that end up in charge.

Accidental tyranny...
After more than 40 years of observing such accidents and recognizing history's lessons, I find myself wondering; at what point will the trend be acknowledged?

...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...

[robeiae]

Pfffft...

You do not know the unfathomable cowardice of humanity... servile in the face of force, pitiless in the face of weakness, implacable before blunders, indulgent before crimes... and patient to the point of martyrdom before all the violence of bold despotism.--Niccolo Machiavelli (attributed)

[Don]

Pfffft...

You do not know the unfathomable cowardice of humanity... servile in the face of force, pitiless in the face of weakness, implacable before blunders, indulgent before crimes... and patient to the point of martyrdom before all the violence of bold despotism.--Niccolo Machiavelli (attributed)
Yeah, I know, you're right. I don't have to like it though. I'll keep educating, tilting against windmills, hoping against hope.

Those two quotes sorta define the whole optimist / pessimist viewpoint of the political future, don't they. :D