Alphecca

We don't need a law. You just tell the doctor that you are going to report him or her to the AMA for " boundry violation ". Jack

Jeff:

During my last visit to a clinic, the nurse asked me if I "felt safe at home". Her question was clearly intended to find out if I'd been abused or threatened, presumeably by my spouse.

My response was, "Heck, no, with all of the thugs running around my neighborhood, and the drive-by shooting half-a-block away, I feel pretty threatened. That's why my wife and I keep a loaded .45 in pull-drawer safe next to the bed."

It was worth it just to see the look on her face.

Blackwing When my wife is asked that question ( which is getting pretty routine ) She says: Thanks for reminding me. I need to have my husband refresh the ammo in my .38.Jack

The last time a Kaiser Permanente med asked me these kind of questions, and started making statements about firearms safety, I asked him what his firearm safety qualifications were ... where did he get his firearms training, etc.

When he refused to provide such qualifications, I asked him to provide a written statement confirming this new policy of having their staff give patients opinions about things that they are not trained for, and whether or not such advice was covered by their malpractice insurance.

Said professional left the room, and about an hour later another person showed up to deal with my original reason for the visit.

About a month later, on a follow up visit, Kaiser admin personel showed up, apologized for the victim disarmament rant, and told me they would be discontinuing this practice.

Kristopher, That's just great! Jack

Jeff,

I gotta agree with Jack, too. A law is not necessary, and, in fact, wrong. A good retort/smart-ass remark to the doc is all that is probably necessary.

"Yeah, we've got a bunch of guns at the house, how bout you, Doc?"

"Well, then, I need to talk to you about blah, blah ...."

"Sorry, to interrupt, man, but you're not planning on buying any nice guns are you, cause I'm switching Doctors now. I think you're full of shit, so I'm not about to take your medical opinion either. What I mean is, if you keep losing business like this you're not gonna have any extra cash for any of the really nice 50 calibers or anything ..."

OK, I'm just throwing something out there, work with me, people .... ;-}

BTW, I never personally ran into this, but in the South you probably won't. However, this is the kind of thing I actually look forward to!

Although, I want to have a really good smart-ass remark in my back pocket, so's I don't have to pull a George Castanza ( 3 days later: "Oh, yeah, well, the jerk-store called and they're running out of you!!!")

Most of the time the women take the kids to the doctor and some of them may not get as bent out of shape as us guys if the gun issue comes up.It is important to find out if this was discussed and to severely reprimand the parties involved like Kristopher did. Jack

It's not just a "right to privacy" issue, it's a "right to free speech" issue. It's none of the government's business if the doctor wants to ask. Ditto if you want to respond with a zinger.

Good point,Roy, but I still maintain that the AMA would see this as a boundry violation if the doctor is not qualified in this field. Jack

A doctor's office is not a public venue. If I go to and have to pay a doctor then he is on my time. He should be addressing the business at hand ("Okay, now cough") not snoop into matters that don't have a bearing on why I'm there to see him. I've hired him, not the Brady Bunch. The problem is when they decide to question our kids about things like this and the parent isn't in the room. I'm sure your average 15-year-old boy doesn't feel like having his mom present while he's being examined, so he's alone with the doctor. Why should a doctor be asking him if his parents own firearms? That's not "free speech".

The American Academy of Family Practitioners (and other medical groups) began promoting risk assessment questionaires in the early 1990s. These looked at all types of risks: seat belt and child car seat use, home swimming pools, home playgrounds, guns, ungated stairways and uncovered electrical outlets (for families with infants and toddlers), lack of exercise, junk food diets, extreme sports, etc.

The thinking behind this was that the medical profession should be helping persons avoid accidents and injuries, not just diseases. This position is quite logical and has some value. Performing an accident / injury / lifestyle risk assessment requires the consent of and cooperation from the patient. Asking about gun ownership out of the context of a full risk assessment is inappropriate and unprofessional, unless one is treating a gunshot injury!

Jeff "A doctor's office is not a public venue." Well,
no, BUT there are already laws forcing doctors to
report certain things. I have medical depression, and
some docs tell me up front not to tell them if I have
certain depressive feelings, because they would have
to report them.
- - - -

Privacy? Not in any medical matter:

http://www.govhealthit.com/article89548-07-13-05-Web - NYC wants to track 530,000 diabetics
"The New York City Department of Health, which is
dealing with an epidemic of diabetes, wants a central
system for tracking 530,000 residents who suffer from
the disease."

Yeah, usual stuff about patient name and info only
being for the patients and doctors - but the data and
names will both be kept, rather than having the names
being redacted before entry into the database. Sure.
Oh, and this measure is supposed to be so the city can
"reach out" to those who have diabetes but not yet
diagnosed - no explanation of how that is to be done,
other than knowing which of 8 million residents are
not among the one-half million in the database, again
necessitating knowing names.

Diabetes, for Pete's sake! If such a disease, none of
the medicines for which are psycho-active, needs to be
tracked then how about just plain pain [arthritis?] -
for which some of the medicines ARE?

I, too, am against government interference here.

This should be an issue of economics--the AMA and insurance companies may be involved, but no further.

If a person finds out his/her doc is collecting information that goes beyond the physical and mental health of patients, that person should 1) demand his/her medical records and sue if any copies are retained, 2) report that doc to the AMA and his/her insurance company and request that the doc be reprimanded and removed from his/her insurance company's provider list, 3) file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau for unethical/inappropriate practices, 4) make sure any family/friends using the same doc are aware of the doc's practices, and so on, and so on.

On this issue, I'm taking the libertarian side--no government involvement is wanted, nor required.

Kristopher--some years ago, we formalized exactly what you did--and created a form designed to make the docs back off fast.

Try it--it works.

Roy and Lornkanaga,

Surely you're aware that the state licenses the practice of medicine? Why on earth wouldn't they have some say in what their licensees do or say under the terms of that license?

I was thinking something along the same lines of what Dr. T brought up. If a doctor wants to go through a list of risks, including guns, with you. OK, that might be a good practice. But if the doctor asks you about guns in the house without asking about backyard pools or seatbelt use or any of the other more statistically dangerous household items, that seems like the appropriate time for a turnaround:

"Doctor, you are asking me about something with a very low probability of danger. This seems important to you, but at the same time you also seem to be ignoring much more dangerous enviromental factors common in households. This gives me the impression that you don't have a very good idea what is dangerous around the house. I valued your professional opinion, but now I know that you aren't very accurate in assessing risk. This brings up questions about the rest of your opinions and judgement calls. It is important to me that my doctor makes clear-headed, reasonable judgements. If you continue this kind of questioning I will no longer have confidence in your judgement, which will probably force me to look for another doctor."

p.s. On the whole, I favor not having a law against it. Free speech/lack of gov't intrusion, and all that.

FWIW, I'm with the "respond with the appropriate zinger" folks, not the "ban the question in the first place," one.

That said, the last time the issue came up, I did ask the MD what his qualifications in re: firearms safety were, since he seemed to have strong opinions about it. He came back with a fairly surprised "well, what are yours?" and I reeled off my various certifications. Much merriment -- at least for me -- ensued.