Doc, what’s up with snooping? Pediatrician paranoia runs deep

[Jose]

I don't think my attitude is as bad as you think...although maybe it is and I just don't realize it.

The problem is the commies are running medicine and it trickles down to the docs at the front lines because they don't get paid if they don't do all the BS they are forced to do these days, so they comply. By law they can't unionize so they have little political clout either to change anything.

The thoughts on medicine are more holistic these days encompassing not just the individual but their environment...so if kids live in an old house with lead paint that also has radon and dust mites and both parents are smoking in said house and all the kids get to eat is crap then they will become obese asthmatics with lung cancer who also turn into diabetics by age 35 and will die prematurely of heart or kidney failure....none of which was really their choice...but all these factors help determine health so therefore it is encompassed in medicine...and since medicine can only really treat a few things successfully they can only focus on prevention..

All of these things are of no concern to me. I don't care. I don't care if the AMA or insurers make them ask. I will refuse to provide them with whatever information I consider to be irrelevant to the condition for which they are examining my children.

I will control what my doctors asks of my children and the information they receive.

 

[vellnueve]

All doctors are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality and, whether you want to believe it or not, they can not and will not use this information against you, turn it over to the government, spread things around about you. Most, if not all doctors, take that responsibility deadly seriously as violating that rule over just about any other will get you banned for life from practicing. Just the same, most doctors can't be bothered with knowing aspects of anyone's personal life other than in ways it affects your health.

Unless you have some sort of medical education, you don't always know whether a certain question can or will pertain to the child's health. And that's alright. If you don't want to answer, then don't. Like rhk said, this is all about prevention and knowing what the root causes of certain health problems are. If you don't care, then don't answer, and then don't complain if your kid dies of a preventable condition at an early age. As the parent, it is your right to withhold whatever information you wish for whatever reason.

 

[Garys]

All doctors are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality and, whether you want to believe it or not, they can not and will not use this information against you, turn it over to the government, spread things around about you.

It's not a complete ban on sharing information. For example, doctors and nurses are mandated reporters for suspected child or elder abuse. They are also bound by law to report things such as shootings, stabbings, and dog bites. If what a child tells them can reasonably lead them to believe that the child is in danger, they can report that.

Unless you actually have some sort of medical education, you don't know whether a certain question can or will pertain to the child's health.

You mean the average person isn't smart enough to know that if a doctor or nurse asks "Do you keep loaded guns in the house", whether that pertains to a child's health or is related to some sort of public health agenda?

Oh, how about the generic "Do you feel safe in your home?" line of questions that every patient visiting an ER is supposed to be asked? And yes, I was asked that last Summer when I went in to have my on the job knee injury treated.

Gary

 

[pbearperry]

George Orwell must be laughing his ass off?lol

 

[EddieCoyle]

Rhk118,
Is there is anything in a child’s life, including everything to with their parents, that could not be construed as having a “potential risk(s) to their (a child’s) health” by an intrusive government or their agents?

No I don’t think so.


Respectfully,

jkelly

Rep points for you JKelly.

Both my 14 year old son and 12 year old daughter were asked, "Do either of your parents have guns in the house?"

My son replied, "I don't think that's any of your business."

My daughter said, "Duh. My Dad's an instructor."
The doctor asked, "Do you see ever see them?"
My daughter replied, "Yeah. Every time we go to the range, but I only like the P22."

Contrary to what has been posted here, the doctor told my ex-wife. My ex said, "I know about the guns, and I'd rather they learn from their father than from someone else." The doctor looked at her like she had two heads.

I called the doctor and left a message. She hasn't returned my call.

 

[Garys]

I called the doctor and left a message. She hasn't returned my call.

And she won't. You and your ex could leave a clear message by firing the doctor and sending a letter explaining exactly why. However, that's not always an easy decision.

Gary

 

[vellnueve]

It's not a complete ban on sharing information. For example, doctors and nurses are mandated reporters for suspected child or elder abuse. They are also bound by law to report things such as shootings, stabbings, and dog bites. If what a child tells them can reasonably lead them to believe that the child is in danger, they can report that.

I'll give you that one as it completely slipped my mind. Clear signs of abuse and injury are things that have to be reported.

You mean the average person isn't smart enough to know that if a doctor or nurse asks "Do you keep loaded guns in the house", whether that pertains to a child's health or is related to some sort of public health agenda?

Oh, how about the generic "Do you feel safe in your home?" line of questions that every patient visiting an ER is supposed to be asked? And yes, I was asked that last Summer when I went in to have my on the job knee injury treated.

Gary

I've been in the ER three times in just over a year and never once been asked that. As for the prior statement, that's a question you'd simply decline to answer. But other things that you might think are completely unrelated to health are not necessarily out of the blue questions. Questions, about, say, your child's eating habits, activities, sleeping patterns, what toys they might play with, etc could all be health related but phrased incorrectly could sound more like an invasion of privacy.



Jim, you can contact the state medical association and report this. If the doctor had told anyone else, you could probably get the doctor suspended or even have their license revoked, but it's probably not as likely seeing as the person informed was their mother.

And to anyone reading my last post, I suppose it may have come off as a little bit arrogantly toned. That said, however, my point is that often times doctors can do better work preventing and curing if they have more information that just plain signs/symptoms. In the last six months or so, I've learned that even the most innocuous things can lead to devastating disease if not diagnosed and treated properly.

And in the interests of full disclosure, if I'm able to get into pedodontics, I wn't be asking any kids about what their parents own, (unless I'm offering to buy)

 

[Scrivener]

Oh, how about the generic "Do you feel safe in your home?" line of questions that every patient visiting an ER is supposed to be asked? And yes, I was asked that last Summer when I went in to have my on the job knee injury treated.

Nor is it even limited to ER's.

I had a routine, scheduled procedure done last year. That's "procedure;" as in NOT surgery and certainly not as treatment for an injury.

As part of what appears to be the hospital equivalent of the "Miranda Creed," the doctor asked me the cretinous question about feeling safe in my house.

Yeah, that was relevant....

 

[EddieCoyle]

And she won't. You and your ex could leave a clear message by firing the doctor and sending a letter explaining exactly why. However, that's not always an easy decision.

Gary

Done. In no uncertain terms.

As part of what appears to be the hospital equivalent of the "Miranda Creed," the doctor asked me the cretinous question about feeling safe in my house.

Holy crap! Can you print your answer here?

 

[vellnueve]

I don't think Scriv wants to get banned

 

[rhk118]

Are you honestly this naive?

The open-ended "do you feel safe in your house?" crappy question is probably the easiest way to broach the subject of potential abuse or neglect with a patient without asking "so is your wife kicking the sh*it out of you every night with a baseball bat, or did you just "fall down the stairs" again?"...that is all it is, nothing more, nothing less...reading into it is just unnecessarily taking years off your life....but the answer is probably 'yes, i do feel safe in my house, much safer than here where someone is about to put a 4 foot long scope up my kazoo...'

I think getting into a doctor's face for potentially judging you on owning guns will make them do just that...judge you (and you're NOT helping the cause of other gun owners). As I mentioned before, not many doctors know the first thing about a gun or the responsibility of owning one--especially with children in the house--entails...many would be uncomfortable even being in the same room with an unloaded one. I happen to own and I enjoy the right, and my daughter will learn to shoot one someday as well if she chooses (I'm not planning on filtering what she hears or who she hears it from either...she can make her own decisions someday).

Garys, I appreciate your comments. What you may not know is that medicine in this country has no clout from a health policy standpoint at all...not organized enough to lobby for much of anything...which is why Hillary and Obama are the only ones talking about changing it.

Anyway, the leading center for public health on gun policy is at Johns Hopkins (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/). Read it...its not going away...and figure out something to do about it...fighting it will only justify its reason for existence, and you can't lobby them.

The commies already run this country...too far gone to get it back I'm afraid...keep writing letters to your congressman, good luck with that...

 

[Jose]

I think getting into a doctor's face for potentially judging you on owning guns will make them do just that...judge you (and you're NOT helping the cause of other gun owners).

I see. Be nice to the antis or they'll take more away. How well has that been working out for us again?

As I mentioned before, not many doctors know the first thing about a gun or the responsibility of owning one--especially with children in the house--entails...

Which is why they need to STFU about the issue. I would no more advise them about medical issues.

Anyway, the leading center for public health on gun policy is at Johns Hopkins (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/). They are not trying to take your rights away. They are focusing on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of bad men/women/children who do bad things with them...

By further screwing the law abiding. The volume of firearm laws in this country is freaking staggering. But we don't have enough laws and feel good bullshit policies yet?

And if your hard-lined replies are ticking me off (who would otherwise be happy to help advocate for rightful gun ownership from a public policy standpoint from within the field of medicine to the field of medicine, i.e. perhaps an ally in the cause) imagine what they do to the pediatrician who already thinks "gun = bad"...swallow your pride and take it with a grain of salt,

See my first comment above. Have you ever stopped to think that the incessant attacks on those of us who will never do anything wrong with guns ARE ticking us off?

 

[Garys]

I've been in the ER three times in just over a year and never once been asked that.

Funny, I was in an ER as a patient just once last year and in fact was asked about this.

As for the prior statement, that's a question you'd simply decline to answer. But other things that you might think are completely unrelated to health are not necessarily out of the blue questions. Questions, about, say, your child's eating habits, activities, sleeping patterns, what toys they might play with, etc could all be health related but phrased incorrectly could sound more like an invasion of privacy.

Not one of these questions are at issue here. We are talking about questions to the children about their parents activities. If a doctor asks me whether my child is sleeping through the night or how many hours, clearly they are asking about something that could be related to their care.

Gary

 

[Garys]

Holy crap! Can you print your answer here?

No doubt he rolled his eyes, but from the angle at which the doctor was working, the doctor couldn't see his eyes!

Gary

 

[MarkM]

My new doc asked the standard health related questions "how much do you drink" etc when I went for an annual checkup but didn't ask about drugs, violence or guns.

When I went back with a sinus infection I was carrying, and before I had a chance to mention it he lifted the back of my shirt to check my breathing, he was quiet for a sec, realized what it was and said "oh, you have a gun", I replied "yep", he said "ok" and went on with the breathing check.

I doubt he filed a report with the police

 

[dwarven1]

I think getting into a doctor's face for potentially judging you on owning guns will make them do just that...judge you (and you're NOT helping the cause of other gun owners).

Not sure if this was aimed at me or not, but I will submit that ANYONE who, upon seeing a gun club button on someone's jacket, asks him if he's "been in Washington recently" (this happened when the Beltway "sniper" was still shooting people) has already judged gun owners... and deserves all the indignant verbiage that got spewed into her face. No, I wasn't amused. I should have asked her if she'd made any good malpractice-type mistakes lately.

When I went back with a sinus infection I was carrying, and before I had a chance to mention it he lifted the back of my shirt to check my breathing, he was quiet for a sec, realized what it was and said "oh, you have a gun", I replied "yep", he said "ok" and went on with the breathing check.

I would have paid good money to see the look on his face.

 

[Scrivener]

I don't think Scriv wants to get banned

Been there; done that.

I'm ready for my Next Big Thrill.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is a flip side to "don't let anyone know you have guns". If us responsible members of society feel a need to "hide" this aspect of our activity, it is one less chance to let people whose only exposure to the issue is what he media spoon fees them see a real life example of how gun owner does not mean "bad person". Other than the obvious security aspects, hiding the fact that one is a gun owner and shooter is not productive for our cause. In fact, it's a bit like someone of mixed racial ancestry hiding that aspect of their heritage.

Back on topic - I believe hospitals are required to ask emergency room patients if they are being beat at home. I remember being told to step back from by 200lb+ friend I drove to the ER after an injury so the intake clerk could ask him if his wife was beating him.

 

[Scrivener]

Anyway, the leading center for public health on gun policy is at Johns Hopkins (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/). They are not trying to take your rights away. They are focusing on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of bad men/women/children who do bad things with them...the stats are clear this is where the problem lies and that is the focus...but without these stats then politicians put cruddy laws/pseudo-regulations in place (e.g. MA) that turn honest gun owners into felons and do nothing to keep guns away from felons.

While Johns Hopkins is certainly an active intermeddler, it is hardly alone. The Center for Disease Control is perverting its mandate by treating a social/legal issue as a biological one. Firearms are and have always been inanimate. They are not life forms, do not spread disease and are not themselves a disease.

The CDC's abuse of its role and our funds to engage in a political debate under the charade of "epidemiology" and contagion analysis is yet another assault on our rights by those whose agenda is stripping us of them entirely.

The NRA vehemently opposing this research doesn't help them any either...to the public health and policy people it looks like the NRA is supporting felons (and I know that is not their intent, but to outsiders that is how it is perceived). They (and all of us) need to have a more collaborative stance on this issue. Getting in people's faces about it is a sure way to have more restrictive policies put in place in the future.

In short, you want us to subscribe to the Big Lie of "reasonable restrictions;" i.e., the "sportsmen" won't be affected; we just need to make the world safe from "assault weapons"/"Saturday Night Specials" / "cop-killer bullets" / "plastic guns" / or whatever fabricated menace we are to be saved from.

You would have us "cooperate" into oblivion. I decline your invitation.

Anyway, I try to change the stereotypes my colleagues have about gun owners whenever given the chance...they are misinformed by the media and by a lot of liberal policies in medicine that started out as uninformed opinion on many occasions....
Again I apologize I brought any of this up, I am now putting the soap box away...and am done....I realize I sound like a "commie" but 'thems the words' the system I have been in speaks...and anyone working on an area that crosses public health, business, and laws/regulations understands this is not a straightforward issue to tackle and you need to be able to speak "commie" to navigate it if you ever even hope to get anything changed.

Thank you for your efforts and input.

 

[rhk118]

Not sure if this was aimed at me or not...

It was not aimed at you, or anyone in particular. Thanks for your help answering my other questions though.

 

[drgrant]

Anyway, the leading center for public health on gun policy is at Johns Hopkins (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/). They are not trying to take your rights away.

You could have fooled me with that one... I looked at one of their PDFs about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and it looked like a Brady/VPC rap sheet, more or less. Same lame-brained excuses, same lame-brained ideas which infringe on peoples' rights. (like "registration databases", "smart gusn" etc. ) One part I read even suggested that it would be a good idea to sue dealers and manufacturers.

The ulterior motive of these kind of "think tanks" is to ban civilian ownership of firearms- if you believe anything outside of that, you're simply deluding yourself.

They are focusing on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of bad men/women/children who do bad things with them...the stats are clear this is where the problem lies and that is the focus...but without these stats then politicians put cruddy laws/pseudo-regulations in place (e.g. MA) that turn honest gun owners into felons and do nothing to keep guns away from felons. The NRA vehemently opposing this research doesn't help them any either...to the public health and policy people it looks like the NRA is supporting felons (and I know that is not their intent, but to outsiders that is how it is perceived). They (and all of us) need to have a more collaborative stance on this issue.

They likely oppose it because such organizations end up recommending more laws that we clearly do not need. There should be less, not more. We already have metric tons of the damned things and they do absolutely nothing.

IMO doctors should stop yammering about something they know very little about. Have any of them bothered to look at the leading causes of death in this country? After about 30 years old or so (I forget offhand) "firearms" isn't even in the top 5, IIRC. The overwhelming majority of people in this country who need medical care are not gunshot wound victims- they're people that have cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc... and a bazillion other diseases. Maybe they should get their priorities straight and focus on what really affects most people. I know a lot of people that have suffered from one or more of the above, but I don't know anyone that has been shot, outside of a couple of suicides.

-Mike

 

[rhk118]

In short, you want us to subscribe to the Big Lie of "reasonable restrictions;" i.e., the "sportsmen" won't be affected; we just need to make the world safe from "assault weapons"/"Saturday Night Specials" / "cop-killer bullets" / "plastic guns" / or whatever fabricated menace we are to be saved from.

You would have us "cooperate" into oblivion. I decline your invitation.

Absolutely not what I was implying. I'm not commenting on what I think the future holds--unfortunately I think that is pretty clear to all of us. I'm just saying if you start everything with an attack or an in your face approach, or a lawsuit or legal posturing you will get nowhere with them.

Using the pussy-footing collaborative approach (and it pains me to even utter those words) may get you some credibility first which you can then use to successfully exert your influence. You have to politic the politicians, otherwise you will get nowhere. You catch more flies with sugar is all I'm saying.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm not planning on filtering what she hears or who she hears it from either...she can make her own decisions someday.

You had better see that she knows the truth as it really is or she will certainly see the 'truth' as advocated by the anti's, the media and the masses of the sheeple.

 

[rhk118]

You could have fooled me with that one... I looked at one of their PDFs about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and it looked like a Brady/VPC rap sheet, more or
less. Same lame-brained excuses, same lame-brained ideas which infringe on peoples' rights. (like "registration databases", "smart gusn" etc. ) One part I read even suggested that it would be a good idea to sue dealers and manufacturers.

Well that is where the leading public health policy program on guns (as far as I can tell) is going...fortunately they have no political grip (yet). ...give them 20 years. I'm hoping to publish data stating the opposite so at least there is something out there to refute whatever BS they come up with...because if there is nothing in the medical literature opposing them, then they will plow through this with no resistance.

They likely oppose it because such organizations end up recommending more laws that we clearly do not need. There should be less, not more.

Absolutely!

You had better see that she knows the truth as it really is or she will certainly see the 'truth' as advocated by the anti's, the media and the masses of the sheeple.

I hear you, believe me I do.

 

[Pilgrim]

As part of what appears to be the hospital equivalent of the "Miranda Creed," the doctor asked me the cretinous question about feeling safe in my house.

Yeah, that was relevant....

You should have used the 'how much do you weigh' line !

 

[dwarven1]

Using the pussy-footing collaborative approach (and it pains me to even utter those words) may get you some credibility first which you can then use to successfully exert your influence. You have to politic the politicians, otherwise you will get nowhere. You catch more flies with sugar is all I'm saying.

We've tried that... look at the history of the NRA and it's collaboration with the gun-banning enemy. And for our efforts we get GCA '68, the AWB, the executive orders that throttle down the supplies of cheap surplus ammo. No, sir... the time for being polite is long past. Now is the time for "in your face" and "from my cold, dead, hands".

It's the only thing that the legistraitors understand and the only thing that slows them down.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Originally Posted by Scrivener View Post

As part of what appears to be the hospital equivalent of the "Miranda Creed," the doctor asked me the cretinous question about feeling safe in my house.

Yeah, that was relevant....

My answer would probably be "No, since there is very real chance the Democrats will take the presidency in the election".

We've tried that... look at the history of the NRA and it's collaboration with the gun-banning enemy.

The only time it works is when you actually get something. Agreeing to give the other side half of what they want to take doesn't count. One time it worked was WA state - the other side got a waiting period, and our side got "shall issue" CCW with an exemption for the waiting period for CCW holders. If our side had not made that deal, they would not have had any currency once the brady deal would have given the other side the waiting period.

 

[jhblaze1]

My doctor asked me these questions last year.

Doc: Are there any guns in your home?

Me: Yes a few shotguns.

Doc: Do you feel safe in your home?

Me: No, i am afraid my shotgun is going climb out of the gun cabinet and kill me in my sleep.

Conversation ended pretty quickly.

I found it weird that they would ask an adult male questions about feeling safe in the home, but instead of telling him to F*ck off/non of your businees, i used the opportunity to have a little fun with him.

 

[Palladin]

when my now 9yo son was 1yo, we took him a a local Ped for a checkup. after the usual stuff, he starts asking about if we drink, how much, etc. I'm getting a little pissed....as he's writing all this down. Then he asks if there are any guns in the house..."that's none of your F'ing business"...him: 'well, we just want to make sure that any weapons are stored securely and not available to children" me: "again, that's none of your F'ing business"..him: "are your weapons secured properly?" me: (as I stand up and lift my sweatshirt displaying my G23) "yeah, I think it's pretty secure"
he shit a football and that was the end of the questions.....as we're leaving my wife says.."you always have to be a showoff don't you?'

 

[vellnueve]

Funny, I was in an ER as a patient just once last year and in fact was asked about this.

Dunno, maybe you look like an abuse victim and I dont?