fixed it for you.
If the hold up is a Physical, than have him get one. either way changed the doc after.
on another note, just because he has not had a physical in 4 years does not mean he has not seen the doctor.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Doctor won't OK LTC in North Andover
- Thread starter z0mbi
- Start date
fixed it for you.
If the hold up is a Physical, than have him get one. either way changed the doc after.
on another note, just because he has not had a physical in 4 years does not mean he has not seen the doctor.
Is it also a HIPAA violation to give this info to someone else? How about a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality?
Link: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html
then again:
Add this to the law enforcement exception page...
Once you ask your doctor to write a letter for you, it is being done with your consent. So that's not a HIPAA violation.
Not really saying anything revolutionary or that hasn't been said before but I would:
1) Talk to Jesse and get his advice
2) No matter what, a doc change is in order. Rather than have him do the physical, let the new doc do it.
3) Could always reach out on the board and see if there are any N. Andover residents and ask them which doc they went thru.
4) See no. 1
1) Talk to Jesse and get his advice
2) No matter what, a doc change is in order. Rather than have him do the physical, let the new doc do it.
3) Could always reach out on the board and see if there are any N. Andover residents and ask them which doc they went thru.
4) See no. 1
I recently had a physical after having not seen a doctor in many years. A large portion of the time was spent taking a medical history including family medical history. Put yourself in the Dr's shoes. Why would you go out on a limb for a patient you haven't seen in 4 years? Just get a physical. The only problem is you may have to wait a long time to get in.
Looking at this from a different angle, it could be that the doctor actually cares about his/her patient and is just using this as a bargaining chip to get their patient in for a physical. Four years can be a long time to go between physicals. ![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
That being said, it's sickening that anyone should have to get a doctor's note to apply for an LTC. HELP GET GOALS BILL H2259 PASSED!!!![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
That being said, it's sickening that anyone should have to get a doctor's note to apply for an LTC. HELP GET GOALS BILL H2259 PASSED!!!Hey... did anyone stop and think that the CLEO and his policy may be saving peoples lives by forcing them to get physicals..... I think they might be on to something.....![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Well, those imposing such obstructions always proclaim it's in the name of "safety."
Privately, they claim it's to avoid imaginary "liability" or even admit it's to reduce the number of licensees.
Titan
Banned
Scrivener,
Just curious. Why would the liability be 'imaginary'? Wouldn't a doctor who medically vouched for a person's stability, be sued by any victims, if that person committed a violent offense soon after?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
Liability would be a stretch doctor simply stated he was not aware of any issue that made the person unsuitable - which is far different from vouching for someone's stability. MD"s accept liability risk every time they make a medical decision - even something as simple as deciding not to get an MRI because someone has a headache or a cough could result if a large verdict if the cause is a tumor. Compared to the risks (which they are insured for) MDs face every time they see a patient, writing a letter saying they are not aware of any mental disease or defect is rather minor - and the chief knows that someone who has Vitamin H, anti-psychotics, etc. in their med list is not going to be able to get such a letter.
That's just plain unacceptable.
However, while I sympathize with your friends situation, this is the kind of thing that can work to our advantage.
The more examples of outrageous discretionary licensing practices we can present to the legislature
and push for genuine reform and change in the gun control laws, the better for us.
(Apparently North Andovers CLEO didn't receive the MCOPA memo advising members to ease back a bit on licensing requirements... at least until the current GOAL sponsored legislation is voted down).
Exactly. Just because the person has a diploma hanging on his wall stating that he graduated from medical school and passed his licensing boards, does not qualify him to render an opinion on a patients mental health. Might as well have the family dentist sign the declaration of mental stability.
However, while I sympathize with your friends situation, this is the kind of thing that can work to our advantage.
The more examples of outrageous discretionary licensing practices we can present to the legislature
and push for genuine reform and change in the gun control laws, the better for us.
(Apparently North Andovers CLEO didn't receive the MCOPA memo advising members to ease back a bit on licensing requirements... at least until the current GOAL sponsored legislation is voted down).
Exactly. Just because the person has a diploma hanging on his wall stating that he graduated from medical school and passed his licensing boards, does not qualify him to render an opinion on a patients mental health. Might as well have the family dentist sign the declaration of mental stability.
Scrivener is referring to the CLEO, not the doctor. CLEOs have no legal liability from issuing LTCs (though they might have political liability).
There are doctors out there who'll write you a prescription for all the Oxycontin you what without bothering with a physical. Tell him to get off his whining, lazy butt and find one who'll write a simple note. And recall that the idiots imposing this requirement only specified a doctor, which would include both your dentist and eye doctor, not just a [strike]shrink[/strike] mental health specialist.
Ken
Ken
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
This..... There are a large number of CLEO's who believe that they can be held liable for issuing a LTC to someone who then goes and commits gun crimes. This is more of the reason for these foolish policies than any underlying urge to disarm the public.
Sorry, but this is pure, unadulterated crap, and you know it. If the intent was actually evaluate an applicant, they certainly wouldn't do it that way. Having a GP write a letter? Cut me a break. This is pure obstructionist crap, and you know it. The goal is to NOT ISSUE LICENSES if they can avoid it.
ETA: The CLEO knows its "even better" if they can simply scare applicants away from even attempting to apply.... less paper trail and less evidence of abuse. Apparently the CLEO or the LO there has spent some time dining with Martha Jokely, Tom Reilly, or perhaps Harshbarger. Administrative policy of "Feed the public s**t and keep them in the dark" is pretty much the menu of the day with them.
-Mike
Last edited:
I do not blame the Doc for not signing the letter. It is a fully B.S requirement, but as a Professional he does have ethical responsibility. I have known MANY friends who have gone from upright to messed in the head in a couple years (and yes, less than 4). When a doctor signs anything in their professional opinion they DO open themselves up for potential litigation.
I respect a lot of you, but a lot of you tend to let the 2A blind you, that sometimes a situation is NOT about the right to own a gun, but rather acting in a professional manner. This case is clearly a case of the Doctor acting as a professional and NOT some anti-gun zealot. I dare you to go ask ANY doctor to sign a medical record stating their official, medical opinion when they have not seen you in 4 yrs.
Your friend should just man up and get his physical.
I respect a lot of you, but a lot of you tend to let the 2A blind you, that sometimes a situation is NOT about the right to own a gun, but rather acting in a professional manner. This case is clearly a case of the Doctor acting as a professional and NOT some anti-gun zealot. I dare you to go ask ANY doctor to sign a medical record stating their official, medical opinion when they have not seen you in 4 yrs.
Your friend should just man up and get his physical.
my problem here is that we do not know if he actually has been seeing the doc or not. what i mean is it was stated he hasn't had a physical in 4 years, but he could have still been seeing the doc whenever needed - just not for a physical. we don't know. if he has been seeing the doc than i think the doc is wrong for not doing it, if he hasn't seen the doc at all, i don't blame him.
But if he is just going in to see him about specific problems, its no real way to base an overall professional opinion. I've seen a doc for an ear problem and was in and out pretty quick. They just looked in my ear, wrote the Rx, gave some tips and wished me a great day. Total time spent with the Doc is 5 mins. When I've had to have my physical, I am asked lots of questions, the doc sits down and probably spend a good 20 mins or so.
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,627
- Likes
- 11,826
I'm not quite sure how a medical doctor who holds someone's nuts, makes them cough and performs a physical could be responsible for anything psychological. The CLEO needs a doctors note...it does not say a licensed psychiatrist note. It's obviously just another obstructionist policy.....and has nothing to do with safety.
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,627
- Likes
- 11,826
Really???!!!!!....Then if they are so afraid of being so liable for damages....they must be really willing to let some other branch of the government take on LTC issuance. Although, I really haven't noticed them knocking down the doors to rid themselves of the power???? Why is that? (note the sarcasm)
OH...I get it...they want to keep the power and let the doctor take the hit.....now I understand.
What he said.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Ummm...... where did I not agree? My point is that the reason that they do not want to issue licenses is because they are under some false belief that they hold liability.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
They do believe that they hold liability in the issuance of LTC's
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
There are more in favor of that than you may think ..... especially in these budgetary times
An assertion that strains credulity, given Glidden's lectures and the express language of the MA Tort Claims Act (c. 258).
If they truly are that fearful of "liability," why is it MCOPA fights so hard to keep its vaunted "wide latitude and broad discretion?"
This...
Though sadly, from my various experiences, there are indeed plenty of COPs out there who still "fear" liability from licensing issues and/or feel an inflated sense of duty to "protect the community" from a threat that has not been demonstrated by facts to exist (quite the contrary).
As usual, there aren't a whole lot of "rational actors" in play in this state.
Well, my point is, I don't think that's the truth of the matter, even if they utter that as the party line. It's either a lie on their part or its willful ignorance.
If it was truly an issue of liability then one of the applicants attorneys would educate the CLEO (or the attorney would talk to the town attorney or whatever) and that would be the end of it.
It's not- it's an obstructionist tactic with that lame "excuse" being used to give it a facade of legitimacy, instead of just admitting that their real goal is to dissuade applicants.
-Mike
