Latest Headlines
- FDOT Plans Traffic Shift Thursday In Century Highway 29 Construction Zone
- Molino Man Charged With Throwing Object, Breaking Windshield Of Passing Car
- ECUA Considering Water, Sewer And Sanitation Rate Increases
- Highway 4, Highway 168 Bridges Across North Escambia Remain Closed. Here’s An Update.
- Free Summer Lunch Available For Youth At Libraries In Escambia County
- AAA: Florida Gas Prices Dropped 18 Cents In 10 Days
- Potential Sinking Of SS United States Under Consideration For Escambia County As Artificial Reef
- M-Braves Sweep Blue Wahoos
- Two-Time Super Bowl Champ Inspires Local Youth Athletes (With Photo Gallery)
- Century Woman Charged With Meth Possession After Traffic Stop
Doctors Fight NRA, While Guns On Campus Bill Stalls
February 23, 2011
Emergency room doctors, psychiatrists and pediatricians should not be able to ask a patient whether he or she owns a gun, a panel of Florida lawmakers said Tuesday, giving the OK to a proposal that pits two of the state’s most politically powerful lobbying interests – the National Rifle Association and the Florida Medical Association – against each other.
The Senate Criminal Justice Association approved on a 4-1 vote a bill to bar doctors from asking patients whether they own guns, unless the doctor believes a patient may immediately harm him or herself with a gun. If doctors were to question a patient about gun ownership, they would face substantial fines under the bill.
“It gives patients the right to refuse to answer questions that are inappropriate,” said Florida NRA lobbyist and former National NRA President Marion Hammer.
The bill, which originally would have fined doctors $5 million for asking patients about gun ownership, was stripped of its original language and amended to create a tiered fine system for violators. An offending doctor would be charged $10,000 for the first offense, at least $25,000 for the second offense, and a minimum of $100,000 for the third offense.
Hammer said some doctors are injecting politics into medical care and that when the NRA asked the FMA to address it, no action was taken. So, it began pushing for legislation.
“It’s about politics,” she said. “Pure, raw, anti-gun politics being imposed on patients when they are most vulnerable, when they are sick or hurt and need help.”
Doctors have pushed back though, saying the restrictions the bill puts on medical personnel hampers their ability to treat and protect patients.
Dr. Vidor Friedman, the president-elect of the Florida College of Emergency Medicine, told lawmakers that doctors often need to question patients in the course of treatment to ensure they are not in danger of being further injured. Particularly in domestic abuse cases, he said, doctors are often trying to ascertain whether a patient feels safe.
“I don’t care if you own a gun or not,” Friedman said. “The question is, is the gun still a risk to you.”
With children, doctors are also worried, said Dr. Louis St. Petery, a Leon County pediatrician who is executive vice president of the Florida Chapter of American Pediatrics and a member of the FMA. The issue, he said, wasn’t whether families owned a gun, it was whether children had access to it.
“Our issue is if you have a gun, let’s talk about how to properly store that gun so that children don’t get accidentally shot and killed,” he said.
But for several members of the committee, it came down to a matter of privacy. Lawmakers largely said they couldn’t understand why doctors would need to ask about guns, even if it involved a criminal action.
Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, who has generally supported gun control legislation, said he was looking for a reason to vote against the bill, but couldn’t figure out why doctors would need to ask whether their patients own guns.
“That would be a question more for law enforcement,” Smith said. “I don’t see why the doctor has to be involved in that.”
The bill (SB 432) also must pass the Senate Health Regulation, Judiciary and Budget committees.
GUNS ON CAMPUS
Following the tearful testimony of Robert Cowie, a Jacksonville resident whose daughter Ashley was killed in an accidental shooting at Florida State University in January, lawmakers postponed a vote on another gun bill (SB 234) that would let colleges and universities, and private elementary and secondary schools, allow firearms to be carried on campus.
Currently, the law says people with concealed weapon permits can carry guns, but includes a list of places where carrying those guns isn’t allowed, including school campuses. The measure would remove that particular exemption from the law.
Backers have said in the wake of a number of school shootings that if some law abiding student had been armed, they may have been able to shoot back.
But Cowie said putting guns in an area where drugs and alcohol are commonly used is particularly dangerous, and makes campuses more dangerous.
Ashley Cowie, 20, was at a campus party when a gun held by another student accidentally discharged, sending a bullet directly through her chest. Her father traveled to Tallahassee Tuesday to lobby against the bill, sponsored by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker.
“This is not a second amendment, right-to-bear arms issue,” he said.
Several states around the country have considered letting college students and university staff carry guns. The idea was prominent following high profile shootings at Virginia Tech University in 2007 and Northern Illinois University in 2008. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 states allow individual colleges and universities to enact policies related to carrying guns on campus, while 24 states, including Florida, ban carrying a concealed weapon on campus.
A Florida Board of Governors spokeswoman said via e-mail that the police department chiefs in the 11-member state university system are opposed to lifting the ban in Florida.
“This issue clearly affects the core responsibility of respective university police departments, as each one works diligently to maintain campus security and safety around the clock,” said board spokeswoman Kelly Layman.
The bill does have at least one high profile supporter. Gov. Rick Scott told reporters that he is in favor of the bill, citing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“I believe it’s a fundamental right and I will defend the right to bear arms,” he said.
By Kathleen Haughney
The News Service Florida
Comments
21 Responses to “Doctors Fight NRA, While Guns On Campus Bill Stalls”
REGARDING:
“If a doctor asks a question I consider impertinent, I will misdirect my answer”
Or as Dr. House of the television show constantly asserts: Everybody lies.
David some die due to lies,
but that’s always a choice
no reason to ban questions
Better they should ask if they own a pool or bicycle. Life is a crapshoot at best. People locally have been killed in their beds by folks driving cars. Danger is always an imminent possibility, get used to it. Be careful, mind your own business and deal with threats as they arise. Laws only make money for lawyers, most decent people live by a moral code and have no idea how many statutes they fracture daily. If a doctor asks a question I consider impertinent, I will misdirect my answer.
Certain personal information is on a need to know basis, and he /she doesn’t need to know.
REGARDING:
“You are missing the point. This is not about bringing a gun into someone’s house. This is about denying goods and services, tracking and recording people based on what they have in the privacy of their own home. By your own admission you would not deny visitors because they owned a dog or because they refused to answer questions about dog ownership.”
I miss many points. I do understand it is about denying goods and services. I believe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms forbids government from interfering. I believe it does not apply to individuals in their interactions.
By my own admission I would not deny my brother and his family access to my home. By my own admission I did deny him access if he insisted on bringing his dog in my home. He was free to decide what he wanted to do.
I will not hamstring doctors. If they do not want to help me for any reason, I’ll gripe but they are not my slaves; they don’t have to serve me.
Please understand a similar question came up a few years back when First Lady Clinton discovered that military doctors were refusing to perform abortions on moral grounds. There were other doctors who did not have any moral qualms, so they could kill all the kids/fetuses they desired but First Lady Clinton was angry just as you are at doctors for refusing to do what they considered murder. She wanted them court-martialed and thrown out of the service.
I disagree with her and with those who would remove conscience from doctor’s actions–whatever those actions are.
David for freedom
and limited government interference
“This is about denying goods and services, tracking and recording people based on what they have in the privacy of their own home.”
Yep I agree!
If I were the government and wanted to find out who had guns in their house I would go straight to the NRA…..
Don’t ever think that a doctor won’t deny service for any particular reason, they will and do , quite often, and yes they would love to poke their collective noses into your business, you pay them to, and by extension the pharmecetical companies and insurance companies. All those big money companies that finance political agendas, that make it possible for them to make that mega money……Do you really think they care about your best interests? Think again.
Who truely believes that education is everything.
I look forward to this law being enacted so I can legally carry concealed on campus. And the people who hate guns, and are afraid of guns, or disagree with this piece of legislation will never know I’m carrying my firearm while I sit next to them in class.
David,
You are missing the point. This is not about bringing a gun into someones house. This is about denying goods and services, tracking and recording people based on what they have in the privacy of their own home. By your own admission you would not deny visitors because they owned a dog or because they refused to answer questions about dog ownership. This is what Pediatricians are doing in areas of Southeast Florida in regards to gun ownership.
You are right dad, it is not in the article. I did not quote the article. Do some research on why this bill was even introduced. It was because Pediatricians in parts of Florida were denying service to those who refused to answer their questions regarding gun ownership. These doctors asked about “what types and how many guns” were in the house. No questions about “what types and how many hazards for to child” in the house. If it was a safety concern then why no questions about hazards common to every single home? If there is an assumption that every home contains common hazards they are not worth asking about? If this is the case then the assumption should also be that every home has a gun in it. That way they could give safety information to everyone regarding safe storage of firearms instead of singling out and keeping records of gun owners. It’s an anti-gun, anti-rights agenda.
I have been a NRA for a long time. I did not keep a gun in the house the whole time my children were small. I keep them at my dad’s locked up. I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I and I think that there are people that should not have access to one. There are laws in place for this. There are also HIPAA laws that limit what we can ask about someones health. I am sure the NRA and FMA can work it out IF the FMA is really acting in the patients interest. Anti gun people are everywhere and will jump on every news story that comes around. We have no way of know how many people were not crimes victims because they were able defend theirselves or appeared to be. IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. It may not be written down anywhere, but you also have the right to not have a gun.
I have been a NRA for a long time. I did not keep a gun in the house the whole time my children were small. I keep them at my dad’s locked up. I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I and I think that there are people that should not have access to one. There are laws in place for this. There are also HIPAA laws that limit what we can ask about someones health. I am sure the NRA and FMA can work it out IF the FMA is really acting in the patients interest. Anti gun people are everywhere and will jump on every news story that comes around. We have no way of know how many people were not crimes victims because they were able defend theirselves or appeared to be.
@ Loves Teaching, I don’t believe that you are a school teacher. Good men fought and died so that we can have basic rights. We have to respect these rights even if we don’t agree with the way people exercise them. For example; your right to free speach, I would never ever challege your right to say the stupid things that you say.
“If the patients refuse to answer, they are denied service. ”
Jimmie Carter, I re-read the article. No where do I see it state that if the patient refuses to answer they are denied service.
REGARDING:
“The gun lobbyists would have any mentally ill, unstable, lawless person carrying a gun. They don’t even care when law officers or children are killed”
Actually, I suspect it’s more a matter of they realize the mentally ill and lawless already have weapons. A law forbidding the right to keep and bear arms–besides being unconstitutional–only affects those who are obey the law. Criminals and nuts don’t.
That’s why they used to say WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. I used to think it was a play on words since if guns were outlawed, those who had them would become outlaws by definition but it is also a fact that outlaws would ignore those laws just as they ignore others.
Further, I suspect they DO care about law enforcement officers and children, especially if they are kin to them or if they’re THEIR children. They also care about protecting their children when law enforcement is not around. You DO know they can’t be everywhere, don’t you?
It’s been funny to me how even in places where legally carrying guns is easy, that they are seldom carried. That’s because people don’t want to lug them around if they feel safe. They would feel safer if known criminals weren’t roaming freely and if crimes didn’t go unsolved so often.
Rather than demonize those who disagree with you, you might consider why they think as they do. If you try, maybe they’ll consider why YOU think as you do. It’s not likely, but more likely than otherwise.
David for a perfect society, even
knowing I wouldn’t be allowed in
If a you have a right to bear arms, then I should have a right to refuse to serve you. People are shooting each other over nothing. The gun lobby has blood all over its hands. Guns for hunting or rifles for home protection are not a problem. The gun lobbyists would have any mentally ill, unstable, lawless person carrying a gun. They don’t even care when law officers or children are killed.
Oh, by the way, the second amendment forbids the government from infringing on a person’s right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean others lose the right to say, “But not in my home.”
Some would say, “Where I go, my 357 goes.”
That’s fine, but if somebody else says, “No 357s inside my house,” they should respect each other and stay apart.
It reminds me of a time when one of my brothers wanted to stay with me. I explained he, his wife and their children were always welcome. “But what about my dog?”
“Let me repeat myself, You, Becky, Sean and Sharon are completely welcome in my home.”
They went somewhere else lest Dixie, the shedding German Shepherd, be slighted.
David for freedom
REGARDING:
“no doctor that I personally know of would ask personal questions ”
Whereas, every doctor I’ve ever met has asked me personal questions with the intent to keep my person alive and healthy.
If a doctor refuses to treat me because of an answer I give, I can turn him into the AMA which will probably do nothing, but I still believe a doctor should be free to ask any question he feels pertinent–or any question he feels like asking period.
I’ll even try not to lie to him (or her, depending on which doctor it is).
David for freedom of speech
even by those with whom I may disagree
By the way before someone jumps at me about my statement on my daughter. For she and to I (I am a former military), this is a weapon not a gun. Made entirely to protect and defend not to abuse.
I have to agree with Jimmy Carter you are spot on man. Paint it anyway they want it is a right to bear arms issue and an infringement intoyour personal life make no mistake about it. I happen to know a little bit about doctors as I have them in my own family to include a daughter who is one. By the way you do not want her to take a shot at you because she is good and has a permit to carry. You might ask whay she would do that well when she was in residency she was training in Compton in LA and neede it for protection to just get to and from work.
Sorry Shea, I’m throwing the BS flag on this one. Doctors, Pediatricians in particular, are asking all of their patients about gun ownership. If the patients refuse to answer, they are denied service. It is an anti-gun issue pure and simple. If it was not then the doctors would also ask about the types, location, and lockup of chemicals, pets, appliances, swimming pools, fish ponds, car seats, etc. Pure anti-gun agenda and an egregious violation of patient rights.
I’m all for gun rights but sometimes the NRA seems to have no common sense.
I am in the health care field, and no doctor that I personally know of would ask personnal questions such as gun ownership, or use of razor blades, or access to knifes or what have you, unless he or she sinced a threat to his or her patients. A doctor has got a moral and legal athority to contact law inforcement and/or baker act an individual when he discovers real threats to person or persons. Get real people, this isn’t a question of your legal right to bear arms, it’s a safety issue when danger is a eminent possibility.
Total bologna. Garbage. You can’t infringe on a person’s freedom of speech like that. During the Vietnam war they made it illegal to counsel against the draft. I was outraged then and I’m outraged to see this now. What about you?
Erosion of freedoms. Ignore it at your peril.