Battle Continues Over Doctor-Patient Gun Law

August 20, 2015

Raising concerns about First Amendment rights and public health, opponents of a controversial Florida law aimed at restricting doctors from asking questions about patients’ gun ownership have asked a full federal appeals court to take up the issue.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld the constitutionality of the 2011 law, which has drawn heavy attention and was dubbed the “docs vs. glocks” law. The 2-1 ruling was a victory for gun-rights supporters such as the National Rifle Association and a defeat for medical groups.

Attorneys for opponents filed documents Tuesday asking the full appeals court to hear the case, a move known as seeking an “en banc” hearing. The documents also make clear that opponents plan to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if they continue to be unsuccessful at the Atlanta-based appeals court.

“The (appeals-court panel) majority’s decision breaks with established precedent and will invite other attempts to silence professional speech because of its message,” one of the documents said. “(The law), on its face, restricts professional speech on the basis of its content, and disagreement with a particular viewpoint is what spurred its passage.”

The law includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. For example, it seeks to prevent physicians from entering information about gun ownership into medical records if the physicians know the information is not “relevant” to patients’ medical care or safety or to the safety of other people.

Also, the law says doctors should refrain from asking about gun ownership by patients or family members unless the doctors believe in “good faith” that the information is relevant to medical care or safety. Also, the law seeks to prevent doctors from discriminating against patients or “harassing” them because of owning firearms.

In the panel ruling last month, the majority pointed to instances in which doctors could continue justify asking about firearms, such as in the case of a patient considered at risk of suicide.

“The purpose of the act, as we read it, is not to protect patient privacy by shielding patients from any and all discussion about firearms with their physicians; the act merely requires physicians to refrain from broaching a concededly sensitive topic when they lack any good-faith belief that such information is relevant to the medical care or safety of their patients or others,” the majority opinion said.

The documents filed Tuesday said the law has effectively remained on hold during a legal battle, which included a federal district judge issuing a preliminary injunction in 2011 and further ruling against the law in 2012. A stay remains in place while the opponents seek a hearing before the full appeals court.

But one of the documents filed Tuesday also asked for a stay to remain in place if the request for an “en banc” hearing is rejected. That is because opponents would take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“If the challenged provisions are permitted to take effect, (the law) ensures that Florida residents will receive less information about firearm safety from their physicians,” the document said. “The public health consequences of allowing the act to go into effect at all — let alone while the Supreme Court still is considering it — are clear, and they are significant.”

by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida

Comments

7 Responses to “Battle Continues Over Doctor-Patient Gun Law”

  1. David Huie Green on August 22nd, 2015 6:31 pm

    You go to your doctor.
    She asks if you have weapons in your home.
    1) You tell her you do and describe them.
    She enters this information into her records.
    Her records are hacked and a thief breaks into your home to steal them when you are away.

    Or

    2) You tell her you do not.
    She enters this information into her records.
    Her records are hacked and a thief breaks into your home to rob or kill you because he knows you are defenseless.
    Your children die.

    Or

    3) You tell her you do not.
    She enters this information into her records.
    Her records are hacked and a thief breaks into your home to rob or kill you because he mistakenly thinks you are defenseless.
    He is killed.
    His loved ones sue you and the doctor for providing false information.

    David for good outcomes

  2. Facetious Bob on August 20th, 2015 6:09 pm

    So, you are sitting there talking to your doctor. You discuss little problems you may be having with your health, or little things that are happening with you in your family or society that that have really got you ticked off, and may be affecting your health. He asks do you have any firearms in your home? Is this a doctor to patient discussion, or is he typing your visit into a laptop that sends information into the internet, cloud, NSA, China, Hillary, or whoever?

    Trust your doctor!

  3. Susan on August 20th, 2015 11:52 am

    Another record for the hackers to hack. Plead the 5th.

  4. Gedunk on August 20th, 2015 7:50 am

    So long as you are not under oath, there is no requirement to answer truthfully anyway.

    What is the big deal about this ?

  5. Jim on August 20th, 2015 7:19 am

    Those who disagree with the law and the court’s decision say “.. disagreement with a particular viewpoint is what spurred its passage.” Actually, the ensuring of Constitutionally guaranteed rights is what spurred the passage of this law against intrusive, arbitrary and unwarranted record-keeping.

  6. Bob C. on August 20th, 2015 7:02 am

    Information Gathering…..by the government and insurance agencies.

    Am betting the same folks pushing for the docs to inquire about weapons are the same ones who shred every bit of paper going out of their homes to protect THEIR information.

  7. Pensacola Pete on August 20th, 2015 6:18 am

    Isn’t it funny how some people can claim their rights are being trampled because they arent allowed to trample the rights of others?

    “It is a violation of the first amendment to stop me from violating the second amendment!”

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News