Latest Headlines
- Tate Showband Of The South Has A New Director
- Pine Meadow’s Cassi McGee Received Florida Outstanding Teacher Leadership Award
- Highway 168 Bridge Reopened Friday After Repair Completed
- Bicyclist Critical After Being Struck By Vehicle In Century
- Two Century Correctional Officers Charged With Smuggling Drugs Into The Prison
- More Details Released In Case Of Man Accused Of Killing Estranged Wife
- Florida Forest Service Announces $2 Million For Florida Landowners To Improve Forest Health
- Friends Of The Library Hot Summer Book Sale Going On Through Sunday
- Escambia Animal Shelter Has Free Cat And Dog Adoptions Through July 31
- Martorella’s Clutch Hit Ignites Blue Wahoos Walk-Off Win
Opponents Once Against Target Florida’s ‘Docs Vs. Glocks’ Law
January 6, 2016
Pointing to free-speech issues, physicians and medical groups this week asked a full federal appeals to take up a challenge to a 2011 Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.
Plaintiffs in a long-running legal battle about what has become known as the “docs v. glocks” law filed a petition Monday seeking a rehearing before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move came three weeks after a divided panel of the court upheld the law — the third such panel ruling.
The petition argued that last month’s 2-1 ruling would violate the First Amendment rights of physicians and pose a “grave threat” to public health and safety.
“That some patients find inquiries about gun ownership ‘intrusive’ or believe that gun ownership is a ’sensitive’ topic does not give the state license to shut down entirely those inquiries, which are at the very heart of many doctors’ everyday conversations with patients,” the document said. “Indeed, the majority’s rationale could apply equally to other standard features of doctor-patient counseling and inquiry: the risks associated with smoking, certain sexual activity, drugs and alcohol.”
But the Dec. 14 panel ruling said lawmakers passed the measure after complaints about health-care providers asking unwelcome questions about patients’ gun ownership and harassing patients. It said the law “codifies the commonsense conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care.”
“The act seeks to protect patient privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians on the sensitive issue of firearm ownership and by prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of firearm ownership,” said the ruling, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judge L. Scott Coogler. “The act does not prevent physicians from speaking with patients about firearms generally. Nor does it prohibit specific inquiry or record-keeping about a patient’s firearm-ownership status when the physician determines in good faith, based on the circumstances of that patient’s case, that such information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”
Judge Charles Wilson, who was in the minority in earlier rulings that upheld the law, dissented again, writing that after considering arguments, “I continue to believe that it does not survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
The 81-page majority ruling was the third time the court has upheld the law. The same panel also ruled on the issue in July and then revised its reasoning in last month’s decision.
In the Legislature, the law was backed by Second Amendment advocates such as the National Rifle Association but faced heavy opposition from physicians. It includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an 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.
Among the plaintiffs in the challenge are individual doctors and three physician groups.Pointing to free-speech issues, physicians and medical groups this week asked a full federal appeals court to take up a challenge to a 2011 Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.
Plaintiffs in a long-running legal battle about what has become known as the “docs v. glocks” law filed a petition Monday seeking a rehearing before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move came three weeks after a divided panel of the court upheld the law — the third such panel ruling.
The petition argued that last month’s 2-1 ruling would violate the First Amendment rights of physicians and pose a “grave threat” to public health and safety.
“That some patients find inquiries about gun ownership ‘intrusive’ or believe that gun ownership is a ’sensitive’ topic does not give the state license to shut down entirely those inquiries, which are at the very heart of many doctors’ everyday conversations with patients,” the document said. “Indeed, the majority’s rationale could apply equally to other standard features of doctor-patient counseling and inquiry: the risks associated with smoking, certain sexual activity, drugs and alcohol.”
But the Dec. 14 panel ruling said lawmakers passed the measure after complaints about health-care providers asking unwelcome questions about patients’ gun ownership and harassing patients. It said the law “codifies the commonsense conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care.”
“The act seeks to protect patient privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians on the sensitive issue of firearm ownership and by prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of firearm ownership,” said the ruling, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judge L. Scott Coogler. “The act does not prevent physicians from speaking with patients about firearms generally. Nor does it prohibit specific inquiry or record-keeping about a patient’s firearm-ownership status when the physician determines in good faith, based on the circumstances of that patient’s case, that such information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”
Judge Charles Wilson, who was in the minority in earlier rulings that upheld the law, dissented again, writing that after considering arguments, “I continue to believe that it does not survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
The 81-page majority ruling was the third time the court has upheld the law. The same panel also ruled on the issue in July and then revised its reasoning in last month’s decision.
In the Legislature, the law was backed by Second Amendment advocates such as the National Rifle Association but faced heavy opposition from physicians. It includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an 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.
Among the plaintiffs in the challenge are individual doctors and three physician groups.
by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
Comments
8 Responses to “Opponents Once Against Target Florida’s ‘Docs Vs. Glocks’ Law”
@Linda; Most of this country doesn’t realize that part of the Obama Care bill is that the federal government is now the custodian of ALL of your medical records. So much for Dr./Patient confidentiality.
Fundamentally what the root of the problem is in America, we have evolved into an area where the government doesn’t think the american people are capable of managing its own affairs, and they feel the need to do that job for us, and I would hate to say in many aspects for many Americans that is true (But not all), but unfortunately we will pay a heavy price for that. Policy making now rarely reflects the will of the American people. Healthcare will get worse, I promise you, the quality will get worse. Many honorable doctors will leave or retire. Gun ownership questions have no place in the exam room, but will only distract from ones care, and WHAT IF: you have a physician that’s some progressive liberal that hates guns, in my opinion that will jeopardize one’s level of care. And lastly if a person can ask these kind of questions to me, then certain information about them should be made available to me so I can make determination about them.
If a doctor ever asked me about any gun ownership, & before immediately leaving, I might be inclined instead of answering, to ask if they had ever had any “improper personal intimate relations” with any staff members or patients (of age or underage). I wonder what their reaction would be to that personal question?
Linda,
Yes I have heard of “Doctor/Patient confidentiality”,
If something goes into into your medical records – it’s “PERMANENT”
Only your insurance co. will see it.
Who is your insurance with?
Millions of people are on Medicare & Medicaid —
Who is that???
The GOVERNMENT –
How much do you trust them?
After the president’s move yesterday, the need for Florida to revisit this issue with doctors might be irrelevant. According to a summary of his newest Executive Action: “Under this final rule, only covered entities with lawful authority to make the adjudications or commitment decisions that make individuals subject to the federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for the [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] reporting purposes are permitted to disclose the information needed for these purposes.”
Only covered entities with lawful authority. Make commitment decisions. Individuals subject to federal mental health “prohibitor”. That should be enough government doublespeak to be of concern to most folks. Bottom line, it leaves up to the doctor’s discretion the reporting of folks with real, potential, or imagined (by the doctor) mental health issues. Mental health issues determined and defined by the government. What could go wrong.
Lawmakers have no business telling a doctor what they can dicuss with their patients. Have these lawmakers not heard of “doctor/patient confidentiality”?
I kinda like the old saying , if the camel is allowed to stick his nose in the tent, it won’t be long and he’s going to be standing in there. This is a prelude to a physician prescribed gun confiscation, If I have a ingrown toe nail you don’t need to worry about my guns!!!
If a doctor, any doctor ask about gun ownership or any other question that is not a medical question, will not be answered. It’s none of their business what I own or do. Tell the doctor where to go and find another doctor.