My only regret is that every Democratic politician in the country does not publicly adopt your point of view.
If the doctor is encouraging you to learn and practice gun safety (or warning you of the dangers of having a gun in a house with children), that’s one thing. If they are telling you that you are three times more likely to be murdered if you have a gun in the house then thats another.
Personally, I do not like this law.
Another thing to consider is that our society has pharmacists as the gate that allows access to prescription medication. You can’t access those meds without interfacing with a pharmacist.
So it shouldn’t be up to an individual pharmacist what meds he gives out. Since that undercuts the doctor’s and patients access to medicine.
What about public elementary school teachers who are asking these questions out of concern for the welfare of their charges?
I thought Jesus was black not a cracker.
Your position has little moral high ground over his. You want to hurt other human beings because your religion tells you that a fetus is people.
Are any of those other things made with the primary purpose of causing injury? :rolleyes: Cut the shit.
Yes, he certainly “has a bug up his butt” about keeping kids, and other living things, from being killed. Calling that “bullshit” is not evidence of taking the problem, or human life itself, seriously.
Jesus looks like a younger version of God. So, yeah, He’s white. He also swings mighty Dong. Which, let’s be honest, is the main reason to have an avatar.
Isn’t this the part where you give us that triumphal lecture about the rule of law, and anyone who disagrees with it must want to be emperor of the world or something? Or is that response situation-dependent - if you don’t like the result, then the law doesn’t even exist?
That’s the answer - because the law, derived from the consent of the governed and all that other stuff you love to lecture about, is against you. No, a fetus is not a human. You would do much better to try to convince us that your view is actually correct, instead of denouncing the baby-killers and so forth, as a religious fanatic does.
No but it is certainly morally and ethically permissible.
Pharmacists are not glorified cashiers or human vending machines. We should not force a pharmacist to dispense birth control pills any more than we force a doctor to perform abortions. Of course I think their employer should be able to fire them for it but that’s between them and their employer.
OK, so you think that discussing guns with a patience is medical advice. The state of Florida doesn’t think so and since medicine is regulated by the states, they define what constitutes professional responsibility. You seem to be saying that guns are different because there is a nexus between guns and death/injury while pharmacists refusal to dispense drugs are proselytizing and might be contradictory to good health outcomes (in that minority of cases where birth control pills are therapeutic). I’d say it depends on what the doctor is saying.
If the doctor is encouraging good gun safety (or pointing out the risk of owning a gun with children in the house), then sure. There might be people out there that need to be reminded that you shouldn’t leave loaded guns lying around if there are kids in the house. If the doctor is reaching conclusions about whether a person is better or worse off with a gun, then its just proselytizing, no better than slut-shaming women who buy birth control.
Are you putting contraception in some category that makes it very similar to abortion? Are you serious?
And our society has doctors as the gatekeepers of access to medical practice as a whole. So a doctor shouldn’t be asking questions that will cause him to terminate the doctor-patient relationship when the patient has no obligation to answer.
I think you know that he is.
Amazing, ain’t it?
The standard for doctors is that we need to provide care for our patients. If I want to dismiss a patient for cause I must give them notice and provide them with care. (BTW owning a gun would not be considered “cause” although a belligerent and abusive response to being asked about … anything … including gun ownership … could be cause.) An ED doc must take care of anyone who comes through the door, be it the Pope or a neo-Nazi. (S)he cannot say that they have an ethical objection and let the Nazi stroke out.
Again, making a comparison between wanting to do our job and care for our patients, with a pharmacist leaving a patient without care, is insane.
Let us deal with the less incomplete statement:
Guns are a significant contributing cause of morbidity and mortality. Surely you do not dispute that? Anything, ANYTHING, that is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, is a medical issue. Guns in the house of Adam Lanza contributed significant illness, disease, and death. Now one can have debates, and lord knows we have had 'em here, on how big of a risk that actually represents, and how big of a potential offsetting benefit there is to defensive gun use. (I know that you believe the analysis of such done in the medical literature is flawed and biased.) But unless they are exactly offsetting the presence of a gun in a home does make it more or less likely that someone will have a serious medical event occur. Moreover if there are children in the house the presence of unsecured guns is a greater risk for serious medical consequences, including brain damage, paralysis, and death, than a household in which the guns are stored more safely. I know you think that the advice to gun owners to
is just ignorant liberal drivel but I believe that it should not be a crime to be sure that parents have heard that drivel.
These doofuses have been very clear that they think a pediatrician is out of line for asking about any of that … unless specifically asked about it by the parent. Discussing how to secure medications, what to do about choking, the fact that cords hanging from blinds should be bound up out of a toddler’s reach so (s)he does not get it wrapped around his/her neck and strangle, that passive exposure to smoke increases SIDS risk, so on … all are paternalistic promotion of a nanny state and beyond the scope of what a pediatrician should be doing - taking care of sick kids and that alone. If a pediatrican stepped out of line like that they’d explode upon him or her and do their best to harm their practice with complaints to boards and bad reviews.
The only difference of course is that they might react with an “of course we are keeping the car seat rear facing until age two years old” if asked about how they are currently using the car seat but react with wanting to prohibit speech if asked about if guns are in the house and if so how are they stored.
I think I had mentioned this early on in this thread but asking about bullets is part of the standard screening questionaire for lead risk. I wonder if this law would make that questionaire a banned item?
So no cite, then. Figures.
Nope. Your constant repetition of that ridiculous mantra doesn’t make it so. Guns do not cause illness or disease. They can, like thousands of other things, lead to accidental or intentional injury. The problem is with human negligence and/or malevolence, not inanimate objects.
Do you have a cite for that?
7 out of every 10,000,000 kids dies of accidental gunshot wounds
The “conscience clauses” for pharmacists are not determining how pharmacists do their job; rather, they are allowing pharmacists a voluntary and limited exemption from doing their job, out of deference to their personal beliefs.
No legal ruling or medical professional standard mandates or recommends that pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control or Plan B or similar. The only reason they choose to do so is that their personal ideology places the potential destruction of a fertilized egg on a par with murder.
Neither the law nor professional codes of conduct support “pro-life” pharmacists in this opinion. Their refusal to dispense certain legally prescribed medications is not part of doing their job; they are simply choosing to avoid a part of their job that they personally find morally unacceptable, and they are allowed to do so for the sake of freedom of conscience.
The “Glocks vs. docs” law, on the other hand, is actively preventing physicians from doing their job.
I wonder if pediatricians under that law are still allowed to state general information about firearm safety in the home, even if they’re not allowed to ask their patients’ parents about it. Could a doctor say to parents something like, “I am legally barred from inquiring whether your home contains any firearms, but I am obligated by medical ethics to ensure that you have information about important safety issues concerning your child. Therefore, it is my duty to tell you that letting children have access to loaded firearms statistically increases the chance of serious injury or death by X percent, while consistent use of secure firearm storage reduces it by Y percent…” Etc. etc.? Then if parents didn’t want to hear it they could say so, but the doc would not be liable to legal penalty just for having brought up the subject?
I don’t think that terminating the relationship is reasonable. I do think asking the question is.