Wow. Well, since you used capital letters, I am certainly convinced.
Of course, “if it ever happened,” even asked in capital letters, seems like a bizarre question. It was well-publicized:
Even your well publicized case fails to establish the analogy you are desperately trying to make.
The doctor did not refuse to treat or provide services do to his religious or political views. He refuses to treat patients who refuse to have an open dialog with him.
Pharmacists always have me sign that I understand the medications use and side effects and I have no further questions. If I refused to answer those questions they automatically refuse to offer the prescription.
He very specifically said he would provide services for the next 30 days providing them with sufficient time to seek out another doctor.
If a Pharmacist told someone seeking plan B that they have thirty days to find another provider and continued to provide the medication for the thirty days you would have an analogis situation.
Personally I wouldn’t have an issue with a pharmacist doing that.
In both cases I feel doctors and the pharmacists employers should have a right to fire them if their actions are in conflict with their employers policies.
You as a lawyer always take one person’s version of an event as the truth of what occured. Wow. Maybe you are that stupid. I hadn’t thought so but you do make a convincing case.
In any case, again, if the event occurred exactly as the 26-year-old Summerfield woman improbably claims it occured, then the problem was not the question but the inappropriate behavior after the questioning, behavior that would already be against established standards. You are the lawyer, read up on the guidelines regarding patient abandonment and how to dismiss. Here’s the first one I found.
If only pharmacists has the same obligations to care for their patients pretty much no matter what, eh?
This stuff is drilled into us by our malpractice carriers. We have pretty strict guidelines we follow in order to dismiss patients. The story as presented would be way out of the range of those guidelines. The doctor could have been an idiot who behaved outside of the clearly established guidelines, it is possible, but the law is not setting up stronger penalties for inappropriate dismissal and abandonment. It is not about that at all. It prohibits the speech about one particular subject, making such speech punishable by both fines and loss of license to practice.
Your continued conflation of pharmacists who effectively leave patients without care, and the criminalization of doctors providing care is either very disingenuous or really very very dumb.
Let me just make this very clear, even without caps for the comprehension impaired (and for those who ignore things they don’t want to answer) - I have served on our very large group’s QA committee for well over a dozen years and many dismissals of patients have come through our committee. The only circumstance that has justified immediate dismissal is a patient becoming threatening in a potentially violent manner. Not once has there been a dismissal request for failure to answer a question. Sometimes for serious chronic noncompliance … diabetics who don’t take their insulin, that sort of thing. Most dismissals are for non-payment with no attempt to make any payment at all and multiple no-shows and they all have multiple warnings first and then coverage giving time to find a new doctor. We are even obligated to help them find a new doctor if they cannot find one on their own.
And the law does not address the dismissmal, is not about the dismissal, but about speech.
Oh, really? Well, who gets to decide that? You? And I guess that Walgreen’s luncheonette will no longer serve sugary soft drinks, and the magazine rack has nothing but vegan newsletters!
If an organization blatantly putting in writing that they don’t think parents should own guns isn’t “anti-gun” then the term has no meaning.
What would qualify if that doesn’t?
So, in other words they are anti-gun.
The thread is also sort of about abortions now. Threads go places sometimes.
The thread isn’t a poll. People are allowed to have a range of opinions other than “yes” or “no” regarding this particular law.
If you back peddle your statement that far back it becomes a truism.
You could say the same thing about cars or pools or anything else. People who’s cars aren’t important to them probably don’t use their cars for the “ordinary practical necessities of life”.
No. It doesn’t.
There’s only one reason why guns would be treated by the AAP with a completely different approach than any other danger.
Their efforts would be better served by working, as the NRA does, to reduce gun violence through training and preventative measures. Harassing gun owning parents and giving them a guilt trip might make them feel morally superior. But it’s not as effective as giving actual safety advice that would save lives, which is what the AAP should care about.
That behavior doesn’t seem to contravene the “established standards” you quoted:
Mom Amber Ullman says that she was told that she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn’t welcome at Children’s Health of Ocala anymore.
Doc guidelines you quote say that obligation of continuing medical attention can be terminated only by, among other things, withdrawal from the case by the physician after giving the patient reasonable notice, so as to enable the patient to secure other medical attention.
Sure. But the law is prophylactic: by not allowing the subject to come up at all, the law’s framework prevents virulently anti-gun docs (present company most definitely not excluded) from asking the question and then terminating the treatment for other, pretextual reasons.
Well since we are conflating “abortion” and “choice” with “pro” and “anti-gun” I will explain it this way -
A person who believes that people should not have abortions, would not have one themself or their partner, and who believes that they should be legal and safe and available for those who choose to get one, is not “anti-choice” and is not “pro-abortion.”
Indeed in these subjects there is a range between “yes” and “no” that get missed and distorted. The term “anti-gun” is part of that distortion. Recognizing the potential risks of gun ownership, even desiring some additional regulation is compatable with even being a gun collector and advocate of the right to own them.
The AAP’s political arm is pro gun control. To some who call themselves “pro-gun rights” being for gun control in any form is “anti-gun” … an either-or tactic that distorts discussions in bipolar arguments despite the fact that being pro-gun control is completely consistent with being a gun owner. In fact I know of very few (and almost all of them in a virtual sense only as they are through posts on these boards) who are actually “anti-gun” or even “gun-grabber.” That distortive polarizing tactic is what you have been entrained to do.
The position of AAP’s clinical guidance is not about gun control. It is not stating that guns should be illegal or about regulations. It is a clinical guidance and neither pro or anti gun. A gun-free house with children is, from a safety point of view, a safer house; if you have guns please be sure they are safely stored. As with all safety items (including pools) be aware of what the risks are when you send you kids outside the house (“ask about exposure to water and the ratio of adults to children.”) Some on the “anti-gun control” side (see how the choice of words works) believe that the risk presented by guns, and especially improperly secured guns, in a household with children is not great enough for the AAP to comment on and/or is not something that a body mechanic should be concerned about. They do not raise the same objection about the AAP’s trampoline safety guidelines (ownership strongly discouraged; if used supervision is a must) or ATV guidelines (actually does call for a ban on some sorts); or lawn mower safety. I am sure that there are some pediatricians somewhere who feel strongly enough about those subjects that they rotate in questions into their well care schtick. Such speech is not prohibited.
A patient should not be dismissed for merely declining to answer a question, no matter what the subject. If current protections about that are insufficient then they should be strengthened and not just if the question regards guns.
In the sense that a prophylactic is sometimes used when screwing someone, sure.
Now you really are just baiting. It is prophylactic like saying making cars illegal is prophylactic against road rage. By preventing all people from driving you prevent short tempered idiots from having contact with other drivers and causing conflict.
No comment on the observation in post #569, DSeid?
<one-off>
Yesterday, one of my neighbors blew through a case of ammo in his AK47. Where else in the world does this sound exist without disrupting the peace?
</one-off>
I’m not guilty of creating any false dichotomy here. I’m not saying the AAP is anti gun because they don’t exactly agree with the NRA on every single thing.
I’m saying their anti gun because they themselves admit it on their website. It’s right there. I’ve quoted it multiple times. They think that if you have a child in your house you shouldn’t own guns.
Saying that people shouldn’t own guns because they are inherently dangerous is as perfect of an example of a group being “anti-gun” as can possibly exist.
How can people not see this?
If this cannot accurately be characterized as “anti-gun” what would be in your opinion? Honest question.
Fireworks displays.
Train crossings.
Fog horns.
Low flying planes.
You’ve got to share the planet with other people. We’re noisy sometimes.
Sorry.
Saying people *can’t *own guns is more anti-gun than saying people *shouldn’t *own guns.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Heck, a gun is just a tool, like a hammer. Hammer is a tool for putting nails into lumber, a gun is a tool for poking holes into people. Same thing!
Yes, of course. So would you answer my question that only people who want to ban all guns can be called “anti-gun”?
If so, I disagree.
However, the point is moot anyway, as the AAP does want to say people “can’t” own guns.
Again, in their own words:
This isn’t “anti-gun”?
If this doesn’t qualify as anti-gun then the term has no meaning.
Way to add value to the thread, elucidator. If it weren’t for your posts, then…
…well…
…nothing really.
Hell, I *like *guns! You want to take a bunch of beer cans and a nice .22 long down to the arroyo and plink some cans, gimmee a call, I’m down for that. (Just never wanted to shoot anything that might prefer I didn’t.) And the history is damned interesting too, how many advances in metallurgy and chemistry came about from our pervasive desire to injure each other. (I will insist that the beer cans be pre-emptied, no emptying beer cans with live ammo in the vicinity. Crazy, maybe, stupid, no…)
Regard myself as a pretty reasonable sort of fellow, so the label of “virulently anti-gun”, or even just “mildly anti-gun” just don’t fit. You’re welcome to use it, of course, because really, who cares?
Ever met a “gun nut”, Debaser? You’re talking to some guy who seems to reflect your patriotic enthusiasm for the Sacred Second Amendment, and after a while, you start to get a little uncomfortable? Like maybe this guy is wound a bit too tight to be entrusted with lethal force?
Do they exist, have we good reason to be concerned? Haven’t been to a gun range in many a year, but sometimes you see them on TV. Ever noticed how prevalent human silhouette targets are? Extra points for heart and head shots? What, concentric circles like archery targets aren’t good enough? Why?
Guys practicing archery don’t need human silhouettes, why do guys practicing guns need them? I’m thinking it has something to do with their mental attitudes, and stuff. How about you, ever object to using human shaped targets? How far would you get with that, you think. Before they start thinking maybe you’re one of those “anti-gun” people…