And if people don’t like a pharmacist who won’t dispense the morning after pill they should find another, right?
I think I can see a problem with advice like this; it’s possible that for some people, being given advice on gun safety around kids is not merely uninteresting but annoying to the extent that they might not listen to the doctor on other issues relating to the child’s general health. But I don’t think that’s grounds for banning it.
I think this law is unbelievably stupid. However, laws and proposals like this only happen as a backlash against anti-gun activism. Would the NRA have pushed a law like this in 1961? No way in hell. Did you know that John F. Kennedy was an NRA lifetime member? The NRA was pretty apolitical back then. It was like a fraternal order for gun enthusiasts and leaned much more towards the outdoorsman, sporting side of firearms. It wasn’t until people started monkeying with the 2nd Amendment and pushing anti-gun propaganda that the NRA became the reactionary conservative movement that people today know and hate.
Again - I, as an NRA member, would never support a ridiculous law like this one. However, I wish people would understand that there would be fewer incidents like this if the anti side would just leave us the hell alone. Stop making fun of us. Stop trying to fuck with our hobby.
You are a fucking moron if you can’t understand how the situations are different.
No one has presented a case where the pediatricians have refused to provide time sensitive care due to their beliefs.
Also I do believe a pharmacist should be able to refuse non-emergency medication if they deem fit, that shouldn’t be a criminal offense. I don’t believe they have a right to keep their job with a pharmacy who has interest in selling said medication.
I’d actually agree so long as another is readily available and the refusal does not prevent the pill from being taken within the required window of time.
You do understand that the ethical obligation is on the provider to provide. My patient (or his parent) can say just about anything short of a threat to me and I am still obligated to care for him, even if I dismiss him from my practice I still need to give him care for 30 days and help him find another doctor who can care for his needs if he cannot find one on his own. I cannot leave him without care because I do not like his beliefs.
Argent we are at a low point of anti-gun activism. And in Florida in particular there is no major anti-gun movement extant. Your blaming this unbelievable NRA supported stupidity as reactionary to gun control activism is inconsistent with any facts.
There’s a key difference here, where the doctor is not refusing to do his or her job by inquiring about the health and safety of his or her charge, and is, in fact, doing that job by asking. The pharmacist is refusing to do his or her job.
(I’m assuming here the pediatrician who reportedly asked a parent to see a new doctor didn’t do so out of a flat refusal to see patients with parents who owned guns, but there’s a story there untold about a brusque response and angry exchange between the two. It’s just my reality-based thinking; if you have evidence the doctor was less reasonable than that, I’d agree with you that it crossed the line. But my suspicion is that it had more to do with the parent’s personality than the issue of gun control, and it was reported glibly for effect.)
Agreed. However, you are a fucking moron if you can’t understand how the situations are analogous.
Again, if the gun lobby wouldn’t peg ***everything under the fucking sun ***as a slippery slope to the communist takeover of America, there would be more middle ground. You standing up and saying things like “I, as a NRA member, would never support a ridiculous law like this one” is a helpful step in finding that middle ground.
You agree with him that the situations are different - and hence, those differences can cause someone to react differently to them legitimately - but call him a moron because he does exactly that? Either they’re not different (and he’s a hypocrite for supporting one and not the other) or they are different (in which case one can have different views based on those differences). Hard to play it both ways here.
Except that they are not.
You’re really missing my point if you’re looking at this way. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a major anti-gun movement in Florida. There is nation-wide anti-gun political activism and, because of the internet and the news media, everyone all over the country knows this and it affects them regardless of what state they live in and if there is direct anti-gun action in that state. It might not be rational - but it’s still an issue.
Almost everything the NRA does today politically is a reaction to gun control activism of the past and present. It is completely a reactionary movement.
Yeah, I agree with you. But I still maintain that it was the antis who started chipping away at gun rights first, and everything that the pro-gun reactionary people did after that, right or wrong, is a backlash against that. As I said before, the NRA was pretty apolitical and there was really no “gun nut” movement in America to speak of prior to the enactment of gun control laws in the '60s.
I didn’t call him a moron in exactly the same way he didn’t call me a moron.
Argent, but my point is that the pro-gun side has already won. The Supreme Court has ruled. Nationally no major politician is going to promote a gun control agenda. This last election featured trying to convince people that Obama was a secret gun control activist even though he stated he was not for more gun control. This is not reactionary at this point, it is paranoid delusions by the NRA that any discussion about guns is part of a conspiracy to take them all away.
Would you, and other NRA members of this board, be willing to write to the NRA expressing your displeasure with this particular law and their support of it? As a pediatrician and as someone who has substantially moderated my position on gun issues due to debates on these boards, I would very much appreciate it.
There is a simple remedy for anyone aggrieved by a doctor’s nosy questions: go get another doctor. A doctor should have every right in the world to ask about guns, drugs, and loose porch steps if he wishes.
I too would be surprised by the survival of this law.
But it’s their ho-o-o-bby-y-y-! 
For the record I don’t see this as a good law. I get nervous when the government interferes in the doctor/patient relationship.
Right, and I’ve never said anything different. I will say that the only exception (as I’ve already stated) is physicians refusing to treat patients who refuse to listen to their lectures. If enough physicians did that, you could note “vote with your feet” and you would essentially be removing a certain class of pig-headed people from receiving medical care.
Since physicians benefit enormously from how difficult it is to be licensed as a physician, I don’t share much of a kindred entrepreneur’s spirit with them and am 100% behind them being massively regulated and restricted in what they can do (I think it should also be illegal for physicians to reject Medicare.)
Now based on what I’ve learned in this thread, existing rules would already prevent a physician from denying care solely based on a refusal to listen to a lecture. So it appears all is well in the world in this regard.