1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Doctors

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by trapperwads, Jan 17, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trapperwads

    trapperwads Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,869
    Part of obamas gun control plan is to authorize doctors to ask if you are a gun owner. obama is putting you in a position to be his secret police. Involuntary servitude. your state or national medical organization should formally oppose this....otherwise don't claim to be a professional. you are a physician. If you ask me I will say what has that got to do with my health? Or its none of your damn business! And with all do respect please oppose this effort. ed nichols
     
  2. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    He gave them permission, they do not have to act on it, or report it.

    It is another meaningless act of "feelgoodism".
     
  3. Jerbear

    Jerbear TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,588
    Tell them it's none of their F-ing business. You're not under oath.

    They can ask anything they want, you don't have to answer it though...


    jerbear_2008_0303181.jpg


    This is how they want to gain information.....



    Jerbear
     
  4. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    If you out of the military and have Ptsd there out to get your firearms
     
  5. oz

    oz Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,817
    Just be nice and tell your doctor "No I don't have any guns, they scare me." "Do you have any?"
     
  6. BT-100dc

    BT-100dc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    Make the doctor drug you before admitting to a owning a gun. However, if you're a man and bent over the doctor's table, hold out as long as you can. BT100dc
     
  7. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,190
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    I hunt with my family Doc and my shoulder surgeon who I have had for many years is a competition pistol shooter. I promise you they won't be asking me. They already know the answer. Then again they won't be telling anyone either.
     
  8. 22hornet

    22hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,461
    Location:
    Hanford, CA
    I was in a motorcycle accident about 2 years ago. I had some serious injuries and was transported to a regional trauma center for treatment. I was conscious during triage, and the doc asked me some pretty strange questions...did I use street drugs? Have I ever been arrested for domestic battery? Did I use alcohol, and was I ever arrested for DUI? DID I HAVE GUNS IN MY HOME, AND WHAT KIND?

    I replied with no, no, no, no and none of your business. I was curious what these questions were for, and he said it was routine procedure. This happened in the trauma unit at the Fresno Community Regional Medical Center. I don't know if it's a California thing, or if they were profiling motorcyclists, but it is disturbing.
     
  9. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    12,569
    Location:
    God's Country
    This came out about two years ago, and many on the internet/email deal said this was going down. The docs ask you about guns, it is not a medical question, unless you have a gunshot wound. I don't own any guns. They scare me.
     
  10. trapperwads

    trapperwads Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,869
    Well doc..before I tell you...how many times a week do you do your receptionist?
     
  11. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    You all may want to read the bill ( you know the one they voted on before they signed it),,,,,,,,,Doctors are required to be on electronic charting by 2014 if they are getting reimbursement from Midicare/Medicaid. If you answer the question and the doc charts it.............

    hussein is setting us up to be liars,,,,,,,,guess he wants us to be like him.......
     
  12. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,357
    Location:
    S-E PA
    I post this as a thought provoking piece to hold and consider sharing with your MD...

    I hope Mr. Horn does not mind this being shared, but it is important to consider.

    -

    Risk Management Advice to Physicians and their Insurers:
    Don't Borrow Trouble

    By Joe Horn

    Since retiring and leaving Law Enforcement, I have been active in Risk Management consulting, a field that has grown rapidly throughout every industry over the past 20 years. Some of the companies I have consulted to for risk management include IBM, Gates Lear jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.

    One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of exposure.

    Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, but naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.

    Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.

    To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor Knew, Could have known or SHOULD have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?

    Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they get sued.

    Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:

    1.

    One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer.

    2.

    How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.


    Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it.

    (c) 2000

    Joe Horn
    6th Mesa Risk Management,
    Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Joe Horn is a member of Second Amendment Police Department, who is now collaborating and strategizing from time to time with Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws.



    Physicians, Don't borrow trouble, Part II

    by Joe Horn



    Last time (Part I) we discussed:

    *

    the Risk Management issues involved in counseling patients about firearms home safety, and
    *

    the liability issues involved with lack of certification and training of Physicians in Home Safety or Firearms Safety.

    Now we'll discuss:

    * the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms in the home, and
    * the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely.


    Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at closehand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.

    It's just a matter of when and not if this will happen, God forbid, but it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

    Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate defensive use of a firearm, which was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's advice to render him/herself defenseless against violent crime.

    The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home.

    Physicians are already under incredible pressure from Liability and Malpractice carriers to limit their exposure, and Malpractice rates are staggeringly high. So, why borrow trouble?

    If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

    It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is considerable...

    Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Joe Horn, Sixth Mesa Risk Management, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired. (c) 2000 Permission is granted to reproduce this article if left intact and complete. crowtalk@theriver.com
     
  13. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    If you don't want to lie, just do want the gangsters/politicans do............take the fifth. You are not required to testify against yourself.


    Again that pesky Bill of Rights inthe Constitution.
     
  14. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,357
    Location:
    S-E PA
    I include this "proof of liability insurance form"


    -

    FIREARMS SAFETY COUNSELING REPRESENTATION:
    PHYSICIAN QUALIFICATIONS AND LIABILITY

    Part One: Qualifications

    I affirm that I am certified to offer (Name of Patient: ), [hereinafter referred to as "the Patient"], qualified advice about firearms safety in the home, having received:

    Specify Course(s) of Study: ___________________________________________________________________

    From: Specify Institution(s) __________________________________________________________________

    Specify Course Completion Date(s): _____________________________________________________________

    Resulting in: Specify Accreditation(s), Certification(s), License(s) etc.:__________________________________

    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Check one, as appropriate:

    ___ I represent that I have reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of private firearms ownership. I further represent that I have reviewed all other relevant home safety issues with the Patient, including those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, etc. I also acknowledge, by receiving this document, I have been made aware that, in his inaugural address before the American Medical Association on June 20, 2001, new president Richard Corlin, MD, admitted "What we don't know about violence and guns is literally killing us...researchers do not have the data to tell how kids get guns, if trigger locks work, what the warning signs of violence in schools and at the workplace are and other critical questions due to lack of research funding." (UPI). In spite of this admission, I represent that I have sufficient data and expertise to provide expert and clinically sound advice to patients regarding firearms in the home.

    OR

    ___ I am knowingly engaging in Home/Firearms Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk Management, and; I have not reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of private firearms ownership.

    Part Two: Liability

    I have determined, from a review of my medical malpractice insurance, that if I engage in an activity for which I am not certified, such as Firearms Safety Counseling, the carrier (check one, as appropriate):
    ___ will ___ will not cover lawsuits resulting from neglect, lack of qualification, etc.

    Insurance Carrier name, address and policy number insuring me for firearms safety expertise:

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    I further warrant that, should the Patient follow my firearm safety counseling and remove from the home and/or disable firearms with trigger locks or other mechanisms, and if the patient or a family member, friend or visitor is subsequently injured or killed as a result of said removal or disabling, that my malpractice insurance and/or personal assets will cover all actual and punitive damages resulting from a lawsuit initiated by the patient, the patient's legal representative, or the patient's survivors.

    Signature of attesting physician and date: ___________________________________________________

    Name of attesting physician (please print): __________________________________________________

    Signature of patient and date: ____________________________________________________________

    Name of patient (please print): ____________________________________________________________

    Note to patient: Indicate if physician "REFUSED TO SIGN." Ask physician to place copy in chart/medical record.


    Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble
    © 2000 by Joe Horn crowtalk@theriver.com

    One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of liability exposure.

    Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even removal of those firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.

    Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine.

    Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.

    To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?

    Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.
    Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:

    • One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer.

    • How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.

    Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example, E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.

    Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.

    It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

    Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home defenseless against violent crime.

    The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person would have surmised.

    If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

    It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is considerable...

    Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.

    Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting. Among other firms, he has consulted to IBM, Gates Learjet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.
     
  15. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    Forms, smorms.

    You still do not have to testify against yourself. If all gun owners take the fifth, it would gut the issue.
     
  16. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,357
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Yes, but why should I be the one on the defensive?

    Let them be the ones with the fear in them...
     
  17. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    You are not taking the defensive.

    It is the government that wants this information, not the doctors or insurance companies.



    The government can go sit on a sharp stick.

    The greatest fear you can instill into government is defiance, your knowledge of your rights and use of the Constitution that limits the actions of the government.


    Let this go all the way to the SCOTUS if it has to. They have already made many decisions as to the right of privacy of the citizens, which the courts have said the government must have warrents if the citizen does not want to give up information freely.
     
  18. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    I got a better idea, I am going to take a copy of this form and shoot off copies to both my senators, and Represenative, and ask them to please explain to me how this request for information does mot violate the 2nd and 5th Amendments.


    I just fired one off to them about the NY ban on magazines and asked why is there concern about the police being out gunned by criminals disregarding the hi-cap-ban, but the same concern is mot given to the law abiding citizens.


    We should not rely on the NRA of performing our obligations as citizens, which is giving the government absolute hell every chance we get.
     
  19. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    Oh, and send a copy to the ACLU asking them the same thing.

    Maybe show "cc" to the ACLU on your letters to the Senators and Rep.
     
  20. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,356
    And Fox News.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.