Well my family doctor changed practices so I followed him. I was considered a new patient and endured a brutal Q and A. Got the usual health history,marital status, drug use questions. From there it went to questions about me having thoughts or plans of homocides and how many firearms I own to what kind and how do i use them. Of course I objected to nosier than normal gun questions and refused to diclose my firearms . Any of yall had this?..FYI reason for visit...I had the flu
Invasive questions?
- Thread starter jmtbiggin
- Start date
Oh yes I inquired what relevance it had....the nurse said they just wanted a record of living conditions and possible home hazards. About 1/3 of that q and a was just intrusive and odd,but being this is a firearm forum i let the rest be.Needless to say I was answering some and protesting other questions
Unless you want such information to eventually become part of an official federal medical record -- to be seen by every organizational Tom, Dick, Harry & Jane who will ultimately have 'standing' to see those records -- respond with a simple "...next question, please."
Don't anyone bother telling us all about HIPPA and its protections. It can (and will be) changed at the stroke of a political pen.
.
Don't anyone bother telling us all about HIPPA and its protections. It can (and will be) changed at the stroke of a political pen.
.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Where ya been hiding? This type of questioning has been discussed on this forum multiple times. It's part of the anti-gunners' agenda to reclassify "gun violence" as an epidemiological issue, rather than or on top of being a crime issue.jmtbiggin said:
My view -- which I've posted here more than twice -- is that protesting the questions or declining to answer them does not gain you anything. If you protest, they just say "It's on the form, we have to ask." If you decline to answer, you have no control over what the person asking the question might write. It's a form, after all, and it probably has check boxes for "Yes" and "No" after the "Do you have any guns in the house?" question.
"I would rather not answer that question because I consider it to be a violation of my privacy and because it doesn't have any relation to the reason I am in your office today ..." probably won't fit in the space available, plus it takes too long to write. It's entirely possible that an "I choose not to answer" response will be entered as a "Yes."
In general, I am opposed to lying. On this issue, I advocate lying.
"Do you have any guns in your home?"
"Nope."
If you want to commit homocide or suicide there are many ways . Ask the Doc how does he protect himself or family.While I applaud your spirit, I can also guarantee that such an answer will become
(if not already be) a crime in and of itself.
Remember, we are headed toward a single-payer system -- that system being the ''taxpayer' --
and therefore federal regulations will be written to criminalize lying on a federal form.
Those kind of people have become an almost protected class. You, on the other hand,
would likely be in the '"..let's make an example class." I recommend not testing the
ham-sandwich theory.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of the great justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, was listening to the argument of a young lawyer who mentioned at several points in his argument that his client sought justice before the court. Justice Holmes listened as long as he could and then said not unkindly, "Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice."
would likely be in the '"..let's make an example class." I recommend not testing the
ham-sandwich theory.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of the great justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, was listening to the argument of a young lawyer who mentioned at several points in his argument that his client sought justice before the court. Justice Holmes listened as long as he could and then said not unkindly, "Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice."
Pond James Pond
New member
Wow! Gob-smacked!
Ask me about my diet, about my exercise regime, my personal hygiene, issues of substance abuse, family medical history, perhaps my work environment and my area of residence.
Anything beyond that and "mind your own <insert blue language of choice> business!!"
How is this not an issue of invasion of privacy? "Hazards assessment", my backside!
Do they ask if you ride a bicycle, handle knives at home, work with powertools, drive on the highway? All of those are "hazards".
Would it not be covered, in some part, by your 5th amendment in some cases?
If private citizens are not obliged by law to show a police officer their ID, or let a police officer onto your property, I fail to see how a healthcare professional gets to quiz you about every facet of your life!!!
Seriously shocked by this.
Ask me about my diet, about my exercise regime, my personal hygiene, issues of substance abuse, family medical history, perhaps my work environment and my area of residence.
Anything beyond that and "mind your own <insert blue language of choice> business!!"
How is this not an issue of invasion of privacy? "Hazards assessment", my backside!
Do they ask if you ride a bicycle, handle knives at home, work with powertools, drive on the highway? All of those are "hazards".
Would it not be covered, in some part, by your 5th amendment in some cases?
If private citizens are not obliged by law to show a police officer their ID, or let a police officer onto your property, I fail to see how a healthcare professional gets to quiz you about every facet of your life!!!
Seriously shocked by this.
Last edited:
Sure, but dont forget about the husband of some political figure who had his office raided in DC.
This guys life was tuned upside down over a empty shotgun shell that was sitting on his desk.
I dont remember the details, and I'm not going to devote the time to dig it up... my point is that you can never predict what so many of the absolutely foolish and ethically bankrupt powers at be will prosecute using no common sense whatsoever.
Land Of The Free my arse... cant even go to the doc anymore without worrying if some completely unrelated question that shouldnt be asked first place can land you in hot water down the road.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It isn't a crime. It isn't a statement for any "official" legal purpose, and it's not sworn under oath as being true and accurate.mehavey said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
They can't make something a crime after the fact. (Ex post facto)
You'll probably cite the issue of domestic violence misdemeanors subsequently being made into prohibiting offenses, but that's not the same thing. The person pled guilty to (i.e. was convicted of) a criminal act. They didn't make John Doe's domestic violence a crime after he had committed the act. What they did was to tack on another punishment. I agree that's wrong, but the act itself was a crime when John Doe committed it, and that's why he pled guilty to the charge.
You'll probably cite the issue of domestic violence misdemeanors subsequently being made into prohibiting offenses, but that's not the same thing. The person pled guilty to (i.e. was convicted of) a criminal act. They didn't make John Doe's domestic violence a crime after he had committed the act. What they did was to tack on another punishment. I agree that's wrong, but the act itself was a crime when John Doe committed it, and that's why he pled guilty to the charge.
aarondhgraham
New member
Just don't answer the questions,,,
Just don't answer the questions,,,
Leave the space blank,,,
It's that simple folks.
Aarond
.
Just don't answer the questions,,,
Leave the space blank,,,
It's that simple folks.
Aarond
.
buck460XVR
New member
^^^This. I have Pheasant hunted and shot Sporting Clays on the same team with my family doctor.
Mosin-Marauder
New member
Why go to the doctor for flu anyway? It's a viral infection. Nothing the doctor can do for it. Same as with the cold. Just have to ride it out. Antibiotics don't do anything to viruses like cold and flu.
But I agree they have no reason for asking such questions.
But I agree they have no reason for asking such questions.
If the government is asking the question, you have constitutional rights. If its not the government (even if its being asked for them), a different set of rules applies. It depends on the tricksy legal system, to decide if your doctor (in this case) is acting as an agent of the government in this instance. (not a lawyer, just my private opinion)
They aren't supposed to be able to do this, but they have found ways to do what has the same effect. In the case of the domestic violence thing, they did it by using the specific language of the law to get their desired intent.
The way it was written used the potential punishment as the standard. No matter what the sentence actually was. Yes, you did plead guilty to a crime. BUT at the time, the penalty for that crime did not make you a prohibited person. New law, and now that old conviction NOW makes you a prohibited person. That may not be ex post facto by definition, but it certainly is, by effect!
here's another point to consider, already sort of mentioned, doctors take notes, about everything about you, when they see you. These get into the records. Your general appearance (neat, unkempt, etc), and your state of mind (calm, agitated, etc.) are part of that.
If you get in their face about "stupid invasion of privacy" questions, you might wind up with a note saying "Patient became agitated when asked routine questions"...implying you are mentally unstable.
The risk we face currently, is that despite any, and all promises and despite even laws intended to protect us, private personal information is going to wind up available to agenda driven bureaucrats with the stroke of a pen, and some clicking on the keyboard.