{"id":48559,"date":"2014-07-28T09:28:26","date_gmt":"2014-07-28T13:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=48559"},"modified":"2014-07-29T22:37:50","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T02:37:50","slug":"florida","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/07\/28\/florida\/","title":{"rendered":"florida&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<br \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"> <a href=\"http:\/\/alert.psychiatricnews.org\/2014\/07\/court-says-floridas-ban-on-physicians.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PsychiatricNewsAlert+%28Psychiatric+News+Alert%29\" target=\"_blank\">Court Says Florida&#8217;s Ban on Physicians Discussing Gun Ownership Is Legal<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><strong><font color=\"#100010\">Psychiatric<\/font><font color=\"#990000\">News<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">July 29, 2014<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">A federal appeals court  has reversed a lower court&#8217;s ruling that Florida&#8217;s law limiting what  physicians can discuss with their patients regarding gun ownership  violates physicians&#8217; First Amendment right to free speech. The lower  court had issued an injunction in June 2012 against enforcing the law,  which was signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott [R] in June 2011.      <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">APA, the AMA, and  several other physician organizations had submitted an amicus  curiae&nbsp;brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit urging  the justices to reject the state&#8217;s attempt to revive the law after the  lower court decision, pointing out that asking about gun ownership and  guns in the home is an important screening tool, like asking about  substances of abuse, smoking, and eating habits, for example. But in its  July 25 ruling, the appeals court found that the law did not violate  free-speech rights&nbsp;but was instead a &quot;legitimate regulation&quot; of medical  conduct in the service of&nbsp;providing patients with&nbsp;&quot;good&nbsp;medical care.&quot;  The majority of the appeals court panel ruled that the law &quot;simply  codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record  keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient&#8217;s care&#8230;. Any  burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely incidental.&quot;  The justices also said that patients&#8217; right to privacy regarding gun  ownership takes precedence over physicians&#8217; right to inquire about this  subject.      <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">Paul Appelbaum, M.D.,  past chair of the APA Committee on Judicial Action and the Dollard  Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University,&nbsp;told <em>Psychiatric News,<\/em>  &quot;The 11th Circuit&rsquo;s decision upholding Florida&rsquo;s gag law is troubling  because it is one more example of courts and legislatures attempting to  control what doctors say to patients. Here, the judges&nbsp;have decided that  asking routinely about the presence of guns is contrary to good medical  practice and hence can be prohibited by the state. When courts set the  standards for clinical interactions rather than leaving that task in  medical hands, the inevitable result is harmful to the public&rsquo;s health.&quot;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">As a Air Force doctor, I once saw a young Army soldier who was part of a military exercise scheduled to begin the next day. That morning, he was on his usual five mile run, but became winded after only several miles. His exam was negative. When I asked about his combat experience, he said he couldn&#8217;t discuss his military service. When I asked about the coming exercise, he said the same thing. I wasn&#8217;t cleared to ask. I put him in the hospital where he has a sudden episode of shortness of breath later in the evening and died. At autopsy, he had a large pulmonary embolus [clot]. A post-mortem X-Ray of his legs showed multiple metal fragments from shrapnel received while on a secret mission in [REDACTED]. One of the fragments had eroded into a large vein and led to the clot. I had never been in a situation where I couldn&#8217;t take a medical history.<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">I was obviously devastated and announced that a full security clearance was a condition for my continuing to see patients in the military &#8211; and I was serious. It was quickly granted. The people in the military above me were as devastated as I was by this case. Our hospital was not equipped to stop that clot, even if we&#8217;d known about it, but we could&#8217;ve at least tried to get him somewhere that could&#8217;ve given it a shot in the couple of hours we had. <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">In the situation mentioned in this article, patients already have the right to privacy. So why is this question specifically singled out as an area that should be kept private from a physician? If you live in rural areas of this part of the country, you sort of know the answer. It&#8217;s a symbol of something like independence, or personal freedom &#8211; something like that &#8211; so the evil government can&#8217;t confiscate everybodies guns. Of course it&#8217;s craziness, but a craziness regularly capitalized on to get votes around here. For a State to pass such a law is part of that craziness and I hope the APA\/AMA will join the appeal of this ridiculous law. <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">I&#8217;ll not be practicing in Florida&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Court Says Florida&#8217;s Ban on Physicians Discussing Gun Ownership Is Legal PsychiatricNews July 29, 2014 A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court&#8217;s ruling that Florida&#8217;s law limiting what physicians can discuss with their patients regarding gun ownership violates physicians&#8217; First Amendment right to free speech. The lower court had issued an injunction in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48559"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48566,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48559\/revisions\/48566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}