Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Kids, guns and doctorsââ¬â¢ rights
- Thread starter Jazzy
- Start date
I don't really get what the big deal is. I personally think the doctor should be allowed to ask whatever questions he wants and you should have the right to give lies to all of them and as a result face potential life threatening or ending situations because you didn't feel like giving accurate information. It's not like he's going to drive to your house and inspect it to see if you are telling the truth about anything you say.
allowed Yes.
required as in some public health clinics, at least one HMO that I know of, and assorted other settings, NO.
Now as to whether or not the patients are required to answer as a condition of being treated, or to have their child treated, is another matter all together.
required as in some public health clinics, at least one HMO that I know of, and assorted other settings, NO.
Now as to whether or not the patients are required to answer as a condition of being treated, or to have their child treated, is another matter all together.
Bluezone777 said:
It's called an invasion of privacy. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invasion+of+privacy
Explain please whether or not a parent owns a firearm and refuses to answer, how the result would life threatening.
Of course it's a matter of national health. And international health too. It's ridiculous that a law like this has been passed, I mean not only that, if the patient or the patient's parents didn't want to answer, they didn't have to... No one was forcing them. Stupid law.
How is asking a question an invasion of privacy if you choose to not answer it or not answer it truthfully? In which way, can he even prove the validity of your statement? If he is supposedly invading your privacy then that would entail knowing something about you that you did not wish to be made known. How is this possible only by asking a question but before you give any answer? Why do you need the government to keep a question from being asked when the answer to your issue of the alleged invasion of privacy is to simply not answer it which requires no laws or government involvement? Or are you holding claim to the inability to not answer any question posed to you and/or the inability to lie?
You obviously did not read carefully. I simply stated that if you wish to go to a doctor, give no truthful statements to any questions asked then you deserve whatever comes your way from getting the wrong treatment due to telling lies to the doctor. Then again, it does beg the question of why would anyone go to a doctor and not plan on being honest at any point. They would be better off not going if they were that paranoid that simply asking a question is invading their privacy
The only reason why he cares about your gun collection and method of storing said guns if you do have them is because if you do not take the proper precautions then that means he ends up dealing with the mess that results from it. Why not take the time to educate people who have guns(plus spare those without them from having the discussion) on proper handling of guns when they simply might not have known what they were doing to store the guns was a potential hazard?
Besides this law is pointless anyways because now he can simply have all the info he wanted to give gun owners via pamphlets which can include links to websites to everyone who walks in the door. It is wasteful hence why he rather talk with those who have them and not waste paper and money on printing them for people who don't have any and therefore don't need the info. The only thing this law serves to do is drive up costs if anything.
You obviously did not read carefully. I simply stated that if you wish to go to a doctor, give no truthful statements to any questions asked then you deserve whatever comes your way from getting the wrong treatment due to telling lies to the doctor. Then again, it does beg the question of why would anyone go to a doctor and not plan on being honest at any point. They would be better off not going if they were that paranoid that simply asking a question is invading their privacy
The only reason why he cares about your gun collection and method of storing said guns if you do have them is because if you do not take the proper precautions then that means he ends up dealing with the mess that results from it. Why not take the time to educate people who have guns(plus spare those without them from having the discussion) on proper handling of guns when they simply might not have known what they were doing to store the guns was a potential hazard?
Besides this law is pointless anyways because now he can simply have all the info he wanted to give gun owners via pamphlets which can include links to websites to everyone who walks in the door. It is wasteful hence why he rather talk with those who have them and not waste paper and money on printing them for people who don't have any and therefore don't need the info. The only thing this law serves to do is drive up costs if anything.
Grumpy said:
Sorry but Public safety and Public health are two very seperate entities. This article focused on the rights of Pediatricians to ask such questions about owning a firearm. As you can clearly read, owning a firearm has absolutely nothing to do with Public health. Also has nothing to do with national/international health. How does owning a firearm go from becoming a public safety issue to a health issue?
Bluezone777 said:
Perhaps, you should read the conclusions in this article: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/1/22.abstract
It if is really and truly about child safety. Why don't they ask if you keep your kitchen knives in a locked drawer?
Do you have your power tools in a locked cabinet?
Are the stairs to your basement gated or locked?
Do you unplug your Christmas tree when you leave the room and a child is there?
Do you cut up your toddlers hotdog properly before you give it to them?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/22/children.choking/?hpt=C1
No, it is not about child safety.
Do you have your power tools in a locked cabinet?
Are the stairs to your basement gated or locked?
Do you unplug your Christmas tree when you leave the room and a child is there?
Do you cut up your toddlers hotdog properly before you give it to them?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/22/children.choking/?hpt=C1
No, it is not about child safety.
The AMA has been openly supporting Democratic gun control efforts since the nineties.
This article is from 2002.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/5/201025.shtml
There's more if you look for them.
This article is from 2002.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/5/201025.shtml
There's more if you look for them.
The Second Amendment(Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With that stated, the doctors are infringing on everyones RIGHTS by asking if they own a firearm or not.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With that stated, the doctors are infringing on everyones RIGHTS by asking if they own a firearm or not.
You didn't hear?
The Constitution is Irrelevant today.
The Constitution is Irrelevant today.
Of course, social progress means moving toward more centralized government that controls every aspect of our daily lives even moreso than it does now.
I guess the People will decide that they've had enough like they did in April of 1775.
Or even ... over yonder, once upon a time
La Marseillaise
To Arm, Citizens, Form your Battalions!
... ...
But, of course, if the rulers confiscate all the weapons that would be impossible.
...
oh, maybe that's the idea.
Or even ... over yonder, once upon a time
La Marseillaise
To Arm, Citizens, Form your Battalions!
... ...
But, of course, if the rulers confiscate all the weapons that would be impossible.
...
oh, maybe that's the idea.
