Wollschlaeger v. Florida

[Al Norris]

This whole thing has been a long time in coming. Read the following very closely, please.

The Case: Wollschlaeger et al v. Scott et al
Case Number: 1:2011cv22026
Filed: June 6, 2011
Court: Florida Southern District Court
Office: Miami Office

The Plaintiffs: Bernd Wollschlaeger , Judith Schaechter , Tommy Schechtman , American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter , American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter and American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc. (various attorneys from the Brady Center)

The Defendants: Rick Scott, Kurt S. Browning, Frank Farmer, Elizabeth Dudek and Lucy Gee

Justia Info: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv22026/380612/
Docket: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.380612/gov.uscourts.flsd.380612.docket.html

As you may know, Florida recently passed a law entitled, “An act relating
to the privacy of firearm owners” ( or as the Brady group calls it, the “Physician Gag Law”). The aim of the legislation was to prevent physicians from using guns as a political tool and morphing guns (and the resulting violence) into a disease.

Back in 2001, Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., who was then eiditor-in-chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, published his article expressing the dangers of the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, politicizing their anti-gun beliefs when using their positions of authority with their (vulnerable) patients. That article (from 2001) is here.

Has this changed?

In 2009, Dr Timmothy Wheeler was head of DRGO (Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership) wrote an article for the Clairemont Institute, Stating that nothing had changed. That article is here. Perhaps you might remember DRGO and The Clairemont Institute? Most recently (for those that are following 2A court cases) they filed an amicus brief for the plaintiff/appellant in Prieto v. Gore.

Now we can look at the lawsuits announcement at Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-florida-doctors-guns-idUSTRE75572Q20110606. This gives us the following:

But the plaintiffs -- three individual doctors and the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians ...

Aren't these the same groups identified by Dr. Faria in the 2001 article?

This isn't a free speech case. It is a case of ideological activists, bent on getting "gun violence" classified as a disease. If they can't legislate them away, if they can't get the Courts to prohibit them, then they will take our guns away because it's a public health problem that trumps everything else. Period. That is their (the physicians) stated goal. And the Brady's don't much care how they get there, as long as they do.

There is much more at stake here than some Doctors supposed right to free speech. While this lawsuit is framed as a 1A (Free Speech) issue, this is an indirect attack on 2A rights that has been building since the mid 90's.

Did I overstate the problem above? Take a look at the Factual Background heading:

A. Necessity of Safety Counseling as Preventative Medicine

Unless the Doctor is also a qualified firearms trainer, how is s/he qualified to "counsel" anyone on firearms safety, let alone pass it off as "preventative medicine?"

Read the Complaint, here.

(simulposted at MDShooters and TFL)

 

[Boxcab]

Thanks Al.

This fills in some of the issues that arise when someone starts a post about their doctor asking about guns. The dangers are there, while most doctors don't give a flying fig, and even are shooters themselves, there are always fringe groups that can abuse the information and power.

 

[rambling_one]

As pointed out in an earlier thread, my doctor asked me...once.

In response to his nosiness, I asked if he had a prescription pad and/or access to drugs and if handled them properly.

Doc saw where I was going and dropped it. The issue never came up again.

 

[MDFF2008]

So they are suing the state over the law?

 

[krucam]

So they are suing the state over the law?

Yes.

v.
RICK SCOTT
In his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida

KURT S. BROWNING
In his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Florida

FRANK FARMER
In his official capacity as Surgeon General of the State of Florida

ELIZABETH DUDEK
In her official capacity as Secretary of Health Care Administration of the State of Florida

LUCY GEE
In her official capacity as Division Director of the Florida Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance

Defendants.

 

[krucam]

Yeah, its a 1A case with Brady Lawyers representing. Looking, talking, walking like a duck...

From the Reuters link:

"The suit, filed by lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and law firms including Ropes & Gray, named Governor Rick Scott and four other state health officials as defendants and requested an injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law."

 

[teratos]

I am not in favor of asking people about guns. This IS a 1A issue. Doctors are business people. For the most part, primary care docs are private entities. Do YOU want the government to regulate what you can do or say in YOUR business? I don't like this legislation at all.

 

[Kais]

As pointed out in an earlier thread, my doctor asked me...once.

In response to his nosiness, I asked if he had a prescription pad and/or access to drugs and if handled them properly.

Doc saw where I was going and dropped it. The issue never came up again.

+1

 

[boricuamaximus]

Why would this be a 1A case? It's a dont stick your nose where it dont belong case. If I go to the doctor because I stubbed by toe, it has nothing to do with me having firearms.

 

[Bikebreath]

As pointed out in an earlier thread, my doctor asked me...once.

In response to his nosiness, I asked if he had a prescription pad and/or access to drugs and if handled them properly.

Doc saw where I was going and dropped it. The issue never came up again.

I'll remember that reply...thanks!

 

[teratos]

Why would this be a 1A case? It's a dont stick your nose where it dont belong case. If I go to the doctor because I stubbed by toe, it has nothing to do with me having firearms.

Can a business person run their business how they see fit, or should the government regulate what they can say? Again, it seems like a great thing since those here are generally in favor of NOT asking this question, but what authority does the government have to regulate what is said in a private business?? This is very concerning to me.

 

[Bikebreath]

Can a business person run their business how they see fit, or should the government regulate what they can say? Again, it seems like a great thing since those here are generally in favor of NOT asking this question, but what authority does the government have to regulate what is said in a private business?? This is very concerning to me.

I hate smoking, but I hate the non-smoking laws more. If a doctor asks you something that's not about your real health, just telling to go suck an egg.

 

[EL1227]

Well actually ...

I am not in favor of asking people about guns. This IS a 1A issue. Doctors are business people. For the most part, primary care docs are private entities. Do YOU want the government to regulate what you can do or say in YOUR business? I don't like this legislation at all.

The Florida law, as written, bans the AMA (and various other enjoined associations, including Brady) from requiring their participating physicians to ask about gun ownership. It puts no burden on the patient or his doctor; in fact, it relieves a lot of burden, both from reporting by the doctor, and anxiety of the gun owner in WHY these types of questions are being asked in the first place.

If overturned by this litigation, expect a full-court press by the 'medical arm' of Brady to declare gun ownership as a 'disease' requiring treatment based on data that they will manipulate from the results of these questions.

Yes, the court challenge is being persued as 1A, but it's utimate goal is to manipulate data on gun ownership (2A) as a public health issue. Like Dr. Faria noted ... public health (aka ObamaCare) trumps everything.

 

[Inigoes]

Can a business person run their business how they see fit, or should the government regulate what they can say? Again, it seems like a great thing since those here are generally in favor of NOT asking this question, but what authority does the government have to regulate what is said in a private business?? This is very concerning to me.

The opposite side of the coin:

Can a doctor refuse treatment to an unrelated illness, because you won't answer the question?

 

[teratos]

The opposite side of the coin:

Can a doctor refuse treatment to an unrelated illness, because you won't answer the question?

A doctor can refuse to take you as a patient. I have told some people I would not take them on. If the illness is acute or life threatening, then no. Docs are obligated to treat.

 

[Al Norris]

Teratos, I understand perfectly what you, and many others are saying. In most respects, I agree.

The exception is anti-gun Doctors using bogus statistics (read the brief, it is replete with such - without verifiable annotations as to the "facts") to classify guns and gun ownership as a disease that is a public health hazard.

When Doctors use their position (authority) to push political beliefs (not founded in medical science) onto a patient, there is a clear ethical violation. It is not free speech to use your authority in medicine, to advocate a political position that is not related to medicine, as a prerequisite in treating the conditions of your patients.

 

[Patrick]

Maybe we need to look at the law in question to see what it says. I don't want the government regulating the conversation between my doctors and me - except I want strong penalties if those doctors abuse my trust or privacy.

Sometimes the slippery slope starts with you enjoying the ride, that is all I am suggesting. Guns today...what about tomorrow? What else can they tell my doctor to not talk about? An effective but expensive treatment the government would rather not afford (British system does this)?

That said, as I understood the law it walked back from that ledge and left the door open. But like I said, we need to read it and understand it first. I will dig into it if I get some time.

 

[jpk1md]

Sometimes the slippery slope starts with you enjoying the ride, that is all I am suggesting. Guns today...what about tomorrow? What else can they tell my doctor to not talk about? An effective but expensive treatment the government would rather not afford (British system does this)?

Sounds very much like the argument why the National Reciprocity Bill is a bad one doesn't it.......

But with that said, the law in question is a STATE Law rather than a FEDERAL Law.....you don't like the laws of your state and you have the option to move to one that you agree with.....not the case with Federal Laws.

Bottom line is that its a perfectly reasonable law for a State to pass/implement

 

[EL1227]

Helpful links ...

Ignoring the heated rhetoric in the news, here are the facts.

Scott signs doctor-gun measure

HB 155, which takes effect immediately, allows doctors to ask about gun ownership and record that data only when they believe the information is pertinent to a patient's safety and health. If the Florida Board of Medicine finds a doctor out of step with the law, the doctor could face various penalties, including fines of up to $10,000.

Florida HB 155: Privacy of Firearm Owners

Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.

Seems pretty clear to me ...

It's none of their damned business, the business of the AMA, or the APA, or The Brady Bunch, unless it's "relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others", and pursuing it with a patient, refusing treatment, or denying insurance coverage is subject to a fine.

So, I'd advise not letting libertarian sensibilities get in the way of losing an essential right to privacy as well as 2A.

 

[rob]

I agree with the premise that the state should not dictate, in any way, a limit to free speech. A doctor should not be limited in the questions he may ask.

However, it is very, very wrong for the AMA to push a political agenda and require doctors to collect non-medical data.

The goal of the law is admirable, but it may very well be a bad law.

Probably best to trash the law and b-tch slap the a$$hole at the AMA. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen.

Rob.