The state of North Carolina is considering passing a law allowing doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in patients’ households in an effort to reduce accidental firearm deaths, especially among children.
Post Part 1 early so that others will have time to respond to you.Situation: The state of North Carolina is considering passing a law allowing doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in patients’ households in an effort to reduce accidental firearm deaths, especially among children. You are present at a public forum whose purpose is to give concerned populations a chance to voice their opinions. This forum will help determine the fate of the proposed legislation. Part 1.
- Check your role below and write at least five sentences (as your role) responding to the issue and voicing your argument and reasons.
- Remember to maintain a constructive tone and focus on reaching a solution.
- Use the knowledge you have gained from the textbook.
Part 1 Task:
- Imagine that this forum represents a constructive meeting that will lead to a solution.
- For this to happen, each person must keep an open mind, consider the other people involved, and present his or her side of the issue in a reasonable and respectful manner.
- Each person must focus on a solution.
- up to 60 points
Roles by the first letter of your last name:
- A-B: The CFO of a major hospital.
- C-D: President of the National Rifle Association
- E-G: A parent/gun owner with a conceal-carry permit
- H-K: A parent/no-gun owner
- L: A pediatrician
- M: A gun store owner
- N-P: The president of the Florida chapter of the American medical Association
- Q-R: A parent whose child was killed after finding a gun in its home and accidentally shooting itself
- S: A patient who left a physician after being asked about guns in her home
- T: A guest speaker who is a psychologist and an expert on psychological trauma experienecd by families who have had a member either injured or killed by accidental firearm discharges in the home.
- U-V: A statistician, employed by the State of North Carolina, who has data tracking incidents of accidental death/injury due to firearms in the home.
- W-Z: A guest speaker who is a lawyer who specializes cases concerning accidental firearm deaths.
Part 2.
- Maintaining your role, respond constructively to at least two other posts.
- Remain focused on reaching a solution.
- up to 20 points per response
- Use only your own ideas and knowledge. Do not use sources.
Click on “Add a New Discussion Topic” to post Part 1. Then, reply to two other posts.
- Parts 1 and 2 are due by 11:55 p.m. on Monday, August 26.
- I recommend that you complete this assignment by Sunday, August 25.
Notes on Forum Grading:
- I will typically grade posts and replies one at a time (60+20+20=100). If I am not finished grading the forum, you may not see your full grade. For example, if I’ve only graded your post so far, you may see a 60.
- Posts and replies that do not follow directions will not earn credit. If you lost points due to not following directions, I will reply to your post with a brief explanation.
- Late forum posts and replies will not earn credit. I have disabled grading for late posts and replies. You must keep track of forum deadlines. Moodle will not do this for you.
- Use standard written English in the forums. Pay attention to grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. This is an academic forum. It is not a text message conversation. I will deduct points for poor English use.
Remember to avoid plagiarism. Do not use sources for this assignment.
Newspaper
Christian Science Monitor
Jul 25, 2014, n.p.
Copyright © 2014 The Christian Science Monitor (www.CSMonitor.com). Limited printing and electronic copying is permitted under this license agreement. Copies are for personal use only. For re-use and publication permissions, please contact copyright@csps.com.
Florida Law Barring Gun Inquiries by Doctors Upheld by Federal Appeals
By Warren Richey
• The Florida law seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms safety with their patients. It was passed after several individuals perceived questions about gunownership as intrusive and offensive.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a Florida law that seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms safety with their patients – including inquiring whether they keep any guns at home.
The action reversed a 2012 injunction issued by a federal judge in Miami, who ruled that the Florida law violated the free-speech rights of physicians to counsel their patients about health-related matters.
The appeals court panel voted 2 to 1 to uphold the Florida law.
The measure, the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, was passed in 2011 in response to an American Medical Association policy that encouraged doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in homes with children. The AMA policy was designed to help raise awareness and protect children from gun-related accidents.
Despite these good intentions, several would-be patients and the parents of children seeking medical services perceived the questions about gun ownership as intrusive and offensive.
In one case, medical staff members separated a mother from her children and then asked the children whether their mother owned any firearms.
In another instance, a mother refused to answer questions about whether she kept a gun at home, telling the physician that she felt the question was an invasion of her privacy. The pediatrician then informed the mother that she had 30 days to find a new doctor for her child.
The Florida law sought to protect patients’ privacy by restricting nonrelevantinquiries and record keeping by physicians about firearms. Violators could lose their license and face up to $10,000 in fines.
A group of physicians and medical associations responded to the new statute by filing a federal lawsuit. They argued that the law violated the First Amendment by imposing a content-based restriction on their speech.
Lawyers for the state countered that the Florida law was merely a regulation of professional conduct and imposed only an incidental burden on the physicians’ speech.
Other parts of the law sought to prevent discrimination and harassment by doctors. This was a regulation of conduct, not speech, the state lawyers argued.
In reversing the lower court injunction, the appeals court agreed with the state.
“We find that the Act is a valid regulation of professional conduct that has only incidental effect on physicians’ speech,” Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the court. “As such, the Act does not facially violate the First Amendment.”
The judge added: “The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care.”
Judge Tjoflat noted that one part of the law seeks to prevent harassment of patients by doctors seeking to “pursue an agenda unrelated to medical care or safety.”
Such harassment would probably occur when a doctor had no relevant reason to ask about someone’s possession of guns in the home, he said. In contrast, the judge said, a physician dealing with a suicidal patient “may wish to attempt to persuade the patient to remove firearms from the patient’s home.”
The judge said fears that doctors will be subject to discipline for offending their patient’s sensibilities were “unfounded.”
“So long as a physician is operating in good faith within the boundaries of good medical practice, and is providing only firearm safety advice which is relevant and necessary, he or she need not fear discipline at the hands of the [state licensing] Board or a money judgment in a court of law,” Tjoflat said.
In a dissent, Judge Charles Wilson said he would find the Florida law unconstitutional as a legislative act that seeks to silence doctors’ “disfavored message about firearm safety.”
“This law is … designed to stop a perceived political agenda, and it is difficult to conceive of any law designed for that purpose that could withstand First Amendment scrutiny,” he said.
“Simply put, the Act is a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms,” Judge Wilson said.
“The Act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic and one topic only, firearms,” he said.
“Regardless of whether we agree with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message,” Wilson said.
Wilson said the decision was unprecedented because it held essentially that licensed professionals have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking to clients or patients in private. “This in turn says that patients have no First Amendment right to receive information from licensed professionals – a frightening prospect,” he said.
The case is Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida (12-14009).
