I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that one of the greatest threats to our freedom is Doctors in the "National Health Field." This is from an article in the Tennessean by, "Manoj Jain is a Memphis physician whose writings have appeared in The Washington Post."
"Two weeks before the Newtown, Conn., shooting, I was at my doctor’s office for an annual physical exam, answering questions on an intake survey. Questions like “Do you smoke? How much?” and “Do you wear the seat belt?”
And then one question stuck out: “Do you have any firearms in the house? Are they stored in a locked area?” What business do my doctors have to ask me about my desire and acceptance to bear firearms? Politics aside, what does the medical and scientific literature say about gun ownership and gun control laws?"
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130106/OPINION03/301050063
The problem is, of course, is that politics cannot be placed aside.
Perhaps Jain has not heard of of it, or more likely doesn't care for it when it interferes with what he wants to do. But it does have this section called the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It was designed specifically to keep the government out of our private lives.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
Jain, it is none of your damn business if I have guns and how they stored.
Please stick to treating the sick and stay the hell out of politics. You are not God and no one has appointed you Supreme Leader.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine
He's a well-educated man. I'm sure he's not only heard of the Fourth Amendment, but he's obviously graduated high school, so he would know that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent your doctor from asking whether you own a gun or how it's stored. It's also not even remotely relevant to the issue of studying gun violence, which is what the doctor was advocating.
ReplyDeleteWell, I see that we have another person commenting on the Internet who does not have a moniker. Isn’t that just amazing?? Millions of people commenting with millions of monikers and yet no one who comments here seems to have one.
DeleteOh well, Dear Unknown One.
Your reading ability is zilch. I never said he isn’t educated or that a Doctor can’t ask you anything. My point was that the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy.
And that the Doctor should not try and violate that privacy.
Ain’t his job, man.
Of course the real question is this. Of what value to the Doctor is the answer unless he is going to use it to have your weapons seized??
Let’s assume he asks 1,000 people and gets 1,000 answers. Unless he establishes a database and checks it against every act that involves guns, matching names, addresses and social security numbers, it is useless as survey.
He obviously wants to outlaw gun ownership.
Once again the constitution protects you from the government. You protect you from individuals. Don't answer the question or find another doctor if you really don't like the questions.
DeleteYeah. But that isn't the point.
DeleteThe point is... Where does the form come from that the Doctor is asking the questions from???
More gun paranoia. The whole purpose of his article is advocating for further research of gun violence and how to reduce it. Absolutely no where in the article does he advocate outlawing gun ownership - merely studying which methods of reducing gun violence are effective.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my "monkiker" aka fake name, I used one last time and you complained about it.
Make up your mind.
Hey folks, Asshole is back! And showing his stupidity.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll give him a chance.
Hey Stupid, explain to me how knowing if people have a gun and if they locked up will provide any information that will reduce violence??
Face it. The Doc wants control. Typical God Complex.
Sure, asshole. For example, by determining how many households have guns in a particular area, they can compare the number of shootings between areas with different levels of gun ownership.
ReplyDeleteEasy.
Got a jealousy thing going on with doctors, huh? Feeling a little inadequate compared to the guys with real educations, huh?
It’s meaningless, dummy. I mean, how many of the people are on some type of drugs?? How many are certified insane??? How many people in the area haven’t been surveyed?? Etc., etc.
DeleteEducation?? You ever studied a hard science?? No? That’s what I thought.
Face facts. The good doctor wants to outlaw all guns.
You know, even for a Leftie you are dumb.
Sorry, "dummy" - those types of factors are called "variables", and they are controlled in scientific studies, which are reviewed and critiqued by other experts in the field. Scientific studies are those things we educated people use as evidence, as opposed to saying "face facts". Of course, being a senile, old redneck who got a silly degree from some corn college, I understand why you wouldn't know that.
ReplyDeleteWell controling variables is something that is done but in these types of "studies" they really can't be. Folks don't tell the truth. Review by "experts" is not a substitute for being able to replicate the experiment. In the "social sciences" this is impossible so objective evidence is not avaiable. Simple!!
DeleteHey asshole! Thanks for demonstrating your ignornance. Control??? Really?? What's your demographic?? Geographic area?
ReplyDeleteWhat you speak of is MAKING THINGS UP.
In other words, you want to lie about this subject.
Typical.
Now, bundle up your panties and waddle off buttercup, you're done on this subject.
Sorry, "buttercup" - controlling variables is a basic part of scientific studies.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+control
Yes, idiot, we all know that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem you have is that there is no "scientific study." What the doctor is doing is interviewing a random group of people from an undefined geographic who are from an unknown demographic with widely varying educational and financial backgrounds.
That’s what use to be called “Man on the street” interviews.
Now buttercup, you're boring me.
Uhhhhmmm ... that's the doctor's very point. There needs to be scientific study of this issue. Moreover, interviews/surveys are a basic data collection method. Had you gone to a real college (probably even a real high school), you would know that, "Buttercup".
ReplyDeleteLast word, slimeball.
ReplyDeleteI dearly hate Lefties who keep trying to reframe the argument.
It demonstrates a dishonesty that transcends the usual measurement of that charactere trait.
Interviews are part of any study.
But the study must have strict guidelines as to demographics, etc..
Now, go play with the other children. You are done here.