HIPA is designed for patient privacy of health records. People can sue over thier records being exposed. Allowing acess of private health records to the states or goverment should be protected. Doctors, nurses, health profesionals all make different diagnosis, and opinions of patient health diagnosis. This is thier opinion of what illness a person has. Mental health is even more difficult to pin down due to no actual lab values and test to definatly determine what illness affects a person. A medical practitioner is required by law to report people that are dangerous to themselves or others. this law is alreay in effect. Opening personal health records is opening Pandoras Box!

Yelp...at the pediatrcian friday she asked me if I had guns in my house. ..

My Dr doesnt ask that question, of course he also thinks that POTUS is a moron. He doesnt agree with anything this administration does.

I've never been asked by my doctor if I had guns in the house. Maybe I'm missing something, but how could they possibly justify asking that question and what could they do with it?

There is nothing they can do about you having guns in home. This is not what I am talkig about. Though, the question may have been brought up to discuss you properly keeping the guns away from children/ a safety issue.

However, say you have a heart attack. Depression is common in men after a heart attack. So, the doctor puts down depression as a dignosis in addition to heart attack. Now, depression could follow you around your entire life. So, when the state does a back ground check, depression shows up. Now, possibly you can buy gun, and clerk at Academy/ Walmart knows you have/had depression at some time in your life.

The form at out pediatrician asked if we have weapons in the home and if the are accessible to children. I wrote REFUSE TO ANSWER- NOT MEDICALLY RELEVANT next to it and they didn't say a word. I would guess it's more about liability limitation than anything else.

I would think the clerk would get a go no/go on the check. I don't think they would get access to any history. I guess if my Dr. asked me that question I would have to tell them it was NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I thought BOBO was older than that. LOL

I am sure the clerk would prob. get a no-go answer, but who knows. Someone some where would be seeing the actual information, and would then have to interpret it. Who is going to pay for the interpretation? How does some one contest the decision? Interpretations are different to different people. Psychological problems are have a stigma in our society, and can haunt people. My mother is a social worker, I am a nurse, we both have some experiance in these issues. The whole point is privacy.

Ive never been asked if I do but My Doc knows I do we talk about hunting and fishing at every visit.

I don’t know if my Dr. knows but the surgeon and O.R. staff do . when they woke me after surgery in Aug. I asked for my sister wantin my gun back. I was still in la la land but my sister said they told her if she had my gun get it out or they were callin the cops and NOT TOO GIVE IT TOO ME . She didn’t have it it was locked in the car and NO I don’t leave home w/o one. And xtra ammo.

We can't have it both ways. It's been argued here many times that some mental condition can lead to problems. Arizona, Aurora, Columbine, Virgina Tech and Sandy Hook all had one common denominator the shooters we being seen and treated for mental problems and all were on drugs to treat it. Three of the shooters bought their guns legaly (Record of their treatment could not be shared) not sure about the Columbine shooters and the Sandy Hook shooter just stole them after killing his mother. Even Charles Whitman was being treated for a brain tumor. At what point does HIPA Laws it'self become a problem and a danger to others by hiding those that are truly a danger to society. In days gone by several of these individual would have been commited to state institutions long before they became a problem or a danger to society, not any more. I believe the sharing of some info will go along ways in heading off future tragedies and have argued that here. With that said I can also see a total misuse that could effect the lives of millions in ways we never imagined. Troops being treated for PTSD could be one of the victims simply because their seeking help, while not really having a mental disorder they are seeking treatment from those who deal with mental disorders and would they fall into the same catagory.

While this could be used as a great first line of defence to keep such tragedies from happining it could turn into a nightmare for others if improperly applied.

My kids pediatritian asked me about guns. As she was asking the quetion I rudely interrupted her and said "The kids are safe!" She said Ok.

Any answer to their question "Do you own guns?" other than a "No"
is probably going to qualify as a "Yes" answer.

Follow Nancy Regan's advice and just say "No".

Leave it at that.

The CDC and the AMA have recommended discussing storage methods for firearms in the home with parents for a pretty long time since there is a statistically significant correlation between "loose guns" and childhood injury. Some physicians ask the question, others do not. You don't have to answer. To me, it's not a huge concern that the doctors ask. When you collect statistics from trauma centers and ICUs, it skews your perception of people and you find yourself assuming that there are more idiots than there really are because that's what you see. Similarly, when you grow up in the home of a hunter and responsible firearms owner who knows well how to be safe and you socialize with other hunters and responsible firearms owners who know well how to be safe, your perception may be skewed in the opposite direction. It's easy to get offended, but what the doctor is really asking is "are you smart and careful?" The only way that should be offensive is if the answer is "No."

It IS a huge concern that the government wants to know how I answered. If I can not be assured that the information is protected, I will not answer any of those questions.

My other least favorite item on the list of executive orders is that a LEO may wait until he has completed a full background check before returning a seized weapon. Sounds like a good way to harass a CHL holder or someone legally concealing a handgun in his or her vehicle.