{"id":2125,"date":"2015-10-16T13:47:49","date_gmt":"2015-10-16T13:47:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/?p=2125"},"modified":"2015-10-16T13:47:49","modified_gmt":"2015-10-16T13:47:49","slug":"judges-block-docs-asking-about-glocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2015\/10\/16\/judges-block-docs-asking-about-glocks\/","title":{"rendered":"Judges Block Docs Asking About Glocks"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Thomas Tobin<\/a>*<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Lawyers and doctors are both trained to ask their clients uncomfortable questions. We expect that the questions these professionals ask will help them reach more informed determinations for their clients. Lawyer-client and doctor-patient relationships have special legal significance as the open exchange with these professionals often elicits private information that should remain confidential. Unfortunately, a recent Florida law has put lives at risk under the guise of protecting private information.<\/p>\n

Signed into Florida law in June 2011 by Governor Rick Scott, the Firearm Owners Privacy Act<\/a> has worked its way through the courts over the past four years. The Act quickly became so controversial that it has been dubbed<\/a> the \u201cDocs vs. Glocks\u201d law. Among other things, the Act prohibited healthcare practitioners from making written or oral inquiry into whether a patient owned a firearm unless the health professional had a \u201cgood faith\u201d belief that the information was relevant to that patient\u2019s medical care or safety. Healthcare professionals who inquire about gun ownership without such a \u201cgood faith\u201d belief risk sanctions<\/a>, including fines up to $10,000 or the loss of their licenses.<\/p>\n

Within a week of the Act\u2019s signing, a group of physicians and other plaintiffs brought suit in the Southern District of Florida arguing that the law restricted physicians\u2019 constitutional rights. The District Court<\/a> granted enjoinment of the enforcement of the Act, finding a violation of First Amendment rights and that the Act was void for vagueness.<\/p>\n

The 11th<\/sup> Circuit<\/a> disagreed. In the first of its two decisions on the matter, the 11th<\/sup> Circuit found that healthcare professionals have no \u201cgeneralized interest in being able to speak freely.\u201d The Harvard Law Review<\/em> recently warned that such an interpretation could lead to \u201ca fundamental alteration of American citizenship.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

The 11th<\/sup> Circuit\u2019s second opinion concerning the law was no less problematic. The majority opinion found that states may define the boundaries of \u201cgood medical practice.\u201d With this understanding, the Circuit Court declared<\/a> that:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe act codifies the commonsense<\/strong> conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient\u2019s care\u2014especially not when that inquiry or record-keeping constitutes such a substantial intrusion upon patient privacy\u2026\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

The NRA warmly welcomed the 11th<\/sup> Circuit\u2019s \u201ccommonsense conclusion.\u201d The NRA\u2019s Chris Cox labeled this case a \u201ccommon sense ruling<\/a>.\u201d According to Mr. Cox, it was simply \u201cnot a physician\u2019s business\u201d whether a patient owns a firearm. Such assertions stand in stark contrast to the views of the medical community.<\/p>\n

Contrary to the 11th<\/sup> Circuit\u2019s view, it is common sense that doctors are well-positioned to know what constitutes \u201cgood medical care.\u201d The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics each oppose the Florida law. These groups support the ability of healthcare professionals<\/a> to counsel patients about safer firearm ownership as part of patient care.<\/p>\n

Doctors\u2019 conversations with patients can make gun ownership safer. An important aspect of responsible gun ownership<\/a> is keeping guns locked, unloaded, and out of reach of children. All too often, these practices are not followed and the results can be deadly. In one study<\/a>, many parents reported unsafe gun storage practices. In talking with their patients about gun storage, doctors can improve safe gun ownership. One research article<\/a> found a substantial positive impact in storage habits and practices among patients after a brief discussion with a family physician. In that study, those that received a brief conversation with their family physician about gun storage were nearly twice as likely to improve gun safety in their homes compared to the control group.<\/p>\n

The 11th<\/sup> Circuit has created dangerous precedent that other states may follow. Fourteen states have considered<\/a> similar laws. Three states\u2014Montana, Minnesota, and Missouri\u2014have already passed weakened versions.<\/p>\n

What can be done? As the American Medical Association\u2019s Journal of Ethics<\/em><\/a> put it, \u201cTo protect children, physicians must be able to educate gun-owning parents and guardians about safe gun storage.\u201d One thing is for sure\u2014the 11th<\/sup> Circuit\u2019s recent decision will spawn further debate and deliberation in statehouses and courthouses across the country about what constitutes \u201cgood medical care.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a>*<\/a>Thomas Tobin is a student pursuing a joint JD\/MPP degree at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School of Government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Thomas Tobin* Lawyers and doctors are both trained to ask their clients uncomfortable questions. We expect that the questions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2126,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[232,72,231,233],"class_list":["post-2125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-docs-v-glocks","tag-first-amendment","tag-gun-control","tag-second-amendment"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/89\/2015\/10\/file621261912582-1160x870.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-yh","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}