Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
Also, Ct,
Here in the great state of GA we have the "Women's Right to Know Law" which requires a doctor who is going to perform an abortion to tell the woman that there is a link between breast cancer and abortion when in fact there is none.
The right is fine with inserting the law into the examination room so long as it furthers their own agenda.
|
In that case, it's (a) bad science, and (b ) is a direct medical statement which you would expect to count as direct interference with a doctor doing their job of practicing medicine, which, in order to do that, undertook training and examination. A different kettle of fish.
Quote:
|
Short, short version. Gunowners are not a protected class and nor should they be.
|
I am not claiming that they are, at least, not beyond any Constitutuional protections as applied to the government and public law. As a matter of policy, however, doctors should not go beyond treating firearms in a similar manner to any other hazard. The more controversial laws involving government interference in medical practice tend to be those which are designed to discourage a specific behavior: Show ultrasound of foetus before abortion or, the breast cancer thing. Though I think the current purposed law goes a bit too far, the intent is actually the reverse: To stop any doctors so inclined (and the positions of their professional bodies indicates that there are some) from discouraging firearms ownership.
If we agree that bringing politics into the medical room is a bad thing, and I think we do, then you can see why it's become a sensitive issue for gun owners. That it is some doctors trying to get into the political agenda side of things should not make it any more acceptable than some politicians doing it. At least you expect it from politicians.
NTM