No announcement yet.

Proposed Boston law would REQUIRE doctors to interrogate patients about gun ownership … Medicine now becomes Big Brother

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed Boston law would REQUIRE doctors to interrogate patients about gun ownership … Medicine now becomes Big Brother

    01/17/2019 / By Tracey Watson

    Boston City Mayor Martin J. Walsh will be pushing legislation on Beacon Hill this year which would require doctors to interrogate patients about the presence of firearms in their homes. The legislation is being promoted as a way for healthcare providers to “play a larger role in addressing gun violence” by spotting the early warning signs of suicide and domestic violence.

    Of course, this type of interrogation would be a massive violation of patient privacy and has conservatives in an uproar. Furthermore, mandating doctors to reduce gun violence is ironic considering how many of the mass shootings and other forms of gun violence that Americans have been subjected to in recent years are the direct result of the mind-altering drugs prescribed by these very same healthcare providers. Doctors become Big Brother

    Boston officials insist that the proposed bill will not turn doctors into amateur sleuths and that gun ownership will not become part of official patient medical records.

    “We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Boston Police Commissioner William Gross told the Boston Business Journal. “This is a great way for the medical field to help identify any red-flag issues,” he added in a media briefing. “It’s to put another tool in the physician’s belt to help out the victims.”

    Some medical professionals already ask subtle questions to try to determine which patients might be at risk. For example, they might ask questions like: “Do you feel safe at home?” or “Is anyone threatening you?” This type of gentle probing provides doctors with valuable feedback which can help them to connect the patient with the right resources to get the help they need.

    However, there is currently no legislation which demands that healthcare workers ask these types of questions, and subtle probing to establish whether a person is safe in their home environment is a far cry from interrogating patients about what type of firearms they have in their homes.

    The Massachusetts Medical Society is backing Walsh’s proposed bill, with President Dr. Alain A. Chaoui issuing a statement saying, “[W]hen appropriate, a physician, as part of a detailed conversation about medical history, has a right and responsibility to speak with patients about gun ownership, storage, and safety.”

    Perhaps physicians should rather use this “right and responsibility” to find out what’s really going on with the troubled young people who enter their rooms needing help, instead of putting them on antipsychotic drugs which carry dangerous side effects, including mania, violence, psychosis and homicidal ideation — the desire to commit murder. (Related: World famous psychiatrist warns that increased use of psychiatric drugs will translate to more mass shootings.) Gun control vs medication control

    Natural News previously reported on the alarming link between psychiatric medications and gun violence:

    While many politicians focus on the gun debate when discussing the issue of mass shootings, what virtually none of them ever mention is the clearly established link between such mass homicides and psychiatric drugs. The mental health watchdog organization, CCHR International, recently reported that at least 36 school shootings or other school-related acts of violence were committed by people who were either on psychiatric drugs or withdrawing from them – which can be just as dangerous.

    These acts of violence resulted in the deaths of 80 people and the wounding of a further 172. In addition, there have been many similar incidents where information regarding the mental health and psychiatric drug use of the killer/s was not made public, so the problem is likely far worse.

    If doctors were to focus on really helping their patients by getting to the root of their problems and encouraging counselling, cognitive behavioral therapy and a healthy lifestyle they would be of real benefit in reducing cases of domestic abuse and suicide. Interrogating vulnerable patients about firearms in their home will do nothing to alter the problem.

    After all, if someone is inclined towards self-harm or violence, removing firearms from their home will only force them to alter their weapon of choice; it will not alter the eventual outcome.

    Read more about the rise of medical tyranny at

    Article can be found here:
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

  • #2
    Many years ago - probably in the last century, I had to "update" my disability. NBD - lots of paperwork - but I had to go see a state-provided shrink. Not a problem but a State facility (of sorts), and in a relatively bad area of Youngstown. (And cold, foul weather!)

    Get there, and found the usual gunbuster signs. I didn't feel right about it, but left my 1911 in the car. NO metal detectors - just a rather nasty Private Security guy who made me sign in, before going upstairs to the office I needed. My "file" weighed about as much as the gal doing the preliminary interview, and neither the car nor the 1911 vanished.

    Sent thereafter to a shrink. Seedy looking office building (no signs or other indications of a CPZ). I was able to see some of his other clients, and was glad I'd left the little 1911 in my belt. (Non-issue, btw. Don't ask, don't tell.)

    He had a list of questions, one of which was "do you own a gun?" I decided to be truthful, and said yes. He then asked "how many?", and I had to stop and think. That got his attention: "you had to count them?" as he turned several interesting colors. I explained to him that with my Law Enforcement background you tend to pick 'em up for various purposes. He reverted to a normal color, but was happy say goodbye to me .

    (The 1911 was either a Kimber "Compact Custom", or a Para "CCO", both of which are "Officer's" sized 1911s. Roughly 4" barrels, but very short grips. The Kimber's trigger is a little too light, so it's a backup. Others include "uniform" or "full size" 1911s, mini-guns for concealment where the small 1911's a bit big, or really tiny - Kel-Tec .380 joke - for deep cover. The Kel-Tec is a disaster....)

    My regular physician knows that I carry, and has "found" my sidearm at nearly every visit (in the last 30+ years - he's just retired), and always asked what it was for. He's from India, and has a British attitude. I remind him of my Law Enforcement background, and he thereafter ignored it. No idea what the new guy will do - I wouldn't mind finding another physician anyway .

    I have no objection to a doctor getting a little upset by an "AR" open-carried, but it's nobody's business what's under my shirt, or at home. (Don't get me started on "notification".)


    <t>Stu<br><br>(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)<br><br>ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE<br><br>יזכר לא עד פעם</t>


    • #3
      My family doctor knows I carry and teach classes, run a range...etc.

      I several of the nurses, practitioners do as well. I pretty much only take it off before I go in if I'm having x-rays done
      Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10