David Pittman writing in Politico
* * *
* *
Delivering on its promise to deliver "common
sense" gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule
that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients
to an FBI firearms background check system.
* SO... ANY THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE OF "DOCTOR-PATIENT
CONFIDENTIALITY" AND HOW THIS "RULE" IMPACTS THAT DOCTRINE?
The action was one of a series of steps that President
Barack Obama had called for in January 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn.,
shootings to curb gun violence, but the rule was not published until today.
While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by
individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand
trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others,
federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from
sharing information without the consent of their patients.
* AND ON THE FACE OF IT THAT DOES SOUND... KINDA STUPID.
(*INDULGENT SMILE*)
Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the
first time health providers can disclose the information to the background
check system without legal repercussions.
* WHY "CAN" AS OPPOSED TO "MUST?"
SERIOUSLY... PONDER THAT...
* ANY THOUGHTS?
“The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and
certain other information needed for NICS purposes,” the rule states.
Disclosure of diagnostic or clinical information is prohibited.
* BUT... Er... IF THE DIAGNOSIS CAN'T BE VERIFIED...???
(GET THE POINT, FOLKS? GET THE QUESTION?)
Paul Gionfriddo, chief executive of the mental health
rights advocate Mental Health America, said he believes the White House strikes
the right balance between the need to have this information shared with the FBI’s
background check system and protecting individuals’ privacy.
* WHO CARES? (SERIOUSLY... NOT SNARK; WHO THE HECK CARES
WHAT PAUL GIONFRIDDO THINKS? I KNOW I DON'T!)
Current law allows HIPAA exclusions for law enforcement
purposes, but it's a broad exclusion.
“That could be a barn door opened quite wide if an
administration really wanted to open it, and they didn’t,” Gionfriddo said.
“The administration has taken great pain to try to clarify that there is very
limited information that would be reported only within a very limited group.”
* AGAIN... I "GET" THE REPORT THING; WHAT I'M NOT
SEEING IS THE "VERIFICATION" THING. (IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONCEPT OF "JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER?" WELL...)
(*SHRUG*)
Since the Newtown shootings, the number of mental health
records submitted to the FBI system has tripled to more than 3 million records,
according to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group promoting an end
to gun violence. The FBI system resulted in more than 6,000 denials of firearm
purchases because of mental health criteria.
* NOW... BACK TO LAW... THE CONCEPT OF BASIC RIGHTS...
AND THE CONSTITUTION:
* QUESTION: IF ONE IS JUDGED (BY GOVERNMENT EDICT) "MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT" TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION...
(*PAUSE*)
* WHAT OTHER RIGHTS CAN THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY TAKE AWAY
ABSENT TRIAL AND CONVICTION?
* FOLKS... THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE READING; THINK ABOUT
WHAT I'M ASKING!
* YOU KNOW HOW YOU WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL (HIGH SCHOOL)
THAT "DRIVING IS A RESPONSIBILITY, NOT A RIGHT?" WELL... THEY WERE
TALKING IN A LEGAL SENSE... A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. BUT, FOLKS... THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IS A TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. IT CAN'T BE JUST TAKEN AWAY ABSENT
TRIAL AND CONVICTION! (OR... CAN IT BE? APPARENTLY OBAMA AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT
HIM IN THIS BELIEVE IT CAN BE.)
* FOLKS... I'M BEGGING YOU: APPLY THE "LOGIC"
OF OBAMA'S POSITION ON THIS TO ANY AND ALL OTHER "RIGHTS" YOU HAVE...
BOTH "NATURAL" RIGHTS AND EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (DO YOU SEE
THE POINT I'M GETTING AT...?!?!)
* IF ONE IS DEEMED (LAYING ASIDE WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS
THE RIGHT TO SIMPLY "DEEM" ABSENT TRIAL AND CONVICTION) MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT TO EXERCISE HIS OR HER SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS... SHOULDN'T THEIR
FRANCHISE BE REVOKED? (LOGICALLY?) SHOULDN'T THEIR RIGHT TO CONTRACT BE
REVOKED? (LOGICALLY?) AND ON AND ON AND ON...
No comments:
Post a Comment