On Jan 19, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> If the argument is simply that you don't want to answer the doctor's
> questions about guns, and suspect that your doctor isn't really knowledgeable
> enough about guns, I have no quarrel with that. But I understood the
> argument to be that such questions should be prohibited by law, or by rules
> coercively enforced by professional licensing agencies, much as was suggested
> (and, in a weaker form, implemented) in the Florida statute. That is what I
> have been criticizing.
Under the Miranda principle, suspects who are too ignorant to know what rights
they have must be informed of them before they are questioned. The principle
is that it is unfair to the point of unconstitutionality to exploit a suspect's
ignorance of his protections.
A doctor who questions a patient about his gun ownership may eventually (if not
already) be forced to report the results to insurers and government entities.
Most patients are unaware of this consequence. The "boundary violation"
approach is aimed at preventing exploitation of the patient's ignorance, under
the theory that if we cannot inform the patient of the risks of answering,
perhaps we can prevent the doctor from asking.
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhaven.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
