So.
Should anyone's medical records be considered "relevant" information in the State's decision making process as some faceless bureaucrat reviews my application to purchase a firearm.
First, let me say how absolutely ludicrous it is that an American must debase himself and prostrate himself before some functionary of the State, paid on average twice as much as he is, while working much less, and beg for permission to exercise rights that are granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Imagine this:
What if my life hits a rough spot? What if my marriage is in trouble? What if one night, in the darkest emotional abyss I come to myself and realize I need help?
When I go see a counselor he's going to ask me about my guns and about my mental state. He's going to ask me if I ever think about hurting myself or others. He's going to make notes in my medical record. Before 2013, those records were privileged and confidential. My employer couldn't look at them. My wife and children couldn't look at them. They were what used to be called "private." But things are different now.
Now I have to make a choice. Knowing that any visit to a mental health professional will put a flag on my "file," I have to decide between getting the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights. Let's say that my marriage and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights. Let's say I'm dedicated to making this work.
Now I have to make a choice. Knowing that any confession of a suicidal thought - no matter how fleeting, or any mention of a thought of violence to another person - no matter how fleeting, will put another flag on my "file," I have to decide between being honest with my physician so that I can get the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights. Let's say that my mental well being and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights. Let's say I get the help I need, I'm in a better place. My family is happier, and we all stick together.
Now, imagine that years later I want to exercise my rights - those rights given by God and protected by the Constitution - and I walk into a gun shop. As a part of the application and review process (remember the humiliation? I don't have to apply to buy a copy of "Hustler" magazine, although that type of trash has destroyed more innocent lives than guns ever will.) my medical records come under scrutiny.
Now I have a faceless bureaucrat in a stale gray cubicle thousands of miles away looking at those things that used to be "private." Passing judgment on me. She has no knowledge of my non-medical records. She can't see the youth basketball teams I've coached for 15 years. She can't see the hours I volunteer with the local food bank. She can't see the money I give to my church. She can't see the 25th anniversary dinner my wife and I shared last week.
All she can see is what my doctor wrote in his notes 18 years earlier.
And, like the technical support engineer in Mumbai, she follows a flow chart. "Thoughts of suicide? If yes, go to page 7, if no, skip to page 9." And on page 9 she reads, "Thoughts of violence to others? If yes, go to page 10, if no, skip to page 13."
And after the 45-day waiting period, my answer comes back from the State.
And the unintended consequences of some well-meaning, unthinking, self-righteous, all-knowing do-gooders (and the express design of the Statist) are proved out. I am denied my rights given by God and protected by the Constitution because I pose a "significant risk of harm to self or others." Not because I am a violent criminal. Not because I am a wife beater. Not because I assaulted someone. Not because I attempted suicide. Not because I am currently taking mind altering drugs. Not because of anything I did that was wrong, but rather because I did the RIGHT thing!
You can stop imagining now. But ask yourself how this might affect the decision of someone who really needs a little help? Is it possible that one person who needs it might not get it simply because of the risk?
And what happens when that one person who really needed help, but was dissuaded from getting it by the risk he saw that it could compromise his ability to exercise his rights granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution hurts someone? Whose fault is it then? We know that the Statist would put the blame for gun crime on the makers of the guns. Will the Statist place the blame for the consequences of avoided mental health care on himself?
And should we hold crowbar makers liable for burglaries, alcohol manufacturers responsible for drunk driving, accounting professors liable for fraud, sugar refiners responsible for obesity and on and on?
Should anyone's medical records be considered "relevant" information in the State's decision making process as some faceless bureaucrat reviews my application to purchase a firearm.
First, let me say how absolutely ludicrous it is that an American must debase himself and prostrate himself before some functionary of the State, paid on average twice as much as he is, while working much less, and beg for permission to exercise rights that are granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Imagine this:
What if my life hits a rough spot? What if my marriage is in trouble? What if one night, in the darkest emotional abyss I come to myself and realize I need help?
When I go see a counselor he's going to ask me about my guns and about my mental state. He's going to ask me if I ever think about hurting myself or others. He's going to make notes in my medical record. Before 2013, those records were privileged and confidential. My employer couldn't look at them. My wife and children couldn't look at them. They were what used to be called "private." But things are different now.
Now I have to make a choice. Knowing that any visit to a mental health professional will put a flag on my "file," I have to decide between getting the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights. Let's say that my marriage and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights. Let's say I'm dedicated to making this work.
Now I have to make a choice. Knowing that any confession of a suicidal thought - no matter how fleeting, or any mention of a thought of violence to another person - no matter how fleeting, will put another flag on my "file," I have to decide between being honest with my physician so that I can get the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights. Let's say that my mental well being and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights. Let's say I get the help I need, I'm in a better place. My family is happier, and we all stick together.
Now, imagine that years later I want to exercise my rights - those rights given by God and protected by the Constitution - and I walk into a gun shop. As a part of the application and review process (remember the humiliation? I don't have to apply to buy a copy of "Hustler" magazine, although that type of trash has destroyed more innocent lives than guns ever will.) my medical records come under scrutiny.
Now I have a faceless bureaucrat in a stale gray cubicle thousands of miles away looking at those things that used to be "private." Passing judgment on me. She has no knowledge of my non-medical records. She can't see the youth basketball teams I've coached for 15 years. She can't see the hours I volunteer with the local food bank. She can't see the money I give to my church. She can't see the 25th anniversary dinner my wife and I shared last week.
All she can see is what my doctor wrote in his notes 18 years earlier.
And, like the technical support engineer in Mumbai, she follows a flow chart. "Thoughts of suicide? If yes, go to page 7, if no, skip to page 9." And on page 9 she reads, "Thoughts of violence to others? If yes, go to page 10, if no, skip to page 13."
And after the 45-day waiting period, my answer comes back from the State.
And the unintended consequences of some well-meaning, unthinking, self-righteous, all-knowing do-gooders (and the express design of the Statist) are proved out. I am denied my rights given by God and protected by the Constitution because I pose a "significant risk of harm to self or others." Not because I am a violent criminal. Not because I am a wife beater. Not because I assaulted someone. Not because I attempted suicide. Not because I am currently taking mind altering drugs. Not because of anything I did that was wrong, but rather because I did the RIGHT thing!
You can stop imagining now. But ask yourself how this might affect the decision of someone who really needs a little help? Is it possible that one person who needs it might not get it simply because of the risk?
And what happens when that one person who really needed help, but was dissuaded from getting it by the risk he saw that it could compromise his ability to exercise his rights granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution hurts someone? Whose fault is it then? We know that the Statist would put the blame for gun crime on the makers of the guns. Will the Statist place the blame for the consequences of avoided mental health care on himself?
And should we hold crowbar makers liable for burglaries, alcohol manufacturers responsible for drunk driving, accounting professors liable for fraud, sugar refiners responsible for obesity and on and on?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment