HICRC New England Journal of Medicine Perspective on Florida’s Physician Gag Rule Decision

A NEJM Perspective describes the long-awaited US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 10-1 decision that affirmed that the First Amendment applies to speech between doctors and patients.  The court found no evidence “that routine questions to patients about the ownership of firearms are medically inappropriate, ethically problematic, or practically ineffective.”  “We expect doctors to doggedly exhort unhealthy patients to exercise more, eat less, or stop smoking, even when such admonishments may ‘annoy persistently.’” The evidence show that a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of death to household members and that the majority of Americans are unaware of the heightened risk.  Currently, most clinicians rarely if ever provide firearm-safety counseling.  The Court ruled such counseling eminently legal.  Now more physicians have to provide (scientifically based) advice about firearms.  The Perspective was written by lawyers Wendy Parmet and Jason Smith, and HICRC co-director Matthew Miller.