Physicians to Appeal 'Docs v. Glocks' Ruling in FL

A Florida law prohibiting doctors from talking with patients about gun safety is upheld by a three-judge panel in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but an injunction blocking the law remains in effect.

Family physician associations say they will challenge a federal appellate court's ruling that upholds a Florida law prohibiting physicians from speaking with patients about firearms.

The 2-1 ruling issued Friday by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturns a June 2012 U.S. District Court ruling that struck down the state law – popularly referred to as the "physician gag law" or the "Docs v. Glocks law"—as a violation of physicians' First Amendment rights.

Mobeen Rathore, MD, president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Florida Pediatric Society, and a lead plaintiff in the suit, said physicians will appeal the ruling to the full appeals court.

"We strongly disagree with the 11th Circuit's decision. It is an egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of pediatricians and threatens our ability to provide our patients and their families with scientific, unbiased information," Rathore said in prepared remarks.

"This dangerous decision gives state legislatures free license to restrict physicians from asking important questions about health and safety that are vital to providing the best medical care to patients."

Doctors who break the Florida law could face discipline, including fines and loss of license. However, an injunction blocking the law remains in effect.

Writing for the majority, Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, appointed to the court by President Nixon, said the law takes into account a patient's "relative powerlessness" in a physician's examining room, and "simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."

"As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record—keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," Tjoflat wrote. "Any burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely incidental."

In dissent, Judge Charles R. Wilson, appointed to the court by President Clinton, said gun violence is a serious public health issue and that the Florida law "significantly infringes" upon a physician's legitimate reasons to raise gun safety concerns with patients.

"Simply put, the Act is a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms," Wilson wrote. "The Act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic and one topic only, firearms."

"Regardless of whether we agree with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message."

In a statement released Monday afternoon, Robert M. Wah, M.D., President of the American Medical Association said, "We are disappointed by the court's ruling to uphold a Florida law that seeks to bar physicians from freely discussing firearm safety with their patients. This law poses real harm to patients as it interferes with physicians' ability to deliver safe care, and hinders patients' access to the most relevant information available. The AMA strongly believes the patient-physician relationship must be protected, because physicians provide appropriate treatment options based on open, honest and confidential communications with their patients. 

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council issued a report in 2013 that stated that in 2010 more than 105,000 people were killed or injured in firearms-related incidents.

Data on firearms violence in the United States could become more difficult to obtain since Congress, at the behest of the National Rifle Association, eliminated funding for gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The NRA, one of a long list of defendants in the case, applauded the court's ruling. The gun lobby had pressed the Florida Legislature to pass the 2011 law. The NRA said in a media release that the law is needed to protect gun owners' privacy rights "from Florida chapters of the American Academies of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians, along with a number of other groups and individuals backed by the anti-gun community…"

"Every gun owner in Florida and across the country is grateful for this common sense ruling. It is not a physician's business whether his or her patient chooses to exercise their fundamental, individual right to own a firearm," said NRA lead lobbyist Chris Cox.

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said he was "astounded" by the appeals court's ruling. The ACLU had filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the physicians.

"It's a sad day when judges tell doctors what is in the best interest of their patients," Simon said in prepared remarks. "This unconstitutional law gags doctors and prevents them from talking to their patients about measures to help parents protect children from guns in the home. The only thing that makes this discussion 'bad medical practice' in the view of two federal judges is the fact that it has to do with guns."

Simon said he expects that the ruling will be overturned when the case is reheard by the full appeals court.