Something about that article strikes me as more of a "I asked my neighbors leading questions, and OMG they totally agreed with my preconceived ideas!" piece than serious journalism (New York Times Style section, I'm looking at you). I'd need more evidence that this was actually going on before I could answer your question.

That said, I think it is fairly standard to make sure you give adolescents (and maybe younger children?) some time with a doctor and/or nurse without their parents, so that if they have concerns they're too embarrassed to mention in front of their parents, they have time and space to bring them up.

Yikes, he's awfully pissed about a few questions.

This is especially ridiculous:

Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.

They're giving potentially abused kids an opening to say something and stop the abuse. Not all sexual abuse leaves signs that would show up in a physical exam, and there's no 100% foolproof profile for abusive parents. Asking the question in a private setting and providing an opportunity to report abuse has nothing to do with parents' guilt or innocence, other than the fact that some parents abuse their kids. Plus, if the pediatric association is any kind of smart, the abuse question would include any potential abuser... parent, teacher, coach, etc.

Assuming the writer is being honest, grilling a child about whether his or her parents own guns seems beyond the pale. Asking about sexual abuse is something I suppose is within their purview, but I could see it easily leading to misunderstandings and worse. I would think a doctor who is not specifically trained in proper technique could very easily ask leading questions, even if that is not the intention. Seems to be something that should be left to the experts, barring any physical evidence of abuse.

Well, D.A.R.E.'s been doing it for years, so it's not entirely surprising that now the pediatricians are in on the act.

I feel sorry, mainly, for American parents these days. But in my opinion, people who trust doctors or lawyers, because they're professionals deserve the medicine and law they get. The very last person you want as a confidant is someone who has third party mandated reporting obligations, period.

A pediatrician is not the parent's doctor, in anyone's conception. The pediatrician is not there to help the parent raise the child in a healthy, loving way. The pediatrician is there, first and foremost, to expand and protect his practice, and thereafter, to keep affordable malpractice insurance required to expand and protect his practice, and thereafter to discharge his mandated actions to expand and protect his practice, and thereafter to perhaps practice his medical specialty on small people who often communicate poorly. If you're a parent who disagrees with this bleak assessment, ask a lawyer for their professional opinion about it, first, if you can afford it.

I'm not shocked a doctor might ask about abuse. That they're asking about guns and filing reports to the police about it is more than a little shocking.

So now childrens doctors join lawyers and cops among the not to be trusted.

I've never trusted doctors, therapists, teachers, or police. Especially the ones claiming good intentions. Their priorities are not your priorities. Their convictions of what's good, right, and proper are not likely to be your convictions. If you forget that, you're the one screwed, and they will pat themselves on the back for having done the right thing.

That they're asking about guns and filing reports to the police about it is more than a little shocking.

But I don't think this is a widespread thing. Some assholes, out of either good or evil intentions, may have done it, but I don't think it's the standard of care. From what I can tell, the AAP has recommended that pediatricians ask about guns in the home, because they are a major source of both accidental and self-inflicted injury to children, but the recommendation seems to be that if a doctor hears there's a gun in the house, she should educate the family on safe storage of the firearm, not report the family to the police.

This is right-wing fear-mongering, not a widespread problem.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

I think the phrasing of that sentence in the article kind of supports occhiblu's point.

I'm asked about guns every time my kids get a physical. I'm also asked if I smoke near them and if they wear seatbelts, if we have a pool, blah, blah, blah. It's a safety checklist. I've never found anything ominous about it.

"I'm asked about guns every time my kids get a physical. I'm also asked if I smoke near them and if they wear seatbelts, if we have a pool, blah, blah, blah. It's a safety checklist. I've never found anything ominous about it."

Hell, I find that ominous.

Nah. I'm pretty sure the worst that would happen if they didn't like my answer is they'd hand me a brochure. What I found odder was the list of questions I had to answer just to get them home from the hospital after they were born: Do you have electricity? Is your home heated? Do you have a refrigerator?

jrossi4r, you are much more trusting than I. Anyone had asked my kids that kind of stuff and I would have said "nut case freak doctor" and never went back.

It's a safety checklist. I've never found anything ominous about it.
Then you aren't paying attention to what's going on in the world.

The kind of stuff jrossi mentions is totally within the purview of family medicine; those things are known risk factors. It's easy to demonstrate they increase the risk of harm to children, and children who live in homes where they don't have to wear seatbelts, where guns are kept and the kids know about them, and so one, are more likely to be harmed by those things. It doesn't mean they will, but it does mean that if those factors are in place, the parents should know about the increased risk and give some thought to risk prevention. If it hasn't crossed their minds yet, a doctor is the ideal person to suggest it's worth attending to.

And, if it wasn't clear, I agree with occhiblu. It's fearmongering. The feds are coming to take our guns, oh no, trust no one.

And [finally] Jeezom, it's from that paragon of sophisticated journalism known as the Boston Herald, so please make sure you take it with a side of drool and some foaming at the mouth.

Then you aren't paying attention to what's going on in the world.
I'm going to assume you didn't mean that as snarky as it sounded. Look--they ask about a lot of things. They ask about lead paint and if I use sunscreen, because those are things responsible parents should take care of. Why is it odd or off-limits to ask if I have guns laying around?

On preview: What Miko just said.

It's odd. In Canada people think I'm a leftwing nut and in the U.S. I'm a rightwing nut.

The obvious conclusion, arsey, is that you're just a nut and the adjectives are extraneous.

tis true pups.

arrrr...

I'm going to assume you didn't mean that as snarky as it sounded. Look--they ask about a lot of things.
No, I didn't mean to offend in any way. I agree that these things can be risk factors for kids and that there are valid reasons for doctors asking them. What I don't like is that they appear to be asking them of the kids when they should be asking the parents - by doing this behind the backs of the parents, they are as good as saying that they don't trust the parents to tell the truth. I can understand this if they have already asked the parents and what they are told doesn't gel with other evidence, but to assume that, by default, parents are irresponsible liars is a bit much.

Of course, I am not aware of the reputation of the reporter/newspaper, so that would have an impact, sure.

Do you have electricity? Is your home heated? Do you have a refrigerator?

What the hell? What's wrong with not having electricity? Lots of people I grew up with had no electricity - completely on purpose, not just because they didn't pay the bill.

And sunscreen? There are lots of reasons not to wear sunscreen. How about "Do you wear sun protection?" instead? If anything at all. Jeez.

Note to self: never never have a child in this country. keer-aist.

What I don't like is that they appear to be asking them of the kids when they should be asking the parents

AND IN MOST CASES THEY ARE.

THAT IS MY POINT. THIS ARTICLE IS A DUMB OVERSTATEMENT OF "FACT." MOST DOCTORS ARE NOT INTERROGATING CHILDREN AND THEN MAKING REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET THEIR FAMILIES IN TROUBLE. THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE ARTICLE IS FALSE, OR AT LEAST GROSSLY EXAGGERATED.

In fact, the only actual non-gun-rights opinion piece I could find about pediatricians asking about guns was a study (done by AAP) pointing out that the parent who actually owns the gun is much more likely to know where it's kept and how it's stored than the other parent. As it's usually the father who owns the gun but the mother who brings the kids in for check-ups, the AAP recommended trying to get the father involved in check-ups so that the doctor could talk to both parents. And the recommended "talking to" was simply educating the parents about keeping loaded firearms out of reach of not only small children, but also adolescents, because many parents think adolescents are old enough to be responsible but, in fact, many adolescents tend to hurt themselves or others, and the pediatricians thought maybe parents should be aware of this.

There does not seem to be any official recommendation from any official board that pediatricians should be interrogating children about their parents' gun ownership behind their parents' back.