I'll talk to them about firearms in the home, if they are willing to have a serious discussion about Medical Misadventures.
Doctors in America are up in arms over the suggestion that they have no business advising their patients on gun ownership and safety. The incensed medics insist that it's their duty to tell Americans not to keep guns in the home, or if they do, to keep them unloaded and locked away. The debate on this issue was kicked off in …
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Firstly, almost by definition I would suggest that in gunshot homicide it is the perpetrator rather than the victim who is normally considered the criminal.
Secondly, even leaving aside those 588 deaths attributed to accident, the 11406 intentional homicides and the 230 deaths of undetermined intent, the author's own linked source states there were also 31228 Incidents of injury by firearms. I would have thought it would be a noble intention to try to reduce any of this suffering, with prevention always being better than cure.
And finally. If I'd noticed this was Lewis Page before I started typing I wouldn't have bothered responding. At least it keeps him away from writing about climate change.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:29 GMT Eduard Coli
Just another attempt to push gun control by other means.
Like other lightning rod issues in the US special interests try to mix topics.
Like a Wall street banker crafting a CDO they take a issue that has little traction and try to wrap it into some other strong emotional issue. In this case it is mixing gun control with the power of physicians to advise. For other examples. look at abortion, that mixing women's rights and a medical procedure.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:29 GMT Tom 35
Thursday 10th November 2011 21:33 GMT Matt Bryant
RE: Idiotic article
Wow, it's like playing "spot the bandwagon humper"! Note the revealling trend - disbelief of simple statistics; preference for emotional decision-making rather than factual analysis; prediliction for supporting "I know what's best for you" ideas. I'm making a pretty safe bet when I guess you also want Gitmo closed, Assange knighted, and blame out current economic mess on "the bankers" rather than our politicians?
Doctors should be practicing medicine, not politics.
Friday 11th November 2011 09:55 GMT Magnus_Pym
Friday 11th November 2011 12:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Where I live I often see signs offering medical certificates for various things, including driving and guns. Being over 40 I already need such a certificate when I have to renew my driving license. As for the gun certificate, not owning one, I have to assume it's some sort of psychological profile test which if were the case and migrated over to the US would probably disarm half the country in one go so I don't see it being a popular concept.
Thursday 10th November 2011 22:00 GMT Voland's right hand
Idiotic article for another reason
This article is missing the most important stat - how many are on Prozac (or generics). The stats I have seen used to show _MILLIONS_ across the USA. A doctor has all the moral, professional and medical right in the world to recommend putting the gun away to someone who needs happy pills to keep themselves from sucking on the barrel or shooting half of the neighborhood just because they do not like Mondays.
With all due respect any lawmaker who is interfering with this right needs to have their head examined.
Friday 11th November 2011 13:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
"If I'd noticed this was Lewis Page before I started typing I wouldn't have bothered responding."
The article is laid out in the following way:
The first line is the headline, in large type.
The second line in the sub--head, in normal but bold type.
The third line is the writer's name, in normal but blue and bold type.
It would have taken real effort not to notice Lewis Page's name right at the very beginning of the article there, to the degree that your statement that you didn't notice it until you started to type a reply is a pretty obvious lie - because once you get to the reply page, you can no longer see the byline.
Friday 11th November 2011 13:58 GMT Turtle
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:31 GMT Brian Mankin
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
What is the down side of a doctor advising someone to keep a safe house, including firearm safety.
Do people have a right to do stupid things that can impact others?
If a child is hurt / killed by a improperly stored firearm the owner is looking at child endangerment charges.
Saving a few lives is not worth 1 min of someones time?
Do the gun nuts think this will lead to losing their guns? I know, many think the constitution gives them the right to bear arms.
I agree - you can own any style of firearm that existing when the constitution was written. I think that means upto black powder / flint lock is ok.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:31 GMT DryBones
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:31 GMT Alien Doctor 1.1
Lewis Page == paid troll
"it might be more cost-effective for them to focus on traditional doctor stuff like heart disease and cancer"
WTF Lewis? The doc's are those that put us back together and have to suffer the trauma themselves in more ways than you have empathy cells.
If the doc's are saying this they are doing it for a reason - reductions in gun injuries will reduce overall health costs, prevent less PTSD for the staff involved in treating these injuries and generally be good for the whole population.
I know I'm feeding the paid troll here, but in this article I believe you have really overstepped any authority you have for writing articles on the Reg.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:31 GMT Figgus
Thursday 10th November 2011 21:34 GMT Matt Bryant
RE: I'm sorry
The advice should be coming from someone qualified. Personally, I think any member of the public that wants a firearm should have to do a safety course before gaining their licence, but that course should be delivered by an authorised body with the actual knowledge of gun use and safety.
Friday 11th November 2011 12:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Doctors are pretty qualified to advise on health issues. And really; if not the Doc, then who else is a parent going to sit with for five minutes and listen to as regards the health of their children? American society doesn't provide dedicated paid professionals to pop over and give parental advice (unless it's at the point that Welfare are knocking at the door, which of course is not common). Would school teachers be in a better place to ask these questions?
Truth is; we don't really know the context. Doctors are not likely to be spending 15 minutes discussing the issue. I imagine the actual situation is a bit closer to a checklist:
"Do you keep your bleach under the sink? You should move it out of reach. Do you smoke? Maybe you shouldn't around your child. Do you have loaded firearms in the house? Maybe you should unload them and store them safely. Is your medicine cupboard within reach? Maybe you should have a lockable one..."
See... what's wrong with that? Sensible advice to new parents, half of whom are of below average IQ and might genuinely not have thought about it. If thirty seconds of questions saves 500 deaths and thousands of injuries every year, what's the actual problem? How is that treading on anyone's rights or overstepping a boundary? Are firearms so sacrosanct that a professional - concerned for the welfare of children - cannot make enquiries about them?
I can't help think that there is no 'story' here, and it's simply more paranoid "oh noes, they want to take our guns YOU CAN HAVE THEM WHEN YOU TAKE THEM FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!" style complaints from the gun lobby.
Thursday 10th November 2011 22:00 GMT Charles Manning
No downside, except they are focusing on the wrong things
If they only have 10-15 minutes (or however long a consultation is) then why are they focusing on guns when there are bigger killers out there.
For example, the doctors would save far more lives by asking about what car you have and whether you service it regularly.
If it is a 30-second sound bite alongside other home safety hints then no harm in that. Something like: "Keep all your cleaning chemicals in a locked cupboard. If you have guns in the house then it is best to keep them unloaded and locked away."
#disclaimer: While I am pro-gun, I am not pro-gun in the American way. I live in NZ which, IMHO, has about the best gun-ownership/control laws. In NZ you are legally required to unload guns and lock them away when not in use. You won't get a gun license unless you have a satisfactory gun safe.
Thursday 10th November 2011 22:22 GMT Jean-Luc
Friday 11th November 2011 02:28 GMT Eddy Ito
Interesting question. If I had to guess, the BATFE would classify laser weaponry as a destructive device in the same way they would, say, a pipe bomb. That said, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about differentiating "Arms" so in vein; firearms, guns, mines, bombs, lasers, missiles, rockets, ICBMs, nuclear subs, etc, are all "Arms" so... Shit, did you know you would bring up a whole other CWMD (Can of Worms of Mass Deliberation)?
Friday 11th November 2011 02:26 GMT Eddy Ito
"If the doc's are saying this they are doing it for a reason"
Sure, they want to build a database just like Google and everyone else and then sell it to the highest bidder. Granted, they will mix it in some "report", undoubtedly one which will be presented to congress, that correlates anything of their choosing because they can say they "anonymized" their data and so peer review isn't possible and all the other agreeing doctors will nod and say that patient confidentiality must take precedence.
BTW, got a number for what the "cost" is as a fraction of the total? How about the relative PTSD impact on staff between bullets vs other sundry mutilations like bike on truck? Yeah, didn't think so. I'd make a heat-kitchen comment on that second point but it seems a little crass.
Friday 11th November 2011 11:10 GMT Alien Doctor 1.1
Health care costs
Most recent I could find (1997, so I guess it's way higher now):
"This article estimates the costs of U.S. gunshot and cut/stab wound by intent. It also compares U.S. to Canadian gunshot experience. Incidence data are from published sources, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), and cause-coded emergency department discharge and hospital discharge data systems. Medical care payments and lost earnings per case come from National Crime Survey data, a literature review, and weighting of costs by diagnosis from Databook on Nonfatal Injury-Incidence. Costs, and Consequences by Miller et al. (The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC. 1995) with the diagnosis distribution of penetrating injuries from the discharge data systems. Quality of life losses are estimated primarily from jury awards to penetrating injury victims. In 1992, gunshots killed 37,776 Americans; cut/stab wounds killed 4095. Another 134,000 gunshot survivors and 3,100,000 cut/stab wound survivors received medical treatment. Annually, gunshot wounds cost an estimated U.S. $126 billion. Cut/stab wounds cost another U.S. $51 billion. The gunshot and cut/stab totals include U.S. $40 billion and U.S. $13 billion respectively in medical, public services, and work-loss costs. Across medically treated cases, costs average U.S. $154,000 per gunshot survivor and U.S. $12,000 per cut/stab survivor. Gunshot wounds are more than three times as common in the U.S. than in Canada, which has strict handgun control. With the same quality of life loss per victim, gunshot costs per capita are an estimated U.S. $495 in the U.S. vs U.S. $180 in Canada. Per gun, however, the costs are higher in Canada, Gunshot wound rates rise linearly with gun ownership."
Saturday 12th November 2011 17:15 GMT Eddy Ito
"Most recent I could find (1997, so I guess it's way higher now):"
Why guess when all it takes is a quick bit of addition. I assume the figure of 37,776 deaths is from all firearms causes so we can easily add the 2009 numbers for the same and come up with 30,913. I would say that isn't "way higher" but the exact opposite, in fact it's way lower, over 18% or nearly one in five.
"The gunshot and cut/stab totals include U.S. $40 billion and U.S. $13 billion respectively in medical, public services, and work-loss costs."
While not strictly an answer to my question, we can take a stab at it. According to Kaiser, healthcare costs are $2.3 trillion. Using the raw $40 billion without the 18% reduction and keeping in the related but not healthcare costs, such as work-loss, the cost of firearms related as a fraction of the total is 17/1000 or 1.7%. While I'm a bit surprised by the number, perhaps you can explain why a doctor would harp about gun ownership when cardiovascular disease, according to the CDC, "accounts for about $1 of every $6 spent on health care in this country." It isn't about dollars.
I have to admit you have me stymied on the PTSD part as I didn't see any mention of bullets, guns, firearms or anything related to the probability of developing PTSD based on exposure to differing stimuli. It could be because the didn't or couldn't separate such data as pretty much everything comes into the ER and ICU so it may be difficult determining which incident type caused what PTSD rate. On the whole I don't see how the link is relevant to the topic at hand.
"There, it didn't take long to find that information; perhaps it would be a valid point to ask you to research something prior to flaming?"
I'm sure it didn't take long. It never takes long to find any old thing that isn't really pertinent. It does show that studies are a great source of funding and building interesting looking databases may serve to siphon a bit of that funding in a particular direction. Oh, for the record, it wasn't a flame, it was a snark and I love to cook so the heat isn't a problem for me.
Friday 11th November 2011 11:47 GMT Alien Doctor 1.1
PTD in care workers
Traumatic events may provoke fear and helplessness and people at these events may experience stress reactions. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors for PTSD in HCW at a hospital treating SARS patients. METHODS: A 91-item questionnaire was administered to HCW on high-risk (ICU, ER, SARS Unit) and select control units 6 weeks into the Toronto SARS outbreak. Seven dimensions representing possible risk factors for PTSD were created and calculated by taking the mean over all questions. Dimensions included perception of risk to self, perception of risk to others, confidence in infection control measures, confidence in information received, impact on personal life, impact on work-life and depressive affect. PTSD was measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) corresponding to criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. Scores of >20, corresponding to the mean score measured for journalists in war zones, was used to indicate the presence of PTSD symptomatology. RESULTS: Results are available for 248 HCW (173 nurses, 6 physicians, 69 others). Mean IES-R was 19.1+15.8; mean IES-R was higher on high-risk vs control units (21.9+16.4 vs 13.8+13.2, p<0.001). Overall, 102/235 (43%) had a PTSD score >20. In univariate analysis, sex, age, and years of experience as a HCW were not associated with a score >20. In multivariate analysis, working on a high-risk unit (OR=2.1, p=0.04), working in ICU (OR=2.0, p=0.04), number of SARS patients attended (>1 vs 0) (OR=4.3, p=0.004), perception of risk to self (OR=3.8, p<0.001), impact on work-life (OR=3.4, p=0.02) and depressive affect (OR=4.7, p<0.001) were associated with PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial burden of acute PTSD with identifiable risk factors was present in HCW. This may affect HCW retention. Awareness of this problem and intervention may improve the health and well-being of HCW.
There, it didn't take long to find that information; perhaps it would be a valid point to ask you to research something prior to flaming?
Friday 11th November 2011 18:20 GMT IglooDude
"I agree - you can own any style of firearm that existing when the constitution was written. I think that means upto black powder / flint lock is ok."
I don't think you have any right to say that using a communication medium that didn't exist when the constitution was written. It's not speech or press if it is being delivered electronically, right?
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
For a start, the stats only mention deaths, not injuries. For example, one of those idiots in the infamous "Do It" case wouldn't be included because they only permanently injured themselves when they failed to blow their brains out correctly.
Second, "want to be able to" does not equal "want to do it to the exclusion of all the other stuff". It's going to take them a few seconds in a first appointment to go through a checklist to make sure the dumbasses aren't putting their children or other people at risk.
You might bar it from being recorded, but barring them from asking is a ridiculous law and whoever's responsible for it is also a twat.
Thursday 10th November 2011 22:00 GMT Matt Bryant
"......to make sure the dumbasses aren't putting their children or other people at risk...." Wow, did it take long to develop that overbearing belief that you are so much smarter than everyone else and that you have the right to tell them what to do? I see many more kids being killed each year when driving their parents' cars because their parents didn't think to teach them some real driving skills.
I'm not exactly thick (I would qualify for MENSA with plenty of points to spare if I could be bothered), and I see no problem with sensible gun ownership. I actually know a rocket scientist (well, missile one) that shoots regularly. I even know a surgeon (sorry, not a brain surgeon, but a peadeatric one) that looks forward each year to the 12th of August.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:35 GMT Stuart 25
So there should be a list of what not to talk about?
Guns may not be the number one risk to health in most people's homes, but the Doctors aren't saying they are going to only talk about guns. They want to be allowed to discuss anything that is relevant to the patients circumstances.
Seems the Reg is happy with lobby groups compiling a list of items that doctors shouldn't be allowed to talk to their patients about.
Start of with the gun lobby banning talk about risk.
Next the tobacco lobby making sure smoking isn't talked about,
Maybe include alcohol as that's nothing to do with doctors,
Then the pharmo industries can make sure no one mentions drugs that might have side effects.
Soon enough the doctors won't be able to discuss any risks.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:35 GMT Armando 123
Gun owner here
I know doctors go into the field to help people and save lives, but there is this little thing called The Constitution that allows gun ownership and the privacy laws in the US, as tattered and rotting as they've become since 1932, means this is no more an area for doctorly advice than my selection of operating system.
And for the record, my guns are not kept at my house, except one, which is kept unloaded with the safety on in a place the kids can't get to. In fact, if I put it with the dirty dishes or their laundry baskets, they'd never get within ten feet of it.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:35 GMT Rob Dobs
an obvious gun lover this author
First its pretty well shown that if suicide isn't as easy, it doesn't happen as often.*
So yes I think if people kept their guns unloaded and locked up they would be at least a little less likely to use them, certainly much more so if there are no guns in the house at all. Suicide is rarely from an overwhelming dedication to ending ones life, but is more often done in moments of weakness, when something simple like a gun appears to offer a quick escape from current pain.
More importantly if guns are 43 time more likely to kill loved one or friend family member than a criminal, then of the 11,406 gun homicide deaths, MANY (the large majority) must be from killing family members or friends in arguments, or mistaking them for a burglar. So excluding the criminals shooting people AND other criminals (again your article states that these two scenarios are the least likely) you are still looking at 10's of thousands of deaths a year, which could be prevented if people practiced proper gun ownership, and a bit of common sense. You twist this to make it seem like only criminals are killing criminals when the facts are that mostly guns MUCH more often used to kill family members or friends. You also seem to conveniently ignore this in your defense of guns.
Also you seem angry at Doctors for spending time on this as its unimportant, which ignores two key facts
One: even if its not number 1, its one of the larger preventable groups of deaths in the US each year, which makes it a worthwhile area to spend time on, and could get more results than other groupings, like driving which other than not drinking and driving, and getting good sleep, isn't very avoidable.
Two: You naively assume that they don't also spend time advising people on the other groupings as well. I believe doctors do advise people on storing chemicals properly, especially when small children or pets are around, and do advise people to not drive tired or drunk etc.
How can you even try to defend a law that restricts Doctors from discussing the facts at hand. Would you also support a ban on them not being able to suggest that people don't swim alone, or while intoxicated, just because its not the biggest killer? Or that a Doctor should be charged if he steps on the chemical companies toes and says their products should be kept safe away from children?
Doctors (usually) have the intelligence to discuss with their patients the things they MAY be at risk from, for some people its their own guns. To pass a law preventing such discussions is myopically stupid, and really indefensible.
God do you have a tiny dick or something? Why the crazy protection of Guns? The doctors aren't even telling people not to have guns, they just want to be free to tell their patients, when they think its appropriate...."uh hey don't be a dumb ass and keep loaded guns lying around the house"
*Can't remember the particular drug, but it was common in suicides in the 60's-70's they passed a law to make it where you could only buy a limited amount, to kill yourself you would have to visit more than one store....suicides using this drug type dropped significantly (and marginally overall, but other current social factors like vets returning from Vietnam make this kind of moot without better data that doesn't exist). Same result with structures that have locks, guard rails etc when they are not as easy to kill yourself with, they tend not to be used as often for it.
Friday 11th November 2011 09:01 GMT Eddy Ito
Drs Kellermann & Reay? Really?!
"More importantly if guns are 43 time[sic] more likely to kill loved one or friend family member than a criminal..."
Once again the NEJM, (June 1986?) of a 6 year study of 743 firearms death rears its head. Yes, about half of the deaths in the study pertained to a home where the firearm was kept. Yes, suicide is a terrible thing. Yes, 83.7% of those deaths were suicides. In simple terms, unless you are a bloodthirsty freak who would prefer to kill an intruder than deter an intruder, the study says that you are 37 times more likely to kill yourself on purpose than kill a criminal, who you probably only want to stop from committing a crime and not kill. Likewise you are over 4 times as likely to commit murder (and be a criminal) than kill a criminal, who you probably only want to stop and not kill. Finally, if we assume the firearms accident rate didn't drop by over 60% since 1986 you would be 1.3 times as likely to accidentally kill yourself as KILL someone you probably only want to stop from committing a crime. Bear in mind that killing a criminal is far less necessary as often wounding, incapacitating, and scaring the crap out of them is just as, if not more, effective than killing the little bugger.
Sometimes I can't tell, would they actually be more receptive to firearms if everyone killed criminals instead of letting the police and courts handle it? Somehow, I think not.
Friday 11th November 2011 12:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Blah blah, cold dead hands, pointless posturing, empty machismo, blah.
The right to bear arms is there to overthrow unjust government.
You really think that if you rose up to overthrow any US government, waving a firearm and telling them to take it from your cold, dead hands that they wouldn't shoot you and every other 'enemy of the state'/'terrorist'/'unlawful combatant' who pulled the same stunt dead in a second?
Do you really think that if the US did ban private firearms tomorrow and you told them to 'try' to take your firearms away that you wouldn't either end up tossing them down and throwing up your hands in the face of a SWAT team, end up face down on the sidewalk, tasered and maced; or simply shot dead?
Friday 11th November 2011 09:02 GMT Eddy Ito
"if guns are 43 time more likely to kill loved one or friend family member than a criminal, then of the 11,406 gun homicide deaths, MANY (the large majority) must be from killing family members or friends in arguments, or mistaking them for a burglar."
Homicide != Suicide. The 1986 study, where the 43X number comes from, does not differentiate suicide from homicide. Worse yet, it self selects as someone has to be killed with a gun in order to be included in the study. The study doesn't count homes where nobody is killed, it doesn't count homes where people are killed with the other common weapons (hands, feet, knives, poison, etc), it doesn't count other accidental deaths, injuries or suicides. Imagine that, cherry picking only deaths and only those gun related and coming up with a number.
It's as if they said having pink bunny slippers in the house made it 43 times more likely for a loved one to be run over by a bus by only counting the folks run over by a bus while wearing pink bunny slippers. Should doctors advise people of this pink bunny slipper menace?
Friday 11th November 2011 12:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
So gun deaths is not the, or even a, leading cause of death among children. Got it. Time would be better spent discussioning stairs, pools. draino, et al. Understood.
Does that mean doctor's should not try to protect their ability to discuss gun deaths of children with their patients? You seem to be implying they shouldn't care about the ability to discuss this with their patients because it doesn't kill enough children. However, the number of deaths isn't the issue, it's protecting the ability to have the discussion.
So what's your point exactly?
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:37 GMT Marketing Hack
Doctors or nannies??
I'm hardly Joe NRA, but if my doctor started lecturing me on the dangers of keeping guns in my home (vs. poorly grounded electrical outlets, household cleaners, rickety stairs or railings, wet or oily floors, leaky gas appliances, flammable materials stored near heat sources, etc.) I'd tell him to shove it.
Friday 11th November 2011 13:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
How about if he lectured you about firearms AND poorly grounded electrical outlets, household cleaners, rickety stairs or railings, wet or oily floors, leaky gas appliances, flammable materials stored near heat sources, etc?
The article is massively partisan, and there is no reason to suppose that the above scenario is not the case.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
We know what's best for you !
Given that there are already plenty of members of the public who want to impose their prejudices upon others why should doctors be any different?
Yes, alcohol and smoking are better subjects for their unsought lectures but guns attract the ire of certain types no matter what the facts.
However this is nothing compared to the twisting of the UK law that ACPO and the BMA have come up with to encourage GP's to pass any concerns they have regarding licensed gun owners to the police.
Thursday 10th November 2011 20:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
US doctors demand right to advise on gun ownership Strangely not on household chemicals, cars, hot tubs etc'
Doctors do adivse on safe storage of household chemicals, cars, falls etc. They are only prevented from giving advice of guns so teh doctoras demands are not strange but entirely sensible and consistent. I think it bizarre that anyone would be offended by advice on the safe storage of guns.
Thursday 10th November 2011 21:29 GMT Figgus
"I think it bizarre that anyone would be offended by advice on the safe storage of guns."
To a lot of people, guns are like nuclear waste: safe storage is IMPOSSIBLE.
Personally, I view them like my circular saw, air tools, scissors, or the darts I take to the bar. They are TOOLS made for a specific purpose, and simply need to be handled with respect.
Thursday 10th November 2011 21:33 GMT redhunter
Friday 11th November 2011 00:05 GMT Jean-Luc
>easily accessible by the government under ObamaCare
Huh? Are you saying the doctor-patient confidentiality and general medical records confidentiality are going away cuz bad ol' Obama?
I've lived in Canada and France, both of which have govt-paid health care. France at least isn't totally averse to putting govt rights above the individual's.
In neither country does the govt have any right to access your medical records. Perhaps, perhaps, with a court subpoena or a warrant. At which point I assume the authorities would be otherwise aware of your gun ownership status. I assume the UK and the NHS situation is roughly similar.
How is Obama care any more intrusive? Got any facts to back up your assertions?
Thursday 10th November 2011 21:29 GMT ratfox
Why would doctors advise people on guns??
It's like having the mechanic at the garage advising you on kitchen recipes... Guns are a safety issue, not a health issue. Do they also give tips on how to drive safely?
...I take it these doctors are paid to the minute? And much more expensively than a gun safety instructor?
Thursday 10th November 2011 22:00 GMT Old Handle
I'm not sure which is stupider, that they made a law against this, or that doctors thought it was appropriate to interrogate patients about guns in the first place. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in the US doctors desperately need someone to put them in their place. I don't think this is the best way to do it though, the problem is more systemic.
Friday 11th November 2011 02:04 GMT Cagey
Corrections to Statistics & Statements
I'd like to make a few corrections to the numbers and statements published in the original article.
First the "guns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal" is a severely twisted statistic. Most encounters between armed citizens, both inside and outside the home, never escalate to the point of having to fire a weapon. Almost 99 times out of a hundred just displaying a weapon is sufficient to stop a crime in progress. No one would advise a home owner, for example, to kill any intruder he found on his premises. Yet this is what the original statistic is measuring. How many criminals are killed by legally armed citizens versus how many suicides and accidental deaths occur.
Secondly as I recall from newspaper articles the problem was not that Doctors were asking about gun ownership. It was that some were refusing to treat patients unless they disclosed their ownership or lack there of. Some doctors were also reportedly refusing to treat patients if they owned guns and others were threatening to report gun owning parents for child abuse unless they agreed to dispose of their guns.
In America gun ownership is a right that should not be questioned by health professionals without overriding reasons. And that is just what the Florida law does. It only allows Physicians to inquire about gun ownership if there is some medical condition that would affect such ownership, i.e. bad eyesight, mental health etc. Unless some such condition were present Doctors would be forbidden to discuss it with their patients.
K. G. Holloway
Friday 11th November 2011 02:17 GMT skeptical i
I doubt many doctors have time to discuss firearms during a visit ...
... unless they are, somehow, directly relevant (e.g., as was noted above, if patient is on meds that make unsecured firearms a very bad idea); it is that the State wants to dictate what can and can not be discussed within the doctor-patient relationship. (In California, the Feds tried to crack down on doctors who had the gall to tell patients that cannabis might be helpful for certain conditions; court ruled for the doctors' first amendment rights to discuss $whatever during visits.) Especially of concern is the fact that if, say, firearms are considered off-limits, women's health issues will certainly follow, possibly also end-of-life options (remember the "death panel" McFuror?), and other politically motivated topics.
As for the noting of firearms (or goldfish, or Oxycontin, or used car parts) on the premises ... if gubmint has access to patient records, there is probably information much more useful/ damaging than the presence or absence of firearms therein, no?
-----^^----- swordfighting, to make my doctor cringe a little
Friday 11th November 2011 02:25 GMT Eddy Ito
Much ado about nothing
First, it's somewhat pointless to "ban" asking if someone owns a firearm. Why don't we "ban" people from asking for the keys to your car or So-so Security number to prevent crime? Simple, only stupid folks answer these questions and any doctor dumb enough to ask such a stupid question should expect the conversation to proceed thusly;
Patient: "So Doc, have you stopped molesting children?"
Doc: "What! I...I don't understand what that has to do with your ownership of a firearm?"
Patient: "Oh, here I thought both had something to do with the results of my colonoscopy."
Next day twitter update: "Good news, the doc says guns aren't related to his molesting children. #DrPatientConfidentiality"
Now then, can I have $4.2 million and the keys to your Mercedes? See, you can ask anything, just be prepared for the answer. Surly, any lawyer must know this.
Friday 11th November 2011 09:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Friday 11th November 2011 09:07 GMT Turtle
Expanding Spheres Of Influence
If a doctor feels that he has the right to advise me on *anything* that impinges or potentially impinges on my health, he can spend his time with me by advising me on the safest car for me to drive, bicycle helmets, the lattitude and altitude of my current residence and how often I go to the beach, the amount of radon in my home, how often I go into the bathroom as it is the most dangerous room in the house (IICR), every aspect of my diet, (that will keep him busy for *weeks* and considering how often new studies are released contradicting old studies, every week will be spent telling me what part of the old advice must be ignored in favor of *new* advice) and much, much more.
Friday 11th November 2011 11:47 GMT Graysonn
For the first time, I'm actually a bit worried about the slant that the reg is taking.
Doctors never said they wouldn't ask about other risks. they just said they shouldn't be banned from asking about guns. If there was a law forbidding them from asking about automobile usage, they'd probably be discussing that. But there isn't. The topic under discussion by them is the fact that they're being banned from asking about guns.
is the guy who wrote this a member of the NRA?
Friday 11th November 2011 13:55 GMT Gerry Doyle 1
You calling me a statistician, pal?
Pretty much everybody's got a bathroom, and there's not many unaffected by gravity so it's no surprise that there are quite a lot of accidents involving such things, but still rather few proportionate to the whole.
On the other hand, how the comparatively fewer amounts of people who own guns are killed and injured at similar numbers does show the relatively higher dangers inherent in guns than bathrooms.
Friday 11th November 2011 13:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Friday 11th November 2011 19:29 GMT Craig 28
Much as I hate civilian gun ownership
Believe me, I really do hate the idea of civilians owning guns for "self defence" but frankly this really isn't part of a doctor's remit. This is a social issue. While it is appropriate for a doctor to say "I recommend with your medical conditions you not own a gun" in the same way as "I recommend that you stop driving for your own safety due to your medical conditions" it really isn't down to them to tell people what to do about guns.
Now that isn't to say that noone should be doing this. The fact that doctors felt they had to shows how poor a job the authorities are doing in terms of educating the public regarding the risks of gun ownership and how to mitigate them. That still doesn't make it right for the doctors to push this agenda though, this is a political issue and for the most part health services should remain apolitical.
Friday 18th November 2011 12:18 GMT Tree & Tree = Dirty Tree
Why restraining a doctor from asking those question?
Why would those be different than any other advice on household safety? Ask yourself who has an interest in not educating, not warning, not discouraging people from owning guns, and what their motive is...
I would never consider raising my kids in a society where the open display of firearms in public is tolerated. 'nuff said.
To the author of the article: How many ballistic dick extensions do you keep at home? Feels good?
And yes, it is very much the duty of a responsible general physicist to take a holistic view on safety and health, not just apply bandages and subscribe pills.