Doctors target gun violence as a social disease

[oneounceload]

Doctors target gun violence as a social disease

Two of the biggest pushers of this are the AMA and the CDC - both well-noted for their anti-gun agenda

[drail]

And if you really want to be shocked read the statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Health and the National Academy of Sciences on how many people are injured and killed by medical stupidity in this country every year at a cost of 17 to 19 billion dollars. They don't have ANY room to talk about firearm fatalities.

[DFrame]

This anti-gun tactic was first tried and enthusiastically supported by (Assault weapon ban) clinton.
My suggestion to the doctors would be "physician heal thyself".
Stats from trial lawyers indicate doctors could SAVE FAR MORE LIVES by helping the profession to rid itself of bad doctors than they can by ridding US of guns. Do they consider BAD DOCTORS a health risk? Probably not, but I do!

[Aguila Blanca]

The late Ann Landers once wrote, "Remember, fifty percent of the doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class."

Corollary: And I'm sure the entire bottom fifty percent ALL found their way into the VA (alleged) healthcare system.

[BurgerBoy]

I agree with that. I don't go to the VA clinic here for any thing any more.

[drail]

Hell, the medical "industry" is a social disease. But a lot of people make a lot of money off of it, so it must be a good thing, right? And we probably don't want to get started on the "V.A." I will never go to one again either.

[BillCA]

So gun ownership becomes a "social disease" now?
I thought that's what we used to call a sexually-transmitted disease.

Letting doctors dictate social policy on firearms makes as much sense as letting lawyers perform brain surgery.

Perhaps doctors who think we are having an "epidemic" of crime will step forward and volunteer their time & services to get people off drugs or alcohol, work with poor families to maintain nutrition of their children, etc. I won't hold my breath, though.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Don H

We've had a number of threads regarding medical professionals inquiring into firearm ownership by patients.

I have to think I would respond ther same way I would if my Doc asked about my 2011 taxable income, or if my accountant asked if I'd had any bloody stools.

As to the matter of docs viewing instruments of violence as a social disease, I don't think have policy set or even heavily inflienced by people who are over-exposed to a specific danger is circumspect. Such people will nearly always lack perspective.

Ask a fireman if a schoolroom should be cooled by leaving a door open, ask an attorney if a young couple need a prenuptial, or ask ask a GI doc if you should have an annual colonoscopy, and you will likely receive a warning unmoderated by ordinary experience.

I had a lad in my office a month ago or so. He had a significant trust fund and a couple other assets, and was to be married in a few weeks. I told him why he should have an ante-nup agreement. He smiled dopily and assured me he didn't need one.

Thing is, he might be right. Most people don't need one, and I only see the people who regret not having gotten one. My foresight lacks a general perspective.

Docs have the same problem.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

As to the matter of docs viewing instruments of violence as a social disease, I don't think have policy set or even heavily inflienced by people who are over-exposed to a specific danger is circumspect. Such people will nearly always lack perspective.

Ask a fireman if a schoolroom should be cooled by leaving a door open, ask an attorney if a young couple need a prenuptial, or ask ask a GI doc if you should have an annual colonoscopy, and you will likely receive a warning unmoderated by ordinary experience.

I had a lad in my office a month ago or so. He had a significant trust fund and a couple other assets, and was to be married in a few weeks. I told him why he should have an ante-nup agreement. He smiled dopily and assured me he didn't need one.

Thing is, he might be right. Most people don't need one, and I only see the people who regret not having gotten one. My foresight lacks a general perspective.

Docs have the same problem.

Nope, not the same problem. The perspective issue is much like when I once asked an orthodontist if my teeth needed braces, or when I asked a hand surgeon at the VA hospital if my hand needed surgery. In both instances I received the response one might expect from a specialist in the respective field.

That's a very different issue from doctors, such as pediatricians, many/most of whom have never held or fired a gun and who know nothing abut them, asking questions about guns in the home and presuming to offer their (untrained, unqualified) advice about what to do with guns in the house. There's a huge distinction between tunnel vision, and boundary violation.

[Tickling]

And the natives are already frothing at the mouth..

Me thinks if you took a poll, most doctors would NOT support this article. It appears obvious, at least to me, that the doctors quoted were cherry-picked. And that makes sense, the article was trying to make a point (right or wrong), not portray both sides of an issue. According to some surveys, approximately 1/3 of doctors own firearms (here). Which is the same as the national average quoted in the article.

I could probably find a few mechanics who believe that firearms in vehicles lead to more violent road-rage incidents. And then write a dandy article expounding on the "dangers of vehicle-gun violence." But it wouldn't make all mechanics gun-grabbers any more than it would doctors.

What I find (and have always found) disturbing is the term, "Gun Violence." Which is usually used in the wrong context, and seems to imply that "possessed" guns are walking around causing violence and mayhem. But mostly because it is bad grammar, and nothing bothers me more than someone elses bad grammar


PS:

Stats from trial lawyers indicate doctors could SAVE FAR MORE LIVES by helping the profession to rid itself of bad doctors than they can by ridding US of guns.

That's like asking the Democrats for stats on the Republicans (or vice versa), or asking a hillbilly to judge gourmet dishes, what they say won't really mean anything. Between the bias and the ignorance, it's just pretty noise.

It is true, doctors kill far more people by error and malpractice than guns do. The ratio is at least 2:1.

That's like comparing apples to eggplants. The two situations aren't even remotely comparable.

[44 AMP]

This idea has cropped up several times before, and likely will again. The concept that undesirable behavior is a disease has been with us for a long time. All that seems to change is the specific area of focus.

At one time, homosexuality was classified as a disease. A mental disorder. Today, that is not the case. One must wonder at what will, or will not be classified as a disease tomorrow.

Words like "disease" and "epidemic" are thrown around carelessly and without any sense of responsibility these days. Anything widespread is referred to as an epidemic. Anything deemed socially incorrect, a disease.

Personally, all I see is another attempt at a power grab by bureaucrats in lab coats and stethescopes. By making something a "disease" then it falls under their purview, and that means money.

The fact that there is an emotional connection with public safety (and therefore "health") is just grease for their skids.

We have an epidemic of obesity (leaving aside the fact that by changing their parameters on what is "obese", the epidemic is falsely created), we have an epidemic of gun violence. We have an epidemic of people claiming we have epidemics.

Follow the money. Money, prestige, influence and power, all will be increased to the followers of the cult of "gun violence epidemic" if this idea is allowed to firmly take root in the public conciousness.

And don't count on any of the "progressive" politicians standing in the way. This benefits them, as well.

Once again, we see the root idea that an inanimate object (in this case a gun) is capable of directing or controlling human behavior. We cannot be responsible, it must be something else that has caused this....

The real problem is not guns, nor the availability of guns, but that so many people are so willing to shoot other people.

We are a long way from the days when shooting someone for fun and profit got you (ultimately) hung, gassed, shot, or electrocuted, in a timely manner and on a regular basis. I know there are many, many other causes, but I cannot help but think that this might have something to do with the problem we face today.

[pturner67]

Just wait til the IRS has its hands in it. Talk about privacy.

[Eghad]

If the doctors really wanted to be truthful they would state that 99.99% of gun owners use firearms for legitimate purposes. That there was some type of criminal virus that effects only a very very small part of the population. Guys like these start with theory that would not withstand serious peer review. Some folks will beleive that if a Doctor or Scientist said it it must be true especially if the media says the study is right.

If it is like a virus pretty soon the folks on Stars earn stripes will contract it and start shooting each other up...not.

The anti gunners just want their 15 minutes of fame.

[Silver Bullet]

If the doctors really wanted to be truthful

If you don't have a valid argument, you don't want to be truthful.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Eghad

The anti gunners just want their 15 minutes of fame.

If all they wanted was a soapbox, it wouldn't be a problem. Just let the doc say his/her piece, ignore it, and move on.

The potential problem is if/when firearms ownership becomes a part of medical records, thus creating a firearms quasi-registry. It is well-known and well-documented that in the very near future all medical records are going to be electronic. And, especially with Obamacare, it is reasonable to expect that the government is going to be demanding -- and getting -- more access to personal health records. Once the Federal government has access to your health records, there is no control over and no limit to what departments and agencies may have access to your personal information.

[Patriot86]

The Village of Oak Park; which is basically the point of the anti gun spear here in Illinois is toying with the idea of taking a "public health" approach to gun control.

I have a feeling the anti gun types are really thinking a lot on these recent court cases , what they mean, how to beat them and are slowly crafting legislation that when passed will take another 20 years to be resolved in the Supreme Court.

Notice they are NOT in a rush to do so; the anti gun types need the next series of coordinated legal efforts to take a long time in the courts because it is their hope that the balance of the SCOTUS will shift by then.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gun control conspiracies are not adding anything to the discussion.

I am not a fan of all doctors but they do see folks hurt with guns and the issue is legitimate concern. They may be misguided. There are medical organizations that are concerned with social justice, poverty and the like.

So can we drop the cliches and pseudo-insights.

I've deleted some of that.

[2damnold4this]

Focus on the rhetoric, but follow the money...

If I'm not mistaken, most of Webster's research money at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is from the Joyce Foundation.

Gun ownership – a precursor to gun violence – can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.

The obvious problem with Webster's statement is that gun ownership doesn't spread like an infectious disease. People don't make a conscious choice about what strain of flu they'd like to get or when they want to get it. People do decide to acquire guns.

[Eghad]

I am a patient at the VA and several different private practitioners and none of them has ever asked about firearms. Not saying it doesn't happen but it has never happened to me.

I can understand Doctor's concerns about firearm deaths. They are doing themselves no favors when they put out studies like that. If they get into peoples business too much they risk legislation that makes them walk an even finer line than they do now.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The real problem is not guns, nor the availability of guns, but that so many people are so willing to shoot other people.

We are a long way from the days when shooting someone for fun and profit got you (ultimately) hung, gassed, shot, or electrocuted, in a timely manner and on a regular basis. I know there are many, many other causes, but I cannot help but think that this might have something to do with the problem we face today.

We've never really lacked a supply of people willing to shoot or kill each other, often for the stupidest reasons. Technology simply makes it easier at times or more difficult at others.

A regular police force, paid for by taxes, is relatively new.¹ Murder as a "public crime" is relatively new -- as opposed to killing a man who had armed relatives. Killing a tramp used to be quite safe.

Remember that most theories of law enforcement and/or "justice" revolve around the idea of a moderately swift punishment for committing a crime. The effectiveness of our laws lies in the ratio of crimes committed versus criminals properly prosecuted for those crimes². The closer it is to 1:1, the theory says, the less willing someone will be to commit a crime. When authorities stop taking crime reports, especially on crimes against a person (assault, robbery, rape, etc.) as has been reported in several cities, the government has abandoned the principle of deterrence and has embraced and condoned a certain level of violence in society³.

Historically, guns have been easily available in this country (although not always easily affordable). Up to 1934, even full auto guns were legal and until 1968 they were as available as any other product in commerce, even by U.S. Mail or parcel post.

Yet, it wasn't until the 20th Century that homicide rates began to rise quickly. In the 15 years between 1870 - 1885, there were 45 homicides in the cities of Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, Kansas combined⁴. This translates to one (1) per 100,000 residents. A far cry from D.C.'s rate of 31 or Baltimore's rate of 45. In other words, you would be safer walking the streets of the old west's Dodge City, unarmed, than walking in Baltimore or D.C.

Guns aren't the problem and never have been.


¹ London Metropolitan Police created in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel
² Properly prosecuted means prosecuting the correct person for the crime(s) committed and sentenced accordingly.
³ One can speculate endlessly on reasons. From a complete lack of actionable information or evidence to lack of manpower to some dark conspiracy. No matter, with no official report there is zero chance of prosecuting anyone for the crime.
⁴ Frontier Violence: Another Look, W. Eugene Hollon, 1976, Galaxy Books

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Agulia Blanca

The potential problem is if/when firearms ownership becomes a part of medical records, thus creating a firearms quasi-registry. It is well-known and well-documented that in the very near future all medical records are going to be electronic. And, especially with Obamacare, it is reasonable to expect that the government is going to be demanding -- and getting -- more access to personal health records. Once the Federal government has access to your health records, there is no control over and no limit to what departments and agencies may have access to your personal information.

If, under the "Affordable Care Act", doctors are told to ask certain questions and record the answers or required to do so by regulation, then I posit the following;

1. There is no longer any doctor-patient confidentiality
2. The doctor legally becomes a de facto agent of the government.
3. Pursuant to the 5th Amendment, I need not answer any question this de facto gov't agent (doctor) poses, which I believe may "tend to incriminate me" now or in the future.
4. Any law or regulation that requires patients to answer invasive questions in order to receive treatment are unconstitutional, requiring an uninformed waiver of the 5th Amendment.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BillCA

If, under the "Affordable Care Act", doctors are told to ask certain questions and record the answers or required to do so by regulation, then I posit the following;

Glenn mentioned a few posts above that conspiracy theories don't help, but perhaps they don't hurt, either. I think we need to at least be alert to and aware of nuances and possibilities.

Suppose the Affordable Health care Act itself doesn't require that doctors ask questions about firearms in the home, but does (or will) make the doctors' records available to the government. Then suppose that the AMA makes asking questions about guns in the home "standard" practice. After all, for professionals in any field, the "standard of care" is whatever most other qualified professionals in the field are doing -- it's not a fixed, objective "standard," it's a standard that is fluid and constantly evolving.

So asking about guns in the home becomes the de facto standard of care without the government ever asking for it -- but the government will nonetheless have access to the answers you give.

Convenient. (Yes, I love a good conspiracy theory.)

[aarondhgraham]

The AMA, Ethics and Gun Control

I do not believe it's a conspiracy theory when articles like this seem to prove (or at least suggest) that the AMA has an anti-gun agenda.

If they indeed have an anti-gun agenda they will use the tools at their disposal to further their agenda.

Their tools include medical records compiled by their membership.

Questions such as "Do you have firearms in your home?" are being asked by doctors,,,
I suppose one could say that to fear these questions makes me a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist,,,
But I firmly believe that these fears are valid in that a person (doctor or not) will use the tools available to further the AMA's agenda.

Medical professionals have the tool of being in a position to ask personally invasive questions,,,
They then record those answers in records that can possibly be used as statistical data,,,
So I do not feel that I am being an alarmist when I express my concerns.

Aarond

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Aaron - wear your tin foil if you must but it's getting old.

This thread needs to separate out whether doctors have a legitimate reason for ask about home risk factors vs. your view that they will use this in some political antigun agenda separate from a concern about the injuries gun cause.

For instance, if you came to a health professional with a teen ager that was depressed - it would be quite legitimate and wise to ask you if you have guns in the house and how to control them. So is that the plan of the UN?

Unless, you can come up with evidence that your answers to the question or refusal to answer is going into the Illumanti data base, we can do without vague speculation and fear.

So get off it. Hint.

[Frank Ettin]

First, just for the record, I'm no fan of the "Affordable Health Care Act." Second, a good part of my practice of over 30 years involved health care and health care financing, so this is a subject I have reason to know something about. And so --

1. Originally Posted by BillCA

   ...The doctor legally becomes a de facto agent of the government...

   First, "legally" and "de facto" are a contradiction in terms. If something is as a matter of law, it's "de jure." If something is "de facto", it's thus as a matter of fact, not law.
   
   Second, under the "Affordable Health Care Act" a provider would no more be an agent of the government than he is now if he is paid by Medicare or Medicaid.
   
   

2. Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

   ...Suppose the Affordable Health care Act itself doesn't require that doctors ask questions about firearms in the home, but does (or will) make the doctors' records available to the government....

   Originally Posted by BillCA

   If, under the "Affordable Care Act", doctors are told to ask certain questions and record the answers or required to do so by regulation, then I posit the following;

   1. There is no longer any doctor-patient confidentiality...

   If that is your contention, show us something in the Affordable Health Care Act that obviates the HIPAA medical confidentiality regulations. I'm certainly not aware of anything that would do so. The HIPAA regulations currently protect the confidentiality of medical records even for Medicare and Medicaid patients for whom government is paying the bills.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...That's a very different issue from doctors, such as pediatricians, many/most of whom have never held or fired a gun and who know nothing abut them, asking questions about guns in the home and presuming to offer their (untrained, unqualified) advice about what to do with guns in the house....

I see that as the real issue. Most physicians are no more qualified to give advice on gun safety than I am to perform brain surgery.