Quote:
|
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.