Medical Machers Ask: Should Guns Be Part of Patient Profile?

[Oatka]

This has been touched on before, but it is still making the rounds.

I cracked up at these "non-political" doctors who also call for "mandatory background checks of purchasers at gun shows, limits on the number of guns that can be purchased by individuals and a waiting period for all gun buyers."

and

I asked the writer where he got that "600,000 doctors nationwide" that second the opinion (ask about guns).


If Jeremiah Barondess, the patrician elder statesman of the
New York medical community, has his way, the average doctor’s examination in the near future will include questions not only about a patient’s consumption of red meat and alcohol, but of ammunition, too. Dr. Barondess, who is president of the august New York Academy of Medicine, thinks physicians should know if their patients have guns in the house. Some 600,000 doctors nationwide are seconding that opinion.

Under Dr. Barondess’ direction, an organization representing approximately two-thirds of the practicing doctors in America is about to inject itself into the national debate on gun violence. Inviting the wrath of the gun lobby, the group not only will advocate further gun regulation, but will urge doctors to ask their patients specific questions about guns in their homes and tell them about the risks of gun ownership.

The Observer obtained a copy of a report put together by the ad-hoc coalition called Doctors Against Handgun Injury. In it, the group recommends that health professionals engage in what it calls “upstream intervention”—that is, using regular checkups as an opportunity to ask patients about firearm ownership and storage in their homes. “To promote public safety, health professionals and health systems should ask about firearm ownership when taking a medical history or engaging in preventive counseling,” the report states. “Patients should be provided with information about the risks of having a firearm in the home, as well as methods to reduce the risk, should they continue to choose to keep them.” The recommendation was based on an analysis of recent gun-related suicides, homicides and accidental deaths across the country.

REST OF ARTICLE

UPDATE 03/15: The writer replied: "The 600,000 refers to the combined membership of the 13 organizations who put their names on the report. Thanks for your note."



[Edited by Oatka on 03-15-2001 at 12:40 PM]

[Calamity Jane]

Yeah. (said in best Clint Eastwood voice)

And I expect that those quacks will be turning over the information post haste to the local meddling police department. Let's say you are prescribed any kind of antidepressant. Want to take bets on how soon the police will be a-knockin' on your door because you fit a "profile" of someone who is a danger to yourself or to society? :barf:

Um, I DON'T THINK SO.

(And Doctors Against Handgun Injury? Handgun injury only? Aren't they against other kinds of injuries, like say, injuries in car accidents or from trying to slice bagels? Actually if they were logically consistent, they'd have to be against THEMSELVES since negligent doctors kill far more people than guns do. I can see it now. Doctors Against Injurious Doctors).

[Mike Irwin]

The doctor who asks me that question becomes my EX doctor.

And I'll inform him of that to his face.

I don't want ANYTHING in my medical records having nothing to do with my extant medical conditions.

[oktagon]

If I will be asking my patients a gun question, it will be along the line " you want to go shooting this weekend, Mr So and So?"

If I ever get a patient assesment worksheet that will have a firearm question on it, trust me I will not ask it.
I might recommend a brand of ammo though...

Rx Speer Lawman 115gr #50
Shoot as needed.
Apothekary exclamus: No limits on refills.

[Byron Quick]

I work as an emergency department registered nurse. I can just see most of the physicians here asking those questions.

Dr. McKissick-she would want to compare carry guns.
Dr. Delatte(surgery resident) wishes his resident's income would allow him to buy more guns especially Para Ordnance. He also thinks gun laws are a conspiracy promoted by tyrannical statist pigs.
Dr. Warren spends all his free time hunting.
Dr. Shaver wants advice on storing his .357 Magnum so it is easily accessible but his little girl can't get to it.
Dr. Lucas is hunting or shooting and gets envious if you have more guns than he does.
Dr. Cox wants to know where he can get a magazine for his Beretta.
Dr. Johnson-former flight surgeon attached to Air Force Special Ops.
Dr. Kucaba-naval flight surgeon-he doesn't think personal arms are big enough.

There are a couple of anti gun physicians around here but they tend to keep their opinions to themselves

[iso1]

"Do I have guns in my home? Why in the world would you possibly need to know that?"

"Well, we just want you to have the facts. They're dangerous. You really should get rid of them."

"Is that your professional advice, Doctor? If so, I'll get rid of my guns, since you said I should. Now, I'll be able to sue you for malpractice if someone attacks me or my family and I'm unable to stop the attack becuase you told me to get rid of my guns, right? How good is your insurance, Doc?"

How many times do you think a doctor will ask that particular question after they figure out they'd be liable for preventable injuries sustained because of their advice?

[Bud Helms]

Spartacus ...

[Karanas]

I'll tell my doctor how many guns I have when he tells me how many malpractice suits he has.

[PvtPyle]

I agree with Karanas, ask tham how many suits have been filed against them and their office. Then tell them no, you dont own any guns. Simple as that.

[buzz_knox]

The best response is to remind the doctor that medical malpractice kills around 500,000 each year (numbers rising each year), while firearms kill less than 35,000 and numbers are falling.

[RikWriter]

The best response, of course, is to say no. It's none of their business and if you say "It's none of your business" they will know the answer. So lie.

[Tamara]

...want to know how many dry-cleaning bags, chainsaws, bathtubs, automobiles, swimming pools, etcetera, etcetera, you have?

Odd that they're concerned about something that is a statistically insignificant cause of injury and death in the home. Guns in the home tend to be safe as houses. Guns out roaming around away from their rightful owners are the ones that cause problems.

[gjwandkids]

RIkwriter-Borg-BWHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA. (My son liked it too)

[moa]

Hey, that question is being asked now by the medical community. The last couple of times I have taken my mother to the doctor, or I went to a new one, they gave us a questionaire that asked if we had firearms. This has been going on for a few years now.

So, as mentioned earlier, lie and say no. It is not a "medical" question, and it is none of their business.

Next they will be asking us who we voted for in the last election.

[Zander]

...has committed what is known as a 'boundary violation'.

Tell your doctor just that and that you will be reporting the violation to the state medical association.

It's a serious matter...and we shouldn't allow this sort of invasion of our privacy to continue.

This practice has been around a *long* time...more than ten years...but anti-gun doctors [especially those in pediatrics] are becoming bolder.

Report the doctor...fire the doctor.

And tell the doctor why!

[oktagon]

Seriously, I live in VERY anti area, but in 6 years that I have been practicing here I was never asked to include any firearms questions in the patient records.
If they would, I would not comply because it is none of my buisness.

[Mute]

My Answer:

"Have you ever been the defendant in a malpractice lawsuit, because doctors kill more people annually than firearms?"

[moa]

Is not this question of firearms ownership done at behest of the Federal Center for Disease Control? That, along with other personal medical information, being sent to them? Probably so.

Our medical records are probably as confidential as a phone book.

[Zander]

"Is not this question of firearms ownership done at behest of the Federal Center for Disease Control?"

It is done at the behest of the hoplophobes who run the AMA and the virulently anti-gun American Academy of Pediatrics.

I do agree with your take on medical records...we'd all be appalled at the amount of info the feds have on us; and no, I'm not being paranoid.

[Danger Dave]

You know, I do know someone who was asked about firearms ownership by his new baby's pediatrician (actually, the nurse asked him).
He said, "that's none of your business." They took that as a yes, then went on to ask him how they were stored. Again, he refused to answer. They lectured him about gun safety and how he should get rid of them. He asked the nurse how much training she had, compared to his military training...

They got kinda flustered with him.

I would counter with questions about their personal property. Take out a pen, and start asking about what kind of car they drive, what size house do they own, how many children they have, how long they've been in the medical profession, etc. Basically, interview them back.

I'll answer these questions when they tell me how much they make off my visits, how many lawsuits they have against them, what the average amount of time they spend with a patient is, tell me about mistakes they've made in diagnosis, etc.

[B9mmHP]

My Doctor realy P!**ED me off the last time I made a visit. I ask him if he had been Deer hunting? (last Dec.) He came back with, Yep! I got five. (the limit in our county) Well I was mad cause I hadn`t gotten any yet. I think he should have offered me some Deer Sausage.

[WAGCEVP]

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Faria <[email protected]>
To: Undisclosed recipients <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 16, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: Organized medicine renews their push for gun control with a vengeance


Friends,

The article below is a frightening example of organized medicine selling out physicians and their patients once again. The AMA, the APA, the AAP, and eleven other major groups, claiming two-thirds of all physicians, 600,000 doctors, have now become organized into a large coalition and have begun a new push for gun control using the public health model. They want to intimidate patients about the firearms they keep in their home in flagrant boundary violation of their patients' trust. The man who heads this coalition, needless to say, has been canonized in this article.

I believe that everyone who is interested in telling the other side of this issue should avail themselves of copies of the last two issues of the Medical Sentinel, which provide the antidote to this new assault on privacy and the patient-doctor relationship, and distribute them far and wide. The time to act is now.

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Medical Sentinel of the AAPS
Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997)
Websites: http://www.haciendapub.com and http://www.aapsonline.org


***************************************************

March 16, 2001|1:59 PM

ŒGetting shot and being dead is certainly a clinical issue.¹ ‹ Dr. Jeremiah Barondess



Medical Machers Ask: Should Guns Be Part of Patient Profile?

by Josh Benson

[WAGCEVP]

Risk Management Advice to Physicians and their Insurers:
Don't Borrow Trouble

By Joe Horn

Since retiring and leaving Law Enforcement, I have been active in Risk Management consulting, a field that has grown rapidly throughout every industry over the past 20 years. Some of the companies I have consulted to for risk management include IBM, Gates Lear jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.

One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of exposure.

Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, but naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.

Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.

To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor Knew, Could have known or SHOULD have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients?

Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they get sued.

Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:

One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer.

How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.

Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it.

Joe Horn
6th Mesa Risk Management,
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Horn is a member of Second Amendment Police Department, who is now collaborating and strategizing from time to time with Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws.

Joe Horn
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Ret.

[WAGCEVP]

Physicians, Don't borrow trouble, Part II

by Joe Horn



Last time (Part I) we discussed:

the Risk Management issues involved in counseling patients about firearms home safety, and

the liability issues involved with lack of certification and training of Physicians in Home Safety or Firearms Safety.

Now we'll discuss:

the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms in the home, and
the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely.
Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at closehand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.

It's just a matter of when and not if this will happen, God forbid, but it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate defensive use of a firearm, which was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's advice to render him/herself defenseless against violent crime.

The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home.

Physicians are already under incredible pressure from Liability and Malpractice carriers to limit their exposure, and Malpractice rates are staggeringly high. So, why borrow trouble?

If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is considerable......

Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Horn, Sixth Mesa Risk Management, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Retired. (c) 2000 Permission is granted to reproduce this article if left intact and complete. [email protected]

Joe Horn
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Ret.

[Tshoes]

Some animals eat their young..............