Columnist's editorial in The Orlando Sentinel, and comments

M

MLeake

New member
In today's online edition, Beth Kassab is defending the rights of pediatricians to ask kids about guns, based on the shooting death of a 15yo at the hands of his 7yo cousin, who was playing with what he thought was a toy gun.

The comments have been interesting.

I added one, then added a follow-up with some stats.

Another opportunity for people to see how the antis think, and also to make your own comments (hopefully, reasonable and well-supported arguments, only).

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-beth-kassab-kids-and-guns-011912-20120118,0,6761417.column
 
I tried to leave a comment, but it won't allow me to do so without registering and I decline to do that.

But, yes ... this does show the way anti-gun fanatics (don't) think. The simple fact is, if kids were taught early on that one NEVER points even a toy gun at people, or pets, or at anything they don't want to shoot and destroy -- then such incidents would virtually disappear. But the anti-gun people seem to think that the best way to make kids safe around guns is by NOT teaching them how they work and how to handle them safely.

That's like trying to prevent automobile accidents by making certain that kids DON'T take driver's ed before they get a license.
 
Last edited:
I understand that some parents don't feel the need to educate their kids about gun safety for some reason, but I thought that was (one of the reasons) D.A.R.E. programs in elementary schools were in place. When did a child's doctor become the chief source of firearms education? At least when I had D.A.R.E. in school they covered the basics of firearm safety, I'm assuming that's still the case?
 
But as this is a gun site and not a political site
Click to expand...
Precisely. The rest of you: knock it off. I've already had to excise a few comments about liberals, progressives, and sex education. Keep it up, and this thread gets nuked.

And nukes have fallout.
 
Shouldn't pediatricians worry about treating the child for what ails them? Unless they have an office for a certified NRA instructor at the hospital or Dr.'s office, I really don't think it's the proper venue. I can even, however grudgingly, concede to just a pamphlet on it nestled among the others. Let the parent decide if they want to read it. Taking away choices we make as parents and putting those choices in the hands of others is a bad concept. Treat my kid's illness, immunize them. THAT'S what I pay for. Not life lessons. Leave that to me.
 
Just remember, as a parent, it's your right to refuse to answer the question and to also question the doctor on what training he has had that would allow him to intelligently comment on firearms safety without a boundary violation.
 
We are in the "General Discussion" area rather than the "Legal" area, so I have to be careful what I say. Just keep in mind that there are factions within the U.S. government that are trying very hard to both increase the amount of personal, medical information that gets recorded, and at the same time make ALL that information more available to agencies that have nothing to do with your health care.

Handing out a pamphlet about gun safety in the home with a comment "Please read this if you have guns," is VERY different (IMHO) from directly asking if you have guns in the home, and entering that in each child's record if the answer is yes (or if you decline to answer). Once the information has been recorded, you have lost control of what should be your private information ... forever.

This is aside from the very appropriate discussions of whether doctors presuming to "instruct" us on things about which most of them have NO expertise and isn't related to medicine constitutes a "boundary violation." In general, a pediatrician probably won't treat a broken arm -- he or she will refer to an orthopedist, because the pediatrician isn't a specialist in setting broken arms. Yet I'm sure he or she studied broken bones in medical school.

How much study on firearms safety instruction did they undergo in medical school? Likely NONE ... so how are they in any way qualified to instruct their patients in firearms safety?

There is a movement by a subset of the medical community (the anti-gun subset) to try to make firearms safety an epidemiological issue so they can then lay claim to addressing it as a "health care" issue. Yet more people are injured every year by automobile accidents and bathtub slips/falls than by firearms accidents, yet there is no move to study either car accidents or bathtubs as "epidemiological" problems.
 
Perhaps this will play itself out. In this case... ie: Parents get offended at the doctors prying, people stop using this prying doctor, and the doc effectively knocks herself off of her own soapbox. It's a pediatrician, there are plenty of doctors that can look down my nephews throat and give him Robitussin. She'll learn after she loses patients to tend to her patients rather than pry in their gun cabinets.
 
Beth Kassab: “It's true that this law wasn't in effect when Anthony died. But his death makes it even harder to justify removing one of the most effective ways to make parents think about gun safety in their homes.”

Amazing. She is basing her entire argument on a new law, then admits it had nothing to do with her example.

That said, I'm for freedom. Freedom to concealed carry, freedom to open carry, freedom for someone to tell me I shouldn't do either, and freedom to rebuff said person. Also freedom for my doctor to tell me things that pertain to perceived safety issues, and freedom for me to ignore what he/she says.
 
One thing I can be thankful about living in a small town in the midwest.
My family Dr. never asks my son about guns in our home because he already has a good idea. Whenever we make a visit to our Dr., after the exam my son always goes over to the Dr.'s actual office (beside the exam rooms) to look at all the mounts hanging on all 4 walls. He always asks our Dr. where he shot this animal and where he shot that animal and what his favorite guns are.
It's nice having a "gun friendly" Dr.!
 
Teen fighting for his life after he is shot while playing video games - by a six-year-old child

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ideo-games--year-old-child.html#ixzz1k1ujcTGe

Anyone looked at the story Kassab references?

A six year old special needs child finds a loaded handgun on the floor?

Oh, I'm just certain if a pediatrician would have counseled the family on gun safety, it would have never happened. :rolleyes:

Another anti-gun misrepresentation.
 
Ok, I'll be bold enough to say that I see this both ways.

It is quite possible considering that these tragic stories often begin with a gun lying around unattended that there are parents out there who have never been taught gun safety. If a ped asks about gun safety, fine; I'm good with that. Additionally, though, to better protect the child in his/her home environment I'd like to see the pediatrician ask about firearms safety AFTER asking about pools:
http://blog.poolcenter.com/article.aspx?articleid=6135

That said, I do like Tygary's malpractice document idea as well. I believe, though, that he needs to add poisonous compounds, caustic chemicals and swimming pools to his list of dangerous household items to make that tally more complete...

god is great
beer is good
people (including docs) are crazy.
 
The Florida law seems ridiculous.

In fact, it's hard to imagine a group less qualified than legislators to decide what doctors can and can't do in treating and advising patients.

A doctor should be free to ask about pools, chemicals, medications, firearms, whatever...if he/she thinks the questions are indicated/helpful.

A patient is equally free to not answer questions about, for instance, how they secure their pool, and free to find another doctor.
 
MedicineBow, if the doctor's were listing all those other questions in print, alongside the firearms question, I might give them more benefit of the doubt.

My last flight physical, I was in a doctor's office where the new patient questionnaire asked about firearms - but not about other supposed risks, aside from smoking, alcohol and drug use.

Why are they compiling that data in the paperwork? What legitimate use do they have for such?

Please note that no questions were actually asked, nor advice rendered, with regard to safe storage and use of firearms. It was plain and simple data collection, as to whether I owned any. Why?
 
Not sure what you mean, about "all those other questions."

That's one job of a pediatrician: to counsel, at age-appropriate times, about all of the dangers I mentioned (and then some), and then to reinforce those messages as the child grows.

Take a look at the The Injury Protection Program of the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www2.aap.org/family/TIPPGuide.pdf

The program has been in place since at least 1983, of course modified over the years.

TIPP counsels taking written surveys from parents about a wide, wide range of dangers.

By the way, I completely disagree with some of the advice about firearms listed in that document, and disagree with some of the other advice on other topics too, but no one can seriously claim that firearms are being singled out.

As for documentation...well, doctors documents everything you can imagine. And, I have to say you're darn right the general fact that your house has firearms (and a pool, say) will be written down somewhere. But this is in all rationality about the least efficient way for "the government" to find out if you own firearms. Let's face it: they already know. The days of those kinds of secrets are long gone.
 
MedicineBow, yes, the government quite probably does.

My medical insurance provider, not so much... unless the doctor shares medical data, which is entirely possible.

You say,
no one can seriously claim that firearms are being singled out
Click to expand...

But that ignores my experience, which was the form I was given asked specifically if I had firearms in my home.

It did not ask about swimming pools, trampolines, sharp objects, water-safe electrical outlets, motorcycles, skiing, child seats in cars, airbags, etc.

Yet it asked about firearms.

I'd call that singling out, wouldn't you? And again, I have to ask, "why?"

Because the other things I mentioned are more likely to injure or kill, at least in the context of "accidents."
 
MLeake:

Well, if that happened and you feel that way, you should find a new doctor. I don't say that in a crabby way, I just think you should do that. (By the way, what I said squares entirely with my experience over decades of seeing docs.)

On the other hand, there's absolutely no reason nor basis for a legislature (!) to pass a law attempting to shield you from doctors' questions which offend your sensibilities or make your worry about your firearms.

Docs and their organizations think these things through (see TIPP program, above) and the medical system works better if docs deal with their own advice, rather than being told what to say and not say by a bunch of politicians. (Especially since everyone can "protect" themselves against a doctor's questions on their own.)

And, I'll pose a question to you: what do you think was the real impetus behind this Florida law? Actual worry about an actual problem? Or political grandstanding?

You can guess what I think, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top