Columnist's editorial in The Orlando Sentinel, and comments

Anyone care to comment on this bit?

But the fact is, sometimes doctors like Lisa Cosgrove, a pediatrician in Merritt Island, are the first to talk to parents about gun safety.

"I ask parents, 'Do you have a lock for your gun?' And if they say no, I ask, 'Would you like one?' and we keep a box of them in the office," said Cosgrove, who is also the president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Doctors are often the only people to talk to parents directly about guns, especially parents of very young children. Older children may get safety tips about guns through school or activities like scouting, but even those don't always reach the parents — the people responsible for storing a gun.
Click to expand...

If people aren't educated on gun safety, with or without children, should there be a way to make that education available to them?

Isn't it the same thing as advising people on the safe storage of household chemicals?

Almost all children are seen by medical professionals along with the childs care giver. Isn't there a greater chance of reaching people in need of education by allowing the people they are most likely to meet to supply that information?

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.
Click to expand...

While I'd like to see some proof of this assertion, lets accept it a true. So the question is how can we apply this truism is the majority of parents seen by this doctor are unaware of the need to train their child in gun safety?

Well unfortunately, in this case, we can only apply it after the fact,
 
Just a thought on pools and poisons. There is already a great deal of child protection literature and laws surrounding both. From "Mr. Yuck" to laws requiring fencing around an "attractive nuisance".

Just because these are not on the same questionnaire does not mean parents are not asked about them and offered information about protecting their children against them. Pediatricians waiting rooms are festooned with that type of literature.
 
MedicineBow, I would have, but at the time my wife was applying for a job with the doctor's affiliate hospital, which generated the form. So, I withheld editorial comment, passed the physical, and left.

She has been employed at a different hospital, and I doubt I'll return to that doctor's office.

Meanwhile, the law in Florida had two goals, with which I agree:

1) To prevent doctors from collecting records on gun owners; and

2) To prevent doctors from discussing firearms with kids, without permission from the parents.

I'd also have to ask what expertise, with regard to firearms, most doctors have? I can't dispense medical advice without a license. What training do doctors have on firearms?

I'll take a doctor's advice on firearms at just about the same time I take his advice on how to fly. (ATP licensed, retired navy pilot, with instructor ratings.)

I think that's as likely as it would be for him to take my advice on medicine. Difference is, the doctors are (in theory) trying to advise on firearms.
 
Buzzcook, I don't think there would be an issue with NRA firearms safety brochures in the waiting room.

The issue is data-keeping, and counseling.

Denying the political subtext to the topic is disingenuous.
 
Buzzcook said:
If people aren't educated on gun safety, with or without children, should there be a way to make that education available to them?
Click to expand...
"Should"? Maybe ... but why? Is it the responsibility of doctors to educate people about non-medical things? And if you answer yes to that, then "should" there also be information equally available about child seats in cars, air bags, stray dogs. rabid raccoons, swimming pools, electrical outlets, hazardous chemicals, and a host of other things that kill or injure many more children annually than firearms.

But, as MLeake points out, the pediatrician (and doctor) initiative isn't necessarily about advising (irrespective of the boundary violation issue) -- it's about recording the fact that there are firearms, in records that various factions are attempting to make MUCH more widely available than they are today.

Isn't it the same thing as advising people on the safe storage of household chemicals?
Click to expand...
No.

Almost all children are seen by medical professionals along with the childs care giver. Isn't there a greater chance of reaching people in need of education by allowing the people they are most likely to meet to supply that information?
Click to expand...
If you believe the answer to this is yes, why aren't you advocating for the public schools to provide the Eddie Eagle program to all grammar school students? The purpose of doctors is medical care. The purpose of schools (allegedly) is education.
 
Well there are a couple of medical groups, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics which are pushing the proposal that pediatricians ask families and children about guns in their homes and record the information along with other medical and household info. There is an anti firearms agenda at work here in that both groups are against open access to firearms and equate this with the "epidemic of gun violence". Meaning that if you make guns harder for everyday folk to get there will be fewer shootings intentional or unintentional. As if "gun violence" were a separate form of violence unrelated to any other as in "fist fight violence", "run 'em down with a truck violence" or "baseball bat violence".

The AAP says on this subject that...
"the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries" to them.
Click to expand...

Below are a couple of links to articles discussing the subject.

http://gunowners.org/op0038.htm

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=124

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-05-13-nra-doctors-guns_n.htm

But does this mean that the participating docs have a nefarious agenda to turn this info over to the Government? I have not seen any evidence of that as of yet.

What we do see is an effort to bring a political position into the examining room. I think we are free to oppose this. I'm not sure passing a law against it is the most effective way to fight it. I do not like handing a government one more tool that tells folks what they can not say or do and wonder who will police this, snitches perhaps. A private medical group is free to advise it's members to work in this manner I am free to speak against it as are you all. We can change docs or simply tell ours not to ask our children silly and intrusive questions when they have no good reason to do so.

tipoc
 
tipoc -

The problem with your position, as I see it, is that these groups ARE anti-gun groups, and they are actively working to classify something that is not an "epidemiological" problem as an epidemiological problem. If they can succeed in redefining it as an epidemiological issue, they can then push to have it regulated by the government and you won't be able to find a doctor who doesn't ask about and record gun ownership -- because there won't be any. They will be required to do so by law.

Beyond that, the American Academy of Pediatrics is primarily an anti-gun group that happens to be made up of pediatricians. Take a hard look at their statistics, and their language. On the one hand, they say they want to prevent firearms related "injuries" to "children." But their statistics for annual firearms injuries to "children" includes armed robbers up through 19 years of age who are shot by the police. Statistics such as these are unrelated to safety from legitimate accidents in the home, but they don't tell you that.

Next, let's look at what "epidemiology" really is. I have a head-start on this because I used to date a nurse who was chief of epidemiology for a regional hospital. From Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary:

Definition of EPIDEMIOLOGY

1: a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population

2: the sum of the factors controlling the presence or absence of a disease or pathogen

— ep·i·de·mi·o·log·i·cal \-ˌdē-mē-ə-ˈlä-ji-kəl, -ˌde-mē-\ also ep·i·de·mi·o·log·ic \-jik\ adjective

— ep·i·de·mi·o·log·i·cal·ly \-ji-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

— ep·i·de·mi·ol·o·gist \-ˌdē-mē-ˈä-lə-jist, -ˌde-mē-\ noun
Click to expand...
How does anything about a firearm relate to a disease or a pathogen? Can you take a pill or get a vaccination to immunize yourself (or your children) against gunshots? Nope.

Can you avoid the possibility of accidental gunshot injury by scrubbing the kitchen and bathroom floors with Hoppe's #9 or Ballistol? Nope.

Are firearms injuries contagious? If you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot (literally, not figuratively), will isolating yourself in a sterile room and restricting visitors protect your children from acquiring the "pathogen"? Nope, and nope.

This movement is insidious and dangerous, and we ignore it or pretend that it's benign at our peril.
 
MLeake: I don't deny the political aspects. I didn't address them directly for obvious reason.

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.
Click to expand...

Record keeping is problematic, but medical records are legally protected. That is more than we can say for membership in this forum or the NRA and on and on.

Isn't the objection to counseling based on political positions. Doesn't it assume that the doctor will be involved in propaganda and not disseminating useful information?
Shouldn't the people that hold that position present proof that this is the case?

As far as NRA literature being in the doctor's office, that's a political statement as well as information.

Aguila Blanca: I don't advocate the Eddy Eagle program because I have serious doubts about its efficacy.
I have and still do advocate shooting sports being reintroduced into school. imho that is a more effective way of teaching firearm safety than using plush toys.

This movement is insidious and dangerous, and we ignore it or pretend that it's benign at our peril.
Click to expand...
I see you've made up your mind.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate to a degree. It's not that difficult when the devil has a reasonable argument.

My takeaway is that the medical profession has free speech. If they as a group or as individuals think they should tell their patients something, then they have a right to do so.
The people have the ability to curtail free speech for several reasons. But in order to do so the people have to make the case. I don't see that happening.

I also think that families should be informed about firearm safety if they want it. We can argue about how that information is offered. Aguila Blanca seems to think schools are a better place to teach that. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he could get it funded.
 
I don't deny the political aspects. I didn't address them directly for obvious reason.
Click to expand...
The posts I edited and deleted were blanket aspersions and stereotypes. This does not stifle the discussion of the underlying political ideas as they relate to gun control and gun rights.

That said, you're absolutely right that there's a political subtext to this. There was an interesting paradigm shift in the 1980's. The anti-gun movement realized they weren't getting much traction by approaching gun control as a purely political issue, so they touched on the idea of making it a public health issue. To bolster this strategy, they funded studies by guys like Arthur Kellerman and Garen Wintemute to back up the idea.

As the gun control movement loses steam, they hold on to any foothold they can. That still lies with parts of the medical establishment, in which they did a good job of indoctrination, and in which they still maintain a few relationships.

As far as NRA literature being in the doctor's office, that's a political statement as well as information.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The NRA proper is not a political organization, and the Eddie Eagle literature is entirely devoid of even a mention of the 2nd Amendment.

The problem is that the NRA has been successfully painted as a purely political organization, and as such, anything they do is presumed to be politically motivated.
 
Mleake
doofus47, it seems you may have read my comments under the editorial.
Click to expand...
Usually, I don't read the comments to an article, b/c the lack of depth just drives me batty, but if I had read your comments, I would have said something like "great minds think alike, or comment alike, or play jai alai, or something."
:)
Sorry to have cribbed your comments unintentionally!
 
doofus47, good enough.

Comments under articles usually drive me nuts, too.

I've trained myself not to respond to the ridiculously stupid ones... but sometimes can't help but respond to the seemingly intelligent but (in my view) misguided types.

Buzzcook, medical records are sort of confidential.

As in, some information gets shared with the insurance company.

Some gets "sanitized," as in your personal info is removed, but your genericized info still gets used for anything from research to marketing.

There have also been issues with folks breaking into supposedly HIPPA secure databases.

MedicineBow, what qualifications do any of these doctors have to discuss gun safety? What do their insurers think about the potential for malpractice suits, if they give bad advice about firearms? (Because I think that would be a reasonable lawsuit to pursue, if the doctors want to play this game.)
 
Aguila Blanca,

Seems you may have misunderstood what I wrote or I was not clear enough.

You said...
The problem with your position, as I see it, is that these groups ARE anti-gun groups, and they are actively working to classify something that is not an "epidemiological" problem as an epidemiological problem.
Click to expand...

The American Medical Association is not primarily an anti gun organization but it does take anti gun positions as does the AAP. They are trying to classify "gun violence" as an epidemic as does the bulk of the media. I oppose this. But I also oppose passing a law that would prevent individual doctors from discussing gun safety with their patients. Just as I would oppose a law mandating it. Where I quoted their blather on the subject is not in support of it, but so that folks can see and understand it so as to respond.

tipoc
 
Was it at one time mandatory for doctors to talk to kids about guns or was this something they just did on their own? If this was answered, sorry I missed it. Mandatory? That's a problem.

Otherwise, if you don't like what's on TV, turn the channel or turn it off. If you don't like what your doctor has to say, get a new one.

Maybe I was unusual, but anytime my wife or I took one of the kids to the doctor, we were there in the office\exam room also. It never happened, but if there would have ever been an inappropriate, overbearing, or fear laden lecture from a doctor, we could have put an end to it real fast.

I can see where a kid might see a doctor in the same light they see police and fireman, and they'll listen. I don't mind a policeman telling my grandkids now to look both ways when crossing the street or chewing them out for doing something stupid on the streets while riding a bicycle. To me, it just seems to be a bit silly to get upset about anyone cautioning kids about the potential dangers of guns as long as the thoughts are reasoned and balanced. Like it or not, guns are dangerous---Sometimes in the right hands(the out of battery discussion), always in the wrong hands.

The editorial story itself? The obvious problem was the adults, not the kid.
 
Heck our kids doctor shoots more than we do and has 5 kids from 3-13.Every time i bring one of my kids in he will show me something new he bought or a magizine with a new gun he wants.
 
Doctors have as much business asking about a patients gun ownership as firearms instructors do asking about a students medical history IMO.
 
Well if they ask my 5 year old daughter they are probably not going to like her answer. Whenever she sees me on YouTube she asks to watch the "gun show"... the music video of Steve Lee's "I Like Guns". She knows the lyrics and will probably sing it to them.
 
As a Floridian on my third CCL renewal, I am of the opinion that the law as written goes too far.

I do not think that an inquiry into firearm ownership should be a part of every pediatric exam, but neither do I think that every inquiry into firearm ownership should carry a heavy fine. Pediatricians often treat patients well into their teens. When there is evidence of clinical depression, bipolar disease, drug use, and other medical issues that impair reasoning and thus make access to firearms unsafe, I feel it is legitimate for a caring and thorough medical professional to make such inquiries.
 
But what do you think of it on a generic new patient form, grouped:

Do you consume alchohol (and how often)?

Do you smoke (and how often)?

Do you use drugs (and how often)?

Do you have firearms in your home?

Like I said, my problem isn't with questioning due to specific concerns in a case, nor with providing of apolitical firearms safety brochures.

My concern is with datapoint collection.
 
If any doctor ever asks me about firearms in my home, I will simply answer with a "No, I don't own any." He/she can write that down in the records!

Never hurts to tell little white lies every now and then!;)
 
Wyoredman said:
If any doctor ever asks me about firearms in my home, I will simply answer with a "No, I don't own any." He/she can write that down in the records!

Never hurts to tell little white lies every now and then!
Click to expand...
I agree. Nothing I tell a doctor is a sworn statement, made under oath. I don't -- in general -- like lying, but this is something that's none of their business and if you decline to answer, there's a good probability they'll interpret and record that as a "Yes." So, IMHO, this is one of those times when the moral thing to do is to lie.

The problem arises when the doctor is a pediatrician. It is important to make certain that your children understand that it is NOBODY's business if you have guns in the house, and that if ANYONE (other than a police officer) asks, the answer is "No." (If a police officer asks, the answer is "You need to ask my mommy and daddy about that.") And never EVER allow your child to be in an exam room with a pediatrician when you are not also present in the exam room. (And this is for more reasons than just questions about firearms in the home.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top