Doctors target gun violence as a social disease

[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]

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]

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;

• There is no longer any doctor-patient confidentiality
• The doctor legally becomes a de facto agent of the government.
• 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.
• 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]

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

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. ...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. ...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....

   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;

   • 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.

...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.

 

[zukiphile]

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.

I didn't read Bill as offering a conspiracy theory.

The issue presented by an expansion of government authority isn't whether one group or another have conspired to acheive a dangerous end, but whether that expansion would enable a group to acheive that sort of end.

My experience with government is that if people in government have an authority, they will not leave it unused. Occassionally they use it even if they don't have it.


About the ACA, there is a good bit of poor information circulating (judging from my email inbox) for several reasons not the least of which is that it is a lot of text. What is clear is that the ACA gives the federal government a larger role in shaping insurance coverage and influencing what services are paid and why they are paid. What is paid must necessarily influence providers.

 

[44 AMP]

To add some hydrogen to this particular fire....

Suppose you doctor does ask if you own firearms, and your answer is to say "none of your business" or to not answer at all. How do you know that you are NOT being put in the category of a firearms owner? It could well be that any answer other than a clear "no" would put you in that category!

It has happened before with othe statistics. Race, for one. People who have not answered clearly on a "which race" question have been statistically "assigned" a racial group.

Or so I have heard........

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, I'm in trouble as I've discussed related health issues and firearms with all my doctors. When they put me in the ambulance, probably going to take me to Bloomberg's Hall of Justice.

Most TX doctors seem ok with the issue. My wife's cardiologist has gun magazines (read type - not clips - haha) in the waiting room. So does our eye doctors, dentists, etc.

 

[BlueTrain]

What could happen to me that I might want a doctor to keep secret?

Is this thread telling me that if I get shot, I shouldn't go to a doctor?

 

[mrbatchelor]

What could happen to me that I might want a doctor to keep secret?

Is this thread telling me that if I get shot, I shouldn't go to a doctor?

Some docs are perfectly fine. I did some work on a medical records system once for a guy, and he made me take the gun question out of the survey. He complained that the AMA was becoming too invasive.

So not all docs share the feeling. But there are a lot who do.

So it's situational. If your doc is ok with it, then there's no issue. But if your doc is interested in the social engineering then it isn't ok.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Suppose you doctor does ask if you own firearms, and your answer is to say "none of your business" or to not answer at all. How do you know that you are NOT being put in the category of a firearms owner? It could well be that any answer other than a clear "no" would put you in that category!

I share that concern. And this is why if I should ever encounter the question I will simply answer "No." I don't consider myself under oath when filling out a patient intake form in a doctor's office.

I am more concerned about pediatricians getting access to kids and coaxing the kids into ratting out the parents. Fortunately, my daughter is nearly an adult and won't be seeing any new pediatricians until she has her own kids, but I worry about my younger friends who iown guns.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Wasn't this originally an issue in Florida because a doctor refused to treat a patient who had firearms, leading to the law that was overturned by the court ?

 

[BillCA]

What could happen to me that I might want a doctor to keep secret?

Is this thread telling me that if I get shot, I shouldn't go to a doctor?

Not at all.

It's a matter of providing relevant information to your doctor and not providing him with information that is generally irrelevant to your treatment. As a for instance -- suppose you go to the doctor with a nasty cold that you are worried will turn into bronchitis. The form his office asks you to fill out asks questions such as do you live alone?; does your home have an alarm system?; do you store your valuables in a safe?; is there a surveillance system in your home? You'd wonder just what that has to do with treating you for any kind of illness or ailment. It's just none of the doctor's business.

As someone (Glenn?) pointed out earlier, there are times when asking about guns in the home might be appropriate. The example given was when someone or a family member is seeking treatment for depression. Or perhaps the doctor wants to administer a certain drug to a teenager with psychological "issues". Firearms in the house, along with large knives, axes, etc. could be potential weapons should the treatment not work or if they suddenly stop taking the drug.

However, I'd suggest that asking about guns is possibly the wrong approach. Instead the doctor should explain the dangers of the condition & treatment approach to the patient and/or family. He can recommend any dangerous tools be locked up or removed from the home at the discretion of the family.

The theoretical danger is that a doctor who records the fact that you have firearms and one or more persons in the household suffer some kind of "mental illness", may in the future, be required to report this combination separately to a government agency.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't recall what was on the form the last time I filled in one with medical history, although I don't remember any questions like this. I don't like to think of having to find another doctor either. Our present one, who is an Iranian woman, is getting on in years.

 

[drail]

This is a situation where you should simply lie. Ask them, "Why would I have a gun? Guns are bad". Next question.