Bill would bar doctors from asking about guns

[maxrandb]

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=100053&ran=103354&tref=po

More insanity from the VA House of Delegates. Don't know why anyone would get their knickers twisted about this. It's not like Doctors are going to take your guns away. Maybe we should also introduce legislation to stop them from asking questions about smoking, eating habits, sexual practices, etc.

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

"CHESAPEAKE - A pediatrician who asks a child's parent about firearms in their home could lose his or her license or be disciplined under legislation being considered by a Senate committee today.

The bill would prohibit health care professionals from asking a patient about gun possession, ownership or storage unless the patient is being treated for an injury related to guns or asks for safety counseling about them.

Sponsored by Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Martinsville, the bill sailed through the House by a vote of 88 to 11 last week. A message seeking comment was left for the delegate; he did not return the call."

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

I guess we have nothing else that is more important to work on.

[punpirate]

1. I'm beginning to think that Virginia...

... ought to have, in the case of male candidates for office, a standard for dick length so that the tinkie-winkies aren't in a capacity to compensate for their inadequate equipment through legislation....

[hopeisaplace]

14. lol, that's damn funny!

[maxrandb]

18. I think we should have a national policy

that states; "You may never elect to powerful positions, the guy who was given daily "swirlies" and had his books knocked out of his hands in High School"

It would ensure that guys like Rove and Limbaugh were never able to obtain a position of prominance or power.

[sendero]

116. LOL...

... I think you've nailed it. :)

[HereSince1628]

2. The point is simply to educate families toward gun safety

So Docs, why not quit asking questions and just make statements? The Grand Old Parsers surely appreciate the difference between a question and a statement.

[gauguin57]

51. Grand Old Parsers ... LOL!

Love that! I usually call them the Cunning Linguists of the GOP, but Grand Old Parsers works, too.

[hlthe2b]

3. blatantly unconstitutional...

why do these States want to squander so much taxpayer money defending undefensible lawsuits from laws they KNOW are not going to pass constitutional muster?

[MrBenchley]

4. It's not enough that guns ARE a pulbic health menace....

The gun lobby demands that responsible people conceal the scope of the problem.

[Missy M]

5. Where do we get the people who dream these things up?

this country has too many laws already and elected officials sit around thinking up new ones to justify their existence. I wish they would pass a law forbidding anymore lawmakers. Taking a doctors license away for asking some questions is the one of the most absurd things yet.

[maxrandb]

17. I think I have an answer to your question

"Where do we get the people who dream these things up?"

Candidate A, meets wealthy campaign contributor B.

Campaign contributor B tells candidate A, "I've got a bone to pick with you" "I don't like policy C, and I've got a nice fat check here for you...payable upon policy C being overturned"

Candidate A: "This is outrageous!!! Policy C simply must be overturned!! Why, civilization would cease to exist if we don't pass legislation D to stop policy C!!"

Candidate A to average Americans: "Suckers!!!"

[crankybubba]

97. thats about right. n/t

[jody]

6. Best solution is for parents to just say "none of your business". n/t

[michreject]

8. I agree totally

What makes a doctor an expert in gun safety? Absolutely nothing.

[Tesha]

10. Probably just having kids blown to smithereens as a result...

> What makes a doctor an expert in gun safety? Absolutely nothing.

Probably just having kids blown to smithereens as a result
of their dumb-ass parents unsecured guns.

Tesha

[michreject]

11. Even if this were so

That doesn't make him an expert. No more than it makes you an expert in heart surgery. It's outside his field of expertise.

[MrBenchley]

48. How much expertise is needed to know guns are a safety menace?

It's hilarious to hear the "heart surgery" metaphor...especially considering the font of ignorance and craziness that IS the gun lobby....

Why, here's some "heart surgeons" discussing their "expertise" in gun safety....

[kiraboo]

166. Do you have kids?

It is standard practice for a pediatrician to bring up issues like vehicle safety, safety issues around the house - keeping poisonous substances out of reach, securing electrical outlets - etc. In order to be nonconfrontational, the discussion often begins with, "Do you use a child seat?" or "Do you have any poisonous chemicals in your house?" Shockingly, it is not obvious to all new parents that the toilet cleaner that was always under the bathroom sink must now be moved to the top shelf in the linen closet. I consider asking about firearms a part of a pediatrician's responsibility, not out of place at all. What, are we suddenly ashamed to have weapons in the house? Or somehow threatened that we are being asked about the measures we take to ensure that they are properly and safely stored? Because if so, the problem isn't the pediatrician's, it's the gun owner's. IMHO.

[jody]

13. Are you 73 times more concerned about accidental drowning?

In 2003 in the U.S., 514 children ages 0-4 accidentally drowned.
In 2003 in the U.S., 7 children ages 0-4 were accidentally killed with firearms. None of them were in Virginia.

See WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999 - 2003

[Tesha]

19. Being concerned about "A" doesn't mean I'm not concerned about "B".

But thanks for playing.

Tesha

[jody]

111. Not playing, just pointing out the distortion in your priorities.

:hi:

[iverglas]

121. ah, distortion

That thing that so often rears its head when comparing risks.

Occasions for contact with the risk-presenting object or situation are so often overlooked, aren't they?

Swimming pools are always present; kids ride in cars and on bicycles on a daily basis. Opportunities for contact with firearms may not arise quite so often. The kid shot at the neighbour's house when the neighbour kid snuck the handgun out of the closet may never have been in contact with a firearm before ...

[benEzra]

126. Keep the analogy parallel...

Occasions for contact with the risk-presenting object or situation are so often overlooked, aren't they?

Swimming pools are always present; kids ride in cars and on bicycles on a daily basis. Opportunities for contact with firearms may not arise quite so often. The kid shot at the neighbour's house when the neighbour kid snuck the handgun out of the closet may never have been in contact with a firearm before ...

You changed your criteria midway through your analogy.

Swimming pools are always present at homes with swimming pools, just as guns are always present in homes with guns. A tautology.

Kids ride in cars and on bicycles on a daily basis; kids also live in homes with guns on a daily basis.

For young children, opportunities for unsupervised contact with firearms should be comparable to opportunities for unsupervised contact with pools, i.e. it should never happen at all. Guns should be locked out of reach of children, and pools should be locked out of access of hcildren. If unsupervised contact does occur, a danger presents for both pools and guns. Since pools are harder to secure than guns, the accident rate for young children is commensurately higher (between 10 and 100 times more dangerous for young children on a per-owning-household basis).

[iverglas]

134. actually, I was just identifying flaws in the usual "analogies"

Attempting to construct risk comparisons between different risk-containing scenarios involves a whole lot more than saying "swimming pools kill umpty dozen times more kids than guns".

For one thing, kids obviously have access to swimming pools -- which should of course be supervised. Gaps in supervision undoubtedly result in drownings (i.e. not just because pools are harder than firearms to secure). Kids should never have access to firearms, supervised or unsupervised.

Kids kind of tend to need to be in cars, or in the vicinity of traffic, from time to time. Kids never need to be in contact with or in the vicinity of firearms.

People kind of tend to need staircases in their homes and public places, so contact between kids and staircases can hardly be prevented. People never need to have firearms in their homes or in public places, so contact between kids and firearms can largely be prevented.

That sort of thing. The nature of the risk and the reasons why it arises are totally different.

[crankybubba]

146. this is opinion

Kids should never have access to firearms, supervised or unsupervised.


asserting facts not in evidence

[iverglas]

159. make up your mind

this is opinion

asserting facts not in evidence

Which one is it?

Well, "Kids should never have access to firearms, supervised or unsupervised" sure ain't a fact. Facts aren't generally expressed by using the verb "should", I don't think.

Gosh, I guess it *was* an opinion. Quelle surprise.

You disagree? Oh well.

[crankybubba]

165. blah blah blah

doesnt change the fact that it is YOUR opinion. I guess sarcasm is over your head.

[MrBenchley]

153. Notice we are not invited to observe

that the swimming pool industry doing what it can to increase pool safety, while the gun industry is struggling to hide the problem from the public....

[Kingshakabobo]

26. Dig a little deeper.

Using age 0-4 is an interesting choice as is using "deaths" only.


Deaths and Injuries
Every nine hours a child or teen was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide in 2002.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2002." NVSR Volume 53, Number 5. 116 pp. (PHS) 2005-1120 .
Annual Totals (2002, 0-19 year-olds): Accidents=167, Suicides=828. (2002 is the most recent data available.)
On average, 4 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 1999-2002.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1999-2002.
From 1997-2002, more than 1,324 children were killed in firearm accidents.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1997-2002.
In 2004, there were 13,846 kids injured by a firearm -- and an additional 15,214 kids were injured from BB or pellet guns.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, "National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program," 2002.
On average during each of the last 10 years (1993-2002), 1,213 kids committed suicide with a firearm each year; more than 135 each year were kids under 15-years-old.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1993-1998, 1999-2002.
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.

[maxrandb]

40. Thanks for this

I had a feeling that Jody's numbers were either "cherry-picked" at worse, or disingenuous at best.

Wonderful strawman argument though Jody. and yes, I would have no problem with the pediatrician asking me if I had a pool, or lived near a canal.

Now, could someone please sight me some "specific" examples of people that are suffering so much because they were asked this question by their pediatrician, that they needed this legislation to protect themselves. Where are the massive hoards of ordinary Americans that are marching on Roanoke because this question so impacts their lives, that they need a law passed to protect them from the doctor.

I mean, if this is a serious enough problem that it needs immediate legislative action, then surely they can produce the thousands of millions of people that feel this is more important than transportation, education, health-care, the war, veteran's care, taxes, etc.

It's pandering to the gun lobby, pure and simple, and I'm disappointed that it's a Democrat that introduced this, when there are infinitely more pressing issues in the state of VA.

[HuckleB]

42. Interestingly.

My family doc growing up always addressed drowning issues, and our son's pediatrician does too!

How dare them!

[Kingshakabobo]

50. Yep. Contrary to what some say on this thread, either by...

...ignorance or willful distortion, the American Academy of Pediatrics DOES include drowning issues in their hand-outs. I suppose the gun nuts just missed it at the time because their eyes turned red at the mere thought of being told their unsecured pop-guns might be a danger to their children.


YOU CAN HAVE MY POP-GUN (and suggest during the course of a patient screening interview, when I discuss 20 plus other preventable health hazards to children, that it might be a good idea to keep your pop-gun locked in a secure place) WHEN YOU PEEL IT FROM MY KIDS COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!!!!!

[AnneD]

113. Pediatricians and their staffs work hard to prevent death.

Babies and toddlers are top heavy and can drown in a toilet or bucket of water. No surprise it is the leading cause of death. Most parent with guns do try some concealment thus I would be willing to bet gun deaths are higher in older kids. Most parents need to be reminded, because we are all too human. You and I know a car get hot, but every year in March, April, and May parents need to be reminded to take care for their kids and dogs. Same with drowning and guns.
I love to go to a firing range and would love to own a gun, but will not as long as my kid is in the house. An acquaintance, at my daughters day care, lost her teenage son when he was accidentally shot at his friends house. It was too painful for her to work around the kids and we lost a great teacher. I would risk having my license yank if it meant saving one family from that living hell. They are not asking them not to own guns, just make them aware of the dangers.

[jody]

110. My reply was about pediatricians. 19 year olds rarely see a pediatrician

unless it's to take their own baby.

[Kingshakabobo]

128. Who's talking about 19 year olds???

You posted some bullshit statistic about 0-4 year olds. I posted some statistics about 0-15 year olds from the CDC and APA.

Now you want to distort by introducing 19 year olds in to the argument.

STRAW MAN.

[jody]

131. Read your post #26 "Annual Totals (2002, 0-19 year-olds)". ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

[iverglas]

132. isn't it interesting how amusing

some people seem to find the subject.

Of course, it's also amusing that they don't seem to notice the stats regarding children aged 0-15 in the post in question, or be able to figure out that the category 0-19 includes a few people who actually weren't 19 ...

[Kingshakabobo]

135. My argument still holds water regarding the 0-15 year old piece

of that post and the statistics provided by the CDC and APA regarding suicide deaths of children 0-15. (I suppose those those kids owned the guns).

Although I DID miss the 15-19 piece of the statistic, You have to ask your self:

Which statistic is disingenuous?

1. Only using 0-4 year olds and a ridiculous figure of only 7 children/year?

2. Using 0-15 year olds? And yes 0-19 year olds (CDC and APA apparently think 0-19 is valid when discussing kids).

[jody]

141. The discussion was about accidents seen by a pediatrician. For ages 0-17

the major causes of accidental deaths in 2003 reported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control are:

MV Traffic 4454
Drowning 872
Fire/burn 489
Suffocation 269
Poisoning 267
Other Land Transport 240
Pedestrian, Other 186
Fall 137

Firearm 102

Natural/ Environment 86
Other Transport 85
Unspecified 81
Other Spec., classifiable 64
Struck by or Against 47
Machinery 32
Other Spec., NECN 26
Pedal cyclist, Other 24
Cut/pierce 8

Note that Firearms are 9th. I don't wish to minimize any cause of death but it seems irrational to hate firearms when other causes account for many more accidental deaths.

[iverglas]

144. ah, irrational

I don't wish to minimize any cause of death but it seems irrational to hate firearms when other causes account for many more accidental deaths.

That would be the irrationality of alleging that someone else "hates firearms" when there is nothing to suggest that this is true, and when it's completely not germane to the subject of the discussion anyhow.

Geez, I can think of lots of things I'm quite fond of that I would advise against having in a home where there are children -- or at least, certainly, advising someone how to minimize the risk to their children if they're going to have them around. Potato chips don't mix well with rugrats; nor do many pets, just for starters. And I'm excessively fond of both my potato chips and my pets.

When all else fails, allege that those who disagree with one are, or do, something there is no evidence that they are or do ... and call them irrational based on nothing but one's own bizarre allegation ...

And hell, you'd almost think that pediatricians, and society at large, DON'T caution parents about the risks of motor vehicles, drowning, fires ...

Any stats on injuries you'd like to offer, btw? Or are injured children not the concern of pediatricians, or us?

Someone else will have to answer, I guess, given as how the person saying this stuff doesn't feel any obligation to respond to challenges to it. Ah, civil discourse. Disagree, and one is irrational and to be, um, disregarded.

[maxrandb]

156. Your arguments are completely bogus

and your "strawmen" have been used repeatedly by neo-con wing-nuts and the NRA. You may have found one, repeat, ONE or two people on this thread that hate guns. The issue is not about whether or not there is a right to bear arms. It's not about anyone trying to take guns away. It's not about trying to shame gun owners. It's about re-enforcing to Mr and Mrs American, that; "hey, if you have a gun in the house, and you also have children, you probably should make sure it's locked up". That's it!!! However, the NRA, and other wing-nuts, are so full of irrational fear of the "liberal boogey-man" under their bed that is going to take their guns away, that they resort to purchasing government official to write equally irrational legislation.

I assume that you don't have a problem with the fire department teaching folks how to properly secure a child car seat.

AND

Until some 5 year old kid picks up my swimming pool, points it at his 4 year old sister, and BLOWS HER 'FRICKIN' HEAD OFF!!! your "swimming pool" analogy does not hold water.

[jody]

158. Why do you intrude into a discussion between Kingshakabobo and I?

The stats I gave are correct if you bother to check them out.

I assume from the tone of your post that you are anti-gun.

If so, you must feel uncomfortable being in the Democratic Party with its platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

163. Jody, have someone explain to you how a forum works

"If so, you must feel uncomfortable being in the Democratic Party with its platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms". "
So who denies that Americans have a collective right to do so?

[maxrandb]

164. Wow! Your Assumptions are showing

No, I am not anti-gun. I happen to be active duty military and pretty familiar with their use and safety requirements.

And I'm perfectly comfortable with the Democratic Party's platform on guns. I'm even more comfortable with the Constitutions take on firearms calling for a well regulated militia.

As far as I know. The Democratic Party supports the 2ND Amendment, and REASONABLE gun control legislation.

That is unless you are saying that the Democratic Party's position is that "we will have knee-jerk, foaming at the mouth, Chicken Little sky is falling, Oh my Gawd their taking our guns Mabel, we'll all be in worker re-education camps soon" reactions to any sensible legislation to improve gun safety...then "yeah", I'm not comfortable with that.

However, the knee-jerk, never saw a gun law I could support, irrational fear mongering comes, mostly, from the other Party.

Perhaps you are the one that should be "uncomfortable".

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

161. you anti-gun nut you

I don't know when it's occurred to me to be anti- an inanimate object, or even how I'd do it, but jody seems to have figured it out, since he's assuming you are.

How dare you respond to something jody said in a public discussion forum?!?

I'm afraid that you're for the cornfield soon, if you don't watch out. That's okay. You'll probably enjoy the company out here. ;)

(I should probably not risk one of my obscure allusions being misinterpreted by someone again, and somehow being turned into a rude remark about peaceable gun-totin' rural folk or some such. The cornfield was where that nasty little boy in the original Twilight Zone sent people he didn't like:
http://www.tzworld.com/ITSAGOODLIFE_EP.html )

[MrBenchley]

34. Most firearm deaths are deliberate, not accidental

Moreover, the National Swimming Pool Manufacturers Association isn't trying to ban doctors from warning about drowning....

[northzax]

107. well, any pediatrician who doesn't inform a parent about

the risks of swimming pools is an idiot as well. And the risk of accidental poisoning from chemicals, and...

Basically, a pediatrician should ask new parents: do you have a swimming pool? (is it made as safe as possible with fences, alarms and the like?) do you have a bathtub? (never leave your child alone in it, even for one instant) Do you have all chemicals and drugs safely secured? Do you have all firearms secured? do you have all knives secured? do you have any pets that might be a risk? have you childproofed electrical sockets?

these are all things people, all to often, don't think about.

[maxrandb]

160. Excellent Point!

and I wonder if they will put legislation in there to protect the pediatrician when some toddler gets accidentally shot by a neighbor, and the parents want to sue because "no-one warned me of the danger".

Got to stop those "frivolous" lawsuits, don't you know?

[Kingshakabobo]

23. What makes the legislature an expert in micro-managing the...

doctor patient relationship?

Would you be supportive of a law prohibiting doctors from discussing bicycle helmets?

[michreject]

29. I ride a motorcycle

And I want those who ride, to decide. If I had my choice, I wouldn't wear a helmet.

I understand that this is not a popular attitude, but if you're a real estate broker, sell property. A banker, lend money. A doctor, heal somebody.

I just don't think that it's appropriate to discuss non-medical issues. This is not limited to firearms.

[HuckleB]

33. So docs shouldn't address prevention?

They should just wait until there is something that actually needs healing?

[Tesha]

37. A doctor does their best work when they *PREVENT* death/injuries...

> A doctor, heal somebody.

A doctor does their best work when they *PREVENT* death,
disease, or injuries.

It's the least painful and the most cost-effective treatment
available.

Tesha

[tabasco]

54. And when they show up to the emergency room with no insurance

and a brain injury, it becomes a matter of interest to all taxpayers.

[MrBenchley]

122. Worth noting gun wounds cost Americans $2.3 billion a year

...half of that socked to taxpayers....

http://www.applesforhealth.com/gunshot1.html

[crankybubba]

151. can you come up with something in this decade please...

"Copyright 1999 by United Press International.
All rights reserved"

[iverglas]

65. who's talking about you?

And I want those who ride, to decide. If I had my choice, I wouldn't wear a helmet.

Bully for you. And now, back to the kids of parents who may well not be aware of the serious risk of serious head injuries to children when they don't wear bicycle helmets.

Or how about the risk to children when they don't wear seatbelts in cars? I sure wish that the doctor of a client of mine who killed all four of her unsecured pre-school children in a car crash had thought to mention this unfortunately not sufficiently obvious bit of prevention to her.

I just don't think that it's appropriate to discuss non-medical issues.

You apparently see a difference between measures to prevent catching the flu (hand-washing, innoculation ...) and measures to prevent having one's head bashed in or being paralyzed by gunshot. Fortunately for kids and other living creatures, medical professional bodies don't.

Or maybe doctors shouldn't advise preventive measures against the flu, and just send in the invoices for treating people once they've got it ... after all, talking about people's personal hygiene practices is intolerably intrusive, isn't it?

[crankybubba]

86. luckily i have a pro gun doctor

who is originally from canada...gasp

[MrBenchley]

36. They receive blood money from the gun industry

which makes them an expert in such things </sarcasm>

[iverglas]

63. who said?

What makes a doctor an expert in gun safety? Absolutely nothing.

Who said anything did? Who said doctors were holding themselves out as experts in gun safety anyway? Why would anyone suggest that a doctor enquiring about a determinant of a child's health was purporting to be an expert in any aspect of it?

If a doctor asks whether a child is sexually active, is s/he holding him/herself out as an expert in sexually-transmitted diseases, or obstetrics, or child psychology? Don't think so. If the answer is "yes", the doctor might offer services, e.g. gynecological exams and contraceptive prescriptions. The doctor might also refer the child to a sexual-health clinic. If the answer is yes *and* the child turns out to be pregnant, the doctor might refer her to an obstetrician or other service provider or counselling service, or social services agency.

A doctor can also simply offer information pamphlets prepared by people who *are* experts in whatever the situation is, once it becomes apparent that they may be relevant. Of course, a wise doctor might just offer such pamphlets anyway, without relying on answers to questions that may not be entirely truthful.

How would the doctor know that a patient was pregnant if s/he didn't ask? How would the doctor know s/he was at risk of becoming pregnant if s/he didn't ask? How can a doctor possibly be fulfilling his/her professional duty to a young person if s/he doesn't inquire into matters that involve determinants of his/her health?

Unsupervised access to firearms IS a determinant of a child's health, just as exposure to measles is and sexual activity is. And doctors do have a duty to ensure that parents are aware of this, just as doctors have a duty to ensure that parents are aware of any other way that they might, even completely inadvertently, be putting their children's health at risk.

[Tesha]

9. At which point a responsible pediatrician will say:

"All I can do is warn you that your children are
surprisingly likely to be injured or killed as a
result of *YOUR* unsecured guns (and based on your
answer, your guns are almost certainly unsecured).

"And if the worst should happen to you, please
don't make the ludicrous claim that 'Some one
should have warned me!' because I just did.

"I hope you have a better relationship with
your next pediatrician because I prefer to deal
with people who are willing to at least listen
to, if not take, good advice so we will not be
seeing each other again.

"Thank you, and goodbye. The nurse will show
you out."

Tesha

[jody]

12. IMO, a responsible pediatrician would not behave as you assert. nt

[Tesha]

20. Opinions obviously vary.

Have fun playing with your guns.

Tesha

[jody]

115. I have more fun playing with my grandchildren. n/t

[HuckleB]

39. While I would hope the doc would have more tact.

Why would any doc put her or his practice at risk by continuing serve such patients? In such a case, it's clear that the parents aren't going to "buy" what the doc is selling, so it would be best for the parties to sever the relationship. The doc knows that his services won't be used, and he won't be able to successfully serve such parents, and the parents won't trust the doc, for whatever reason. It's not a good situation for the kids, of course, but we get our parents by lottery, so...

[Tesha]

45. I've decided that tact is over-rated as a tactic to be used with morons.

> While I would hope the doc would have more tact...

I've decided that tact is over-rated as a tactic to be used with morons.

Famous old joke:

A plumber wrote to the Bureau of Standards saying that he had found
hydrochloric acid good for cleaning out clogged drains.

The chief chemist at the Bureau wrote back: 'The efficacy of hydrochloric
acid is indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic
permanence'.

The plumber replied that he was glad the Bureau agreed.

The chemist tried again, writing 'We cannot assume responsibility for the
production of toxic and noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest
that you use an alternate procedure'.

The plumber again said that he was glad the Bureau agreed with him.

Finally, the chemist wrote to the plumber: 'Don't use hydrochloric acid;
it eats hell out of the pipes!'

Tesha

[Ilsa]

7. Once again, they only care about the fetus, not the child. I wonder

if they are allowed to ask a pregnant woman?

These reminders to parents about gun safety are very he;pful, especially as parents are reminded that toddlers are curious and inventive.

[mac56]

16. We love the babies UNTIL they're born!

nm

[stepnw1f]

15. How Dare They Ask About Guns

It's not like anyone can get hurt with them... sheeesh. Poor, poor gun owners.

[Tesha]

21. Yeah, always the oppressed, never the oppressors, ehh? :-)

> Poor, poor gun owners.

Yeah, always the oppressed, never the oppressors, ehh? :-)

Tesha

[stepnw1f]

22. bingo

These have got to be the "Orwellian Years".

[MissMillie]

24. The first question my doctor asked me when she took a medical history was:

Do you wear a seat belt?

Maybe it's time the car lobby starting pushing for laws that stop doctors from asking that question... :sarcasm:

[Kingshakabobo]

27. Nosy f-cking doctors. Mine actually had the nerve to ask me.....

...if I smoke, drink, am married, have an active sex life and/or have same-sex relations. Then he went on and asked me all kinds of personal questions about my family's health and disease history. OH THE OUTRAGE!!!!

I want a doctor that will let me stroll in the door, get a prescription for the drugs I saw on the teevee commercial and then STFU.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to write my congressman to see if he'll pass me a law.

[MrBenchley]

38. Limbaugh's housekeeper...she won't ask questions

and she can score you a prescriuption in the Denny's parking lot!

[jayfish]

103. What Prescription Can I Get...

for not wearing seat-belts or owning a weapon?

Jay

[Kingshakabobo]

155. The article and law isn't referring to prescriptions.

The article and law refers to counseling (or the forbidding of counseling) by a family physician regarding potential dangers to kids in the home.

[catabryna]

25. I think the situation could be handled differently...

whenever I take my son in for a yearly checkup, they hand out factual flyers that cover all sorts of things, including safety issues, ways to enhance development, appropriate behavior for children of a certain age, etc. I don't really have an objection to a pediatrician asking me a question like this. But, many people have experienced "lectures" for everything from gun ownership to homeschooling and they are often peppered with the pediatrician's own personal opinion of such things.

[saigon68]

28. I'd tell them its none of their fucking business

[HuckleB]

31. If it's not, then why'd you go to see a doc in the first place?

[saigon68]

53. If my Hemorrhoids were hurting

The medical provider doesn't need to know how many guns I have

He can take care of my asshole-- and if he doesn't want to do that he can go fuck himself

[HuckleB]

55. Sorry, but that's way off base.

A medical provider is called to work to improve public health, and part of that is education with a focus on prevention. If you don't like it, well, that's your problem, not the doc's.

[saigon68]

A medical provider is like a plumber

If he doesn't want to fix the pipes--- He can take a hike. He doesn't need to know if my dog barks at the neighbors

Its NONE of his business.

[Tesha]

60. Do you flush M80s down your pipes?

> A medical provider is like a plumber
>
> If he doesn't want to fix the pipes--- He can take a hike.

Do you flush M80s down your pipes? If you did, but your
plumber warned you that that might someday cause harm to
your pipes, would tell him to take a hike?

Tesha

[michreject]

66. I would hire the plumber to fix the pipes

and keep his nose out of matters that don't concern him.

When the pipes are fixed and I blow them up again, then i'll hire a plumber to fix the pipes.

[HuckleB]

68. Bad analogy.

The dogs have nothing to do with your plumbing. Prevention has everything to do with health care.

[saigon68]

80. When did we start talking about DOGS

THEY have nothing to do with Hemorrhoids

And when you turn 60 you take some milk of mag for that problem

[HuckleB]

85. Do you not write your own posts?

You brought up dogs as an analogy. And, as I pointed out, your analogy doesn't fit.

[MrBenchley]

101. You will notice

that while doctors are nothing but glorified plumbers down here, according to one "progun democrat," up above every dingdong who can afford a popgun is akin to a heart surgeon.

[Kingshakabobo]

69. Maybe he wants to know if the cause of your hemorrhoids is sitting on your..

fat ass while drinking beer and eating pork rinds in a duck-blind?:evilgrin:

Maybe he could suggest a camouflaged donut seat and some roughage for you?

[Tesha]

71. Or maybe "just grind down that front sight a little bit..." (NT)

[Kingshakabobo]

106. LOL. Bad girl. n/t

[Tesha]

125. I'm so sorrrrryyy!

> LOL. Bad girl. n/t

I'm so sorrrrryyy!

But once you've read the unabridged version of Stephen King's
The Stand, the image of "The Kid" and his interactions
with "The Trashcan Man" sorta stick in you.

Tesha

[saigon68]

77. I don't hunt ducks

[iverglas]

72. and you can tell him/her that

But the medical profession's professional obligations aren't determined by your personal preferences.

The AMA is not a professional regulatory body, but its guidelines are incorporated in the legislation and regulations that do govern professionals in many places in the US. It says:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html

A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

Where there is a conflict, the physician must put the patient first.

No conflict here. It is in both the patient's interests and the public's interests for physicians to counsel parents about the dangers that unsupervised access to firearms present for children.

The parents are merely standing proxy for the children, and it's the children's rights they exercise when they take the kids to the doc. The children are entitled to good medical care, and good medical care includes doctors inquiring into, and counselling about, risks to the children's health.

[benEzra]

83. If physicians were merely asking about unsupervised child access

I don't think the issue would be nearly as controversial as it is. The AAP does not merely advocate responsible storage, however, and that is where the problem arises.

I have no problem with nonpolitical, non-hobby-horse health counseling; the problem comes when a doctor uses his/her position as a soapbox to lecture gun owners on the alleged evils of not adhering to the doctor's own political preferences on the gun issue.

Our pediatrician knows we own guns, knows we store them safely (though not in accordance with Bradyite suggestions), and is OK with that. A pediatrician trying to cram Brady Campaign talking points down our throats would be another matter entirely, and would be no different from a physician who lectured his/her GLBT patients using Moral Majority materials, under the guise of "counseling about health risks."

[iverglas]

102. and that would be which physicians?

... when a doctor uses his/her position as a soapbox to lecture gun owners on the alleged evils of not adhering to the doctor's own political preferences on the gun issue.

... A pediatrician trying to cram Brady Campaign talking points down our throats ...

A physician raising any issues with a patient that are not health-related, in a manner that could interfere with the patient's health care (given that people are unlikely to seek treatment they may need when subjected to such conduct), should be reported to the appropriate authorities.

A physician who provides patients with information about the known risks to children's health associated with firearms in the home is not doing anything you describe. Period.

And any patient who is concerned about why a question is being asked should simply say "why do you ask?" That's exactly what I was about to say to the cute young ER doc stitching the gash I'd put in my head by pulling a half-built Ikea bookcase over onto myself, when he casually inquired whether I was married ... until it struck me that he was trying to rule out intimate-partner abuse as the cause of my injury. Maybe not the most "tactful" way to do it (I happen to consider my marital status to be none of anyone else's business, including my physician's), but there really just isn't a good way. And the physician DID have a responsibility to me, to counsel me about ways of protecting myself from harm if I WAS a victim of abuse.

I felt like I was protesting too much when I said "no, no, I really pulled a bookcase over onto my head!" But that's the price I pay -- and am more than willing to pay -- for the confidence that the medical profession is doing what it can to protect women from abuse. I actually didn't answer the question -- I figured out why he was asking without having to ask him. I could have just said "why do you ask?" and listened to the response and then decided whether or not to answer, or whether to discuss his potential concerns without answering at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm (not) married ... now what?

Any firearms-owning parents can do exactly the same thing.

The doctor might not have believed me (my gash really didn't look like it had been inflicted by a bookcase, unfortunately), but oh well. I suppose that if he'd had residual concerns, he would have offered me further services; he didn't, but if he had, again, better safety that I didn't need, at no noticeable cost to me, than sorrow that someone else didn't get safety when she did need it.

What is being prohibited isn't improper questioning or pontificating under the guise of "counseling about health risks"; those are already prohibited by professional ethical rules. This is professional counselling about health risks.

If someone is not willing to pay the price of hearing the question, and even to hear properly professional advice premised on a hypothetical answer if s/he won't give one, when the question is related to his/her child's health, WHICH IT IS, then s/he is really not fit to be trusted with the exercise of the child's rights, in my ever so humble opinion.

[HuckleB]

30. So find a different doctor.

Sorry, but there will be a spectrum of docs, just like with any profession. To legislate something like this is ridiculous.

[catabryna]

44. I don't disagree with this being a ridiculous thing to legislate...

I'm just saying that the doctors could find other ways of handling this if they chose.

And, I completely agree with getting a different doctor if one isn't satisfied with their treatment or bedside manner, so to speak. When we adopted my son, he was 12 lbs at 18 months, and had been languishing in an orphanage the entire time. The pediatrician had the "omg, what have you done?" attitude. I was sort of shocked because all we did was adopt a little boy that we fell in love with; his health was secondary because all children need good homes.

Anyway, we almost switched pediatricians over the issue but decided to give him a little more time. Over time, it became clear that he realized how wrong he had been and I seriously doubt he'll ever have that reaction to a parent or a child again. He just wasn't used to seeing anyone adopt a child who wasn't a "Gerber baby".

[HuckleB]

46. How many parents read handouts?

I can tell you by experience, not many. Handouts are beneficial to the few who want more information. For most, information must be given verbally and repeatedly. It may not be a comfortable conversation, but many things of importance are not discussed comfortably.

[catabryna]

47. Well, I do need to remind myself

from time to time that I'm an information junkie and that not everyone is like me. Thanks for the reminder! :)

[HuckleB]

73. Believe me, I do too.

I keep relearning the lesson that the written information I give to patients (I'm a nurse practitioner) is only read by a few. I guess I'm a slow learner, no matter how much I read myself.

Salud.

[benEzra]

32. None of the doctor's business...

considering how rare accidental shootings are compared to the things they DON'T ask about, like swimming pools.

The American Academy of Pediatrics handout on young-child safety we get at the pediatrician's office has lurid warnings of the alleged HUGE danger to young children from guns in the home, and claims (falsely) that handguns are more likely to be involved in an accident than long guns. It doesn't even mention drowning and death by ingestion of chewable vitamins, which are between 10 and 100 times more dangerous for that age group. Which proves that the handout is a political document rather than one in any way motivated by child safety.

The problem I have with a doctor asking that question is that your response or non-response goes in your permanent medical record, which (thanks to Bushco and HIPAA) can later be perused by any bureaucrat who wishes to see it, without a search warrant.

Our pediatrician knows we own guns and that we store them safely (not in accordance with APAA anti-self-defense recommendations, but secured in a readily accessible safe), and I don't have a problem with that. I DO rather object to being interrogated and subjected to a lecture on gun politics by someone who has about 1/1000 of the gun safety training and experience that I do. Just as I'd object to a doctor sermonizing on the evils of not belonging to the church of their choice.

How much does the average pediatrician know about guns and gun safety, unless they are a gun owner themselves? How much training do they have in responsible gun ownership?

Now, as pertains to the law--I would rather see doctors take a more professional approach to the issue on their own, rather than a state-issued gag order. So while I do feel that this is a problem, I don't necessarily feel that the legislature's response is the best solution.

[MrBenchley]

35. It sure as shit is....

"Research shows guns in homes are a serious risk to families.
* A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
* A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
* The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.
Advice to parents
The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home. "

http://www.aap.org/family/tipp-firearms.htm

"How much does the average pediatrician know about guns and gun safety, unless they are a gun owner themselves?"
Really, how much does anyone need to know. Bullets come out and those on the wrong end get wounded or killed. It's not like there's any traininng in gun porn needed to know what a menace they are.

"How much training do they have in responsible gun ownership?"
More than likely, all they have to do is look at the sort of screwloose running around with guns.....

[Tesha]

41. Your trying to argue using facts. Gun nuts are nuts.

Your trying to argue using facts. Gun nuts are nuts and not amenable
to persuasion by facts.

It's a sexual thing.

Tesha

[MrBenchley]

43. Exactly so....

Which is why they screech like castrati any time they hear of any proposal to regulate the gun industry, which is one of the scummiest bunches on earth.

[superconnected]

49. Bingo!

You nailed it.

I quit trying to talk to them years ago.

[benEzra]

78. Hardly...

They're referring, of course, to Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60), which has been thoroughly debunked. Even Kellerman himself has backed away from the bogus "43 times" claim. And they seriously garbled Kellerman's claims, which underscores the point that this advice is politically motivated (by disdain for gun ownership) rather than motivated by concern for child safety (as evidenced by the fact that pool safety and vitamin safety are not included on the AAP TIPP handouts at the pediatrician's office, despite the fact that both are one to two orders of magnitude more dangerous to kids than parental gun ownership).

"Research shows guns in homes are a serious risk to families.
* A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.

That's funny, since a majority of instances of justified self-defense are against someone known to the would-be victim (a woman shooting a stalker would fall into that category), the overwhelming majority of defensive uses do not involve shots fired, and when the attacker is actually shot, he will survive more than 50% of the time. Kellerman stacks the deck by ignoring ALL defensive gun uses in which the attacker did not actually die or is known to the victim (i.e., woman drawing gun and rapist fleeing would not count; woman firing warning shot and rapist fleeing would not count; woman shooting rapist would not count as long as the rapist survived; woman shooting and killing stalker would be counted as "killing a friend or family member").

So even if the 43x stat were true (which it's not, as Kellerman himself has tacitly admitted by later reducing the alleged relative risk by an order of magnitude), if you factor in the percentage of defensive uses that actually result in the death of the attacker, and the percentage of defensive uses that involve an attacker known to the victim, the responsible-gun-ownership-is-dangerous factoid begins to fall apart.

* A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.

Kellerman showed no such thing. His 1986 JAMA "study" did not find even ONE instance of a homicide in which the person was murdered using their own gun; in every homicide he looked at, the murder weapon was one brought into the home by the attacker.

Kellerman et al also failed to account for underreporting of gun ownership in the control group, a Statistics 101 blunder which adds more systemic error than the magnitude of the increase absolute risk.


Which brings us back around to the fact that parental gun ownership is much less of a risk to kids than things pediatricians do not routinely ask about, such as pool ownership, presence of alcohol in the home, and so on.

Again, I don't think a law is the best answer to this problem, but I think physicians who subject their patients to anti-gun talking points that they themselves do not understand (or have never even examined in primary sources) is unprofessional and out of line.

[MrBenchley]

81. Rubbish....

Nobody has "debunked" Kellermann's study except a bunch of loonies writing in scientific journals like the Nazional Review.

"Which brings us back around to the fact that parental gun ownership is much less of a risk to kids than things pediatricians do not routinely ask about, such as pool ownership, presence of alcohol in the home, and so on."
Wow, another amazing "gun nut" fact that turns out to be utterly full of shit!

Here's the AAP warning about the dangers of drowning...

http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/safety.cfm

But that sort of sums up "gun nut" logic...Pop leaving his loaded shotgun around where kids can get it is JUST LIKE Mom keeping a bottle of wine in the fridge....

[benEzra]

87. The drowning safety guidelines are not on the TIPP parental handouts,

as I said. I can scan and post one from home if you would like (we have plenty). Demonstrating that TIPP considers pool safety much less important than firearm safety.

But that sort of sums up "gun nut" logic...Pop leaving his loaded shotgun around where kids can get it is JUST LIKE Mom keeping a bottle of wine in the fridge....

Gun accidents/yr: <600
Alcohol-related accidents/yr: >15,000

But you are trying to change the subject. We are not talking about people leaving loaded shotguns lying around where kids can get at them; we are talking about gun ownership in general, which in most cases involves guns locked in a case, or in our situation locked in a safe.

You presented a claim of danger from responsible gun ownership itself, not from leaving loaded guns within reach of children...

[MrBenchley]

92. Most adults know their pool is not safe for unattended toddlers

Unlike the gun nuts, who seem to want to pretend their phallic substitutes are harmless playtoys.

"Gun accidents/yr: <600
Alcohol-related accidents/yr: >15,000"
So, how many people are shot and wounded and killed on purpose?

"But you are trying to change the subject."
Sez the guy deperately trying to drag beer and swimming pools into the story.

"You presented a claim of danger from responsible gun ownership itself"
Which has been backed up by peer-reviewed research. And who ARE these responsible gun owners? Dick Cheney, the NRA's man of the year in 2004?

[benEzra]

94. We store our guns in a safe...and don't own a pool (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

98. So what?

[crankybubba]

96. then how do explain all the drownings of children every year? n/t

[crankybubba]

149. the silence is deafening n/t

[iverglas]

127. and now

how 'bout those others?

* A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
* The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.

Of course, you know perfectly well that many studies show that the risk of death by gunshot is greatly elevated when there is a firearm in the home.


(i.e., woman drawing gun and rapist fleeing would not count; woman firing warning shot and rapist fleeing would not count; woman shooting rapist would not count as long as the rapist survived; woman shooting and killing stalker would be counted as "killing a friend or family member").

Some people just never tire of exploiting violence against women for their own ends. Yup, guns is a gal's best friend.

Woman shot by abusive husband; woman shot by abusive boyfriend; woman shot by abusive estranged husband; woman shot by abusive estranged boyfriend ...

Women shot dead by one of the above account for a majority of women shot dead in the US, of course.

[benEzra]

140. Thoughts...

how 'bout those others?

* A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
* The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.

Of course, you know perfectly well that many studies show that the risk of death by gunshot is greatly elevated when there is a firearm in the home.

Kellerman's data was compromised by his failure to account for underreporting of gun ownership in the control group, but assuming his data is valid for the sake of argument, the entire homicide risk was due to OTHER guns brought into the home by criminals, not guns owned by the homeowner. The homeowner's gun apparently played no part in the homicides Kellerman looked at.

One could interpret that data various ways, but the most reasonable hypothesis may be that people who are at high risk of being murdered are more likely to purchase a gun than people not at high risk. Kellerman did not look at whether or not the homeowner was in fact involved in criminal activity, whether or not he/she lived in a high-crime area, and so on. Just like you would find a greater risk of heart disease among users of Lipitor than among nonusers, even though on a case-by-case basis Lipitor lowers the risk of dying from a heart attack. The other hypothesis, that criminals could sense that the homeowner owned a gun and were three times more likely to choose to kill that person, seems less likely.

Unfortunately, Kellerman has refused to release his raw data for independent review (to the consternation of many would-be reviewers), making it rather difficult to examine this issue using Kellerman's data set.

Regarding the risk of suicide, I would count that as a valid concern if you have any struggles or risk factors in that area. Personally, if I were at risk of suicide, shooting myself would not be my choice (there are a lot better ways to go), but someone at risk of suicide (or who had a family member who was) who felt that the presence of a firearm would increase the chance that they would actually carry it out, would be well advised to remove firearms (and lots of other things) from the home for the time being. MrB's 5x statistic sounds fishy, though, given the fact that gun-owning households obviously do not have 5x the suicide rate of non-gun-owning households. I suspect the real statistic involves method, i.e. a gun owner may be more likely than a non-gun owner to choose suicide by firearm, and somewhat less likely to choose suicide by jumping off a bridge or by inhalation of nitrogen.

(i.e., woman drawing gun and rapist fleeing would not count; woman firing warning shot and rapist fleeing would not count; woman shooting rapist would not count as long as the rapist survived; woman shooting and killing stalker would be counted as "killing a friend or family member").

I was merely pointing out Kellerman's deceptive methodology; replace "rapist" with the violent crime of your choice, and Kellerman would have avoided the issue the same way--by ignoring the defensive gun use unless the attacker died, and then counting it as "shooting a friend or family member" if the deceased was known to the defender. Since the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve shots fired, much less the death of the attacker, and many instances of self-defense involve attackers known to the would-be victim, it is obvious that Kellerman et al's methodology deliberately underreports defensive gun use and misleadingly characterizes some defensive uses as accidents or intrafamilial murders.

[iverglas]

157. never mind the bollocks

I'm not interested in comparisons between who gets shot, i.e. all the blah blah about Kellerman. Really. I've just tried to find the recent instance in the gun dungeon where someone attempted the same shell game, unsuccessfully.

I'm talking about comparisons between homes with firearms and homes without firearms. The risk of homicide is 3 times higher in homes with firearms, according to that figure. Nothing at all to do with intruders.

Yes, I see your other point -- that the firearm may be a symptom of, or irrelevant to, the risk, rather than a cause of it: someone has a firearm and is independently at risk of homicide, or gets a firearms as a result of factors that also put him/her at risk of homicide. These undoubtedly play some role. I really don't think that they account for all of the difference. Some people really *are* killed by friends/family, with firearms, in their home, who are not criminals etc.

And if the risk arises from spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, etc., the fact still remains that firearms in homes with those risk factors present are used to commit homicides in the home, in circumstances in which it would be simply unreasonable to say the old thing about how the person responsible "would have found some other way to do it".

Kellerman would have avoided the issue the same way--by ignoring the defensive gun use unless the attacker died, and then counting it as "shooting a friend or family member" if the deceased was known to the defender.

Woulda coulda. Your scenarios are hypothetical and pointless, unless and until you produce a case that was dealt with that way in the study.

And I'll believe that anyone's claimed "defensive" use of a firearm is worth paying any attention to when I have evidence that such use actually prevented that person's death. You know as well as I do that all these tales of people hitching back their jacket and letting their guns gleam in the lamplight, thus scaring off the big bad guys lurking around, are not evidence that any life was saved that otherwise would have been lost.

And since I'm notoriously unfond of extra-judicial execution, I'll also question whether homicide was the necessary or appropriate response in any claimed self-defence homicide anyhow.

In any event, of course, I don't buy any of that stuff about many actual intimate-partner homicides, or other uses of firearms against friends and family, having anything to do with "defensive" use. A very large percentage of such homicides are committed against women. Women are seldom aggressors against whom men need to defend themselves with firearms. And frankly, figures on homicides vs. prosecutions for homicide just don't suggest that too many firearms homicides were not regarded as criminal.

Regarding the risk of suicide, I would count that as a valid concern if you have any struggles or risk factors in that area. Personally, if I were at risk of suicide, shooting myself would not be my choice (there are a lot better ways to go), but someone at risk of suicide (or who had a family member who was) who felt that the presence of a firearm would increase the chance that they would actually carry it out, would be well advised to remove firearms (and lots of other things) from the home for the time being.

Well gosh, I guess if it were that easy, no kid would ever commit suicide. Huh. That explains my ex-lover's kid, who killed himself with daddy's hunting weapon. Too bad he didn't announce his intentions a day ahead of time. If he'd swallowed a bottle of aspirin, chances are he would have been found and treated in time not to die. The hole in his head made that kind of impossible, as things happened. He was thirteen.

And I do wonder whether the fact that people may not tend to think of the risk of their kid committing suicide would be a good reason for physicians to raise the question of firearms in the home with them.

MrB's 5x statistic sounds fishy, though, given the fact that gun-owning households obviously do not have 5x the suicide rate of non-gun-owning households.

Here's a different one, and a few more, actually more relevant since we're talking about kids; you can ignore the Kellerman bits:

http://www.pbs.org/thesilentepidemic/riskfactors/guns.html

Accessibility to firearms, particularly handguns, influences the rate of teen suicides. Handguns were used in nearly 70% of teen suicides in 1990, up 20% since 1970. A home with a handgun is almost ten times more likely to have a teen suicide than a home without. ...

--Firearms are the most common method of suicide by youth. This is true for both males and females, younger and older adolescents, and for all races (Kachur et al., 1995).

--The increase in the rate of youth suicide (and the number of deaths by suicide) over the past four decades is largely related to the use of firearms as a method (Boyd & Moscicki, 1986; CDC, 1986; Kachur et al., 1995).

--The most common location for the occurrence of firearm suicides by youth is the home (Brent et al., 1993).

--There is a positive association between the accessibility and availability of firearms in the home and the risk for youth suicide (Brent et al., 1993; Kellerman et al., 1992).

--The risk conferred by guns in the home is proportional to the accessibility (e.g., loaded and unsecured firearms) and the number of guns in the home (Brent et al., 1993; Kellerman et al., 1992).

--Guns in the home, particularly loaded guns, are associated with increased risk for suicide by youth, both with and without identifiable mental health problems or suicidal risk factors (Brent et al., 1993).

--If a gun is used to attempt suicide, a fatal outcome will result 78% to 90% of the time (Annest et al., 1995; Card, 1974)

--Public policy initiatives that restrict access to guns (especially handguns) are associated with a reduction of firearm suicide and suicide overall, especially among youth (Carrington et al., 1994; Loftin et al., 1991; Sloan et al., 1990).

[AzDar]

52. I am not a 'gun nut'; quite the contrary, I LOATHE them. My only nephew,

22 years-old, along with his girlfriend, was murdered (shot multiple times and then beaten with the shotgun) in 2001.
It pains me, but I still believe that Americans have the right to bear arms, and as such, this is a privacy issue.
How far removed are we from asking children (I have two of my own)..'Do your parents drink alcohol in front of you?', or 'Have you ever seen mommy/daddy nekkid'?
"That Government Governs best, which Governs least."
In other words, stay the hell out of my personal business.

[HuckleB]

56. No one is getting into your personal business.

If you don't want to see a doc, you don't have to see a doc. End of story.

[AzDar]

58. That is so illogical...I either have my privacy violated, or don't receive

health care? Sounds like a Bushchoice to me.

[Tesha]

62. Oddly enough,that's *NOT* the issue being discussed here.

> That is so illogical...I either have my privacy violated, or don't receive
> health care? Sounds like a Bushchoice to me.

Oddly enough,that's *NOT* the issue being discussed here.

The issue at hand is not whether you can refuse to
answer the question of whether or not you own guns;
your rights on that matter are very clear.

The issue at hand is that the pediatricians of Virginia
are about to be *LEGALLY ENJOINED* by the Commonwealth
of Virginia from even asking the question of you.

You can *ALWAYS* choose to answer "I'd prefer not to
discuss this with you."

Of course, if you run into a pediatrician who takes
the attitude I recommended, they may reply:

"I'd prefer that you find another doctor then."

And that would be their right, too.

Tesha

[AzDar]

64. It is pointless, unsustainable legislation. No argument there. You have

your point to make, I have mine.
I believe it's called a discussion....
My disagreement is that anyone who seems to have a difference of opinion is an unreasonable 'gun-nut', who apparently isn't entitled to health care.
Horrible.

[HuckleB]

70. Oh brother.

Your privacy is being violated? How? By the doctor doing her or his job to educate you on prevention? The doc is doing the job she or he signed on to do, and that includes education and prevention.

It's amazing. People want to keep information from docs, but then those same people want to blame the docs when the physicians can't figure out exactly what's wrong with them.

Ugh.

[Tesha]

74. No, he's right. His privacy is being abridged.

> Oh brother.
>
> Your privacy is being violated? How? By the doctor doing
> her or his job to educate you on prevention?

No, he's right. His privacy is being abridged. (Notice my
change of wording.)

We do that with doctors. Women are pretty used to their privacy
being abridged every time they see a gynecologist for a routine
exam. Men eventually get used to this abridgement once they're
old enough to require routine prostate cancer screenings.

As you obliquely pointed out, its an agreement with make with
our doctors: we yield up some of our precious privacy rights
and they, in turn, provide us with better health (or at least
better medical care).

This kids-dying-by-gun-accidents stuff is, in principle, no
different at all from getting that Pap smear or finger up
your anus.

Tesha

[HuckleB]

76. Quite true.

I just worry about the possibility of peeing all over the floor, while that finger is up my arse!

Salud.

[AzDar]

82. Not really a problem for me...since I'm not A GUY. n/t

[HuckleB]

84. And your point?

:shrug:

[AzDar]

88. Golly, it would appear as though it's been presumed that I'm a dude..

Shocking, for reasonable folks like yourselves......lol

[HuckleB]

89. It appears that you've got nothng to add.

As your gender has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Tesha]

90. As you'll recall, I offered the gynecologist as my *FIRST* example. (NT)

[HuckleB]

93. She's referring to post 74.

In an attempt to distract from the fact that her arguments have fallen flat.

[Tesha]

105. I took a chance.

I'd prefer not to refer to an actual singular person
that I'm referring to using the plural pronoun "They".

I took a chance based on the fact that most gun nuts
*ARE* men (with what they perceive as small penises,
I suppose). I lost. It happens.

But my example clearly considered the fact that women
make this exact same privacy/service trade-off in dealing
with a doctor.

Tesha

[AzDar]

99. Yep. n/t

[AzDar]

95. One wouldn't think.....Peace. n/t

[michreject]

137. Not really a choice at all

Is it?

[Tesha]

57. (Hypothetically) Your business becomes our business when your gun...

> In other words, stay the hell out of my personal business.

(Hypothetically) Your business becomes our business when your gun
is used to kill or injure someone (including a child in your custody
or the neighbor's kid who's just visiting).

Having a pediatrician try to head off this tragic event really isn't
stepping much into your oh-so-precious personal business.

Tesha

[AzDar]

61. I also own a blow dryer, which may (hypothetically, of course),fall into

a pool or bathtub.....
And yes, my 'personal business' (or as some folks may see it,civil/constitutional RIGHTS)is/are very 'precious' to me.

[Tesha]

67. I'm pretty sure parents are warned about electrical hazards.

Otehrwise, who'd be buying all those "Outlet covers" and other
accessories shown in Kids R Us and Baby Superstore?

By the way, if it ever turns out that your child managed to
electrocute themselves by touching some bare wires that you'd
left uncovered, you might find the law taking an interest in
you; you clearly have a duty to maintain your electrical equipment
in safe operating order*.

Same thing applies if you leave your guns unsecured.

Tesha


* Your hair dryer, by the way, now contains an integrated
Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter to avoid *EXACTLY* the
sort of hazard you just described. The government forced
that GFCI on you, possibly in violation of your precious
personal rights. Oddly enough, unlike with guns, the
National Blowdryers Association** thought added safety
was a good idea.

**I made up the "National Blowdryers Association". But
I'm certain there is a trade group that could have opposed
this had they wanted to, if only NEMA (the National
Electrical Manufacturers' Association or some similar
acronym expansion). But they seem to like their customers
to stay alive and buying more stuff. ;-)

[AzDar]

79. But you just can't be SURE, unless you ASK, no? n/t

[benEzra]

91. How about your pool...

which is between 10 and 100 times more likely to accidentally kill a young child in the home than a gun is, on a per-owning-household basis?

My objection isn't to simple questioning about guns within reach of children (we own guns, we store them safely, end of discussion). I object to doctors shoving their political views on gun ownership down the throats of their patients, who are paying $150 for 10 minutes of the doctor's time and shouldn't have to spend a third of it listening to Bradyite talking points.

If a pediatrician of young children spends more time asking about guns than about pools, they are being political, IMHO. From the National Safety Council:

Q. Of all accidental injuries/deaths, what percent are caused by accidental gunshot? Also, what percent of childhood injuries/deaths are caused by gunshot?

A. There is a lot of confusion about the number of deaths and injuries associated with firearms; especially with regard to children. This is true in part because various writers do not define what they mean by "children," i.e., what age range they include. It is also sometimes not made clear whether the writer is including unintentional injuries, suicide, homicide, or all three.

The National Safety Council analyzed the most recent death certificate data (1997), and found that there were 95,644 total unintentional-injury deaths of which 981 (1.0%) were due to unintentional firearms injuries. For children under 5 years old, there were 20 unintentional firearms deaths which accounted for 0.7% of all unintentional-injury deaths in that age group. Among those 5 to 9 years old, there were 28 unintentional firearms deaths; 1.8% of all unintentional-injury deaths. For 10 to 14 year olds, 94 unintentional firearms deaths were 5.1% of total unintentional-injury deaths. And for older teens, 15-19 years old, there were 164 unintentional firearms deaths; 2.5% of all unintentional-injury deaths.

http://www.nsc.org/xroads/Articles/5/qa-hoskin.htm

BTW, since that was written, accidental gun deaths have fallen another 30 to 40 percent.

[MrBenchley]

100. LOL!

"I object to doctors shoving their political views on gun ownership"
It's political to point out what a menace a gun in the house is? Geeze, wonder which political party thinks that?

[crankybubba]

104. so...

what you are implying is you don't care about pool deaths becauce it does'nt fit into you cheesey anti gun crusade. Nice....

[Tesha]

108. Did he say that? I don't see it. (NT)

[crankybubba]

112. when told by

benezra that he does'nt own a pool. benchleys answer was


"So what?" seems he doesn't care about pools at all. pretty clear

[MrBenchley]

114. Of course not...

[crankybubba]

120. I forgot..

I made the mistake of taking you at you word....wont happen again. but, are you more concerned about pool safety than gun safety since it kill more children per year???? inquring minds want to know

[crankybubba]

154. i guess not

you could care less about the children. just wanting to push you cheesy agenda. typical, and sad.

[iverglas]

162. I give up

are you more concerned about pool safety than gun safety since it kill more children per year????

Is there a bill before a US legislative body to prohibit physicians from counselling parents about the risks of having swimming pools on their property???????????

[benEzra]

123. Considering the absolute risk is minuscule...

and considerably smaller than the risk of dying from alcohol kept in the home (which is itself a minuscule risk), any doctor spending time advocating elimination of guns from the home is doing so out of political or social preference rather than actual concern for the patient's safety.

If one does not have major risk factors for suicide and can lawfully own a firearm (not a criminal, not a substance abuser, not mentally incompetent), and stores one's guns in a way that one's children cannot access them, there is NO significant risk from gun ownership. You may not like gun ownership, MrB (and gun ownership obviously isn't for you), but the absolute risk it presents to the gun-owning family is less than the absolute risk presented by owning a car or consuming alcoholic beverages, and comparable to the overall risk of owning a pool, a bicycle, or a set of inline skates.

[iverglas]

136. oh, duh

If one does not have major risk factors for suicide and can lawfully own a firearm (not a criminal, not a substance abuser, not mentally incompetent), and stores one's guns in a way that one's children cannot access them, there is NO significant risk from gun ownership.

And, to get back to the topic -- if one isn't/ doesn't do all those things? Might it be the business of a pediatrician, in fulfilling his/her professional duty to the child of such people, to draw the risk to their attention?

... the absolute risk it {gun ownership} presents the gun-owning family is less than the absolute risk presented by owning a car or consuming alcoholic beverages, and comparable to the overall risk of owning a pool, a bicycle, or a set of inline skates.

Apparently the absolute risk of dangling one's infant off a high balcony is about nil, given how Michael Jackson's infant seems to have survived it.

No need to dangle one's infant off a high balcony, no need to have firearms in the vicinity of one's children.

But if one chooses to do either of those despite the risk that there is, however minuscule, might it not be a good idea if someone with the child's interests in mind advised on how to do it more safely than it might be being done?

[iverglas]

117. I'm curious

This isn't a discussion of "unintentional firearms deaths" of children.

Why would child suicides not be relevant to the discussion -- and why would the risk of child suicide by firearm not be something that a responsible physician would raise with parents?

Seems to me that physicians should make parents aware of the risk of suicide, and the risk of access to firearms, and of the risk of one leading to the other.

Both prescription and non-prescription drugs come with standard warnings about keeping them away from children, and parents are certainly counselled constantly about the risk of unsupervised access to them. Perhaps not about the risk of suicide specifically, when the children are old enough not to go playing in the medicine cabinet ... but then, perhaps they should be.

[crankybubba]

124. In my opinion

suicide is a relavant issue, so is drugs, access to alcohol, pool safety etc... many things can lead to suicide, not just firearms. are you saying that education about firearms(safety etc..) is important for both children and adults?? we could agree on that.

[iverglas]

129. nope

are you saying that education about firearms(safety etc..) is important for both children and adults??

I was saying what I said. You having vision difficulties this afternoon?

[crankybubba]

145. go for the attack

please clarify.

btw guns already carry warnings like on medication bottles.

from the case of my glock 35


WARNING
children are attracted to and can operate firearms
that can cause sever injury and death

Prevent child access by always keeping guns locked away and unloaded when not in use
If you keep a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.

It then repeats the same notice in spanish. this is on a lage sticker on the OUTSIDE of the case. How is this different than medication?

[iverglas]

167. at least I don't need to go for my eyeglasses

You seem to need to, since you keep missing what I did say (and the point of the thread):

parents are certainly counselled constantly about the risk of unsupervised access to {medications}.

Saying {a firearms warning label} then repeats the same notice in spanish. this is on a lage sticker on the OUTSIDE of the case. How is this different than medication?

Gee, I wonder. Maybe by virtue of the fact that physicians constantly counsel parents about the risk of unsupervised access to medications, AND IT IS PROPOSED IN THIS BILL THAT THEY BE PROHIBITED FROM EVEN RAISING THE ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO FIREARMS?

Visibility any better there?

[crankybubba]

172. as far a s the bill goes.....

it's a ridiculous bill. When the safety issue is not politicized by both the nra and the vpc the maybe it will not be a problem for docs to bring it up. when they are pushing an agenda thats another story as has been demonstrated here. My kids are not allowed to touch firearms without adult supervision. You obviously have no need to have a gun and thats fine. But, those of us who have to have firearms and also carry them have the responsibility of keeping them safely. I do all that and more. No i'm not a nra member, but I am a gun owner. Personal attacks and snide comments do you a disservice. I expect that from benchley. You seem to be able to communicate more intelligently.

[michreject]

142. Not going to change anything

Seems to me that physicians should make parents aware of the risk of suicide, and the risk of access to firearms, and of the risk of one leading to the other.



It seems to me that is someone is intent on committing suicide, the availability of a gun is irrelevant.

[iverglas]

169. seems to me ...

It seems to me that is someone is intent on committing suicide, the availability of a gun is irrelevant.

... that you either know precisely fuck all about child and youth suicide (that being what we're talking about, not "someone") and are determined not to learn anything, or you do know something about it and are determined to pretend you don't.

Maybe there's another explanation. I'm always open to them.

[crankybubba]

174. just how many suicide victims have you seen in person?

have you ever seen the aftermath in person?
have you ever helped load the victim into the hearse?
have you ever had to tell the families?

i have...don't preach here unless you have those experiences.

[CornField]

109. With all due respect, this is what DARE already does. eom

[iverglas]

138. how far removed?

How far removed are we from asking children (I have two of my own)..'Do your parents drink alcohol in front of you?', or 'Have you ever seen mommy/daddy nekkid'?

Well, I'd say pretty much way over on the opposite side of the universe, myself.

Now, if a doctor were to ask a child: do your parents give you alcohol? Do your parents have sex in front of you? -- then you might have an analogy.

But actually, since no one was asking the child anything about its parents in the scenario we're actually discussing, you might have asked how far removed we were from asking the parents whether they leave alcohol accessible to their children, and whether know how to protect their child from sexual exploitation. Good ideas. I'll bet pediatricians have some stuff about that for parents too, amazingly.

[wordpix]

59. sounds like a Dem being bought by NRA

[HuckleB]

75. I guess we'd better shut these guys down, too!

http://www.ohsu.edu/emergency/injuryfree/about.htm

and

http://dch.ohsuhealth.com/index.cfm?pageid=493§ionID=117&open=493&cfid=1206765&cftoken=37808539

Subversives!

[CornField]

118. The child is the pediatrician's first priority -- not the parent

This legislation is just flat-out ignorant. My pediatrician has talked to me about everything from securing our guns (offered to get me coupons for a better locked cabinet even) to securing car seats to spray paint and huffing. What she does is in the best interest of my children and I APPRECIATE IT!

I think both gun owners and non-owners would have to agree that any parent who leaves unsecured weapons in their home is not a responsible one. It isn't about statistics or how many more children die in pools, car crashes or whatever. It is about keeping children as safe as possible. I'm sorry our legislators don't get it.

[kutastha]

133. Not just gun safety...

...these questions are asked not only to provide education on safety in the home, but also to assess the safety of the home environment for the patient. I'd be more reassured about a home that has guns locked and put away than one that has them freely open in the home. Add to this the other questions about general safety (pool, car seats, toxic chemicals et al) and you can get a general idea of the type of environment the child is raised in.

[Xithras]

119. Is it so hard to just say "No"?

Really? My doctor and my kids pediatrician have both asked about guns in the home, presumably to lecture me on gun safety. When they ask if I have guns in the home, I simply answer "No", because quite frankly it's none of their business. I'm not going to start an argument over it (I understand WHY they ask, and it's a legitimate reason), but as a general rule I don't discuss where and how I store my weapons with anybody.

Have these nuts actually progressed to the point where a simple QUESTION is offensive to them? Crap like this is why I don't belong to the NRA.

[benEzra]

130. I don't like being presented with the choice of

(A) Lie, or
(B) Get a political lecture I disagree with.

If I go to a freeper doctor and he asks me "Are you a Republican," I don't want to have to say "yes" in order not to get a lecture about how great the administration is and how crummy I am for not having an (R) on my voter registration card. I could lie and say "yes" just to get him off my back, but it's rather unprofessional of him to present me with that choice. (AFAIK, my doctor is not a freeper, but the analogy came to mind.)

I don't think there needs to be a law on the topic necessarily, but if I am paying my doctor $150 for ten minutes of her/his time, I don't want to spend $50 of that getting a Bradyite lecture, and I shouldn't have to lie to maintain my privacy.

I don't mind rational questions; I do mind political opinionating masquerading as medical advice.

[iverglas]

139. false dilemma time

I don't like being presented with the choice of
(A) Lie, or
(B) Get a political lecture I disagree with.

If only those were the only two possible choices.

If a physician gave me a political lecture, I'd be mailing off a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons faster than s/he could say "professional misconduct".

Yup, not everybody's as mouthy as me. But I'm just not prepared to assume that every doctor who asks me whether I am sexually active is about to give me a lecture about fornication, and I'm no more prepared to assume the same about a pediatrician who asks a parent whether they have firearms in the home.

Doctors can be tactless. There was that one treating me for an injury in the ER who asked me whether I was married as a way of broaching the possibility of spousal abuse, and a much earlier one who asked me whether I was getting married when he prescribed me the pill. I did ask why he asked, and it turned out that he thought being on the pill for extended periods was unwise. He should have just asked whether I planned to be on it for an extended period, and I do think he had other reservations not related to my health, but the stated purpose of the question was legitimate, and he didn't go off on a tangent when I inquired. Individuals' potential for tactlessness simply doesn't obviate the properly professional reasons for what they do.

If someone regards the provision of facts as a political lecture, that's nothing to do with the professionals providing them.

[MrBenchley]

147. "the provision of facts as a political lecture"

Well put.

[crankybubba]

148. rarely are facts used

in anti gun propaganda.

discredited studies and
flat out misrepresentations and lies are the order of the day from the vpc crowd.

[iverglas]

170. wow

rarely are facts used
in anti gun propaganda.

discredited studies and
flat out misrepresentations and lies are the order of the day from the vpc crowd.

Just look at all those FACTS!

Now I gotta say, that's actually a fine example of what it would take for me to make a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons -- precisely that kind of opinion-spewing, if it were done at me uninvited.

Well done!

[crankybubba]

175. ad hominem very bright

out of talking points already....alert the media!

[benEzra]

152. As I mentioned elsewhere (apparently you didn't see it)

my beefs with the process as it now stands are primarily

(1) doctors who consider it their prerogative to lecture me about alleged dangers of owning firearms securely locked away in a safe, when they don't know what they are talking about, and

(2) the privacy implications of the fact that (A) the doctor may record my answer or lack thereof in my permanent medical record, (B) this administration or any other can browse my medical records without a warrant.

I might also add (C), the problem of misinformed or idealogically motivated doctors, who may see dissuading me from owning guns as some sort of medical duty. I haven't encountered any of these, though (and if they can make a living in eastern North Carolina or northern Florida, where I've lived, I'd be rather surprised).

You apparently didn't notice that my wife and I have had brief conversations with our children's pediatrician about whether or not our guns are stored safely (they are), with no objection on our part. No lectures about how we ought to get rid of them, no lectures about how the guns should be configured while in the safe, etc. etc. She was merely raising the issue, neither data collecting nor trying to convince us of her views (whatever they may be, she didn't express an opinion on the topic), and she didn't write anything down. OK by me.

Were this issue not so politicized by the "public health" establishment--who generally favor enforcement of their recommendations at gunpoint--discussions of gun ownership by patients and their physicians would remain private and noncontroversial.

[MrBenchley]

143. Jeeze, Ben, what a silly post....

"If I go to a freeper doctor "
Say, ben, I'd bet the freeper doctor could ladle up every bit of pro-gun rubbish around.

[progressivebydesign]

150. NRA is hard at work. n/t

[HuckleB]

168. Interesting logic on this board.

"Some children die by drowning, therefore docs should not counsel about gun safety."

Oh my.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

171. Good point HucleB

If more kids die by drowning, doctors should put more emphasis on asking if yours know how to swim.

Gun ownership is almost a religious issue to some people.

[Moderator]

176. Lock

no longer a productive discussion. Same points being made over and over.