This is a discussion on Nurse Practitioner Asked Gun Question... within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by walvord Maybe I'm taking this wrong, but you sound like a typical elitist - all us little people. My wife and I ...
Sure, I advocate possession of a car and airplane tickets. I personally advocate the possession of a weapon by EDUCATED, TRAINED, and/or otherwise RESPONSIBLE individuals.
However, the comparison of weapon possession to car possession is a pretty weak one. Sure, vehicles kill lots of people each year, but so does smoking. So does drowning. So, right after we ban firearms, we can go ahead an ban cigarettes, cars, and water. We'll lock everyone in padded cells. Absolute nonsense! Life is deadly. I don't know anyone who's gotten through it alive.
The difference is, most people NEED a car to hold down a job, get groceries, and survive. People NEED water to survive. But, 90% + of professions out there do not require carrying a firearm. These individuals do not technically NEED a firearm to carry out day-to-day activities, yet many choose to own one. This is either a good decision, or a bad decision, but either way it is an additional risk.
It is this "additional risk" that gets built into the S.O.P. safety examination. Sure, I'd be willing to bet you are a safe and responsible parent, but unfortunately it's our job to identify some pretty bad parents, and hopefully step in before things really go sour.
I apologize for getting you so worked up in the middle of the night, but I hope that you can see things from our point of view. I'd rather not have to ask those questions, but if I don't, my arse might end up as a defendant.
The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
- Winston Churchill
Endowment Life Member - NRA
Life Member - GOA
Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980
I would change Dr.'s immediately. They are in it for profit. Believe me! When they loose a whole family, they notice. That is worth hundreds of thousands over a life time. Don't just tell the receptionist. Call or write a personal letter the the physician.
I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46
All these people calling for "complaining" and "changing docs". Why not just start by calling and asking the doc why he/she would ask the question? I think you have the answer already...the question is on the standard form and unless the doctor is a "gun guy", it's just another question to him. He doesn't care if you have guns, he just has to ask the question to fill out the paperwork.
If you do want to have a conversation about it, start by asking "why". Don't start by saying you want to complain about the doc asking the question. You will get a lot further and will learn a lot more by asking why instead of opening the conversation by saying you want to complain about the doctor's actions. Since he already knows you have guns in the house, if he is a gun guy he may tell you and end up having a good discussion about it.
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD
I draw little pictures of stick guns on the forms that ask if I own a gun...It drives em nuts
Lets change the direction of this thread. The policy/requirements/rules placed upon physicians to ask about firearms in the home will be extended to other professionals who may come in contact with you, your family, and children. Some of these professionals may include nurses, social workers, counselors, mental health workers, etc. The policies are coming from AMA, JCAHO, insurance companies, NASW, etc. As a social worker who has to do assessments I'm offended by the some of the questions and information I am required to ask during the assessment process. This would be one of those questions, although sometimes it is necessary when assessing suicide/homicide risk. Documentation of answers can be made to be neutral. When refusing to answer the documentation of that answer can reflect negatively upon future readers of the response. (Refused to answer=non-compliant or resistant).
The question then becomes what are the best ways to answer this question? Its not reasonable to expect a 7 year old to tell the "professional" to (expletive deleted) although I don't disagree with the sentiment. What should you or your spouse say if asked in the presence of your child? Lying at that point sets a bad example about honesty. No matter how you retroactively explain it.
What should you teach your child about how to respond to these types of questions? When I have to ask these question I frame it in a manner that allows them the option to not answer it.
This hasn't been an issue as much in the past but is a growing one. I don't think its right to ask kids this question. Asking parents is bad enough. Parents can respond to their physician and reasonably explain a position.
Last edited by Captain Crunch; November 4th, 2007 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Edit Language Workaround
HELGA: Where are you going?
HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...
Now, I notice many people getting worked up and threatening to file complaints, change doctors, and anything else to stir the pot. This reaction is similar to the 'leprechaun LEO' thread. Mountain/molehill. Personally, I don't have time to chase shadows.
While I don't agree with doctors asking irrelevant questions, they are basically harmless. More importantly, the doctor's boss (AMA) requires them to ask those questions. As to asking the children, that is just plain wrong. Children should be taught not to answer these types of questions without parent supervision.
Medical malpractice - misleading information from the federal government impacts support for gun control
J. Neil Schulman
ANYBODY WHO has studied the stock market knows that when women's hemlines go up, the prices of stocks go up also, but no one is foolish enough to claim that by shortening skirts we can cause a stock-market boom. That sort of common sense, however, doesn't seem to hold when the subject is the so-called epidemiology of "gun violence."
The point at issue is the contention that medical researchers can study firearms-related violence as a matter of epidemiology apart from the motives of the people who pull the trigger--which is the proper study of that branch of sociology known as criminology. By this premise alone, epidemiologists deny the fundamental difference between microbic cultures and human cultures: microbes don't act on their value-judgments; people do.
The latest outbreak of statisticitis emerges from a study led by Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, published in the October 7, 1993, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and financed by the Centers for Disease Control. A previous Kellermann-led study, published in the June 12, 1986, NEJM and also financed by the CDC, gave us the factoid that you are 43 times as likely to die from a handgun kept in the home--through homicide, suicide, or accident--as you are to kill a burglar with it.(*) By the time this factoid turned into mega-soundbite of gun-control advocates in the media and Congress, you were supposedly 43 times as likely to die from a handgun kept in the home as to protect yourself from a burglar with it.
Dr. Kellermann himself cautioned against that conclusion, saying, "Morality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified. We did not report the total number of nonlethal firearm injuries involving guns kept in the home. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."
On Thin Ice
KELLERMAN'S latest "population-based case-control study" of homicides throws such caution to the winds. He attempts to quantify "firearms risks versus benefits" by comparing households where a homicide occurred with households where no homicide occurred-in three counties, chosen for the convenience of their location to the researchers. After correcting for several other risk factors such as use of alcohol or illicit drugs, previous domestic violence, and previous criminal records in the 316 matched households ultimately compared, Kellermann determined that households where "homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance" occurred were almost three times as likely to have kept a loaded handgun in the home as control households where such a homicide did not occur. From this determination Kellermann concludes, "Although firearms are often kept in the home for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home."
An immediate technical problem with Kellermann's methods was raised by David N. Cowen, PhD, in a letter to per year and over a million gun defenses if one included all firearms.
Kleck's latest research, his Spring 1993 National Self-Defense Survey of 4,979 households, reveals that previous studies underestimated the number of times respondents used their firearms in defense. The new survey suggests 2.4 million gun defenses in 1992, 1.9 million of them with handguns; and about 72 per cent of these gun defenses occurred in or near the home. This indicates a successful gun defense about 1,728,000 times a year with no body for Dr. Kellermann to find.
So who is doing the killing? Murder Analysis, 1992, tells us that 72.39 per cent of the murderers the Chicago Police studied in 1992 had a criminal history and, interestingly, 65.53 per cent of the victims did as well. A recent National Institute of Justice analysis finds, "It is clear that only a very small fraction of privately owned firearms are ever involved in crime or [unlawful] violence, the vast bulk of them being owned and used more or less exclusively for sport and recreational purposes, or for self-protection."
Criminologist Don Kates concurs: "It has been estimated that 98.32 per cent of owners do not use a gun in an unlawful homicide (over a 50-year, adult life span)."
Overwhelmingly, violence isn't a matter of ordinary people killing because a firearm is handy, but of criminals committing violence because violence is their way of life. When the Centers for Disease Control starts defining bullets as "pathogens" and hands honest gun owners the Typhoid Marys of a "gun-violence epidemic," the medical profession has lent its scientific credibility to a radical political agenda which threatens to increase the overall violence in our society by shifting the balance of power toward the well-armed psychopath.
Oddly enough, even Dr. Kellermann agrees. In the March/April 1994 issue of Health, he is quoted as saying: "If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 special in her hand? Yeah."
In this particular gunfight, the best ammunition is the truth. (*) Of those 43 deaths 37 were suicide; eliminating suicide immediately drops the claimed figure to 6 times as likely. We can eliminate suicide from our analysis of gun-effects immediately. The American Journal of Psychiatry (March 1990) reported in a study by Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black that gun-suicides, which were statistically reduced in the five years following Canada's imposition of handgun restrictions in 1976, were replaced 100 per cent by suicides using other methods, mostly jumping off bridges.
Mr. Schulman is a Los Angeles novelist, screenwriter, and journalist. This articles is excerpted form his book Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, just out from Synapse-Centurion.
COPYRIGHT 1994 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Firearm Counseling by Physicians: Coverage under Medical Liability Insurance Policies.
Southern Medical Journal. 96(7):647-651, July 2003.
Paola, Frederick A. MD, JD
Background: Physicians who offer firearms counseling may increase their legal liability, depending on the attitudes of their medical malpractice insurance carriers.
Methods: A survey was mailed to the 100 largest medical malpractice insurers. Requested data included their experience with claims involving allegations of negligent firearm counseling by physicians, their opinion regarding whether firearm counseling by physicians would be covered under their medical malpractice policies, and their prediction of how their insurance group or company would handle such claims.
Results: Fourteen surveys were returned. No respondents reported having dealt with a case involving an allegation of negligent firearm counseling by a physician. Eight respondents (57%) thought that such counseling would not be covered under their medical malpractice policy, whereas six respondents (43%) said that it would.
Conclusion: A majority of responding insurers thought that physician firearm counseling would not be covered under their medical malpractice policies. Physicians wishing to counsel their patients about the risks and benefits of owning and using firearms are advised to seek assurance of medical malpractice insurance coverage from their insurers or the annexation of a rider to their current policies.
(C) 2003 Southern Medical Association
You could qoute the number of deaths due to medical malpractice VS the number of childhood deaths on minors by 'accidentally finding daddies gun and shooting it'. My stats exclude homicide / suicide / getting shot by police while robbing liquor stores ... et all. I think there are more recent stats ... but these I share ...
2002 US INJURY DEATHS FOR CHILDREN – CDC STATISTICS
There were 73 million kids (under 18, to be specific) in the U.S.
in 2002. Almost nine thousand died that year of accidental causes.
Here's how it breaks down:
Cause or mechanism of death Number Percent
MotorVehicles 4819 55%
Drowning 1007 12%
Suffocation 920 11%
Other or unspecified 739 8%
Fire 571 7%
Poison 256 3%
Bicycles 154 2%
Falls 125 1%
Guns 115 1%
Total 8706 100%
FACTS TO PONDER:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes,
that's 80 million..)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
-------------------- so ....
I always like to ask them a couple questions:
Doctor - do more children accidentally drown in pools than die by accidentally discharging a firearm? [correct answer is something along the lines that a child is 60 times more likely to drown in a pool than find your handgun and shoot himself or a friend]
Doctor - what is the indent of death by medical malpractice VS death by accidental discharge of firearm? [if we can include adults in both forms of death then you are comparing a hundred or so deaths to over a 100 k deaths].
Well ... all of a sudden they don't like statistics so much and all they are left with is their agenda.
Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble
© 2000 by Joe Horn firstname.lastname@example.org
One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians
and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of
those new areas of liability exposure.
Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically
inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even removal of those
firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why
these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.
Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They
may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without
certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the
practice of medicine.
Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors,
garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning
chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks,
knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one
of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home.
To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to
concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a
lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the
occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in
the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible
fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider
themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with
Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice
insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.
Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:
• One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned
them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving
preventative advice about ll the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home
safety risk management? You know their answer.
• How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician
or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.
Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not
borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance
carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation
problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example,
E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.
Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and
liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them
entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm
available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't
arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk
Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.
It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's
Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state
that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no
longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home
defenseless against violent crime.
The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home
defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person
would have surmised.
If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising
patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it
is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.
It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve
counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political
issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is
Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if
this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting.