Pediatrician nonsense


PDA






LJWebster1
March 1, 2006, 01:48 PM
So my wife takes my 8 year old son to the doctor for his annual checkup, and when they get done, the doctor asks my son if there are any guns in the house. My son of course says yes, given that there are a bunch, and two of them are his. The doctor asks if he ever touches them, and my son says, yeah, of course. The doctor gets this look on his face, and my son follows up with, "but only when my dad is there." The doctor then looks at my wife and says, "even if you teach him abouth them, he's still going to play with them." I told my wife its a darn good thing I didn't take him to this appointment, or that doctor would have gotten an earful. I basically would have asked him why he didn't ask my son if there was a pool in the back yard. When he looked at me puzzled, I'd have told him that according to the National Safety Council, in 2003 there wre 86 deaths of children 0 to 14 from firearms. During the same period, there were 943 drownings. Of course, there were also 2,591 deaths from motor-vehicles. I would have attempted to "educate" this buffoon. And I used to like him too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pediatrician nonsense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
V4Vendetta
March 1, 2006, 01:57 PM
Sometimes the people you thought you knew & liked turn out to be anti-gun. I used to like John Wayne, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, etc until I found out they all hate guns:( :banghead: .

cambeul41
March 1, 2006, 02:03 PM
A polite, well written letter could make your point better than words spoken in the heat of the moment.

I have a constantly edited computer file of essays, articles, and Oleg's posters that I copy to CDs to present to whomever I think might actually be interested in understanding our point of view.

hso
March 1, 2006, 02:11 PM
"even if you teach him abouth them, he's still going to play with them."

This is patently untrue if we've done our job as parents. It's also illogical considering that children don't grab the keys, hop in the car and take off in it even though we teach them about them.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 02:14 PM
I do not think this makes him anti-gun. He is just pointing out a fact. Children will play with them if given the oppotunity no matter how well you teach them. Some parents belive that their children will do as told if they tell them the consequences but we have to remember that young children do not have the cognitive and reasoning abilities that we as adults have and they are prone to do things they know they should not without even knowing why they did it. Any parent can tell you that. I think the fact that the gun death rate of children is so low is not because parents trust the kids to do the right thing when they are not there but because the vast majority are responsible gun owners that secure their firearms when children are around them. I think his point should have been that they should always be locked up when not being actively used and supervised. I doubt you could find a parent on here that would say it is okay to leave unlocked and loaded weapons out where a small child can get to them. Did he suggest removing the guns from the home or just that you take very necessary precautions? :)

High Planes Drifter
March 1, 2006, 02:16 PM
Sometimes the people you thought you knew & liked turn out to be anti-gun. I used to like John Wayne, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, etc until I found out they all hate guns
---------------------------------------
John Wayne hated guns?:eek:
I had no idea. Where did you hear this?
If this is true, then what a hipocrit, the SOB made his living doing westerns, acting out shootouts.

MS .45
March 1, 2006, 02:21 PM
V4Vendetta,
I too would like to know about John Wayne's anti- gun stance. I have never heard it before. Got any quotes or anything? May have to change my tag line.

MechAg94
March 1, 2006, 02:25 PM
I think it is possible to keep kids from "playing" with them. If you are positive and allow controlled/supervised access frequently, that is a good start. Making them some sort of taboo tool that they can never see or touch is the best way to insure that they will try to get at them. Also, the former ensures they have some gun safety instruction in the case they may break the rules.

I say this because that is basically what my Dad did. My brother and I knew where loaded guns were, but we also knew what they can do. My Dad also insisted my brother and I not point toy guns at people as well.

f4t9r
March 1, 2006, 02:27 PM
What !!! John Wayne hates guns. You just ruined my day

progunner1957
March 1, 2006, 02:30 PM
My wife and I do not have children - but if we did, I would teach them that the guns in our home is not anyone's business and that if they are ever asked about guns at home, to answer, "Talk to my Dad."

My view about such intrusive and inapproperiate questions is that said questions do not deserve or receive an accurate answer.

Sgt.Slappy
March 1, 2006, 02:32 PM
PP, do you have any kids?

Are you familiar with the Eddie Eagle program?

You say:
"I think the fact that the gun death rate of children is so low is not because parents trust the kids to do the right thing when they are not there but because the vast majority are responsible gun owners that secure their firearms when children are around them."

The Eddie Eagle program, aimed at children aged pre-K through 3rd grade states their mission thusly:

"The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense."

They contibute to gun-proofing the child (an effective strategy), not child-proofing the gun (a losing battle IMHO).

What do you think about this program?

Polishrifleman
March 1, 2006, 02:37 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=1156919

Here is another thread on the subject.

I wonder how they really ask the question. Boys = Guns it could be legos, tinker toys, cap, airsoft, paintball, rubber band, whatever. I have a 5 and 3 yr. old that love going after the bad guys, the thing I am most upset about is that they probably won't play Cowboys and Indians because of TV today it's just cops and robbers. Goodbye to the six shooter.:(

JesseJames
March 1, 2006, 02:40 PM
Um, don't mean to burst some bubbles here guys but when I was in the Army; when you are "John Wayne-ing" something, you are doing something wrong that will potentially get you killed or a team member killed.
A big no no.
I also heard that John Wayne was on a USO tour in the Pacific and when he walked on stage in full movie cowboy regalia and greeted the weary GI's, he was booed off the stage.
Face it, the guy was ALL image.
As for the pediatrician, grab his stethoscope and screech into it like howler monkey.

mainmech48
March 1, 2006, 02:49 PM
This is another example of the antis attempting to change the whole paradigm of firearms ownership into a "public health" issue. Easier to generate disaffection with the idea that way while bypassing the necessity for rational argument in the process.

IMO, it's none of the physician's business, and he/she should be required to both explain exactly why he asked and apologize for the implications inherent in his comments to your wife.

If you aren't satisfied with his response, change doctors.

If you should receive any subsequent attention from LEA or child welfare entities as a result of this - SUE HIS PRACTICE INTO CHAPTER 7! Betcha you can find a real humdinger of a "pet shark" litigator who'll do it on contigency.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 02:49 PM
Sgt.Slappy, my educational background is in psychology. My masters is in this field and I worked with at risk youth as a social worker. I base my statements on this experience. Children of certain ages are unable to comprehend negative effects of their action to a degree necessary for trust with a firearm in an unsupervised arena. If any program that suggested otherwise I would seriously question their credentials and qualifications. I doubt it would be certified by any psychiatric association unless they stessed that children "cannot" think like adults. I am all for allowing them supervised access but never unsupervised. There is no such thing as a "gun proof child". I would question the parenting skill of anyone that felt otherwise. The Eddie Eagle program actually feels the same way. One of their major mottos states that if a child is ever around a gun with out an adult they should "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." They also promote making sure guns in the home are locked up and inaccessable to children as per the NRA guidelines. :)

Sgt.Slappy
March 1, 2006, 02:56 PM
Seems to suggest to me, that my firearms should either be on my belt, over my shoulder, if not, and only then, in the safe.:D

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 03:01 PM
Seems to suggest to me, that my firearms should either be on my belt, over my shoulder, if not, and only then, in the safe.
Bingo! :)
I am hoping this was the point the doctor was making. Not that the guns were bad but that the child should not be able to access them without close supervision. My partner's father and brother are both Doctors and are both gun lovers. In fact i am buying my father-n-law a Ruger for x-mas this year. I just have to decide which one.

V4Vendetta
March 1, 2006, 03:16 PM
I didn't mean that John Wayne was anti-gun. Paul Newman & Robert Redford are.:barf: John Wayne however, didn't believe that we stole this country from the Indians. I've read the treaty's at my local library & even a idiot like me can tell that they got shafted. Read Wayne's bio at www.imdb.com . When you get to the quotes part, read them all carefully. Sorry for the confusion.

torpid
March 1, 2006, 03:30 PM
(I posted this on another "nosey pediatrician" thread, but the info is appropriate to this one as well.)


Here's some nice sentiments from the American Academy of Pediatrics- "an organization of 60,000 pediatricians committed to the attainment of optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults."


...The AAP affirms that the most effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries to children and adolescents is the absence of guns from homes and communities.
a) Firearm regulation, to include bans of handguns and assault weapons, is the most effective way to reduce firearm-related injuries.

b) Pediatricians and other child health care professionals are urged to inform parents about the dangers of guns in and outside the home. The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home. Loaded firearms and unlocked firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children and adolescents.


...Several legal reviews emphasize that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's gun ownership. Two cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, have established the meaning of the Second Amendment.59,60 These and later federal court rulings have indicated that the "right" to bear arms is linked to the preservation of state militias and is not intended to provide for an individual's right to own a firearm. The federal government could ban whole categories of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is proud to collaborate with PAX on the ASK Campaign and help promote its important message. The ASK Campaign (Asking Saves Kids) provides a concrete solution to an indisputable problem. Over 40% of American homes with children have guns, many of them are kept unlocked and loaded, and every year thousands of children are killed or injured in shootings involving these guns. The ASK Campaign encourages parents to ask their neighbors if they have a gun in the home before sending their children over to play. The power of this campaign is that it enrolls all Americans concerned with the welfare of children, including gun owners, and makes a discussion about public safety and good parenting part of the solution to gun violence.

Byron Quick
March 1, 2006, 03:37 PM
Penguin,

Since we're in display mode, I'll play too. I don't have a master's degree though I have two bachelor degrees. One is in psychology. The other is a bachelor of science in nursing. I've several years experience in community mental health, several years in inpatient drug rehabilitation, and several years in residential psychiatry programs. Including child and adolescent programs.

On top of that I have the experience of being a child in a house filled with both unsecured firearms and ammuntion. Both readily accessible from at least the age of five. The long guns were kept in rifle racks that I could pull a chair up to. The pistols were in closets and such.

Penguin, I used to engage in 'plundering' as a child. I wanted to look at the keepsakes hidden away. The old photographs. I was punished for this repeatedly but I never stopped. I was a stubborn child. And sneaky.

I never loaded a firearm outside of adult supervision. I never played with one much less pointed one at someone. I never even touched one. I was introduced to the power of firearms up close and personal at the age of four. My father held his Browning Light Twelve under the forestock as I nestled the buttstock to my shoulder. I pulled the trigger. That twelve gauge knocked the hell out of my young butt. I had no interest in 'playing' with such a thing.

Now I don't recommend such training for children. For one thing, it gave me a flinch that took years to overcome. But your assertion that children will absolutely play with guns is absolutely untrue. This also disproves many psychologists' belief that one step learning does not exist. I've experienced it in myself, seen it in others, seen it in dogs I've trained, and seen it occur in other dogs. I've one suggestion for these psychologists: examine what happens when the intensity of the stimulus reaches a certain level.

hso's moniker stands for Health Safety Officer. His wife is a RN and a physical therapist. I've seen their young child handle firearms. I'd trust her firearms handling more than most experienced gun people I've observed.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 03:44 PM
That is the same mindset of "make a child drink a beer and he will never want to drink again". It just does not work. Alot of the teens I worked with said this was their first taste and it did not deter them at all. I guess since you survived an unsafe enviroment that it is okay to take a chance with another childs life? One counter example does not disprove the rule. I used to ride in our car standing in the front seat with no seatbelt. Would you let your child do this? Where children are concerned it is FAR beter to err on the safe side. Who wants to look back and say "if only I had locked the gun up" AFTER a child is injured or killed?

PS- On a personal note...Why did you choose to get a BN since you already had a BS in psychology? You could have obtained an Assoc. of nursing and recieved the same pay. Are you planning on management in the future? My partner has his masters in Biology and an Associate degree in nursing. He works for Keiser Permanente. :)

.45Guy
March 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
I really feel sorry for you all. My daughter's pediatrician is retired Army. Great guy, heck we even sit around and talk shop at her appointments.:D

hillbilly
March 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
I would suggest two things.

1) Tell the doctor that he, in your opinion, has committed a "boundary violation."

2) Find another pediatrician immediately and tell the first one that you are taking your child elsewhere precisely because you do not approve of his sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

hillbilly

orionengnr
March 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
amidst all the paerwork they ask you to fill out, you may find a form with some "Health Risk Assesment" type questions.

On my last visit to an MD (and my first in several ears) I was surprised to fin a number of questions that flowed naturally as a part of your health history (not a separate sheet of paper) with questions such as,
"Do you always wear your seatbelt?"
"Are there any guns in your home?"
I think there was a sex-related question in there too...safe sex or what ever.

I was quite sick at the time (hence my visit) and my mental faculties were not at 100%. I had already answered the first when I realised the direction this was taking. I crossed out my first answer, drew a diagonal line through the remainder of the question and handed it back to the receptionist. When the nurse/whoever it was who took and reviewed it read through, she stopped where I had quit writing, but didn't sy anything. I was waiting for her to refuse to see me, or the doc to inquire, but neither happened.
Unfortunately, by the time I saw the doc, I had forgotten about it (see "mental faculties" above) so I never got a chance to b!tch him out about it either.

But I read something like this on a thread a while ago, so it seems to be an AMA thing...so be on the lookout.

AirForceShooter
March 1, 2006, 03:54 PM
when you leave the exam room and go to the waiting room , firmly and rather loudly announce that the doctor is FIRED!!! And walk out, slowly.
And use that word. The look on the waitee's faces is priceless. And they're going to be asking a whole lot of questions.
doctors are not your friend. They are almost an agent of the State.
go for an eye exam and have problems. Your doc will have your drivers license pulled in an hour. Have something the State is keeping track of and they'll have your Medical report by the end of the day. and it doesn't have to be a social disease. But it's ok, It's all for your own protection.

AFS

XDKingslayer
March 1, 2006, 03:56 PM
The doctor then looks at my wife and says, "even if you teach him abouth them, he's still going to play with them."

You wife should have simply stated that statement can apply to many things with little boys and that the bright side is the guns won't make his palms hairy.

On the serious side, this is simply another intrusion. If you teach your child about guns and gun safety, then you also need to teach them about how the other side of the coin is trying to take this away from us and that it's none of anyones business when he is asked these questions. Teach your child to tell them to talk to you.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 03:57 PM
On my last visit to an MD (and my first in several ears) I was surprised to fin a number of questions that flowed naturally as a part of your health history (not a separate sheet of paper) with questions such as,
"Do you always wear your seatbelt?"
"Are there any guns in your home?"
I think there was a sex-related question in there too...safe sex or what ever.
I think this is more a requirement imposed by insurance companies. I guess they are right that if you have a gun in your home you are more likely to have a gun related accident than someone who does not. But this is like saying "you are more likely to fall down the stairs of a home that actually has stairs than one that has none". Does this mean it is unsafe to own a two story home? It just doesn't provide a true factual analysis of risk in my opinion. :)

XDKingslayer..unlike gun accidents the hairy palm thing is unavoidable with young boys. :D

waterhouse
March 1, 2006, 04:02 PM
I am all for allowing them supervised access but never unsupervised. There is no such thing as a "gun proof child".

That's great that you have all that alphabet soup after your name, but when you make a blanket statement like you are going to be wrong most of the time.

I had a gun rack no my wall from the age of 6 years. At that time it had a single shot .22 and a BB gun. Long before these were on the wall gun education started. I wasn't the only kid in the neighborhood with a similar setup, and pretty much every male in my extended family (over 16 male cousins on my mom's side) had a .22 in their room from the age of 6 on.

There is such a thing as a gun proof child. It may or may not be the norm, but they exist.

I would question the parenting skill of anyone that felt otherwise.

Go ahead and question it. My parents did just fine.

Brad Johnson
March 1, 2006, 04:03 PM
Next time they start asking about your guns, hand them the attached document. If nothing else it's pretty much guaranteed to get the point across.

Brad

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 04:06 PM
Waterhouse, what you stated still does not mean you were "gun proof"...no child is "gun proof". End of story. If you close your eyes and cross a busy street and make it to the other side it makes you lucky...not "car proof".:)

waterhouse
March 1, 2006, 04:13 PM
Please define "gun proof" then.

I know for a fact that I can get past a lock on a gun. Most are very simply devices. I wouldn't have tried though, because I had been taught that if it was locked up I should leave it that way. I believe it is better, as someone else posted, to gun proof the child than the child proof the gun.

If I close my eyes and cross the street that doesn't mean anything other than I'm an idiot. If I open my eyes, look both ways, cross at the corners between the white lines when the light shows that it is safe to cross, then I have been "car proofed" and I am using the knowledge that my parents taught me to avoid getting hit by a car.

It isn't a fluke that we all grew up without having gun accidents. We were well taught, and I would argue that we were "gun proofed" but perhaps we are using different terminology, so a definition is needed.

grimjaw
March 1, 2006, 04:17 PM
What other health and safety topics did the pediatrician cover?

Vehicle safety? Sharp objects? Potential hazardous cleaning chemicals? Swingsets? Small objects that ought not be placed inside ear/nose/throat? Etc?

If these were not covered, seems like an agenda, and seems like you might check out other pediatricians.

jmm

JohnBT
March 1, 2006, 04:18 PM
Sign me up with the crowd who simply can't believe we survived childhood. It must have been luck and not the good parenting and role models. ;)

John

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 04:18 PM
Waterhouse, what I mean when i say no child is "gun proof" is that no child is beyond making a mistake with a firearm. That is why they should be supervised at all times when they have one in their hands. Also no child is above playing with a gun they have unsupervised access to one...especially if they are showing of to or being coerced by a friend. It is ALWAYS better to be safe than sorry where a childs like is concerned. Does anyone dispute this? I doubt anyone could unless they are blinded by a radical stance that they refuse to evaluate. Eddie Eagle states that a child should be educated but you still have to remember that they are still children and will act as such. So guns should always be as inaccessible as possible when unattended. :)

waterhouse
March 1, 2006, 04:32 PM
Waterhouse, what I mean when i say no child is "gun proof" is that no child is beyond making a mistake with a firearm. That is why they should be supervised at all times when they have one in their ands. Also no child is above playing with a gun theyy have unsupervised access to...especially if they are showing of to a friend or being coerced by one.

Again, WRONG. I was a child. I was above "playing" with any of my guns. I was also strong enough willed that my friends couldn't coerce me into playing with them. I was told the consequences of these sorts of actions (having my guns taken away) and chose to not break the rules. As I said, you can argue all you want about statistics and psychiatry, but I am living proof that a child is capable of being responsible with easy access to a gun. I don't know whether I am the minority or majority, but I do know that I was a kid who grew up with a gun in my room, and I know others that were raised in the same atmosphere who also did not do as you say children are required to do.


Eddie Eagle states that a child should be educated but you still have to remember that they are children and will act as such.

Or I could treat every person, even children, as an individual instead of trying to fit that individual into a category defined in a psychology text. A lot of the children I know are more respectful of firearms than some adults I see at the range.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 04:34 PM
Waterhouse...Once again...just because it did not happen to you does not disprove the rule. Stop and think about what you are saying. By all means, if you feel that your child is not worth taking every precaution for be my guest to do as you wish. Do not try to make it sound safe though because it is just not. I survived having drano under the sink but I would not call it a safe practice to leave it there if you have a small child.

waterhouse
March 1, 2006, 04:38 PM
Waterhouse...Once again...just because it did not happen to you does not disprove the rule. Stop and think about what you are saying.

Your rule is that EVERY child will play with as gun if given access:
no child is above playing with a gun theyy have unsupervised access to

I am stating that this "rule" did not apply to me.

If the rule is that it applies to every child, and in reality it doesn't apply to one child, than that does in fact disprove the rule.

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 04:44 PM
I did not say "ALL children will"..I said "children will" as a generic reference stating that children are capable of doing the opposite of what taught regardless of how hard you try to teach them otherwise. It is just part of being a child. Stop play games with semantics and address the actual message.

Sgt.Slappy
March 1, 2006, 04:51 PM
Actually PP, my point in mentioning the Eddie Eagle program, and the fact it is taught to children, was to illustrate that:

A) A change in behavior can be affected in the children so as to lessen the danger of firearm accidents in households with both children and firearms.

B) Eddie the frikken Eagle doesn't spend his time lecturing rifles, gunsafes, or adults.

A "gun-proof" child isn't immune from harm by firearms. Rather, he or she is made aware of the danger of that type of tool, and/or that only an adult has the authority to grant access to the dangerous tool's use.

(Oooops, I didn't mean to sound angry here... I'm not angry in the least.)

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 04:53 PM
Sgt.Slappy...I agree completely with your point. I just added that Eddie Eagle also states that one of the biggest points of the education is to make guns inaccessible to children when not supervised. Anyone that thinks training alone will prevent a child from being a child is fooling themselves. It is better to be safe than to be sorry. If you have small children teach them about guns and lock the guns in the safe when they are not in use. If you have a loaded HD weapon buy a small finger safe to keep it secure. I love my firearms but I am sure I would love my children more. The fact of the matter is that the extra second or two delay caused by a finger safe is very unlikely to ever cause a problem. if they burst into your bedroom armed and you are sleeping you are dead. you are more likely to hear a noise, retrieve the weapon and then investigate.

cambeul41
March 1, 2006, 04:55 PM
Thank you for the Physicians Notice. I have a sister who needs it. I have another such thing, but it is not so concise and well done.

waterhouse
March 1, 2006, 05:02 PM
I did not say "ALL children will"..I said "children will" as a generic reference stating that children are capable of doing the opposite of what taught regardless of how hard you try to teach them otherwise.

Also no child is above playing with a gun theyy have unsupervised access to.


Call it semantics if you wish. If you go read my first post in this thread, all I was taking issue with was your blanket statement that there is no such thing as a gun proof child, and your implication therein that any parent who thought otherwise was doing something wrong. This seems ridiculous to me, as I was gun proofed and my parents were great parents.

If you reword your statement to say "Children, as a group, are curious and often do not do as they are supposed to, and you should keep this in mind when determining what level of access to dangerous items you will grant your children," that would have been fine with me.

Zundfolge
March 1, 2006, 05:07 PM
This is why gun owners need to FIGHT against any form of Socialized Medecine ... once the government is paying for YOUR healthcare they OWN YOU.

Then this minor annoyance becomes a visit from social services or something.

afasano
March 1, 2006, 05:08 PM
In this area guns aren't not the problem beer is, Lamar Outdoor adverising is getting richer because of it and some lady is all worried about my guns. :barf:

Hook686
March 1, 2006, 05:12 PM
Today, 10:57 AM #2
V4Vendetta
Senior Member



Sometimes the people you thought you knew & liked turn out to be anti-gun. I used to like John Wayne, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, etc until I found out they all hate guns .
__________________
"Guns don't kill people. The government does."

"Computers don't make errors. What they do, they do on purpose."

"That's what they want you to think."

Dale Gribble, King of the Hill.

Nothing says "GET OUT OF MY GARDEN!", like a Mossberg.

Within each one of us there is a inch of hope, of will, of integrity. We must never let it go. For within it, we are free.


:what:

I thought Rock Hudson destroyed my faith in man .... geeeezzzz Louise this is a heart break.

:what:

LJWebster1
March 1, 2006, 05:17 PM
Great responses from everyone. I am not, nor have I ever, supported the notion that guns should be left unsecured where children can have access to them, especially if they can also have ready access to ammunition. For the same reason, I keep dangerous chemicals and prescription drugs out of reach. My complaint with the doctor was his focus on guns. He didn't ask if my son rode in a car (2,591 children dead), played by a pool (943 dead), played with matches (593 dead), played with dry cleaning bags (601 dead from mechanical suffocation), had access to dangerous foods, chemicals or drugs (169 dead from ingestion of food or objects), but ONLY asked about guns (86 dead). Seems like when you add up all the other ways my kid could die, this doctor focused on the one area that accounts for only 1.76% of the listed childhood deaths. I didn't see any statistics on accidents such as falling off a bicycle, down the stairs, or rollerblading, but I would assume those are much higher than 86 per year as well. Finally, I'd like to find statistics of how many children die each year from adverse drug reactions, vaccinations and medical malpractice. I'd be willing to bet it is more than 86 per year. Maybe my gun dealer should be asking my son if he visits the doctor!!

Nitrogen
March 1, 2006, 05:17 PM
When dealing with Anti's, remember this:

Most people who are Antis have grown up hearing anti-gun propaganda. They see the "kids die from gun accidents" commercials. They hear about gun violence every night on the news. Most people don't have an informed opinion, because they havn't actually decided to learn about guns. They hear on TV and read in the paper that guns are bad, and they decide so. Since most people aren't really interested in owning or using guns, they just file that little bit away in their brain, and continue watching American Idol.

Let me give you an example:

"That woman who filed the lawsuit because she spilled hot coffee in her lap is a perfect example of frivolous lawsuits, an I can't believe she won so much money!"

How many people on this board agree with this statement?

Now read this:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
or this:
http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

Sgt.Slappy
March 1, 2006, 05:22 PM
Maybe my gun dealer should be asking my son if he visits the doctor!!

LOL!:D

Now that would be something to see!

chas_martel
March 1, 2006, 05:39 PM
PlayboyPenguin,

There is a major flaw in your argument about "no child is gun safe".

The flaw is that you cannot prove a negative. And that is what you
are trying to do by saying "no child is gun safe".

What you should have said is "all kids are gun safe" and then
find an example of one that is not.

QED.

acdodd
March 1, 2006, 06:11 PM
Physicians
The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician are 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S.
Dept. of Health &Human Services)

Now think about this:

Gun Owners
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do"
Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.

Don't know if the facts are all correct but it makes you think.
AC

Standing Wolf
March 1, 2006, 06:40 PM
In exactly two words: new doctor.

mp510
March 1, 2006, 06:43 PM
Many pediatricians do follow their associations anti-gun stance, just as other professionals do.

Anyhow, John Wayne participated in both the hunting and shooting sports, or at least that's what he wrote on his OSS application (which I have seen in person).
http://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/american-originals-photos/john-wayne-oss-11.jpg

akodo
March 1, 2006, 06:47 PM
do not think this makes him anti-gun. He is just pointing out a fact. Children will play with them if given the oppotunity no matter how well you teach them. Some parents belive that their children will do as told if they tell them the consequences but we have to remember that young children do not have the cognitive and reasoning abilities that we as adults have and they are prone to do things they know they should not without even knowing why they did it.

First off, where is the quote button so if I want to quote a post in a reply, i can just click it and that poster's message will show up automatically inbetween the quote brackets?

Second,

Yes, this is true, but it also varies by age. You should never leave your guns around where your children can get to them IMHO. However, 9+, or maybe a little older, and yes, you CAN trust your kid to start using his cognative functions, even if it is only 'this is dad's rule, i better obey'.

oprah or some show did a bit when they told kids 'if you see a gun don't touch, get an adult' and tested some kids. 2 kids were from the same progun home, the 6 year old fell to tempation but the 10 year old did not (or possibly vice versa)

James T Thomas
March 1, 2006, 06:49 PM
Not only the AMA, AAP, but the Psychological Associations are also attempting to intwine social control by the various Psych. "evaluations and classification" testing which has become mandatory for school children.

Don't believe it? How about you posters with the Psych. degrees?

Are not children being asked similar questions about the presence of firearms in the home, posession of guns by dad and mom, etc., as part of these questionaires?

Cannot, these children be classified as troubled,agressive, depressed, or whatever medical term sounding professional, and then be sidetracked by the system, to be it's victim, and controled by it for the remainder of their lives? Even into adulthood?

The Pediatrician aspect of this socialism is only one small part.

And one of the "aims" is firearm posession.

And it's all for our own "good."

PlayboyPenguin
March 1, 2006, 06:49 PM
Yes, age does play a factor. As children age they become more aware of causality and that some things cannot be undone. As for quote buttons, I do not have one. I used to but no more. I have heard others say this as well. they just disappeared for some people a week or so ago. :)

LaVere
March 1, 2006, 07:26 PM
Boundary Violation:
Gun Politics in the Doctorís Office

Timothy Wheeler, MD

Appeared originally in the Medical Sentinel of the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
March/April 1999, pp. 60-61
Imagine this scenario: you visit your doctor for back pain. Your doctor
asks if you have firearms in your home. Then he announces that your
family would be better off (especially your children) if you had no guns
at all in your house. You leave the doctorís office feeling uneasy,
wondering what guns have to do with your backache. Does your doctor care
about your familyís safety? Or instead, did he use your trust and his
authority to advance a political agenda?

American families may soon find themselves in this scenario. Social
activists are taking their war on gun ownership to a new battleground:
the doctorís office. (1) The American Medical Association (AMA) (2),
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (3), and American College of
Physicians (ACP) (4) are urging doctors to probe their patients about
guns in their homes. They profess concern for patient safety. But their
ulterior motive is a political prejudice against guns and gun owners.
And that places their interventions into the area of unethical physician
conduct called boundary violations.

Doctor-patient sex is the most well-known and sensational example of a
boundary violation. More recent literature recognizes a wide variety of
nonsexual violations. (5) These cover such issues as finances,
confidentiality, and gratification of the doctorís needs. Although
boundary violations were first addressed in the psychiatry literature,
it has become clear that they also occur in general medical practice.
(6)

Boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship derive naturally from the
relationshipís fiduciary nature. In general, "treatment boundaries can
be defined as the set of rules that establishes the professional
relationship as separate from other relationships and protects the
patient from harm. A patient who seeks medical or psychiatric treatment
is often in a uniquely dependent, anxious, vulnerable, and exploitable
state. In seeking help, patients assume positions of relative
powerlessness in which they expose their weaknesses, compromise their
dignity, and reveal intimacies of body or mind, or both." (7)

Thus compromised, the patient relies heavily on the physician to act
only in the patientís interest and not the physicianís. A doctor must
put the patientís needs before his own. But a physician reverses the
priorities when because of passionate political beliefs he tries to
influence his patient against guns. This physician puts his own need to
"do something" about the perceived evil of guns before the needs of his
patient. He crosses the line from healer to political activist. Such
doctor-on-patient political activism is recognized in Epstein and
Simonís Exploitation Index (8) as a boundary violation.

Just as some physician sexual transgressors may insist their sex
relations with a patient are therapeutic, the activist doctor may
protest that he only seeks to prevent "gun violence." However, the
conduct of the medical activists strongly indicates that their interest
in patientsí guns is political, not therapeutic.

The AAP, ACP, and AMA are members of the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan
(HELP) Network, based in Chicago. HELP is an exclusive advocacy group
dedicated to banning guns. Physicians who disagree with HELPís anti-gun
agenda are barred from attending HELPís conferences, a policy
unthinkable in any scientific organization. HELPís founder and leader
Dr. Katherine Christoffel has compared guns to viruses that must be
eradicated. (9) The groupís militant advocacy has no place for differing
viewpoints on firearms, and apparently neither do the medical
organizations which have signed on as HELP members.

In fact, the AAP has adopted its "gun safety instruction" patient
materials from the gun-ban lobby Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The AAP
and Handgun Control, Inc.ís informational wing the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence advise families in their STOP pamphlet, "The safest
thing is to not have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun." (10)
And a survey of pediatricians showed 76% supported a ban on handguns.
(11) Patients who seek objective advice on firearm safety should not
look to pediatricians as a group. And any doctor should know that
patient counseling based on these materials is politics, not medicine.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of organized medicineís anti-gun bias
is its persistent refusal to address the criminology literature on guns.
For over twenty years, criminologists have studied firearms, their use
and misuse, their risks and benefits. Especially in the last two years
prominent researchers have found that firearm ownership is not the
scourge that medical activists have claimed it to be. The best and
latest research finds that private gun ownership by responsible citizens
not only is safe, but protects the individual as well as his community
from violent crime. (12)

One would think that medical firearm researchers would be intensely
interested in this scholarship. But so far the editorial boards of the
journals of the AAP, AMA, and ACP have neither responded to nor
acknowledged it. With their silence these editors have effectively ended
whatever credibility they had in firearm research. That field of study
is apparently useful to them only as a vehicle for the advancement of
their political goal of gun prohibition. When the scientific process
yields knowledge contrary to that goal, activists either attack its
author (13) or ignore it altogether. Such conduct is inexcusable in any
area of scientific endeavor. Honest scientists face conflicting data
objectively. And honest doctors do not use biased research to give false
authority to their negative feelings about guns.

So how can a patient tell if his doctorís advice about guns is good
preventive medicine or political activism? Patients can assess a
doctorís advice by keeping the following questions in mind:

Does the doctor respect your right to keep guns? Or does he subtly send
a message that guns are somehow bad? Moral judgments about the right to
self defense, hunting, or other legitimate uses of guns are not
acceptable subjects for a doctor talking to a patient. Does the doctor
quote statistics from the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American
Medical Association about the supposed risks of guns in the home? Do you
see anti-gun posters or pamphlets from these organizations in her
office? These materials are based on the "advocacy science" of anti-gun
activists like Dr. Arthur Kellermann, much of which was funded by the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Congress cut
off all the CDCís 1997 funding for gun research because of the CDCís
anti-gun bias. (14) No doctor who knows firearms would base her advice
on this frankly political literature. Is the doctor familiar with the
National Rifle Associationís (NRA) Eddie Eagle gun safety program for
children, or other established gun safety education programs? If not, is
she interested in learning about them? Unlike the AAPís Stop program,
Eddie Eagle educational materials for children contain no political or
moral judgment about guns. This NRA program has been honored by the
National Safety Council, the American Legion, and the governments of 19
states. The Eddie Eagle slogan "If you see a gun, Stop, Donít touch,
Leave the area, Tell an adult" was even endorsed by the generally
anti-gun California Medical Association (CMA). (15) Despite intense
publicity for the AAPís Stop program and similar initiatives, most
doctors shy away from scrutinizing their patientsí gun ownership. In a
recent study 91% of surveyed doctors felt that firearm violence is a
public health issue. But only 3% said they frequently talk to patients
about firearms in the home. Two thirds of the surveyed doctors said they
never talk to patients about the subject. (16) This may indicate that
although they are generally concerned about firearm injuries, doctors do
not see politically motivated patient counseling as appropriate
professional conduct.

In a revealing section, the AAPís Stop speakerís kit warns would-be
lecturers of "resistant audiences" who may disagree with them on
scientific or ideological grounds. One section offers talking points for
dealing with these "challenging individuals." (17) The kitís authors
seem to anticipate their audiences may recognize its political nature.

Patients do have remedies for the boundary-crossing doctor. In todayís
competitive health care market most patients can choose from many
doctors. Changing doctors is the simplest solution. A written complaint
to the health planís membership services department can send a powerful
message that boundary violations by doctors will not be tolerated. If
the problem persists, patients can file a complaint with the doctorís
state licensing board. Medical licensing boards are increasingly aware
of the problem of boundary violations. Although state boards have
addressed primarily sexual and financial misconduct, the broad
principles they have developed to guide doctors in these areas apply to
the entire doctor-patient relationship. (18, 19)

The author cannot advise the reader to take a particular course of
action. A patient confronted with physician misconduct must decide for
himself which action, if any, to take. But patients should realize they
do have choices in dealing with physician boundary violations involving
political activism, especially in such personal matters as firearm
ownership. And physicians should be aware of the personal risks they
take when they bring political activism into the exam room.

Endnotes

1. HELP Network News
2. , Winter / Spring 1998, p. 1. This quarterly newsletter is published by the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) Network. Ibid. p. 2.
3. American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, vol. 89, no. 4, April, Part 2, 1992, pp. 788-790.
4. American College of Physicians Position Paper, "Firearm Injury Prevention," Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998, vol. 128, no. 3, p. 238.
5. Frick, D., "Nonsexual Boundary Violations in Psychiatric Treatment," Review of Psychiatry, vol. 13, (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.), 1994, pp. 415-432.
6. Hundert, E., and Appelbaum, P., "Boundaries in Psychotherapy: Model Guidelines," Psychiatry, vol. 58, November 1995, pp. 346-347.
7. See reference 5, p. 416.
8. See reference 5, pp. 418-419 reprinted with permission from the Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 165-166, The Menninger Foundation, 1992.
9. Somerville, J., "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, Jan. 3, 1994, p. 9.
10. "Keep Your Family Safe From Firearm Injury," American Academy of Pediatrics and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1996.
11. Olson, L., and Christoffel, K., "Pediatriciansí Experience With and Attitudes Toward Firearms," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, vol. 151, April 1997.
12. Lott, J., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1998.
13. Ibid. pp. 122-157.
14. Report from the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives: Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1997, p. 49.
15. California Medical Association, Actions of the House of Delegates 1995, San Francisco 1995, Resolution 109-95, p. 9. The Eddie Eagle slogan was originally introduced in a resolution crediting its creator, the National Rifle Association (NRA). But the CMA Delegates refused to mention the NRA in the final version of Resolution 109-95, preferring instead to credit the California Department of Justice. This agency had adopted the Eddie Eagle slogan in its own gun safety program.
16. Cassel, C.K., and Nelson, B., "Internistsí and Surgeonsí Attitudes Toward Guns and Firearm Injury Prevention," Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998; vol. 128, pp. 224-30.
17. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Preventing Firearm Injury: Protecting Our Children Speakerís Kit," tab 1, section 5, Elk Grove Village (Illinois), 1998.
18. Medical Board of California Action Report, April 1996, p. 3, California Department of Consumer Affairs, Sacramento, California.
19. Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, "General Guidelines Related to the Maintenance of Boundaries in the Practice of Psychotherapy by Physicians (Adult Patients)," Boston.

~~~o~~~

Timothy Wheeler, MD is Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership,
a project of The Claremont Institute.

~~~o~~~

copyright © 1999 The Claremont Institute

BACK2nd Amendment

4 August 1999

Lone_Gunman
March 1, 2006, 07:32 PM
The "boundary violation" article is frequently posted, but is unfortunately basically a contrived fantasy by Dr. Wheeler.

The "bounds" of medical practice are established by organized medicine within the specialty concerned. For example, other pediatricians decide what is, and is not, within the "bounds" of pediatrics.

So if organized medicine is advocating these types of questions, there is certainly no boundary violation, and one could argue that not asking these questions therefore fails to meet the standard of care set by that specialty, thus opening the practitioner up for litigation.

Rather than crying "boundary violation", and thereby making a fool of yourself, it would be best to tell the doctor involved you do not like those kind of questions, and then leave and see a different doctor. As soon as that doctor realizes he is losing business by pushing a political agenda, he will stop asking them.

CajunBass
March 1, 2006, 07:53 PM
I got one of those questionairs with the "Do you have any guns in your house?" one time from my doctor.

I wrote quite clearly, "None of your business."

Never heard anymore about it.

bogie
March 1, 2006, 08:17 PM
Keep in mind: The doctor in this case is likely not "anti-gun." He's just been fed a line of nonsense, and assumed it to be fact. Odds are, if you are GENTLE, he can be educated.

v35
March 1, 2006, 08:35 PM
Sure, we have guns in the house.

We also have knives in the kitchen. We have toilets full of water - you could drown. Bathtubs too. Ladders, stairs, chairs (you could climb up and fall down), a refrigerator, TV (they could fall on you). I have various power tools that cut, grind, hammer, and drill. They attach to electrical outlets that carry lethal power. Screwdrivers, crowbars, saws, nails, chisels, all sorts of things that cut and poke. There is probably pocket change in the sofa - a child could choke on it. Maybe a paper clip or two also - it and the dozens of electrical outlets I have could be lethal in combination.

Outside there is a lawn mower, a snow thrower, buckets (you could drown again!) and a couple of chain saws. Gasoline, too. There are big, heavy garage doors. Bicycles. There's a rope swing - if you don't fall off the rope swing you could strangle on the rope. There are trees you could climb and from which you could fall down. A neighbor even has a pool.

And although I have never encountered one, there may also be people who might want to bring harm to my family, in my house with all that dangerous stuff inside it.

That's why we have guns in the house.

Ohen Cepel
March 1, 2006, 08:44 PM
I went through some of this same BS with a "military" doctor recently and posted about it some.

We no longer see this person and I have caused as much hell as I can.

I can't vote with my feet but for those who can I think that is the best route to take.

It has little if any "medical" merit and should not be tolerated.

Hawkmoon
March 1, 2006, 08:53 PM
"even if you teach him abouth them, he's still going to play with them."
Falsehood.

I grew up with guns in everyone's house -- grandfather, uncles, everyone. There were 3 in my family, 3 cousins in another house down the street, and 2 more across the street from tham. Grandparents in between. All us kids knew where all the guns were. And nobody touched them unless one of the adults agreed to take us shooting.

The doctor's attitude is typical of people who have NOT grown up with guns, have NOT received any firearms safety training, and therefor do NOT know what the [blank] they are talking about.

Webster, it's time to find a new pediatrician -- and then write a letter to the old one explaining that you switched because he crossed an ethical line, stopped being a doctor, and started meddling into personal family business that is none of HIS business.

Despite what the AMA wants to believe, firearms are not epidemiology.

Curare
March 1, 2006, 09:32 PM
As a Medical Doctor, in reading some of these posts, I have to laugh. Many are using anti-gunner tactics on physicians. A doctor asked little Tommy about guns therefore ALL DOCTORS ARE ANTIGUN, or SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS OUT TO GET CHA. A bit of a stretch.

The fact that I am a doctor and I could care less about my patient's firearm collection disputes such generalizations. I also am not a member of the AMA, nor will I ever be. Several of my partners are gun nuts and many shoot. Most of the male specialists I worked with in residency owned firearms.

Most physicians are Republicans. The majority of physicians are NOT members of the AMA. Just because the AMA and the AAP post such nonsense, do not believe that the majority of physicians follow those guidelines. Thinking that the AMA and the AAP speak for every doctor is as silly as thinking that the blue states speak for every American. We know damn well that's not the case.

For those who speak of physicians is disparaging terms, I ask you to recall all the positive times a physician positively impacted your life. Few here on THR would be openly critical of police, firefighters, EMTs or other lifesavers in the community, yet you criticize myself and other physician members of THR with such alacrity. Such bigotry is very dissappointing. :(

If you don't like your doc--pick another. We still live in a free, open market society. If you live in Columbus, come see me.

LJWebster1
March 1, 2006, 09:43 PM
Curare, thanks for the post. I hope I did not disparage our doctor as a doctor. He is very good, and my kids love him. But he poked his nose where it shouldn't have been and it bugged me. I'd like to write him a letter, but my wife would probably never speak to me again if it prejudiced the relationship.

Kim
March 1, 2006, 10:08 PM
I am a physician too and I have another take. These physicians are being taught to ask these types of questions to get you to remove your firearms. I do not ask my patients a litany of intrusive questions. Do not let anyone tell you the physician needs to know all about you. Only what is necessary for your problem. There is a concerted effort to treat gun violence as a disease and guns as the germ. I believe John Hopkins Medical School is a big pusher of this concept. I am your physician not your mommy or daddy. I have never heard of these type of question being requied by an insurance company. As a matter of fact I have never had an insurance company require that I do anything. They are more happy with the less I do. There may be some of the big City HMO's that have this policy but I have never heard of it. Even if told to ask these question I would NOT do it. I am not controlled or easily lead as some. Look out for the young physicians as they are the ones being Socially Enginerred for the great Government take over of medicine and more of your life. I am not offended by any remarks one would make. These type of physicians deserve to be looked down upon. Physicians are some of the hardest people to get along with. I know I work with some jerks everyday.:banghead:

Kim
March 1, 2006, 10:12 PM
I should add some days I am a jerk too. But not in this way. Mine is mostly griping about Medicare and Medicaid and all the paper work requied to keep everyone happy. Sometimes my patients can make me roll my eyes.

Larry Ashcraft
March 1, 2006, 10:12 PM
First off, where is the quote button so if I want to quote a post in a reply, i can just click it and that poster's message will show up automatically inbetween the quote brackets?
I'm glad its gone.

Thank you staff!

As to the doctor thing, my youngest child is 27, so I guess it never came up. If it had, I'm sure the doctor would have got an earful from my wife (she was usually the one at the office with the kids).

As far as kids being curious and playing with guns, well, it didn't happen at my house. The ones we worried about were the neighbor kids.

old4x4
March 2, 2006, 12:01 AM
None of his GD business :banghead: . "Hey doc, you and your wife have any marital aids?" Bet he wouldn't like that..

ReadyontheRight
March 2, 2006, 01:26 AM
This issue is not about the psychology of children. I'm sure we all can think of one child and one adult in our lives where -- in a pinch -- we'd rather hand a loaded gun to the child.

Of course guns should be secure and children can be taught safe gun handling.

Duh.

This is about the Doctor pushing an anti-gun political agenda through children.

His questions were wrong and the AMA needs a continual wake-up call on this misuse of a Doctor's trust.

If he was running through a time-tested checklist -- swimming pools, buckets, household chemicals, seat belts, firearms, etc. -- it MIGHT be commendable, but the reality is that he probably just read some JAMA article and thought its anti-gun program made sense.

geekWithA.45
March 2, 2006, 08:04 AM
The unusual element of this thread is that the pediatrician posed the question to the child DIRECTLY, bypassing the parents.

Guns, like many other topics, are the parents, and the parents alone to arbitrate. It's entirely innapropriate to ask the child about them in an official capacity.

THAT's a HUGE problem.

Would we accept a doctor asking a child "How many beers does daddy have after work?" Would we accept a doctor asking a kid "Does mommy keep a bottle of liquor in the closet?"

Sure, we could argue about "assessing potential threats to the child's well being" till the cows come home, but by then, we're halfway down the slippery slope to hell.

From there, it's a short hop skip and jump to "Do mommy & daddy approve of the great leader, er, President?"

It's fishing, plain and simple.

SteveS
March 2, 2006, 12:41 PM
If you reword your statement to say "Children, as a group, are curious and often do not do as they are supposed to, and you should keep this in mind when determining what level of access to dangerous items you will grant your children," that would have been fine with me.

I think this is a fair statement. I hate to admit this, but here goes. Like many, I grew up in a house with guns that were stored somewhat securely. I was also taught from an early age how to safely handle a firearm and was also told not to do so without permission. Despite this, I handled several of them when I was home alone. I don't know how often this happened, but it wasn't that many times. Despite doing something that I knew would get me into trouble, I had enough sense to never load them, or otherwise handle them in an unsafe manner.

Until I became a parent, I never thoguth much about this. Nothing bad ever happened and, despite being a mostly good kid, it wasn't the only thing I did that my parents didn't want me to do. The lesson I learned is that I will empasize safety, training and education. I want my children to be able to handle a firearm if I am there or not. I will also secure them so that they do not have access to them until I decide they are mature enough to handle the responsibility.

As for the pediatrician questioning gun ownership, it hasn't come up so far.

HankB
March 2, 2006, 12:54 PM
"Well, actually, Doctor, it's all about managing risk. Statistically, an argument can be made that Little Johnny is in MORE danger here, seeing as mistakes made by medical professionals cause more deaths than do people misusing guns. In fact, I think I'll be taking him home now, where he just may be safer than he is right here."

"And please note, you'll be getting a call from another pediatrician for Johnny's records, as we'll be finding one who knows how to stick to things he knows something about, and not meddle in areas where he's demonstrated his own ignorance."

entropy
March 2, 2006, 03:02 PM
My doctor knows the answer to the question anyway; I often see him at the gun shop.;)

PlayboyPenguin
March 2, 2006, 03:24 PM
I got curious about all the nubers people where using to "doctor bash" on here so I looked up those numbers. Every reference I could find to "doctors causing death" refered to the same article in the JAMA. I then had to look up that article to see what it said for myself. Do you know it included non-doctor error deaths (meaning the doctor did nothing wrong the patient was just too old or too sick to respond to treatment), non-doctor error prescription drug issues (which would include people misusing the drugs, failing to take them or even overdosing), delayed diagnosis (often meaning the people just waited too long to come in and the doctor did not have time to adequately diagnosis them), pharmacist giving patients the wrong medication, patients succumbing to infection, and alot of other things that did not make sense to me if the conclusion was to be how many deaths "doctors cause". Plus they never really mentioned what the determination process was...there was obviously no control group with which to compare data. Sounds a lot like the same kind of stuff that anti-gunnies do when manipulating info to make guns look more dangerous than they are in reality. Just like guns ARE dangerous, but not as dangerous as some would have you believe...some doctors DO kill people...but not anything like this study suggests. I know we all hate seeing skewed studies about gun ownership, I am suprised so many were so eager to latch onto this information without more scrutiny. If anyone was able to find more info than I was feel free to set me straight. :)

Otherguy Overby
March 2, 2006, 04:08 PM
Could their be grounds for malpractice?

Physician talked with child regarding guns without parent authorization.

He talk about guns with MY CHILD!

Is he a licensed phychiatrist? If not, is he practicing with out the proper license?

Could their be a chance of an attorney pulling the plug on this particular social engineering scandal?

PotatoJudge
March 2, 2006, 05:32 PM
"It isn't a fluke that we all grew up without having gun accidents."
Obviously, you grew up. :rolleyes:

As I see it, asking about gun safety/ownership can have some positive effects (not to say I'm for it). I have a cousin who got his dad's gun at 4 and shot himself in the hand. Don't know about his dad, but I have a strong suspicion that if a doctor (or anyone, for that matter) had talked to his mother about keeping guns out of her kids reach she would have done her part. Also, if a kids doctor talks to him about gun safety they may be more likely to listen- kids look up to doctors. Two instances, but I can't think of too many more.

Don't forget that doctors are people, with as many different opinions and agendas as anyone else- no more no less. That's why its important to find one you trust so that if they ask about guns, you can be comfortable with them asking. If you don't trust them to use (or not use) that information then you shouldn't be comfortable putting your health in their hands. Early in medical school it was stressed what a huge amount of trust people put in their doctors. Who's had surgery (been cut open by a guy you've met like twice, let them tinker with your innards)? I think its important for doctors to take this trust seriously so that the patient is comfortable and the physician gets all the info they need.

BTW talking bad about doctors, psychologists, cops, muslims, teenagers, most any GROUP really, is good for an argument and bad for a debate.

thumbody
March 3, 2006, 03:06 PM
PlayboyPenguin
Sometimes the consequences are worse if you do gun proof your kids,
http://www.richardpoe.com/sevenmyths_chapter1.html
I would rather teach my kids to be responsible and to have the means to defend themselves than to make them victims!

Yes younger ones should not have access, but to have to leave you family defenseless is even more irresponsible.
We are trying too hard to protect our young ones and not enough time teaching them responsibility.

blackhawk2000
March 3, 2006, 05:59 PM
I do not think this makes him anti-gun. He is just pointing out a fact. Children will play with them if given the oppotunity no matter how well you teach them. Some parents belive that their children will do as told if they tell them the consequences but we have to remember that young children do not have the cognitive and reasoning abilities that we as adults have and they are prone to do things they know they should not without even knowing why they did it. Any parent can tell you that. I think the fact that the gun death rate of children is so low is not because parents trust the kids to do the right thing when they are not there but because the vast majority are responsible gun owners that secure their firearms when children are around them. I think his point should have been that they should always be locked up when not being actively used and supervised. I doubt you could find a parent on here that would say it is okay to leave unlocked and loaded weapons out where a small child can get to them. Did he suggest removing the guns from the home or just that you take very necessary precautions?


:cuss: This is completely untrue. Since the birth of my son 4 1/2 years ago, he has never once thought about touching the loaded shotgun that always stays by my bed. Occasionally I unload a gun, triple check it, dry fire it, and leave it laying on the floor where he can trip over it. Not once has he touched it. Just the other day, I found an old cap gun from when I was a kid, and they still looked real. I put it in his room, while he was talking to my wife. I didn't say anything, and left the room. My wife said he just looked at it, and couldn't figure out why I did that. She then told him it was a toy gun for him, then he was very happy, and grabbed it. I never let him point the toy guns at a person including himself. Any time he wants he can look at any gun, as long as I am there to supervise. He holds them, best he can, asks me again how the sights work, then quickly loses interest. Sometimes, we talk about death, and shooting people, and I tell him some bad people, need to get shot to make them stop hurting you/yours. That it's only right to shoot people that are trying to hurt you really bad, and then only until they stop hurting you/yours. He also knows that if he plays with a gun unsupervized, that he could end up hurting, Mommy, Daddy, Baby, or himself really really bad, and possibly kill them. I tell him that's it fine to shoot animals, as long as you plan on eating them. (I don't think killing an animal is a good thing if you just want to kill it for sport, unless it's some type of varmint, and this includes wild boars in Texas. edit for clarity: wild boars are fine to slaughter in Texas and other states where they run rampant acting as varmints.) He is well aware of what type of animal, he is eating for dinner, and knows that said animal used to be alive, but now is not, and that God put the animals on Earth for people to eat, and use for various other reasons. Not once has he outed me in public while carrying.

Obviously not all children do this, but I believe they just haven't been taught properly.

PlayboyPenguin
March 3, 2006, 06:35 PM
Just a question...are some people not able to grasp the faulty logic behind the statement "it hasn't happened to me therefore it will not happen"? Saying "my son/daughter has not touched my guns" does not mean they will not if given the right opputunity at the right time. It is hard for me to fathom why someone would even argue this point. Why not take every precaution when your child's safety is at stake. I always wonder if someone is trying to validate their own carelessness when they argue this point.

torpid
March 3, 2006, 06:48 PM
I personally lock up my firearms when not in use (in a safe and a quick access lockbox), and advocate doing the same (though I am not for legislating it).

But I do find it extremely fishy when doctors ask about firearms in the home in the interest of "general safety", when many are part of an organization that is actively engaged in attempting to outlaw handguns and "assault rifles" nationwide, and as part of this efforts recommends that the physician ask about the firearms ownership status of the patient or guardian in the interest of "general safety".

.

PlayboyPenguin
March 3, 2006, 06:53 PM
My issue with the doctor asking would be that I do not see how it would effect the childs general health. It might make him more likely to be injured in an accidental firearm discharge but how would it affect him in any other way that the doctor would need to know about. I can understand if he asked if the parents smoked, drank (if the boy had injuries), cooked meth, or even if the house had lead paint. I am not a doctor so I might be missing something.

Waitone
March 4, 2006, 02:27 AM
My dad too the mystery out of guns and matches. Neither were locked up. I could "play" with either any time I wanted simply by asking. He was there and provided helpful hints. At no time did I ever touch a gun without him being present. Just didn't have the desire since I could play with either any time I wanted and he was present.

That said, just like the 4 safety rules constitute layers of protection, so too a kid ought to have layers of protection. Eddie Eagle, training in not use, removal of mystery, severe consequences for breaking the rules, locks/safes, hidden, etc. Teach the kid to never break the rules, then assume the kid will break the rules.

Mad Chemist
March 4, 2006, 02:58 AM
The only unlocked weapon in my house is my CCW, it's always within reach. Everything else is locked up unless I'm using it. I don't have kids, but my sister has four ages 6-14. The three oldest ones hunt with dad and they shoot. None of them have access to the gun safe. I don't think any of them would ever mess with the guns without permission, but you can't always know or trust all of their friends. The morals and upbringing of your childrens friends are out of your control. No matter how well you teach your own children, you can't guarantee that they won't start hanging out with a bunch of dumbasses. It eventually will happen.
Regardless of children, I still think leaving unsecured loaded weapons around the house is a dumb idea. The only one you'll have an immediate need for is your CCW.

JH

Okiecruffler
March 4, 2006, 05:38 AM
I don't have a Psych degree (wife does, big know it all), heck, I don't even have a BSN, just a lowly little ADN here (well an ADN with PALS, ACLS, CCRN, Chemo cert and more than a few trauma certs). But I have worked in the only real PICU in this state now for 6 years. You know how many gun shot kids I've seen?
Two.
Care to guess how many drownings, unrestrained MVA's, shaken babies, accidental meth Od's, etc I've seen. I'm betting you're guessing too low.
My doctor asked me once if I had any guns in my house, then asked if we could go out and let him try my mosins.
One of my most frequent shooting partners right now is one of my attending pediatric intensivist. He has 3 kids of his own, I gave one of them a Marlin mod 60.
But here you go Penguin, I'll throw you a bone. I was raised around guns, and boy did I play with them every chance I got. Using the logic of many posters, since I played with them, all children must. Course I also looked thru my dad's girly mags and played with lighters. Even made a pipe bomb or three. Wasn't because my folks were bad parents, just cause I was a rotten kid.
And I should add that I've seen the John Wayne collection at the Cowboy Hall of Fame. Nice bit of hardware for an anti. And he never really denied we stole America from the Indians, just said they weren't really using it, so why shouldn't have we.

akodo
March 4, 2006, 02:04 PM
I think this is more a requirement imposed by insurance companies. I guess they are right that if you have a gun in your home you are more likely to have a gun related accident than someone who does not.
first part is not true. You have doctor/patient confinentiality, your doctor cannot be divulging stuff you tell him to your insurance company. YOU have to release your medical records,etc, if they are applicable.

as far as more likely to have a gun related accident? I don't buy that, too many unrelated factors. Being a drug dealer seems to me to be a much larger predictive condition than being just a gun owner regarding likelyhood of getting shot, either by accident or on purpose.

PlayboyPenguin
March 4, 2006, 02:31 PM
Akodo, alot of the information gathered at the hospital does not fall under doctor patient confidentiality. I actually saw a disclosure at the hospital once that said "this information is NOT confidential should you choose to include it". Therefore it must be for someone. Treatments, medications, medical history are all covered but some personal bio info is not always covered. it has to do with who gathers it and how it is gathered. As for the quote of mine you just posted...the entire quote read...
I guess they are right that if you have a gun in your home you are more likely to have a gun related accident than someone who does not. But this is like saying "you are more likely to fall down the stairs of a home that actually has stairs than one that has none".
If you look at it that way it is an entirely true statement. If there is no gun in the house the odds of a gun acccident in the home are pretty nill. :)

LJWebster1
March 4, 2006, 02:54 PM
Update:

My wife wasn't full on the details. I guess the doc did ask about bike riding, safety gear, other activities, too, so it was more a safety lecture than a gun rant. Good thing I didn't send a letter calling him a jerk, huh? I talked to my son about it too, and he didn't think the gun questions were any different from the bicycle questions or the seatbelt questions.

I do think it's silly, and a bit insulting, that doctors think they have to ask that stuff, but I guess there are crappy parents out there.

Curare
March 4, 2006, 03:17 PM
You'd be amazed at some parents I've seen. Thanks for the update on the general safety discussion.

Would have been nice to have more info before you passed judgement initially and created a big uproar with so much "Doctor Hate".

mountainclmbr
March 4, 2006, 11:23 PM
I guess I can see protecting us against proven dangers. But.....I think that all of the childhood gun accidents probably pale in comparison to the 150-250 million who were killed, mostly by bullets, by their own Socialist governments. And who wants to talk about the comparison to medical mistakes that result in death? If there is swift action taken to prevent the greatest causes of premature death, the leftist politicians and the doctors will be in a world of hurt. They would be gone far sooner than my guns if all risks were considered. I would ask my doctor if this is actually what they want. If the doctor maintained the anti-freedom gun hating position, I would probably leave shouting " This Doctor cares more about killing or crippiling medical malpractice protection than about YOU!!!" Many of my family members are in the medical field so I am fully accustomed to slamming their Marxist views! I especially like to volunteer to redistribute their income until their income equals the average salery.

telomerase
March 5, 2006, 12:09 AM
Children will play with them if given the oppotunity no matter how well you teach them.

+1 to Blackhawk. Every farm where I grew up had a rifle or shotgun just sitting at the door or in the barn for shooting varmints. No kid I knew ever "played with them". Of course the kids were all working on the farms, not watching TV all day, so there might be a species difference.

SoonerBJJ
June 4, 2006, 07:27 PM
Okiecruffler- What PICU do you work in? Just curious because I know some of those folks.

jeepmor
June 4, 2006, 08:08 PM
I've been shooting since I was 6 years old and my father took the time to make sure I respected firearms. I don't recall ever, no, not ever, going in to "play" with the guns or even fondle them. I had a pellet gun and 22 by the time I was a teen. I knew what they were capable of, and thank my dad for the respect for them that he instilled in me. And no, I don't recall them ever, ever being locked up. They were always in the bedroom stacked up in the corner or buried in a drawer somewhere. I probably would have shot them if we lived in the woods while dad was at work, but then there is all that cover up work, replace the rounds, clean the firearm, y'know. Too much hassle, I could do plenty of damage with my slingshot and not be in any sort of trouble. Plus, hitting birds with a pellet gun got too easy, the slingshot posed a real challenge

I did not grow up on a farm, but I did know what a firearm was and understood at a very young age, again 6, that they were not toys.

I seem to recall his saying how big of a hole the 44 mag would put in a window.....that really stuck. No one wants permanent holes in themselves or others, not even at 6.

jeepmor

geekWithA.45
June 4, 2006, 09:51 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think it requires simplification.

There's no need to debate propriety, boundaries, whether this is an actual medical topic, or any of that nonsense.

It really just comes down to two words, relentlessly applied, whenever the situation of a pediatrician querying a child about guns in the house comes up.

Those two words are "You're Fired.".

Pack up your kid, drop off your co-pay, and get copies of the medical records on the way out.

Okiecruffler
June 5, 2006, 08:48 AM
OUHSC, the onlu PICU in Okla.:D

Ohen Cepel
June 5, 2006, 09:03 AM
I had a similar situation happen recently with a pediatrician. Apparently, it's the policy of their "professional" group.

Mine did not ask about anything but the firearms and smoking. (we don't smoke). No talk of pools, falling issues, back to sleep, car seats, poisonings, etc.

We no longer use her services. I'm there for health care, not for you to push an agenda upon me. Also, I did write nasty letters to her supervisor(s) since I was there for the lecture and could speak to it.

If they give the whole safety spill I would be fine with it and it would be in context. When it's the primary thing discussed (in my case twice by the doc in training and then hit again by the actual doc) then it's unprofessional and pushing an agenda.

antsi
June 5, 2006, 09:28 AM
-----quote---------
Just a question...are some people not able to grasp the faulty logic behind the statement "it hasn't happened to me therefore it will not happen"? Saying "my son/daughter has not touched my guns" does not mean they will not if given the right opputunity at the right time.
--------------------

Actually, the people on the other side are arguing that it will inevitably happen that the kids will play with the guns. A single counterexample is therefore relevant: if event A failed to happen even once, then you can't say that event A will always happen.

I grew up with unlocked guns in our home: a .38 revolver a 12-ga O/U and a 28-ga side-by-side. I never touched any of them without permission and age-appropriate supervision. Never.

However, I am not advocating this. I keep my guns in a safe. When my son is old enough to have a gun, his will be kept in the safe also. When he's little, he will have to get me to open the safe for him. When he's old enough, I'll let him have access to the safe on his own.

What gripes me about the pediatricians is that they are not practicing evidence-based medicine. As a professional group, they are advocating pointless gun control laws that have never and will never have any effect on safety. Their preoccupation with the issue is all out of proportion to the scope of the problem. They use deceptive statistics and methods to inflate the apparent scope of the problem. They are generally motivated by a nanny-like "we know best" approach to the world. Their patients are children, and they seem somehow to have transferred that perception to everyone else. To the AAP, we're all children and they have to take care of us.

John-Melb
June 5, 2006, 10:33 AM
Isn't it funny how times change, when I was a kid, the family doctor asking anything about dad's gun and had he been using it lately normally meant he was fishing - for a pair of bunnies. (our family Doctor was rather partial to roast rabbit)

As a kid the guns where never locked up at our place and I never touched 'em. To scared if I did the old man would find out and I wouldn't sit down for a week!

Oleg Volk
June 5, 2006, 11:13 AM
hso's moniker stands for Health Safety Officer. His wife is a RN and a physical therapist. I've seen their young child handle firearms. I'd trust her firearms handling more than most experienced gun people I've observed.

Indeed. His kid is careful with guns, in addition to being more gracious and considerate than most people.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/3658-2/michaela0703.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Pediatrician nonsense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!