Omaha Doctor calls for assault weapons ban

[Deanimator]

Translated: I'm a liberal hippie socialist. Or worse, communist.

*I* am a liberal, and none of that disengenuous "classical liberal" nonsense either. I'm for civil liberties, civil rights, affirmative action where NEEDED, etc. I don't care if two guys or two girls get married. I think that labor unions USED to be important before they became so thoroughly corrupt.

You on the other hand sound like an authoritarian, with all of this talk of "needs" and unseemly eagerness to adopt the verbiage of those who don't believe in rights, merely privileges.

And as far as Dien Bien Phu goes, that's just another reference that went over your head like an SR71. It was the FRENCH who were "down there" in Dien Bien Phu. The Vietminh took the high ground, held it and won decisively. Given the choice, you would pick for gun owners the role of the French, the role of immobile TARGET. Doesn't seem like anybody's buying THAT...

 

[XavierBreath]

What Dr. Joseph Stothert said was not a boundary violation. It's as if our members have learned a buzz word and are applying it to anything a physician says that they do not agree with, without understanding the concept of a boundary violation. What Dr. Joseph Stothert did was not a boundary violation. In fact, his statements do not appear to be a HIPPA violation either.

I agree that many people speak authoratively about subjects they hold a rocky knowledge of, and in so doing, their lack of knowledge is displayed for all to see in their flawed arguments. Dr. Joseph Stothert's argument is flawed because he is unknowledgeable regarding firearms. His argument looks ignorant and silly to those of us here. If we present counter-arguments using boundary violations and HIPPA violations as our premise, then we had better understand boundary violations and HIPPA. If our premise is false, so is our argument, and it appears to be just as silly, ignorant, reactionary and ineffectual as Dr. Stothert's argument.

I'm attaching a photo of an expanded Black Talon bullet. Let's take a look at it.

You will note that jacket does have some very sharp protusions. Surgeons and scrubs do probe gunshot wound channels with fingers protected only by a couple of Bio-Gel gloves. There is always the risk of being lacerated. In reality though, the laceration risk is present with any bullet, including round nose lead. Lacerations can occur with glass, metal shards, bone fragments, or any other hard and pointy object in the body. Black Talon bullets do not have a monopoly on this on the job hazard, and the removal of the Black Talon from the marketplace did not remove the danger from blind probing of wound channels.

I have never read or heard of any documented case of medical or emergency personnel being "stuck" by a Black Talon bullet. If there is a documented case, I would like it to be presented here.

Not all physicians are anti-gun or swayed by the politics of their professional organizations. Let's not condemn all physicians and other health care professionals here.

Visit Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws to learn more. Don't be put off by the name of the group, read the mission statement and a few of the searing letters they have written in opposition to the gun lobby's take-over of the AMA, the APA and the AAP. If you are a physician, nurse or other health care professional, consider joining DSGL, and helping to fight the opposition among us in health care.

A Certified Public Accountant I know has stated that all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent.

This is quite a statement. I assume the CPA is uniquely qualified to judge the professional competence of all health care professionals. His statements say more about him than anything else. If you believe him, your trust in his opinion is misguided and says quite a bit about yourself.

Now don't go claiming old Xavier is anti-gun and anti-RKBA. I think my record on gun issues pretty much speaks for itself. I think the care and service I provide for my patients speaks for my professional competence. I may make a mistake balancing my checkbook from time to time, but I would like to see a CPA assist with a total hip or knee before he calls me a charlatan surgeon's lackey.

 

[benEzra]

Sure, but consider this; I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years. You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions.

Liko81, you misread a lot of us if you think we're repubs. I'm a center-left independent and a longtime member of Democratic Underground. I agree with you on the abuses of the current administration.

Having said that, I think you overestimate the power of the "assault weapon" meme. The way to successfully fight that bait-and-switch is to shed light on it, not to capitulate and treat the most popular civilian rifles in America as something worthy of shame, or their owners (who outnumber hunters, if I run the numbers correctly) as worthy of second-class status.

Here's how to address the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch:

(1) most gun owners aren't hunters;
(2) actual "AK-47's and Uzi's" are tightly controlled by existing law, and have nothing to do with bans on "assault weapons";
(3) civilian rifles aren't a crime problem at all (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI;
(4) modern-looking small-caliber rifles are much more popular than the Bradyites would have you believe;
(5) threatening to ban people's guns is a really, really dumb idea politically; and
(6) banning rifle handgrips that stick out is really not as important as the REAL issues facing the country.

I have over 5600 posts on DU, and I think I can say that you are being harder on "assault weapon" owners than most DU'ers would be. Check out the following thread (not so much my initial post, but the downthread discussion):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97165

(No trolls, please; repubs/conservatives feel free to read, but please don't post, as DU is a private site, not an open forum.) I think you overestimate the power of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. The worst thing you can do is to not challenge it, IMHO.

BTW, one more thing...



The outlook for gun owners is not nearly as hopeless as the Bradyites and CNN would like you to believe...

 

[siglite]

While on the subject of people talking outside their areas of expertise...

In fact, his statements do not appear to be a HIPPA violation either.

I agree that many people speak authoratively about subjects they hold a rocky knowledge of, and in so doing, their lack of knowledge is displayed for all to see in their flawed arguments. Dr. Joseph Stothert's argument is flawed because he is unknowledgeable regarding firearms. His argument looks ignorant and silly to those of us here. If we present counter-arguments using boundary violations and HIPPA violations as our premise, then we had better understand boundary violations and HIPPA.

The first time I read "HIPPA" I thought, "eh, I'll give him that one as a typo." But the following two times indicated that you don't really know much about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

So it seems we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[XavierBreath]

I am a gun owner;

I'm glad that you are a gun owner. take a non-gun owner out shooting and introduce them to gun ownership.

I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been. THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are! They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently. These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me.

I'm sorry your experience at The High Road has been unpleasant and unproductive. Often we benefit more from what we read than from what we write. When we place our beliefs up front for consideration, we must be prepared for them to be considered and rejected. Opposition to constitutional rights based on whether a person disagrees with your opinions is well.......Problematical in the United States.

This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA. Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Not necessarily. A well formed argument is irrefutable. Not all arguments here are well formed, but the Bill of Rights is. The anti-gun lobby has ample supply of misinformation, smoke and mirrors and financial support. I suppose they could cherry pick through a thread like this for a few random examples, but they could do that almost anywhere.

I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful. I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with. Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it. You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.

There is an easy solution if you don't want to be identified with The High Road. Leave.

I'm reminded of a quote from Quine and Ullian in their book, The Web of Belief:
“The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge. Incidentally it plays hob with our credibility rating.”

Siglite,
I may have gotten the acronym wrong, but since you challenged me on it, please provide an example of where Dr. Stothert violated HIPAA. I assure you, while I may have misspelled the acronym, I fully understand the concept of a patient's right to privacy. I am not a policy loving bureaucrat. I am a practitioner. I really do not care what HIPAA stands for, I care about what the act says, and my responsibility as a professional to abide by it in practice and in spirit. Call this a case of the pot calling a kettle black if you like, but in so doing, you are simply participating in yet another cheap ad hominem attack on this thread.

 

[siglite]

While the HIPAA privacy rule is not my specialty, I think it's certainly questionable if Dr. Stothert violated the rule by identifying his patient, diagnosis, and the treatment. HIPAA security IS my specialty, and I seem to recall DHHS casting a very wide net with the definition of "individually identifiable."

From the final HIPAA privacy rule, viewable at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/regtext.html

Health information means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:

(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and

(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but it sure looks like discussing the treatment of an individual's gunshot wound, or even identifying that individual, or making references to his injuries would certainly apply.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this particular instance. Dr. Stolthert may have kept things sufficiently vague to avoid a violation of the rule, but it sure doesn't look like it to me.

 

[siglite]

And as a follow up, also found in the same rule:

Protected health information means individually identifiable health information:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:

(i) Transmitted by electronic media;

(ii) Maintained in any medium described in the definition of electronic media at § 162.103 of this subchapter; or

(iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.

Like I said, DHHS casts a very wide net with this definition.

 

[XavierBreath]

Siglite,
You assume Dr. Stothert asked Fred Wilson to speak with him. The fact is, Fred Wilson may have asked Dr. Stothert to share the podium. It may have been a mutual agreement. There is no indication that I can discern that Dr. Stothert spoke about Fred Wilson's specific injuries without his consent or otherwise. Perhaps there is another video I am unaware of.

In the video clip presented, his statements are certainly debatable, but it does not appear to me that any HIPAA violation occured.

 

[siglite]

That's true, but it's all speculation. Because we are all aware who the good Dr. is talking about, someone, somewhere, has released protected health information. Maybe the doctor himself, maybe the hospital, maybe a PR spokesman FOR the hospital.

But the presence of a release is speculation. Though, I do grant some validity to the speculation, because without Mr. Wilson's consent, such a disclosure would be colossally stupid. Most hospitals (thankfully) are generally smarter than that (or at least getting there) when it comes to PHI. It may be safe to say "surely they aren't that stupid." But then we look at Dr. Stothbert's position on "high velocity weapons" and, well... it becomes questionable again.

 

[Robert Hairless]

XavierBreath:

This is quite a statement. I assume the CPA is uniquely qualified to judge the professional competence of all health care professionals.

It is his professional opinion as a Certified Public Accountant and he has intimate knowledge of their financial affairs. I don't claim that he is uniquely qualified to make such judgments. In the United States of America many people are qualified to make them.

It is not only the opinion of the Certified Professional Accountant. I notice that you do not challenge the judgment of the Licensed Realtor. Her condemnation of these people is unassailable. She is familiar with their behaviors in real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, and management, and her conclusion is a professional opinion too.

They speak within the boundaries of their own professional competence and they draw reasonable conclusions based on what they know. Their extrapolations are much more rational and convincing than that of the trauma surgeon who claims to deal with people who have been wounded by a high velocity AK-47.

It's their opinion and they have as much right to their opinion as anyone else.

 

[XavierBreath]

Dr. Stothert did not, in this video clip speak about Fred Wilson's injuries, treatment, or even mention his name. The Nebraska Medical Center apparently provided a forum for Mr. Wilson, judging from the backdrop. They may have done the same for any patient wanting to speak out. Hospitals have provided forums for transplant patients, experimental treatment patients, the first New Year's baby, and other patients at their request. Perhaps that is a HIPAA violation. If it is a violation, can you show the ruling as you have previously?

Yes it is speculation that Mr. Wilson may have asked Dr. Stothert to speak with him. It is also speculation to say Dr. Stothert asked Mr. Wilson.

If there is a complete video of this press conference where Dr. Stothert violates HIPAA regulations, provide a link.

Robert,
While a CPA may be able to accurately judge a physician's or a registered nurse's individual financial competence, and a real estate broker may be able to judge their dealings in the real estate, leasing and management business, extrapolating the conclusion that "all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent" is not only quite a stretch, but it is insulting.

I am a registered nurse. I am NO physician's lackey, and I am quite competent at my work. I take exception to that statement comdemning me and all of those in my profession. This may be the opinion of your friends, and you may even hold it yourself, but as I said, making these kind of blanket statements shows more about the speaker than those about whom they are speaking. Much like Dr. Stothert has done.

 

[siglite]

I have no such link. But it seems we're both speculating. And the fact that we're both speculating, (as, I think we both have some level of expertise on the subject matter) indicates that the question is valid.

I've never stated once that I believe that Dr. Stothert has unequivocally violated the HIPAA privacy rule. I simply point out that the question is valid. And, I did take a jab at you for claiming expertise on a rule you repeatedly misspelled, in the context of people talking outside their areas of expertise.

I've gleaned from your post that you're most likely a doctor and probably a surgeon. Since 2001, when I started doing HIPAA security consulting, I have YET to run across a doctor that knows much at all about HIPAA privacy or security beyond the basic compliance classes most organizations require of them. These awareness classes and courses are very rarely taught by physicians. I've never once seen a physician in so much as a two doctor practice disseminating any portion of the HIPAA privacy or security rules to his staff. That is always done by attorneys or infosec professionals with a propensity to groking and interpreting legalese such as myself. There's a reason for that. The rule's a monster. Compliance is a $%#$. And honestly, I don't want a physician that understands all of HIPAA. If he does, he's spent entirely too much time studying the wrong stuff. I'd much rather he spend all his time keeping up with the latest medical advances and reviewing the nightmarish pile of information that no doubt is required to get through medical school and residency.

But the bottom line, I think I was safe to call you out on "HIPPA." I don't think you're an expert on it. And there was some irony in your discussion of it as if you were, when talking about the validity of people's opinions outside their areas of expertise.

Surely you see the irony? If not, oh well. At this point, we've drifted pretty darned far from the OP.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Liko81:

I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years.

I can help you.

Although you came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting and defense tactics you are posting in the section for "General Gun Discussions." You're in the wrong section. You need to scroll down to the "Strategies and Tactics" section.

I apologize to you for the behavior of everyone in this forum and for gun owners everywhere in the United States. I keep telling them not to disagree, especially not with me, but they just never listen. Even the moderators disagree with me. I'll tell them not to disagree with you but I don't think they'll listen.

Fortunately even the moderators here can accept good, logical reasoning. XavierBreath, for example, has just acknowledged a recognition that Dr. Stothert misspoke and revealed more about himself than those about whom he is speaking. That's good enough for a reasonable man.

You might have hit on the only sure way to straighten out these disagreeable people. Divest yourself of your guns and become a member of The Brady Campaign. That will teach them all a lesson they won't forget.

I had considered taking back my bat and ball because they won't let me be the captain of the forum baseball team, but my mom said I would look childish.

So I have decided to hang around a few more years until I grow up. My mom says that if I listen to people I might learn something. I know she's wrong but she's the real owner of the bat and ball so I guess I have to do what she wants.

Your friend,

Robert Hairless

P.S. Be sure to write when you open your Christmas presents and let us know what you get. I want a pony and a Red Ryder BB Gun. Mom says she's afraid the pony will poke me in the eye and the BB gun will leave droppings in the house. That's moms for you. I am thinking of running away from home and joining the circus. Maybe you will see me if The Brady Campaign has a circus outing some day. I will wave to you. I hope you will wave back.

P.P.S. You know that web site, Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, that XavierBreath has mentioned? I found it a while back as I was traipsing through various boundaries and I found it pretty interesting. It has big words but I can get through them with the help of online dictionaries.

Don't forget to wave. I will miss you.