LiveLife
Member
This has some potentially very negative outcomes - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/mental-health-gun-control
New NY gun laws may increase shootings
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
Twiki357
Member
I agree with that concern. And I think it would violate HIPPA. But, regardless of that, the one that need the help are the least likely to even admit that they need help.
And then there's the problem of the national prescription and medical record data base. I dread how much damage the use of that can do to people who are absolutely zero risk.
And then there's the problem of the national prescription and medical record data base. I dread how much damage the use of that can do to people who are absolutely zero risk.
easyg
Member
Since criminals don't obey laws, such stupid capacity bans only effect law abiding citizens.
Again, the elected officials of NY disarm the good guys.
Again, the elected officials of NY disarm the good guys.
While watching the discussion from the other side of the world... I had to laugh when one of the senators mentioned something along those lines...
Criminals have 60 days for new laws to effect them. Yet law abiding citizens will be criminals by the time they wake up.
I dont know how any NYer can sit by and allow any law to pass like this one did without a fight. Regardless of their thoughts on guns, 2a, etc, what their elected officials did should be criminal. (closed door rush to pass law without proper vetting, etc.)
HK G3
Member
As a psychiatrist (in training), this law is just infuriating. As a gun-owner, it's simply repugnant.
As far as the medico-legal aspects, we're currently obligated by Tarasoff to inform the police if a patient makes a threat against a specific individual. It's odd because if a psychotic patient makes threats against the POTUS, we actually do have to inform the SS, and I have seen SS agents step onto the unit a few times to interview a floridly psychotic individual - those interviews tended to be very brief...
At any rate, this kind of law would make me very uncomfortable, because, as Dr. Appelbaum pointed out, all this sort of thing will do is increase the stigma of mental illness, and result in more people eschewing real, efficacious psychiatric treatment, instead opting to self-medicate with alcohol or drugs; which is what we know to be most most clearly associated with violence.
As far as the medico-legal aspects, we're currently obligated by Tarasoff to inform the police if a patient makes a threat against a specific individual. It's odd because if a psychotic patient makes threats against the POTUS, we actually do have to inform the SS, and I have seen SS agents step onto the unit a few times to interview a floridly psychotic individual - those interviews tended to be very brief...
At any rate, this kind of law would make me very uncomfortable, because, as Dr. Appelbaum pointed out, all this sort of thing will do is increase the stigma of mental illness, and result in more people eschewing real, efficacious psychiatric treatment, instead opting to self-medicate with alcohol or drugs; which is what we know to be most most clearly associated with violence.
HIPAA=Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
One P, Two A's.
As HK G3 pointed out, most health care professionals are actually required to inform authorities if threats are made against a specific individual.
Also, I agree with those who say that we need to remove the stigma of mental health care in order to make it more effective. If people believe they're going to lose their basic rights and a great deal of respect by seeking treatment, that's a significant detractor from their motivation to get the help they need.
One P, Two A's.
As HK G3 pointed out, most health care professionals are actually required to inform authorities if threats are made against a specific individual.
Also, I agree with those who say that we need to remove the stigma of mental health care in order to make it more effective. If people believe they're going to lose their basic rights and a great deal of respect by seeking treatment, that's a significant detractor from their motivation to get the help they need.
BDS, that's what the situation is in the UK also. Those who apply for firearms certificates must provide the police with details of their GP. This applies to renewals also, as these certificates only last 5 years.
So when a guy applies, the police tell the GP that this person has access or intends to have access to firearms, and they leave it to the GP to report any unmanaged conditions that may make it unsuitable for the person to have firearms. Not just mental health issues but things like uncontrolled diabetes also.
I had a long conversation with a firearms officer about this, and the reason is that the police as an entity don't want to shoulder the blame for granting access to firearms by an individual who subsequently abuses them because of a medical condition. They are shifting the perceived onus onto the healthcare worker. If the GP reports his patient to the police and the firearms are confiscated, they can only be returned if the condition is subsequently managed and there is evidence of it (treatment, medication, whatever).
The firearms officer described two cases to me where this had happened. One guy had a mental condition which was treated for almost two years before he could get his guns back. Another one had uncontrolled diabetes and had his guns taken away for a few months while it was brought under control. I don't know how many people lost their firearms for good (which leads to a whole different discussion about what conditions make it absolutely inappropriate for a person to have a firearm, presumably because that condition can't be treated).
I agree with Appelbaum that this will make a person reluctant to discuss any kind of issues (such as depression) with their GP, because of fears that their firearms will be taken.
I don't know how else it can be done. Perhaps the only value of this is when a person already has a documented history of one of these conditions. But what about new occurrences?
It would be interesting to find out how many firearms owners in the UK have sought consultation with their GP because of a medical condition which they knew would have to be treated or they get their firearms confiscated.
If the person doesn't submit himself to the healthcare worker for evaluation, then who does it? That is an even bigger cause for concern because then you have a situation where family, co-workers or fellow club members can report a person for exhibiting symptoms of a worrying medical condition in circumstances where they don't have the credentials to make that diagnosis in the eyes of the law.
Yet if that person is not reported and they subsequently do use those firearms to kill people, there is an uproar about why that person had access to guns.
So when a guy applies, the police tell the GP that this person has access or intends to have access to firearms, and they leave it to the GP to report any unmanaged conditions that may make it unsuitable for the person to have firearms. Not just mental health issues but things like uncontrolled diabetes also.
I had a long conversation with a firearms officer about this, and the reason is that the police as an entity don't want to shoulder the blame for granting access to firearms by an individual who subsequently abuses them because of a medical condition. They are shifting the perceived onus onto the healthcare worker. If the GP reports his patient to the police and the firearms are confiscated, they can only be returned if the condition is subsequently managed and there is evidence of it (treatment, medication, whatever).
The firearms officer described two cases to me where this had happened. One guy had a mental condition which was treated for almost two years before he could get his guns back. Another one had uncontrolled diabetes and had his guns taken away for a few months while it was brought under control. I don't know how many people lost their firearms for good (which leads to a whole different discussion about what conditions make it absolutely inappropriate for a person to have a firearm, presumably because that condition can't be treated).
I agree with Appelbaum that this will make a person reluctant to discuss any kind of issues (such as depression) with their GP, because of fears that their firearms will be taken.
I don't know how else it can be done. Perhaps the only value of this is when a person already has a documented history of one of these conditions. But what about new occurrences?
It would be interesting to find out how many firearms owners in the UK have sought consultation with their GP because of a medical condition which they knew would have to be treated or they get their firearms confiscated.
If the person doesn't submit himself to the healthcare worker for evaluation, then who does it? That is an even bigger cause for concern because then you have a situation where family, co-workers or fellow club members can report a person for exhibiting symptoms of a worrying medical condition in circumstances where they don't have the credentials to make that diagnosis in the eyes of the law.
Yet if that person is not reported and they subsequently do use those firearms to kill people, there is an uproar about why that person had access to guns.
MedWheeler
Member
We already have a similar issue in Florida. It concerns elderly drivers and their healthcare providers. Many attempts have been made to require drivers over a specific age to have their physicians declare them fit to drive, or at least to certify that they have no underlying medical conditions that would preclude them from being considered as safe to drive. Medical confidentiality laws, such as HIPAA, are what typically stand in the way. Also, few physicians want to take on the task of telling their patients (in effect, alienating a paying customer) that they need to consider re-evaluating their driving abilities.
It's very common here for elderly drivers to be reluctant to discuss new or gradual onset of cognizance-difficulties with their doctors because of this very issue.
If you think the NRA is powerfull politically, try the AARP.
It's very common here for elderly drivers to be reluctant to discuss new or gradual onset of cognizance-difficulties with their doctors because of this very issue.
If you think the NRA is powerfull politically, try the AARP.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Good point. Recent home owners defending lives with guns thread shows a lot of the home owners involved in the shootings were 55+ as they are often targeted by the criminals. When multiple intruders break into the house, home owners need more bullets in their guns not less.MedWheeler said:
As the above article points out, the new NY gun law won't improve the current situation but actually make it worse.
Law makers in NY did not address the root cause but further deteriorated the mental health concerns and further decreased the protection for law abiding citizens.
Last edited:
Queen_of_Thunder
member
If there is no respect for the Bill of Rights what makes anyone think that anyone will pay attention to HIPAA.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
