Pregnancy and guns

[razorburn]

Before you request to see another man's credentials, it is customary to show your own. Care to share?

We are not talking about yelling at a scuba diver from a boat. We are not talking about some graduate student's physics dissertation either. We are talking about the possible permanent, irreversible damage that may be caused to a developing human being. We are talking about the human body and studies that have already been done regarding how sound outside the womb affects the fetus, not the physics of sound waves traveling between air and water. I'll list a few related studies I quickly googled up below, but any pregnant woman who has attended a fireworks display after three months gestation can tell you that the fetus reacts to the sound, thus lending credence to the theory that sound reaches the fetus.

The difference between a graduate student's findings and medical findings could be the volume of fluid in the study, the fluid being in an enclosed space versus open water, or even the skin/tissues forming a tympanic type membrane. More likely, the difference is that the graduate student was not performing studies with pregnant patients, much less publishing medical results. The medical evidence is heavy, indeed conclusive, that the fetus is affected by sound. The risks/benefits are still being studied. Meanwhile, mothers-to-be read to, and play music for their unborn children.

Just my own research, with sources to back it up. Same as what you did. But I wasn't the one claiming to be a doctor. The guy was wrong in every aspect, sound travels 5 times faster in water than air, not 20. And sound that originates in the air isn't amplified to someone in the water, it's just the opposite due to impedance. I have difficulty believing he's a physician unless he proves his credentials.

BTW, the first reference I posted relating transfer of sound across different mediums is not that of a Grad student, they're online lecture notes from a professor, a doctorate at USU.

Furthermore, if you want to question qualifications to speak on this matter due to credentials (And yours are just as questionable), we have a verified OB-GYN on THR weigh in with the same stance I did on this thread , just 2 weeks ago.
Here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2969779#post2969779

shooting while pregnant

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

to my fellow THR colleagues,
it is easy to find opinions;
wisdom is harder to come by.

i thought i learned my lesson previously. [right, Pax?]
suffice it to say that i am indeed an OB/GYN (no, really)
(my contact info is below, feel free to verify).
and a shooter--
i have other creds as well, but i doubt they make any difference...


as Juna points out


Quote:
This is something they don't really teach in medical school. Many physicians aren't familiar with the risks b/c they're completely ignorant about shooting. So unless you find an OB/GYN who's encountered the situation before, you're not likely to get a great answer.

The risks, as you mentioned, would be lead exposure and possibly noise.

i have encountered the situation of pregnant women shooting many times before.
and i must be able to assess risk to the mom & fetus; its what i do

many physicians are ignorant about guns and shooting: true.
most physicians have little interest or training in teratogenics: true
(they have little use for the information;
except OB/GYNs who must asses risks for moms -teratogenic or otherwise-).
many physicians 'err on the side of caution' and recommend against
possibly situations of which they have little knowledge or understanding:
true, and correctly so.

ionized lead in large quantities is teratogenic, especially if ingested.
shooters ALREADY have lead in their systems; stable & unionized, mostly bound to bone.
lead is not cleared if a prenant woman stop shooting for, say, 9 months.
with normal precautions (hand washing, etc) the incremental increase in
exposure to lead from shooting and the resultant risk is infinitesimal.
(so pregnant moms can shoot from the lead risk perspective.
however, prenant moms can also certainly shoot 'green' lead free ammo
and forgo ANY risk and contraversy in that regard)

though sound is well transmitted through water or air,
it is not amplified in water but dissapates just like in air.
sound, however is VERY POORLY transmitted across interfaces of differing materials.
hence, the sound recieved by the fetus is not at a level near that
of the shooter. (i have used the swimming pool analogy which TommyGun cites many times.
i usually use a hot tub with the jets on...bear in mind, too, that the uterine environment is not silent.)

further there are many exponentially louder environments wherein
pregnant women are exposed to prolonged high sound pressure levels
(stamping plants, baggage/cargo loading on airport tarmac)
so since women can work in the factory or on the tarmac with only
ear protection for themselves and no prohibition from OHSA or
other safety authorities, it is safe for women to shoot from the noise perspective.

The thread in which I previously posted on this topic at length is:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...t=72938&page=2

I would be happy to e-corresond or speak to you by phone to address any of your fears and concerns.

Sincerely,

doc

[email protected]

Peter L. Stevenson, MD FACOG
Assoc Clinical Professor
Wayne State University
School of Medicine
Detroit, Michigan

313.278.3900 (office)

"Always willing to assist in the defense of the righteous against the loud."
Jim Simmons, Esq

[email protected]

Peter L. Stevenson, MD FACOG
Assoc Clinical Professor
Wayne State University
School of Medicine
Detroit, Michigan

313.278.3900 (office)

If you would like to give him a tongue lashing and question his credentials as well, feel free to give him a call.

 

[hso]

Carry a weapon cleaned, even for lead, by your spouse or your dad.

Don't go to the range until after the baby is born.

BTW, for those of you that don't know, I'm an industrial hyginest working for a large consulting firm and I work with indoor firing ranges to limit their indoor lead exposure hazards for employees and customers.

 

[telomerase]

The guy was wrong in every aspect, sound travels 5 times faster in water than air, not 20. And sound that originates in the air isn't amplified to someone in the water, it's just the opposite due to impedance.

Yep.

I have difficulty believing he's a physician unless he proves his credentials.

Razorburn, I have worked with a lot of physicians in the lab. Two of them could do simple chemistry and could at least look up physics when they needed it. (I would imagine most physicians on THR are in this category.) The rest were just plain dangerous in the lab... to expect a physician to be able to do high school physics is simply not realistic.

Most physicians are really knowledgeable about golf, wine, skiing... the things anyone would focus on after completely burning out on 120-hour weeks as an intern.

 

[XavierBreath]

Razorburn,
I linked some studies for you, which you have apparently not looked at, to support what I posted. I'll cut and paste a bit of one here for you.

Whether or not a fetus can taste, there's little question that it can hear. A very premature baby entering the world at 24 or 25 weeks responds to the sounds around it, observes Als, so its auditory apparatus must already have been functioning in the womb. Many pregnant women report a fetal jerk or sudden kick just after a door slams or a car backfires.

Even without such intrusions, the womb is not a silent place. Researchers who have inserted a hydrophone into the uterus of a pregnant woman have picked up a noise level "akin to the background noise in an apartment," according to DiPietro. Sounds include the whooshing of blood in the mother's vessels, the gurgling and rumbling of her stomach and intestines, as well as the tones of her voice filtered through tissues, bones, and fluid, and the voices of other people coming through the amniotic wall. Fifer has found that fetal heart rate slows when the mother is speaking, suggesting that the fetus not only hears and recognizes the sound, but is calmed by it.

Dr. Stevenson states:

the sound recieved by the fetus is not at a level near that
of the shooter.

This is true.

He states further:

so since women can work in the factory or on the tarmac with only
ear protection for themselves and no prohibition from OHSA or
other safety authorities, it is safe for women to shoot from the noise perspective.

The lack of an OSHA prohibition is not an indicator of safety, nor a fair assessment of risk.

Abundant research shows that the fetus reacts to sound. It is not my belief that Dr. Stevenson is saying that is not the case, only that gun shots are not as sharp to the fetus. That does not mean that the fetal heart rate does not rise in response, nor does it mean there is no harm. Can we find studies that show that there is no harm? Not opinion, but studies? The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with Dr. Stevenson's opinion. Here is a link to their study. I have posted exerpts below. Because The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with Dr. Stevenson's opinion, I respectfully disagree with him as well. If you cannot find the time to read the entire document, at least consider recommendation #5 and #6 at the end.

FWIW I am a registered nurse, not a physician. I hold a license to practice in the state of Louisiana, and have since 1992. You can verify that with other moderators of this forum who know me.
Does that qualify me to conclusively state what a fetus can hear? No.
Does a MD qualify a man to conclusively state what a fetus can hear? No.
Does research qualify The American Academy of Pediatrics to theorize what a fetus can hear? Yes.
Does research qualify The American Academy of Pediatrics to asess risks? Yes.
Does research qualify The American Academy of Pediatrics to make recommendations? Yes.
Is it your choice to follow/believe/tune out/dispute those findings and recommendations? Yes.

Before you make recommendations that may harm a person for life though, take advantage of all available research. If the decision is uncertain, err on the side of caution. I'm waiting to see research on fetal development that disputes these findings.

Potential Fetal Effects

In one study,12 children with high-frequency hearing loss tested at 4 to 10 years of age were more likely to have been born to women who were exposed consistently to occupational noise in the range of 85 to 95 dB during pregnancy. However, one of the several weaknesses in this study was retrospective noise evaluations. Studies using animals have demonstrated an increased sensitivity of the developing cochlea to noise-induced damage,13,14 but this effect has not been confirmed in humans.

A Chinese study found that self-reported exposure to noise during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with the congenital anomalies listed in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) classifications of chromosomal anomalies and other categories (ICD-9 758 and 759) (ratio of observed to expected, 2.3; P < .05).15 A slight increase in reports on birth certificates of observable birth defects (excluding polydactyly) was noted in one study of black women exposed to airport noise (dB >90; P < .02),16 but no such risk was found in a more well-designed second study.17 In addition, no increased risk of malformation was found in offspring of women occupationally exposed to 80 dB during an 8-hour shift.18 Teratogenic effects have been described in animals prenatally exposed to noise.19,20 Rhesus monkeys that had been exposed to noise in utero had persistently higher levels of cortisol and corticotropin than did unexposed animals,21 as well as more abnormal social behavior.22 In rats, prenatal noise exposure also increased serum corticosterone levels and produced abnormal behavior.23 In humans, maternal placental lactogen was significantly lower after 36 weeks of gestation in women subjected to airport noise than women living in quiet areas.24 In other studies, no consistent hormonal or blood flow changes were found in experimentally exposed humans.25,26

An increased risk of shortened gestation has been shown in four studies. Women exposed to 80 dB for an 8-hour shift were at increased risk of preterm delivery (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 2.9).27 In a study involving 22 761 live births, women with self-reported noise exposure in health care jobs had a slight increase in risk of preterm delivery (ratio of observed to expected, 1.5; P < .05).28 Results in a third study showed the length of gestation in female infants to be inversely correlated to maternal residential noise exposure from an airport (r = 0.49; P = .0008).29 In a case-control study of premature births among US nurses, self-reported loud, constant noise was significantly associated with gestations of <37 weeks (P < .005).30 Four other studies have examined this issue; results of two studies showed no increase in preterm birth between noise-exposed and unexposed women. Two other studies were inconclusive.15,31-33

Decreased birth weight has also been associated with noise exposure. In a retrospective Danish study, the birth weights of infants born in the hospital to women aged 20 to 34 years were significantly less (69 g, P = .03) if the mother resided in an area where the DNL of aircraft noise exceeded 60 to 65 dB.34 Socioeconomic status was controlled by assessing health insurance, and smoking status was not determined. After adjusting for family income and infant gender, the proportion of birth weights <3000 g was significantly higher in the high noise group (23.8% vs 18.1%, P = .02). In a separate study, no effect of air traffic noise on birth weight was found29 when noise was analyzed as a continuous variable. When categorical analysis was used, however, birth weights of female infants in the high noise group (>99 dBA) were significantly less than those in the combined low and moderate noise exposure group.35 Increases in the relative rates of newborns with a birth weight of <3000 g was associated with increasing maternal noise exposure from increases in the number of jets using a nearby airport.36 In addition, a prospective study of 200 women showed no association of noise >85 dBALeq24 (personal equivalent 24-hour noise exposure) and decreased birth weight.37 This study also found no association between smoking and birth weight. Reduced fetal weights have been observed in some studies using animals,19,38 but not in others.39 In summary, there have been few well-controlled randomized studies investigating the relationship between noise and fetal hearing loss, prematurity and decreased birth weight. However, several of these studies suggest that noise may be associated with these outcomes. It is possible that noise could be a marker for other risk factors.

Recommendations:

1. Pediatricians should encourage research to determine health effects of noise exposure on pregnant women and their fetuses and infants.

2. Pediatricians are encouraged to consider screening for noise-induced hearing loss those infants who were exposed to excessive noise in the uterus or as a newborn. Occupational sources of such noise include jobs in which women are required to wear protective hearing devices. Environmental sources of such noise include rock concerts, boom boxes in cars, and airport jet traffic.

3. Pediatricians are encouraged to monitor sound in the NICU, and within incubators. A noise level >45 dB is of concern. Ideally, as proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, a noise level exceeding 45 dB is best avoided. NICU personnel should devise simple strategies to reduce noise in the nursery (no tapping or writing on the tops of incubators and hoods, careful closing of incubator doors, soft shoes). If such simple, inexpensive strategies fail to reduce monitored noise levels, more technical strategies need to be considered (incubator covers, use of less noisy equipment). When purchasing new equipment or renovating facilities, sound control should be considered.

4. Pediatricians should encourage manufacturers to reduce noise from medical equipment.

5. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health should consider further research on noise exposure during pregnancy.

6.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should consider pregnancy in setting their occupational noise standards.

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 1996 TO 1997
Ruth A. Etzel, MD, PhD, Chairperson
Sophie J. Balk, MD
Cynthia F. Bearer, MD, PhD
Mark D. Miller, MD
Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPH
Peter R. Simon, MD, MPH

LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES
Henry Falk, MD
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Robert W. Miller, MD
National Cancer Institute
Walter Rogan, MD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

CONSULTANTS
Jim G. Hendrick, MD
Lawrence Schell, PhD

Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn
PEDIATRICS Vol. 100 No. 4 October 1997, pp. 724-727

 

[razorburn]

Razorburn, I have worked with a lot of physicians in the lab. Two of them could do simple chemistry and could at least look up physics when they needed it. (I would imagine most physicians on THR are in this category.) The rest were just plain dangerous in the lab... to expect a physician to be able to do high school physics is simply not realistic.

Telomerase, I'm confused by what you're trying to say. What does a physician have to do with physics? Perhaps you're thinking of a physicist?

FWIW I am a registered nurse, not a physician. I hold a license to practice in the state of Louisiana, and have since 1992. You can verify that with other moderators of this forum who know me.

You know that first post, where I asked for credentials for the so called physician, I wasn't talking to you, right? I was referring another member with a post count of 4 who claimed to be a physician, and then tried to use that to back his assertion that sound travels 20 times faster in water than air and the sound would be greatly amplified to the baby, far louder that it was to the mother. All of which are dead wrong.

Dr. Stevenson states:

Quote:
the sound recieved by the fetus is not at a level near that
of the shooter.

This is true.

Then what are you arguing with me for? This is the only assertion I made. The sound which originates in the air is not amplified due to someone being submerged under liquid. It's actually vastly reduced. And you're in agreement with that.


____________________________________________

But if you want to, we can further analyze the quotes you took. I will not speak for Dr. Stevenson, but they actually strengthen his position. I also will not go so far as to reccomend for shooting or any activity at all which has any bearing whatsoever on a fetus's health, as I'm just a humble student and don't want the weight on my shoulders. However, we can analyze your quotes for discussion's sake.


The 1st paragraph of the 1st quote:

Whether or not a fetus can taste, there's little question that it can hear. A very premature baby entering the world at 24 or 25 weeks responds to the sounds around it, observes Als, so its auditory apparatus must already have been functioning in the womb. Many pregnant women report a fetal jerk or sudden kick just after a door slams or a car backfires.

All it asserts in the 1st paragraph is that auditory apparatus are functional. That it can hear. It says nothing about the effect of outside sounds affecting the fetus.

The 2nd paragraph of the 1st quote:

Even without such intrusions, the womb is not a silent place. Researchers who have inserted a hydrophone into the uterus of a pregnant woman have picked up a noise level "akin to the background noise in an apartment," according to DiPietro. Sounds include the whooshing of blood in the mother's vessels, the gurgling and rumbling of her stomach and intestines, as well as the tones of her voice filtered through tissues, bones, and fluid, and the voices of other people coming through the amniotic wall. Fifer has found that fetal heart rate slows when the mother is speaking, suggesting that the fetus not only hears and recognizes the sound, but is calmed by it.

The mother's voice, blood flow, rumbling of her stomach, are all noises that originate from within her body and don't need to overcome the same impedance an outside source would, and so therefore would not relate to our discussion. The voice of other people offers some support for your position, but it's not stated how loud or significant of presence that was for the infant. It's likely it was extremely low and well below the 45 decibel threshold where a physician is encouraged to express concern.


The second quote:

In one study,12 children with high-frequency hearing loss tested at 4 to 10 years of age were more likely to have been born to women who were exposed consistently to occupational noise in the range of 85 to 95 dB during pregnancy. However, one of the several weaknesses in this study was retrospective noise evaluations. Studies using animals have demonstrated an increased sensitivity of the developing cochlea to noise-induced damage,13,14 but this effect has not been confirmed in humans.

Right in the 1st paragraph, if you keep reading, they throw into question the validity of the one study by stating that one of several weaknesses in the study was the method of noise evaluations. The last sentence states that increased sensitivity of developing ears have not been confirmed in humans. This means that perhaps even the 45 decibel threshold mentioned later is incorrect, and like adults, their hearing may not be damaged by sounds up to 90 or so decibels?

The second paragraph of the that quote also contains this statement:

A slight increase in reports on birth certificates of observable birth defects (excluding polydactyly) was noted in one study of black women exposed to airport noise (dB >90; P < .02),16 but no such risk was found in a more well-designed second study.17 In addition, no increased risk of malformation was found in offspring of women occupationally exposed to 80 dB during an 8-hour shift.

The 2nd, better designed study shows no effect of 90+ decibel noise on a fetus. In addition, another study also shows no increased risk for women who are exposed to 80 db levels of noise for even lengthy periods of time, 8 hour shifts. The quotes you chose may offer more support for Dr. Stevensons position than yours.

The remaining quotes don't deal with hearing damage induced by noise originating outside the body, which is your assertion. They mention possible risk of premature births and such. However, look at the last few sentences of the quote, and you'll see that even that is still questionable.

In summary, there have been few well-controlled randomized studies investigating the relationship between noise and fetal hearing loss, prematurity and decreased birth weight. However, several of these studies suggest that noise may be associated with these outcomes. It is possible that noise could be a marker for other risk factors.

I don't wish to speak on Dr. Stevensons behalf, so perhaps we can get Doc to participate in the thread.

 

[XavierBreath]

Razorbrun,
I politely asked you to supply your own credentials if you were going to call another man's credentials into question. you have not yet done this. Please do it now.

Again, read and consider the last two recommendations based on research.
To wit:

5. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health should consider further research on noise exposure during pregnancy.

6.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should consider pregnancy in setting their occupational noise standards.

Now, I will put it this way. You are giving medical advice without a license. You had better have medical research to back you up.

Because you are giving medical advice that stands in direct contradiction to medical research, I ask you........Are you a medical doctor?

I encourage you strongly to peruse the link that I provided, and not simply pick and choose bits to support your failed argument. I advise any woman who is confused as a result of this thread to read The American academy of Pediactrics Study, Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn and make her own decision for the health of her baby.

 

[jad0110]

Gus Dddysgrl,

Congratulations on your expected little one!

Trust me, it will change your life more than you can imagine ... most of it good of course! My wife gave birth to a happy, 9 lb 8 oz boy in early Nov.

We studied this issue when she became pregnant and this thread is a microcosm of the kind of information we encountered. Suffice to say when in doubt, do as XavierBreath said below:

Before you make recommendations that may harm a person for life though, take advantage of all available research. If the decision is uncertain, err on the side of caution.

- emphasis added

This is exactly the approach we took. We just didn't want to chance it and make a decision that we would sorely regret for the rest of our lives. I do wish my wife could have carried. She was a target, as she really had a tough time getting around in her 3rd trimester. She is 5' tall and gave birth to a pretty big boy, so you can guess how she was feeling. She had to ride around on a motorized scooter at Wallie World, Target, etc starting in her 5th month because she would experience light-headedness, back pain, nausea, etc. So she was definitly wearing a bullseye for scumbags. However, she did not have her CCW when she found out she was pregnant, so it was too late for us to enroll her in a class. We discussed arming her anyway, but decided against it.

As others have suggested, you may find it necessary to carry your primary in a handbag or something similar. Because of the risks of it not always being under your direct control all the time, I'd also suggest a very compact BUG than you can easily conceal on you.

Something like the following (photos taken from the North American Arms webpage:

Really really small and impossible to NOT conceal successfully



or something a bit larger and more potent:

 

[Lonestar]

Asking for legal or medical advice on an internet forum is a little silly. You should always check with your Doctor when your heath or your baby's heath is at issue. Also while most people throw around their un-certified legal opinion regarding 2A issues since this site is dedicated to RKBA, this site was not created to give medical advice for expecting mothers. I wonder what the liability issues could come up by the posters of this thread and the owners / operators of THR if some, so called, medical advice taken from this thread causes harm to this child?

Time to talk to the lawyer guys.

 

[distra]

Time to talk to the lawyer guys.

Not really. The only ones liable would be the MD's (no offense to the RN's). The rest of us are not bound by medical oathes. My doctorate says nothing about "Do no harm". That doesn't mean I would post risky things, but ultimately if I tell someone to jump and they do, it's their decision. Over the internet, I'm in no place of "power" over anyone. MD's on the other hand would be held to a higher standard, but that's why they have malpractice insurance.

 

[XavierBreath]

The only ones liable would be the MD's (no offense to the RN's).

Actually state boards of nursing can and do hold nurses responsible for the advice they give. The consequences can also result in criminal and civil proceedings. Nurses also carry malpractice insurance.

 

[pax]

Xav ~

He did so; post #26.

pax

 

[razorburn]

Razorbrun,
I politely asked you to supply your own credentials if you were going to call another man's credentials into question. you have not yet done this. Please do it now.

As pax pointed out, I already did. You accused me of not checking out your references, but it's clear you're skipping over posts altogether...

Again, read and consider the last two recommendations based on research.
To wit:

Quote:
5. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health should consider further research on noise exposure during pregnancy.

6.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should consider pregnancy in setting their occupational noise standards.

Again, I don't know if you're going to be bothered to read other people's responses, but I'll try. Those quotes reccomend further research on noise exposure. From the material you posted yourself as a reference, which I analyzed in the last post, it indicates that regular, prolonged exposure to 80 and 90 noise originating outside the womb does not have any impact on future hearing function of a fetus. The material specifically stated that

Now, I will put it this way. You are giving medical advice without a license. You had better have medical research to back you up.

Because you are giving medical advice that stands in direct contradiction to medical research, I ask you........Are you a medical doctor?

Then you're wrong. Did you read my last post at all? I'm not giving medical advice. And I'm pointing out that the research you cited support Dr. Stevensons position better than yours. You sure love to press on that credential button as a be-all-end-all decider of the final word. I've sent a PM to Doc. If he offers his position, I expect you'll bow out entirely, as his credentials far supercedes your own?

I encourage you strongly to peruse the link that I provided, and not simply pick and choose bits to support your failed argument.

You have not even been able to find any bits at all to support your argument. None that aren't negated immediately in the next sentence. In fact, your material specifically states that any increased sensitivity of developing cochlea in a fetus is unconfirmed in humans, and mentions many studies where outside noise is shown to have zero effect on the developing fetus and only a few where noise does. (This is the summary of the material at the end, not a tangent part) And when it does, it points out flaws in those studies or that a better designed study again shows no impact from noise.
You're the one picking and choosing what you want to read. Including other people's posts. I did look through the material you presented, and either you are not comprehending it, or you're seeing something different than I. Look through it again. Far from offering strong support for your position, it indicates that there are more studies where noise was shown to have no recognizable effect on fetus's hearing loss, among other things. They state that the impact of noise is questionable but with something as valuable as someone's potential child, the impact merits further research.

 

[Lonestar]

Time to talk to the lawyer guys.

Not really. The only ones liable would be the MD's (no offense to the RN's). The rest of us are not bound by medical oathes. My doctorate says nothing about "Do no harm". That doesn't mean I would post risky things, but ultimately if I tell someone to jump and they do, it's their decision. Over the internet, I'm in no place of "power" over anyone. MD's on the other hand would be held to a higher standard, but that's why they have malpractice insurance.

Is posting medical advice on a gun forum praticing medicine without a license? Can a slimy lawyer run with it, and pull everyone into litigation? The reason why I ask is most other forums I'm on (Guns, survival, golf, cars, etc) close threads involving medical advice by non professionals because the mods are afraid of lawsuits.

 

[GEM]

My take - let's not interfer with Darwin.

If someone decides to put their kid at risk, it increaes the survival and success chances for yours. If one reads a great deal of professional debates in the literature, as I do, and seen doctors change their views and data be found to be suspect - I'm going to the side of caution.

 

[Geno]

Education as a weapon?

Wow I hate it when people offer up education and credentials as a weapon. I equally hate when people are forced into having to offer up their education. That's not right.

Don't make it personal. Attack the idea, not the person. Besides, one does not need a Ph.D. to read and understand research. The personal attacks detract from the argument at hand. Just my two cents.

Doc2005

 

[distra]

...one does not need a Ph.D. to read and understand research.

Hey! Let's not single out the Ph.D.'s Just kidding. I'm interested in hearing what the original poster thinks of the debate and what she has decided to do...ddysgrl, you still here?

 

[Geno]

Agreed. This is a great topic!

Agreed. This is a great topic!

Doc2005

 

[XavierBreath]

Gents, I was not the first here to ask for credentials. I refer you to post #16.

I don't mean to offend by this, but where did you get your doctorate from and can your credentials be confirmed? I understand you might not be OB-Gyn or your work doesn't have to do with things like this.

Razorburn, you are free to give give whatever advice you would like. I simply wish you would use medical research to support your assertations, since we are discussing a medical matter.

I look forward to hearing what Dr. Stevenson has to say. I have no intention of bowing out. I am not swayed by credentials. I simply ask people who request credentials to present their own in return. I will, however, bow out of the discussion with you. It has become to heated, and little is being gained. Agreed?

 

[Geno]

Bingo!!!

XavierBreath:

Bingo

"...use medical research to support your assertions..."

and that's what I mean to say. We can all search the medical data. While I have a doctoral degree it isn't needed. ANYONE can pull medical research and interpret it. If we are to take up a position, we should use the data. That keeps it professional, not personal. I do think asking one's creds is fine, just not sarcastic...I have never found you to be sarcastic. To the contrary, always professional!

Doc2005

 

[razorburn]

Gents, I was not the first here to ask for credentials. I refer you to post #16.
Quote:
I don't mean to offend by this, but where did you get your doctorate from and can your credentials be confirmed? I understand you might not be OB-Gyn or your work doesn't have to do with things like this.

Razorburn, you are free to give give whatever advice you would like. I simply wish you would use medical research to support your assertations, since we are discussing a medical matter

.

Yes, I phrased it politely to a member who had almost no history here, with post count of 4, and who declared that the sound of a gunshot is greatly amplified to the fetus, because sound travels 20 times faster in water than air. Those declarations are both completely wrong, and you agreed with that. Is this not valid cause to raise suspicion for a man claiming to be a MD, and using that credential as pretense for backing for his statements? I asked as politely as I could phrase it, as another MD here was happy to present them without being asked.

And lastly, I will again repeat that I did not offer medical advice. See post #26. My only assertion before you called me out was that the sound originating from outside the body is not amplified to a fetus because it is surrounded by liquid, and that it's actually greatly reduced. This is true, and both Dr. Stevenson, yourself, and every other source presented agrees with this.

And as stated in post #26, the rest below the stripe was simply an analysis of your cited material, specifically because I don't wish to offer medical advice as a pre-med student of only junior standing. I showed you how the material you cited gave more support for Dr. Stevenson's position than your own as a point of discussion. This was the first thing I stated before going into the analysis. I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it. I do apologize for tone of discussion getting more heated. Subtler things like tone seems to find it's way out and is harder to watch.

For the rest, our Doc has indicated to me that he may be inclined to weigh in here if we remain respectful. He has had his words twisted and maligned, and animosity directed towards him here by less mature posters which raises some reluctance on his part. He is an OB/GYN, an asst professor at a univeristy, as well as an experienced shooter, among other credentials, which allows him to offer a very unique insight on this matter as someone who has a high level of understanding of both sides of the issue. I would hope that my fellow forumites would remain respectful if he joins us to make this thread a quality reference point for others to come.

 

[XavierBreath]

Razor,
I hope you will accept my apology as I accept your's. I did, indeed, read your posts. I am reluctant to cut and paste other people's postings in my responses because it tends to anger the person being quoted. That does not mean I did not read the posts you wrote.

Hopefully, Dr. Stevenson will respond. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, questioning him, and perhaps developing a better understanding myself. From his prior posts that you cited, I have questions. I did not raise them all because he was not posting here himself.

This is an important topic, especially now that we have women in law enforcement, and our military. It should not be ignored.

 

[txmommy]

Safe to Shoot?

Hello
I am about 6 weeks pregnant and I need to renew my handgun license. It expires in a few weeks. I am concerned about the safety of the baby during the shooting portion of the handgun class. I have to shoot 50 rounds for the shooting test and I planned on going to an outdoor range. However, I do not want to do anything that will cause harm to the baby. But, I would like to be able to defend myself legally if I have to!! I am contemplating waiting till the little one is born to renew my license, but I am not sure. In Texas if you don't have a CHL and you are stopped for a traffic violation and you are carrying without a permit it is a felony, unless you are "traveling" - which is yet to be defined by the Texas Legislature.

Anyone have any thoughts? I asked my Dr. about it today and she said that it was up to me. She was in the army, so she didn't think it was that big of a deal as long as I am not shooting large bore rifles and such. She did say that there are no studies or research about it either.

Any info would be great.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

txmommy,

Greetings and welcome aboard

First let me say that I am not a doctor or a lawyer.

That said, I do recommend that you contact the department that oversees your CHL and ask them if you can obtain an extension or waiver due to your circumstances. If you need to, you could point out to them some of the more condemning findings as your support.

I would err on the side of caution and only fire (unsuppressed) in a life or death scenario.

As great as science and doctors are, they are not omniscient.


Best regards,
oo7

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Your baby is most vulnerable during the first trimester, that is when it goes from a mass of cells to a baby with organs. While those cells are dividing, and lots of DNA is being cast about, the DNA is most vulnerable. Damage the DNA with a poison like lead, and you get mutations that cause the usual lead attributed problems.

So shooting through the first trimester should be ok if you wear a particulate respirator/tight mask and gloves. This would avoid inhaled lead, and lead absorbed through the skin.

Then, your baby will start to hear in the second trimester, and I can't think of any way to put muffs on a fetus.

Tough call, it really comes down to how much risk you think is acceptable for your baby in utero. Personally, I'd allow my wife to shoot for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy as long as she's wearing a tight fitting particulate mask and gloves. After that, I'd say no.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

The girlfriend just mentioned lead free bullets/cartridges, and shooting outside. That would be an ok alternative if its just once or twice.