I got this from a friend via e-mail as a funny statistic:
Ha,ha, ha! I thought, but something just doesn’t jive. Is this a UL? Is the poster playing “loose” with the stats? Are the stats fake? I can’t put quite my finger on what’s wrong. Any ideas?
XicanoreX
That’s a nice example of the dark side of statisics.
To get a more complete picture you also need to include values for the number of lives saved by Doctors each year and the number of lives saved by guns each year.
You may also to check out this article from last week which suggests that the number of true preventable deaths is much lower than earlier thought.
Rather than repost, I’ll just link to a thread that discussed this very same e-mail : How valid are these statistics?
As you can see, the numbers aren’t way off base, it’s the qualitative difference, as Squink succintly put it.
Also, I seem to recall a very recent (past few days) report indicating that the estimates should be much lower now. I don’t know if it was a new study, or criticism, or what.
Number of people who are intentionally wounded, maimed, or killed by doctors every year: probably rather small. Very small. Teeeeeeeny.
Number of people who are intentionally wounded, maimed, or killed by guns every year: probably larger. Very much larger. Biiiiiig.
Of course, the originally quoted statistics were about accidental deaths caused by doctors and guns, so that’s not a valid criticism.
However, a valid one to consider is this:
Percentage of MDs doctor on a regular basis: very high
Percentage of gun-owners who use their guns on a regular basis: likely not as high.
Also, comparing doctors and guns is like comparing apples and orangotangs; the things that cause deaths in each case are totally different and happen under totally different circumstances.
one thing it does show is that the number of accidental deaths due to guns are very low. We have so many laws regulating guns and gun ownership due to the saying ‘if it saves only 1 life it’s worth it’ well by putting all the resources into trying to prevent accidental gun deaths to save that one person - you have caused many other people to die because you have taken resorces from other places.
I won’t further this down it’s obvious goal of GD, but I did think that the doctor ratio by itself was interesting. Is it in fact true that every year on average one in six doctors accidentally kills someone?
Of course I recognize several of the probable mis-steps: a) definition of “accidentally kill” could include suicides, people who would’ve died anyway, etc. b) One physician could accidentally kill multiple victims. c) The definition of “Doctor” includes many varieties of doctor, some working in higher risk areas than others. So, a standard regular physician is way lower on the killer scale.
But still, is 1 out 6 even close to true?
Bill H. asked:
Short answer: No.
The OP’s “Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.” has a, shall we say, somewhat strained relationship with reality. Whomever wrote the e-mail xicanorex received must have been thinking about the well-publicized Institute of Medicine study that was released last year. That study never said 120,000. It said that as many as 44,000-98,000 deaths per year might be caused by medical errors. Note the use of the weasel words “as many as”. Also note that the range of estimates is greater than the low end of the estimate. I’ve read the study, and IMHO, the math and statistics are somewhat slippery. What’s worse, though, is that the media always said “up to 98,000 deaths” Then you’d get some airhead reporter rounding it up to 100,000. The number of deaths each year due to medical errors kept getting higher and higher as it was passed along. At the rate some were using, doctors would be wiping out whole cities at a regular pace.
Also, panamajack said:
Right you are. A great new study was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that really underscored how overblown the hysteria is. As the authors state: “our study suggests that previous interpretations of medical error statistics are probably misleading.”
Hope this helps.
paperbackwriter wrote
OK, let’s talk about that number: 44,000 accidental deaths by 700,000 doctors means 1 in 16 doctors accidentally kill someone every year. Still sounds outrageous. Could it be so?
It says medical errors. Not doctors. That could be an error by a tech handing out the wrong med, a nurse connecting up the iv to the wrong tubing, a pharmacist mixing medicines in a patient known to be contra-indicated, or a doctor ordering a drug they’re allergic to. Or a combination of all of the above. Or it could mean failing to recognize something in time to correct it, like the early signs of a stroke, or heart attack. There are plenty of ways for things to go wrong, and plenty of people towards whom fingers can be pointed. But there’s damn little reliable data out there. In my experience, everybody can be trying their best to take care of the patient, and still things go wrong.
I’d point out guns probably kill more people intentionally than most doctors. Surely this should be included in an estimate of danger?
And as long as we’re doing a cost-benefit analysis (and if we’re not doing a cost-benefit analysis, I’ll say good day, sir), why has nobody pointed out that doctors save probably millions of lives each year. Whereas guns save, like, what, a few hundred?
[sub]Relax, UncleBeer, it’s just hyperbole. I’m sure it’s really a few thousand.[/sub]
From these statistics, we can conclude that doctors packing guns are OUTRAGEOUSLY dangerous!
(My respect for the medical profession is quite high, actually, as my own sister is a pediatrician.)
I didn’t mean to call anybody a putz, just in case I did. I think I thought would create a different smilie, and I can’t check because my work computer doesn’t show them. I shoulda gone with a simple, dignified :).
Don’t point that doctor at me! Don’t you know it might be loaded?
Minty Green-
“And as long as we’re doing a cost-benefit analysis (and if we’re not doing a cost-benefit analysis, I’ll say good day, sir), why has nobody pointed out that doctors save probably millions of lives each year. Whereas guns save, like, what, a few hundred?”
Well, statistics are sketchy and debatable, because a fair percentage of incidences go unreported, but the <i>estimates</i> range from several hundred thousand to upwards of two million crimes are prevented each year by the civillian use of a firearm.
And the vast majority of these situations do NOT involve firing the weapon- the display alone wards off or stops the incident.
So, doctors may accidentally kill a few people each year, but that’s okay because they save more people than they kill.
But guns kill a few people each year and that’s NOT okay even though they’re used to save more than they kill.
But wait, cars are involved in the deaths of more people every year than doctors and cars combined. But this is okay because they save (or at least aid) more people than they kill?
Now hold on, alcohol is involved in more accidental deaths than cars, guns and doctors combined… but this is okay exactly why, again?
I guess this bears repeating:
Nice rhetoric, Doc Nickel, but your car and alcohol examples again only count the costs of those items, rather than the costs and the benefits. It’s rather helpful to use both costs and benefits in a cost-benefit analysis. You also realize, I’m sure, that preventing a crime is rather different (and less valuable) than saving a life.
I don’t know how gun ownership comes out in a legitimate cost-benefit analysis. Neither does anybody else, since the data are sketchy and riddled with problems. But let’s at least make an honest effort to figure it out, shall we? The gun-glurge in the OP certainly does not.
And Squink, I did see your post, I just wanted to put some hypothetical numbers on the table.
This statistical factoid serves a useful purpose by doing three things:
It demonstrates (as k2dave pointed out) that the rate of accidental death by handgun is very low, and much lower than the gun-control lobby would have you believe…
It demonstrates (also pointed out by k2dave) that a great many resources are thrown at a problem that really isn’t much of a problem, and…
It demonstrates how statistics can be manipulated and misconstrued, and should influence people to use a more critical eye when reading statistics flung about by the gun-controllers…
It is intended to make you THINK.