I don’t have any medical training. Would you have any problem with me opening a medical practice and running it as I see fit?
Probably, but then again you are not a doctor and so I have a neat sidestep from your strawman.
No strawman. The point is if I can’t give professional medical advice without certification, a doctor shouldn’t be allowed to dispense professional gun safety advise without certification.
As soon as you show a cite for a professional organization that certifies gun-safety professionals, that argument will make a shred of sense where currently it makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.
Yeah, because “keep the guns away from the kiddies” is something only one with years of training could advise.
No, it means the writers of that policy statement did not know what the term does and does not mean. Ignorance of one thing does not necessarily mean an intent to be misleading or to cook the pot. Mind you I can’t say that the writers of the statement did not have a political POV that biased their perspective, and I would not be surprised if they did. But misuse of a phrase that few who are not gun users really understand (and after all these threads all that I understand is that as used it is a pretty meaningless phrase and have no better understanding of how one would phrase something to mean what I think they intended to mean, not just weapons that look scary to those of us too ignorant to know better) does not prove it.
Why would I not be surprised? Well policy guidelines are made by Committees and people both volunteer and are recruited for these Committees. The AAP Committee on Accident and Poison Prevention, which is responsible for the (despite Una’s cawing of “current”, now officially expired) eleven year old guideline tends to attract those with a certain slant to their POV, IMHO. The process of creating guidelines that are actually completely evidence based and clearly identifying what stands up to the highest levels of evidence, what has less solid evidence, and what is just consensus opinion, has been a work in progress over the last eleven years and many guidelines get published that still do not meet, well, the standards that the guidelines for guidelines set. They have, overall, become more clear as to what is and is not supported by what quality of evidence, but some are still better at it than others.
But again, mere ignorance of how silly that term sounds to those who know guns does not a political agenda prove. It only proves that they did not know guns very well and that those who do were unwilling or uninvited to be part of the process (and I can’t say I know which or not both).
PlainJane honestly that’s a very silly statement. I don’t have separate certification for almost anything I do in my profession. Why would you place advising to keep guns unloaded and locked up as something that requires more certification and training than managing any of the other things I do?
Some here seem to be fixated on this concept that kids dying from firearm injuries is somehow not a medical issue. I disagree strongly. Particular entities are medical issues, specifically pediatric issues, because they affect the well being of children, especially if they have the potential to cause death and disability. Germs qualify. Obesity qualifies. Level of or lack of exercise qualifies. Prematurity qualifies. Bike accidents qualify. And firearm injuries do. You may disagree with the analysis and the recommendation by the AAP and the AMA, you may think the recommendations made were the result of the biases of those who got themselves on those committees, and you might even have a point, but the subject is still a medical one, and fair game for physicians to discuss.
So maybe folks shouldn’t shoot off their mouth and make high-falutin’ policy statements unless they have the God damned intellectual honesty to do some research first. But then physicians often seem to be filled with an inflated sense of self-importance and a feeling that because they went to school a long time, they somehow know a lot about subjects completely unrelated to their career. I guess that’s sort of along the lines of what several have said in this thread, huh.
Nope, not going to work. Anyone with a brain, or at least a thinking-brain dog, knows full well I was drawing your attention to your objection of their current position, one which you yourself said you disagreed with, but you strangely didn’t have the fortitude to do anything about. That’s why I used the word current so many times. It’s simply not possible you still don’t get it; therefore, trying to claim I’m referring to something expired as “current” is in fact an out-and-out lie on your part.
How unfortunate.
I’m not personal friends with a lot of pharmacists. But those with whom I am acquainted do not generally prescribe drugs at all. Morals don’t enter into it.
Well, except insofar as it is moral for them to restrict their professional activities to those which they are qualified and licensed to perform. 
ETA (to Una): Thinking-brain dog? I like that. 
I’m suggesting before a doctor start lecturing on gun safety they should have some training. There are plenty of places that teach gun safety.
If that was the extent of what we are talking about I’d be OK with it, it’s not. But you knew that.
Una your snark is one thing. It is the Pit. Your calling me a liar is another. Interesting that that insult, which I find very offensive, is permitted speech in the Pit apparently, while the to me much more innocuous telling someone to “fuck off” is not.
My understanding, based on the link provided, is that policy statements expire after five years unless reaffirmed. A past policy statement being available as part of the AAP website does not supersede that rule.
I have stated quite clearly that I disagree some with the guideline but that I do not find it egregious or offensive and have no interest in writing about an item eleven years old and not a current priority of the group - other than in response to a new move by the NRA that eliminates our freedom of speech to even discuss the subject with patient. I disagree with quite a few of the AAP’s guidelines in fact. Some I have disagreed strongly enough to write and get published some objections to them in the AAP mouthpiece journal, Pediatrics. Others I have disagreed with and disagree enough with that I do not follow the published guideline. I would quite the crank to write in about every guideline that I do not completely agree with.
If want to say that my not wanting to do something that I see as stupid and embarrassing to do is not having fortitude you are free to think that.
And I will think of you as I now do.
Which is unfortunate.
Really?
If your link was applicable to Florida, or amounted to a professional certification instead of a basic safety course, it might also be relevant.
Don’t make stupid arguments while ostensibly on my side, please.
PlainJane and yet that and variations of that are exactly what the frickin’ law is talking about, or keeping doctors who want to talk about it from doing.
Will some take the position that they think that there should be no guns in a household with kids? Yes I am sure some will and I do not think that that position is a crazy one. But even if, hell even if most, say that, it will be in the same expectation that one discusses abstinence with teens - the safest circumstance for kids is to not have guns in the house but if you do have guns please make sure that they are stored unloaded and locked. And pretty much end of discussion. Pretty benign. One can make the argument that it might not accomplish much. One can argue that some gun owners will be offended that a pediatrician even commented on their gun ownership or crossed the line from asking about all the very intimate details we discuss every day to asking about gun ownership, maybe so offended that they will leave the practice. One can argue that a pediatrician does know enough to advise that it is safer for a child to be in a gun free household, that they are misinformed by their professional organizations expert committees, such as the AAP and the AMA, and just passing on those organizations biased conclusions. Most of us pediatricians just don’t see this discussion as important enough to make our top subject discussion list and know that we can get away with three behavior change subjects at most. But of those who do, most are including it as part of a litany of safety issues that they feel are their job to reinforce; they really are not wanting to get into a long “lecture” or “training” process. They merely want to be part of reinforcing what people should already know but sometimes need some reminders to bother to do.
You imply they knew what they meant, and what they meant had validity, but they picked the wrong way to express it. But that isn’t true. What is the point they were trying to get across but miscommunicated?
I mean - let’s say they saw scary looking things and assumed they were actual military weapons. So what? Is a kid more likely to flip it around and shoot themselves in the face than with other guns? Having a hardon for handguns is questionable but you could at least make the case that very small children could accidentally handle a handgun while they couldn’t handle a long gun. But what is it about “assault weapons” - even you grant that the writer didn’t understand what that meant - that would justify extra attention for pediatricians to be concerned about?
“Assault weapons” are bullshit as you know and statistically have been demonstrated to be a non-factor in crime - but at least you can understand what’s going through the head of someone who sees a violent action movie and thinks that’s what real crime is like and why they’d want to ban them. Ignorant, but at least you can follow the train of thought. But what train of thought leads to thinking that “assault weapons” are a greater accident risk for accidental shootings in children that need special attention?
The very fact that this would ever be written (and I don’t think your expired policy justification has any meaning here - yes, it defends against the notion that you should match your challenge and write to them, but it doesn’t somehow disprove the AAP and AMA aren’t politically motivated) indicates a bias on the part of the organization to push the issue of gun control. I don’t think there’s any other reasonable explanation for why they’d choose to raise that issue.
To put this into perspective - in actuality, even in LA county, where gun injuries are the number one cause of death in children over age ten, few pediatricians actually ask about guns very much.
So less than 8% of pediatricians in LA county asked about guns in more than 10% of their patient families. And that was in 1998, at the peak of interest in gun violence and reducing it.
Here’s another interesting thought - I actually do ask all my patients by way of a questionnaire - the times I have found out about gun ownership in my practice it has come up by use of a standard questionnaire screening for risks for lead poisoning - like this one ours asks about exposure adults who handle bullets or shoot guns as part of their job or hobby - that counts as a risk for lead exposure and warrants screening the child with a blood test. In my practice the positives have mostly been policemen or FBI agents rather than hunters. Under this law using that questionnaire to determine who to get a blood lead test on and who can avoid the blood test will be illegal in Florida. Can’t ask.
SB I agree that the focus on “assault weapons” was wrong headed.
Was it an attempt to try to regulate the weapons that were being used in high profile hyped media cases, like snipers? Or just a thought that some guns have no typical purpose for hunting or home defensive gun use and are of interest perhaps to a few collectors but otherwise to people whose only interest in them is their ability to be used effectively against people? I do believe that the latter was the concept they had in mind - respect the guns of hunters but agree on restricting the guns whose prime demographic is to use them against other people. Is there a way to actually define that concept in the real world? I am honestly not able to say and defer to you, and I suspect your answer is that there is not.
And no it does not disprove political motivation any more than ignorance about a concept proves it. Both are possible and I again would not be shocked if such a political bias existed.
The problem isn’t that they refuse to give the drugs. Indeed, that problem would be solved by taking your business elsewhere.
The problem is that they lie about it. They stock the drug, they tell everyone they have it, they put it in a bag and hold it out to you, and then they pull it away at the last second, rip up your prescription, and laugh at you until you leave.
Essentially, they turn the medical profession into a game of Three-card Monte. THAT is what should be illegal.
If the pediatrician’s interest is only to raise concern with the parents that the guns are stored properly, then who cares if the guns aren’t hunting or defensive uses but only of interest to collectors? Why would that be a factor in the ability of an unsecured gun to be used negligently?
Talking about “respecting the rights of hunters” while still targetting other types of people with guns is most certainly part of the politics of the gun control debate. It is irrelevant to their professional interest in making parents aware of the potential danger of guns in the home. Are pediatricians supposed to judge who is or isn’t worthy of owning a gun, or who has the right intention, when counselling their patients?
Your post seems to support rather than dispell my point - that the purpose of the AAP on this issue is political advocacy rather than simple pragmatic interest in the relative dangers their patients are exposed to.
Yes, that was under 1 a - their promotion of regulating handguns and “assault weapons” (think the concept they were operating under, even as you disagree with it) as part of the societal/systems measure to reduce the risks. Fewer guns that are designed to harm people rather than to hunt with in the legal market, to them meant fewer that would be diverted to an illegal market, and hunting guns, they thought, would be less likely used as a convenient means of offing oneself in a momentary period of suicidality; hunting guns, they believed, would be less likely used by pushers or bullied students or disgruntled postal employees. To them that was not “political”, it was a systems approach to a medical issue of people dying from intentional firearm injuries. Like recommending laws for car seat use is a systems approach, and advising restrictions on child use of ATVs is as well. Politics was merely the means of implementing what they saw as a medical intervention (yes, I know you disagree with their read of the data). It may be that the remedy proposed is disproportionate and that much more moderate solutions exist to improve upon our current state. But yes, that policy statement did not exclusively discuss promoting safe storage. That promotion of safety in the home recommendation was only 1 b.
I’ll ask this again - how many of those ‘children’ are actually teenagers involved in gun crimes?
This is a very important distinction, because I’ve seen stats like this used to scare parents in the 'burbs from having guns in the home where little Timmy can get at them, when in fact what the stats are really showing is the amount of gang-related gun violence that’s going on.
If you’re trying to give parents good information about the risks of unsecured gun storage and all that, don’t you think it’s important to know exactly what those statistics represent?
So.. Do you have those numbers broken out? What percentage of child-related gun accidents and fatalities are actually occurring outside the home in criminal settings, in which case they have nothing at all to do with adults owning a gun in a home with children?
No I don’t have those exact stats available but this study may be of some use to you:
OTOH the reason I mentioned that stat was not as a scare tactic but relavent to how such a stat might influence a pediatrician to consider guns to be an important item. Even there it doesn’t get into the high priority list for most to mention.
Interestingly, the actual article about gun discussions in LA notes that the docs were more likely to discuss guns with patient families if they themselves owned guns. Not surprisingly, those docs were less likely to give the advise that all guns should be removed and more likely to agree that kids should learn to handle guns when old enough than the non-gun owning docs.