By that definition, emergency contraception is not abortion, FYI. It is designed and intended to prevent ovulation and fertilization.
What you are in fact doing by calling emergency contraception “killing a baby” is asserting a theological belief every bit as crazy as Young Earth Creationism.
Una, I’m rather surprised to see you falling into the same error here as Oakminster did: namely, conflating guidelines for “well-care” health supervision by pediatricians with medical treatment policies for adults.
Can we get this confusion cleared up once and for all?
A. Hell NO, a medical practitioner treating a responsible adult should NOT be asking them if they have a gun in the home or giving them advice about gun safety.
I think we can all agree that that is an issue that a responsible adult should be trusted to manage for themselves, and it is none of the physician’s business. (Unless the patient is seeking medical advice on a specifically gun-related issue, say, about the neck pain they get from sleeping with their loaded revolver under their pillow, at which point a responsible physician may point out that that’s not such a great idea from a medical-safety standpoint.)
B. Hell YES, a pediatrician providing preventive-care information to parents about the safety and health of young children should be able to ask them about guns in the home if they see fit.
Guns in the home are like any other potentially dangerous object or substance in the home, and it is perfectly reasonable for pediatricians to ensure that parents have the facts about the risks they present and how to minimize those risks.
That is merely an opinion, not a fact. Rational minds can differ on whether it is “perfectly reasonable” or not.
That is merely an opinion, not a fact. Rational minds can differ on whether rational minds can differ on whether it is “perfectly reasonable” or not.
This is a fun game.
Oh, bullshit. I quoted part of that in a later post. I’m not ignoring it. My characterization is accurate. They do mention some guidelines for gun safety, but only a few tiny bullet points that come after they spend paragraphs talking about the evils of guns.
Comparing it with how they approach pool safety makes it very clear that their anti-gun bias is overwhelming their thinking on the issue.
This caveman logic could be said of anything. It’s dangerous for children to have access to pools. Since that is true the best way to prevent young children to have access to pools is not to have them in homes where young children live. This is also true.
They should throw away all those specific recommendations on their pool page and just say pools are bad. Right?
Bullshit. Of course they are. They are flat out telling people they shouldn’t own guns if they have kids. They recommend interrogating other parents about their guns. How can you characterize that as not interfering?
Hey, I never said I supported the law. I’m just pointing out the AAP is an anti gun group and that their dislike and fear of guns is clouding their judgement. That’s indisputable.
The law is overreaching a bit, in that it attempts to ban all conversations about guns.
So, who should I believe you or my own lying eyes?
I’m telling you, as other people have pointed out in numerous threads on this issue: The docs aren’t asking about other things so much. All mine asked about was car seats and guns. Nothing else.
If they wanted to have a reasonable conversation about gun safety as part of an overall conversation about household dangers to children that would be fine. But that’s obviously not what’s happening. The documentation on their own web site proves that very clearly.
Guns are like any other potentially dangerous object in the home yet the approach to them is unique:
Pools are dangerous, so they inform people about safe pool practices and safety features of pools. They even insist that all kids should learn to swim.
Cars are dangerous, so they inform people about car seats. They insist all kids use them.
Guns are dangerous so they tell people not to have guns.
One of these things aren’t like the others. If they treated guns the same as any other potentially dangerous object or substance in the home they would be insisting that all parents teach their kids to safely handle guns or at least learn the Eddie Eagle program.
Yeah, when was the last time you started prescribing a new drug because you heard about it at a CME you paid for or because you read about it in a journal? For a lot of doctors, sales IS the education. The sales rep drops off literature and samples, heck, they’d read the literature to you gave them the time.
I am not a doctor or a pharmacist but I have several of each in my family and when they talk shop, the doctors concede that pharmacists know more about drugs fresh out of pharmacy school that doctors know when they get out of residency.
Pharmacists aren’t trained to diagnose a problem but they are taught more about drugs and how they work. Their profession may have been reduced to checking for drug interactions and telling people how to take medications at your local CVS but a hospital pharmacist probably knows a lot more about drugs than most doctors. I have been informed that doctors no longer rely on pharmacy reps to teach them about drugs and now use sites like uptodate.com so I take back that part of my post but I still think pharmacists know more about drugs and what they do at the beginning of their careers than doctors do at the beginning of their careers, after that it depends on what career path they take.
And how do they know that 1 tspn is an inappropriate dose?
I agree that we have doctors make the decisions. That is the way things are set up in this country, it is not the only way things can be set up. This is not the case in all countries, pharmacists are capable of prescribing drugs on their own and sometimes after diagnosis from the doctor. One of the reasons pharmacists do not precribe drugs is not because they are not capable but because we want to separate the act of prescribing a drug and selling the drug.
But that is neither here nor there. A pharmacist nis not analogous to a waiter or vending machine. And a pharmacist has as much right to refuse to carry or dispense a drug for religious reasons as a doctor has to refuse to perform an abortion for religious reasons. One of their religious beleifs seem to be respected by all but the most extremwe pro-choicers on this board and the other one’s religious beliefs seem to get hardly any respect at all.
Rather, guns are dangerous so they tell people either not to have guns or to follow safe-storage procedures for guns.
The fact that you can only make your case by deliberately leaving out an important part of their message is very telling.
And, of course, most people who are not hysterically paranoid on this issue do understand why there’s a practical difference between “telling people not to have guns” and “telling people not to have cars” or “telling people not to have pools”.
Mind you, I think responsible law-abiding people who want to own guns are just as entitled to own a gun as they are to own a pool or a car. But it’s obvious to the meanest (non-hysterically-paranoid) intelligence why cars and pools are generally considered less dispensable in most homes that maintain them than guns would be.
You keep making this point and its completely wrong. I already addressed it once.
In case you missed it:
Your chart seems shows 16 accidental firearm homicides for the 5-9 year old group in 2011 but it doesn’t appear anywhere else on your chart. Other years don’t seem to show it at all.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html
And driving with a child in the car.
I don’t recall ever saying that.
It really depends on what you are saying. If you limit your discussion to safety advice rather than evangelizig then I don’t see the problem.
Actually I was thinking about this… if a woman is pregnant, and then she has a medical emergency where if she doesn’t terminate the pregnancy within the next half hour she has a 75% risk of dying, and she has the risks explained to her, and she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, and only emergency room doctor available is one who doesn’t believe in performing abortions… does he have the right not to do so?
You keep saying this, but it’s still not true.
Yes, I acknowledge that they do list all of three bullet points for gun safety. I am not “leaving this out”.
But their advice regarding guns is clear: They don’t think parents should have them. This isn’t subtle. They come right out and say it.
They mention you should lock up your guns, but only if you basically are a bad parent who doesn’t want to do the right thing and get rid of them. They even attempt to get people to harass their parents of their kid’s friends.
What’s the difference? Please: If it’s so obvious, tell me?
I’ll explain my position to you: The millions of parents who own guns aren’t going to all get rid of them any time soon. That’s just reality.
Telling parents to get rid of their guns is silly and counterproductive. Their energy would be much better spent on meaningful gun safety advice, which they are clearly not doing. There are rules of gun safety, which I have posted to this thread. There are programs for what kids should do if they find a gun, which I’ve posted to this thread. There are many meaningful and productive things that the AAP could be doing to promote gun safety. They choose not to, in any meaningful way. Their spending most of their energy opposing all gun ownership by parents which is a shortsighted approach. They barely mention gun safety at all, instead focusing on the evils of guns and how people shouldn’t have them. This is in stark contrast to the lengthy pool safety information they provide without judgement of how bad of a parent you are for owning a pool.
Bullshit.
This just proves how out of touch you are with most people. You could ban pools tomorrow and it wouldn’t fire people up nearly as much as banning guns would.
Telling a kid not to play in a pool or in a lake, ever, because it’s dangerous would be silly.
It’s equally silly to tell a kid not to shoot a gun, ever, because it’s dangerous. Plenty of kids are raised with guns as part of their activities during childhood. Plenty of ten year old kids go out and learn to shoot .22’s and there’s nothing wrong with that. Done correctly, it’s perfectly safe and proper.
That is hysterical-paranoidspeak for “they advise parents to talk to gun-owning adults in homes where their children hang out about the dangers of young children having access to guns”.
Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Sure. The (obvious) difference is that pretty much everyone who has a car needs it and uses it for the ordinary practical necessities of life. Very, very few people would bother to spend the money that car ownership requires if they didn’t make constant use of it for transportation purposes.
Pools are likewise big and expensive objects that people tend not to own unless they’re genuinely invested in them (and can’t always get rid of very easily). While of course nobody actually needs a pool for practical purposes, nobody’s likely to have a forgotten or unwanted pool just hanging around the house.
However, plenty of people have one or more casually acquired guns hanging around the house that they don’t really use, want or need. Such a gun does not represent a big investment for them and they can get rid of it very easily. It makes perfect sense to advise such people to get rid of such guns if there are going to be young children in their home on a regular basis.
Fine by me, as long as they’re responsible about gun ownership. But since there are plenty of parents and other relatives who aren’t that invested in having a gun, it’s perfectly reasonable for pediatricians to recommend eliminating guns from households with young children as a general policy.
Your position is completely ass-backwards. The preventive approach should be directed, as it is, to making sure that parents know the risks of guns and how to minimize them for the most vulnerable demographic, i.e., children too young to be handling guns.
Once the children are old enough to use guns themselves, it’s up to the parents to teach them proper safety procedures, and there’s no need for pediatricians to get involved.
Similarly, the pediatrician advice guidelines suggest that doctors warn parents about drinking hot liquids while holding an infant, but don’t bother offering advice about parental hot liquid consumption around middle schoolers. In general, when the kids are old enough to be reasonably responsible for their own safety, the pediatricians can butt out of the home-safety discussion.
You’re the one who’s apparently out of touch with all but the hysterical-paranoid segment of the gun-owning community, and it’s caused you to completely misunderstand my statement.
I’m not claiming that a complete legal ban on guns would be more feasible or appropriate than one on cars or pools. That’s silly; we weren’t even talking about banning guns (but it is very typical of the hysterical-paranoid type of gun owner to assume that any discussion about the risks or disadvantages of guns in any circumstances is just code for trying to ban them, which is one of the reasons that hysterical-paranoid gun owners are so tedious to talk to).
I’m saying that guns are more dispensable than cars or pools because they are much more likely to be casually owned by people who aren’t really that interested in them and who would be willing to get rid of them rather than bother with ensuring their security in a home with young children. Which, again, is a perfectly reasonable point.
That’s nice. The two are however completely different issues and consistency of position does not require disfavoring both.
The point is that your point that wanting the right to refuse to do your job and to thereby leave a patient without care is effectively the same thing as wanting the right to do your job and take care of the patient is asinine.
Now one can argue, perhaps, that reasonable comparison could be made between the pharmacist circumstance and an OB who has the training and skill to perform an abortion and who is asked to do one and who declines in a circumstance in which such a refusal would leave the woman unable to have the procedure in a reasonable period of time. Or a doctor refusing to care for a murderer when they are the only ones who is there to provide such care. How much of a stretch those are I leave it to others to debate. But arguing that “Docs v Glocks” is comparable? Fails.
Sigh. This has been a long thread and much has been covered a long time ago. Here’s a little highlight reel that addresses some of the idiotic arguments being made … again.
There is plethora of potential preventative care subjects to cover. What an individual pediatrician emphasizes depends on what they assess their patients would benefit from. And [how much impact](In rural areas like most of Florida, the 4 deaths per 100,000 under 19 due to firearms are not as likely due to homicide, like the same roughly 4/100,000 are in urban areas. They are more often due to accidents and suicides, with most-rural areas having 5 times the accidental gun death rate as most-urban areas. It is in precisely those areas that gun safety should rise to hardon levels, because yes it is the pediatrician’s role to advise about risks in the home and community environment, and of course that is where this silly law is going to bar them from doing it) they think a brief office-based intervention might have (which depends on which study you believe).
As to the AAP position … covered in multiple posts earlier on.
In short, no question the AAP and most medical group have looked at all the evidence and concluded that a household with children is safer without a gun in it than with one. You think that is anti-gun. Fine but it is not being gun-grabbing. You think that all the medical groups that have concluded that children are safer in households that do not contain guns are politically motivated and that their conclusions should be censored. Fine. The position based on that conclusion is still basic: from our read of all the evidence the health risks of gun ownership outweight the benefits; if you are going to own a gun or guns please make sure they are stored securely. Really not too controversial of a statement in my mind even if you think the conclusion is faulty. And yes the option of getting rid of a gun is potentially more on the table for discussion, something parents might be open to, than is getting rid of an extant in-ground pool or not driving.
Also few pediatricians tell their parents they are bad parents even when they do things that we know are stupid, like refuse or “space out” vaccines, or attempt to insist on an antibiotic script for the cold. As I have stated before, we are selling healthier behaviors and implying that someone is an idiot, especially when they are, is a poor sales tactic. Most of us know that. (I am not trying to sell the idiots here.)
Most pediatricians don’t rotate gun safety into thier preventative schtick. Probably for the same reason I don’t - it does not rise high enough on our perception of risks in our communities and we don’t believe a brief office based intervention on that will be the best use of our time. That is even true in communities with high rates of gun violence, like LA. Which pediatricians do discuss it?
The pediatricians who are asking about guns tend NOT to be the ones who are anti-gun (which knowing pediatricians probably IS the majority of them) but the ones who are gun owners and thereby feel comfortable with the discussion and know that some parents do not take the responsibility as seriously as they should, as they personally do.
Anyway … I do want to try to understand what passes for logic in some of what passes for minds here -
No one is making a law that car mechanic cannot ask you if you own a gun and discuss the subject with you. Or your college professor. Or your priest/minister/rabbi/imam. Just that doctors (“body mechanics”) cannot engage in that speech.
Why?
It is not about patients being dismissed for being gun owners or for declining to answer. That is already regulated behavior and could be further regulated without prohibiting speech.
So either because doctors have such authority over patients, so much more than professors or priests, that such abuse of their power must be constrained … or because the question is part of the plan to compile the lists for when the black helicopters come to confiscate the weapons. Gawd I wish my authority there applied to getting the damn bike helmets used more, getting the processed crap out of the house, and getting families to take fitness more seriously! I guess it is a subject limited power. The list though … I can’t talk about that …
Sometimes. Usually after that and seeing it used by the specialists for a while too. We don’t jump on the newest meds all that often. Because I heard about it from a rep? Never.
Sales reps btw are not pharmacists. They are usually either pretty young women or former jocks who are in sales.
Agreed. How they work they’ve got down. Which one is the right one to use for a particular patient, if any? No.
That was the fact that “cite” was requested for - that accidental firearm was in the top ten for that age group. Yes, as mentioned in that post homicide and suicide by firearm are higher for older kids … the 5 to 9s shoot themsleves and their freinds by accident … the older kids are at least classified as having meant to do it, given access.
I DO talk about car safety issues a lot. It gets the time. To some I probably do come off as evangelizing … moreso about bike helmets. And back when more parents smoked I was a bit strident about the risks that presented to the kids. Got lots of adults to quit actually. (I do know how to sell.) As far as guns go it seems that asking about guns counts as evangelizing against them and such should be illegal.
Again, in certain communities, probably some in rural Florida, likely have higher than average accidental gun death rates and successful child suicide facilitated by household gun access rates. If I worked in one of those communities I’d be putting gun discussions higher on my list. Making that call and acting on it or not would be in my job description. (Just like in our community in the Western suburbs of Chicago we have had to develop tools to discuss herion use and educate parents that middle class kids, often star athletes, are at risk. And how we need to develop better skill sets at demystfying depression and talking about suicide. Things that those who think of us as “body mechanics” would consider outside our mandate but which we consider part of our job, even if we don’t always do it as well as we’d ideally like to.)
You won’t like this answer, and you’ll probably call me names again. (Go sodomize yourself with a cactus, btw). That said, you’re a mandatory reporter. If you get an answer to the gun question you don’t like, you–or other, more militant docs, might decide to drop a dime and involve CPS–which also happens to have large numbers of gun grabber sympatico types in their ranks. You may not know that reports from doctors tend to get pushed to the front of the line for investigation.
And yes, it is a step on the slippery slope towards confiscation. You ask the improper question, and make a note in your file…which gets entered into a database that may be seen by insurance companies (and NSA/other government entities), which could lead if not to de facto registration, at least to a list of known gun owners–which the government must never be allowed to have.
Post 397 - Would report gun owner to social services for his response.
{Ah, that cactus scratched that itch gooood!}
So let me be sure I got what you are saying …
(For reference, post 397)
There is, theoretically, a risk that an answer might be something along the line of as Clothahump’s was, that the owner keeps (presumably loaded) multiple guns at ready access near all doors and windows in a household with kids in the house, in a state in which laws exist which mandate secure storage from children in a household - (a Child Access Prevention Law such as Florida has), and that the owner might respond further with anger in the office. Further that such a response might lead a mandated reporter to conclude that the owner was not a very stable person and interpret that instability and the breaking of known Child Access Law as something that they should report. (As Sinaptics stated (s)he would do.) That risk is bad and requires a response to censor any discussion about guns between doctors and their patients.
Or are you saying that you think a “more militant doc” might report to CPS gun ownership itself (or a declination to answer the question) as child abuse and that such a report would be taken seriously? And the proper response to that risk is to criminalize all inquiring about guns by all of one specific group of mandated reporters.
One of those pretty much right?
I understand that you are concerned that the government should never know who owns a gun, should not be able to trace that, and that any information, no matter how protected by law it may be, that is entered in to a record, will be mined somehow by neferious governmental forces and the next step is the black helicopters landng and taking the guns away. Got that.