Friggin' Liberal Doctors!

[TReischl]

Looks like this discussion is back on the rails.

I think quite a few of the forum members only view issues like this from a personal perspective. However, consider your wife/husband/daughter/son going into the docs office and being prescribed a drug that can cause depression, or is diagnosed as being potentially suicidal. If the doctor is aware that there are guns in the house, some things can be done:

The doc advises the patient that at the FIRST sign of depression, get in contact with medical help and let members of the household know what is going on.

A conversation can take place in which the doc advises the patient to ask to have the guns locked up and the key kept under someone else's control or the guns removed if the situation is severe.

The doc could ask to speak to someone else in the household with the patients permission to discuss a plan.

There may be other things that can be done?

I have seen where some feel that the "state" could swoop in and confiscate the guns. That is certainly a possibility if the patient is the owner of the guns. The comments that "this state" is peculiar in this regards may be inaccurate. I am fairly certain that most states will step in if someone is judged to be suicidal and is in control of guns.

The idea that gun owners on this forum have that it is all about THEIR rights to the exclusion of everyone else's is nice, but not everyone else thinks that way or agrees. To assert that YOUR rights as a gun owner should give YOU the power to risk one of your family members lives is interesting to say the least, and may speak volumes about your character and thought processes.

It may come down to a choice, would you rather have your gun, or gamble with your loved one's life?

 

[cekim]

It may come down to a choice, would you rather have your gun, or gamble with your loved one's life?

Yes, dazzle us with fantastic and apocalyptic hypotheticals of all the horrible things that _could_ be prevented if only we put a camera on everyone 24/7 for their own safety.

Sorry, but these questions are being asked because of a more than decade old anti-gun push by the AMA. You can soft pedal it all you like, but the tune is the same.

This wouldn't be nearly so bad if your medical records were truly private and not subject to forcible disclosure to all sorts of agencies and corporations, but as it stands, it is a line of questions designed for invalid medical reasons (not supported by the actual data) and it can and will be used against you.

So, no. Not buying it. Don't bother selling it here.

 

[Pete G]

I've never seen such a question. Then again I do go as infrequently as possible.

 

[TReischl]

Yes, dazzle us with fantastic and apocalyptic hypotheticals of all the horrible things that _could_ be prevented if only we put a camera on everyone 24/7 for their own safety.

Sorry, but these questions are being asked because of a more than decade old anti-gun push by the AMA. You can soft pedal it all you like, but the tune is the same.

This wouldn't be nearly so bad if your medical records were truly private and not subject to forcible disclosure to all sorts of agencies and corporations, but as it stands, it is a line of questions designed for invalid medical reasons (not supported by the actual data) and it can and will be used against you.

So, no. Not buying it. Don't bother selling it here.

You have no proof of YOUR hypotheticals, which are actually "conspiracy theories".

Who are YOU to tell me what to bother selling? Did the Almighty die and leave you in charge? I did not get the memo.

Like a few others on here, you cannot stand to hear an opposing viewpoint, it is all just a huge government conspiracy that is out to "get us all".

 

[GM-GUY]

Never provide any information you do not want posted on a billboard in town. Once the government has information, they never, ever, delete it. Let's also not forget, the questions about guns, 'safe at home', and others are not covered by HIPA so it can be shared with anyone. Of course with 0bama-Care, it's all going to the .gov anyway.

 

[TReischl]

Never provide any information you do not want posted on a billboard in town. Once the government has information, they never, ever, delete it. Let's also not forget, the questions about guns, 'safe at home', and others are not covered by HIPA so it can be shared with anyone. Of course with 0bama-Care, it's all going to the .gov anyway.

Now that is not true!

The good ol' gov screws up all the time, the last really big one was when the Military Pers Record Center caught on fire and they lost millions of records.

I requested my actual records, lo and behold, over 4 years of my service time are completly missing, and mine were AFTER the fire. They are just gone.

Here is the data on the fire, btw:

On July 12, 1973, a disastrous fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) destroyed approximately 16-18 million Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF). The records affected:

Branch	Personnel and Period Affected	Estimated Loss
Army	Personnel discharged November 1, 1912 to January 1, 1960	80%
Air Force	Personnel discharged September 25, 1947 to January 1, 1964 (with names alphabetically after Hubbard, James E.)	75%

The gov is WAY overrated, the same ex burger flippers you see at TSA are busily working with your records. Think of this, YOUR records are probably being cross filed with MINE as we type....scarey, huh?

 

[Jose]

To assert that YOUR rights as a gun owner should give YOU the power to risk one of your family members lives is interesting to say the least, and may speak volumes about your character and thought processes.

It may come down to a choice, would you rather have your gun, or gamble with your loved one's life?

You are out of your mind with your hyperbole and false choices. Go ahead and rant on some more. You are good entertainment, I'll give you that much.

 

[pernox]

Wow. Tough crowd. People want us to take care of them, especially in their time of need, but don't want us to ask certain questions because they feel we are being intrusive. I am seeing a lot of posts here that are unreasonable. We try (most) to be be very good at what we do and then get slammed for doing it, and yes, sometimes we ask things that are a little personal. But, it really is in your best interest. You do not have to answer.

Questions are asked with the goal of being able to quickly identify and fix past, present, and future problems to the best of one's ability. Not to offend you. I don't know what else to say, it is your choice.

Here it is.

Some people want to be lead by the hand, others want to direct their own care. For the former, there is a comprehensive questionnaire. For the latter, fill out what you want the doc to know and leave it at that.

I will say that the suicide stuff is BS IMO - Rob (I believe) said it well; it doesn't matter if there's a gun, a knife, a bottle of Tylenol, etc in the house - counsel the patient being prescribed potentially mind altering medication well on its potential side effects, open the door for more detailed questioning/advice if the patient would like it, and leave it to their judgement. I understand the CYA principle, but a well thought out explanation of the medication without calling into question a patient's possessions and means of self-disposal would seem to avoid putting the patient at odds with the physician. You've got to be pretty dense to feel depressed, consider suicide, get meds for it, then NOT KNOW why the doc is asking if you've got guns.

The idea that gun owners on this forum have that it is all about THEIR rights to the exclusion of everyone else's is nice, but not everyone else thinks that way or agrees. To assert that YOUR rights as a gun owner should give YOU the power to risk one of your family members lives is interesting to say the least, and may speak volumes about your character and thought processes.

It may come down to a choice, would you rather have your gun, or gamble with your loved one's life?

This reads like something out of the Brady group's playbook. Read it over again, and imagine Chuck Schumer saying it.

 

[pernox]

Douple-tap, please delete.

 

[cekim]

You have no proof of YOUR hypotheticals, which are actually "conspiracy theories".

Who are YOU to tell me what to bother selling? Did the Almighty die and leave you in charge? I did not get the memo.

Like a few others on here, you cannot stand to hear an opposing viewpoint, it is all just a huge government conspiracy that is out to "get us all".

I didn't say it was a "government conspiracy," it was, quite obviously a broad anti-gun agenda that produced a BS study that has since been debunked.

The joy/evil of immature progressive ideas is that they can become a headless monster. Just give people license to believe in rainbows and unicorns and they will be your advocates without any marching orders or compensation.

It is also not a matter of opinion that there is no sanctity between patient and DR as there are many "reporting requirements" which violate this as well as provisions of HIPPA and now ObamaCare that violate it.

I have no problem hearing competing opinions, you are free to speak your mind, I have always said that if you don't defend the right of people to say things that offend you, you don't really believe in freedom of speech.

I am just telling you that you are FoS and your arguments are unpersuasive and unsupported.

 

[NetDoc]

I am hoping NetDoc checks this thread so we get an answer. One of the problems that I see continually with this forum is that SOME of the folks get very insulting when they perceive anything that they think might be anti-gun in nature. They just don't seem to be able to argue/discuss an issue or topic without the name calling or insults. As a result, folks with some real smarts just move on and we do not get to hear their thoughts. Instead, we get to read stooopid insults that the clowns think are clever. It gets old, real fast.

Thanks TReischl (and several others on this thread) for pointing out something that has almost driven me away, despite the excellent info and advice here.

The question regarding the suppression of discussions concerning depression is real, and concerning. Depression is a very common and serious disease that is highly treatable in most cases. It is, as some have pointed out here, an adverse effect of some medications - like Accutane, Chantix, Singulair, Zetia, Vitorin, etc. These aren't drugs for minor ailments, but are for serious, medical indications. The only way to treat depression is to become aware of it. A depression diagnosis is protected by HIPAA, and (without hospitalization) is not a reason for a person to lose the ability to own guns. Suicidal ideation itself is the same, unless the physician perceives there is a real and imminent risk to the patient, in which case they would almost definitely be hospitalized. I will say it very clearly - regardless of 2a, patients who are contemplating suicide with a plan, etc. shouldn't own guns. Importantly, the vast majority of depression doesn't require hospitalization, and shouldn't interfere with the short or long term ownership of firearms. It is essential to speak with your physician about such feelings, as no physician can treat what he/she doesn't know about.

A few misconceptions have entered this thread. The AMA Brady study showed an increase in suicides with guns in 55 yo and older. It was not a great study because of many confounding issues in the design. However, the idea that suicides are just as easy by any other means is blatantly not true, and study after study have shown this to be true. It is well summarized here: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/miller.htm

It is disheartening to see the views of medicine that have been expressed in this thread. People seem to believe that physicians should simply look at the patient as a single, physical, disease rather than as a person. Treat the bronchitis, but don't ask me about my smoking. Treat my seizures, but don't ask me if I am driving. Treat my fatigue, but don't ask me if it could be depression from not being able to pay my bills, or being too poor to eat. This flies in the face of decades of advances in medicine, and the entire concept of the Medical Home, which is a current model for the best that medicine can offer.

 

[cekim]

It is disheartening to see the views of medicine that have been expressed in this thread. People seem to believe that physicians should simply look at the patient as a single, physical, disease rather than as a person. Treat the bronchitis, but don't ask me about my smoking. Treat my seizures, but don't ask me if I am driving. Treat my fatigue, but don't ask me if it could be depression from not being able to pay my bills, or being too poor to eat. This flies in the face of decades of advances in medicine, and the entire concept of the Medical Home, which is a current model for the best that medicine can offer.

I am disheartened that a medical DR would base his treatment on a bad study that has been known to be flawed for many years. This causes me to question his qualifications, objectivity and general ability to keep up with science to provide the best possible treatment with the science and data available.

I am not just talking about suicides (which simply cannot even be correlated to access to a firearm nationally or internationally), but also the nonsense about child safety that ignored the true statistics of guns in the home and conflated gang violence with a "firearm in the home."

Also, as I said, the issues of disclosure of this information are greatly aggravated by the integration of medical treatment with the function of law enforcement as well as political agenda. If I thought I could be assured that my information had the same sanctity as attorney client privilege, then I would be less concerned about a DR trying to treat the "whole patient," though again, relying on bad data doesn't give me any comfort that he/she is qualified.

Much like schools should not be an extension of law enforcement, neither should DR's offices.

"Even when it hurts."

 

[PappyM3]

A few misconceptions have entered this thread. The AMA Brady study showed an increase in suicides with guns in 55 yo and older. It was not a great study because of many confounding issues in the design. However, the idea that suicides are just as easy by any other means is blatantly not true, and study after study have shown this to be true. It is well summarized here: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/miller.htm

That study you linked to does not really back up your opinion that the availability of guns makes suicide easier. The study states that various international studies have shown that guns don't necessarily increase suicide rate. On top of that, I wouldn't trust a single piece of research regarding firearm dangers from a heavily liberal-biased academic institution such as Harvard. And no, I'm not one of the rabid nutters on this forum.

That being said, I do agree that having access to a firearm makes it much easier for someone in a bout of booze-fueled, uninhibited, temporary depression to make a permanent mistake. That still doesn't give the medical community the right or justification to ask the household firearms question on standard forms. If you diagnose someone with depression, sure you have a reason to ask them personally about it. If you're about to prescribe meds that may cause depression, sure ask. However, the question should be specific to the individual and not on a blanket form.

 

[TOY539]

Thr voices in my head took a vote and decided that I should tell 'em it's non of there business.

 

[Jose]

I will say it very clearly - regardless of 2a, patients who are contemplating suicide with a plan, etc. shouldn't own guns.

It is not the place of the medical profession to deny an individual the right to control the manner in which they die.

People seem to believe that physicians should simply look at the patient as a single, physical, disease rather than as a person. Treat the bronchitis, but don't ask me about my smoking. Treat my seizures, but don't ask me if I am driving. Treat my fatigue, but don't ask me if it could be depression from not being able to pay my bills, or being too poor to eat. This flies in the face of decades of advances in medicine, and the entire concept of the Medical Home, which is a current model for the best that medicine can offer.

Yes, we do believe that. And no, we don't care what the medical profession's view is about that. We are in control, not you.

ETA Medical Home WTF.......

 

[irishfan]

Depression is an illness that physicians are trained to treat, and it is a substantial part of the practice of any internist. It is there job to look for, detect, and treat depression in their patients. And, in depressed patients, it is their job to assess the risk of suicide, both in the thoughts of the patient and the likelihood of it occurring. Patients saved from suicides by medication and other treatment are typically very pleased that they weren't simply ignored.


I dont think it is your job to look for depression. Look for and detect? Jesus what if I am having a shitty day? How do you assess the risk of suicide? You can decide the likelihood of it happening by spending what, 15 minutes looking at some half naked guy while probably barely maintaining eye contact and you fill out forms as quickly as possible?

 

[Jose]

How do you assess the risk of suicide? You can decide the likelihood of it happening by spending what, 15 minutes looking at some half naked guy while probably barely maintaining eye contact and you fill out forms as quickly as possible?

+1

 

[sixer]

The citation of the 1973 fire as a response to the .gov never deleting records is pure BS. Sure, in 1973 a fire could have accidentally resulted in the loss of records. Today with the countless billions of dollars spent on server farms, it's quite unlikely there would be this type of accidental loss. The original statement was that they never delete (intentionally) records which is absolutely true. When something is "deleted" in a medical database, facebook, whatever -- it's not really deleted. The "isDeleted" bit for that row is set to "1".

That study you linked to does not really back up your opinion that the availability of guns makes suicide easier. The study states that various international studies have shown that guns don't necessarily increase suicide rate. On top of that, I wouldn't trust a single piece of research regarding firearm dangers from a heavily liberal-biased academic institution such as Harvard. And no, I'm not one of the rabid nutters on this forum.

That being said, I do agree that having access to a firearm makes it much easier for someone in a bout of booze-fueled, uninhibited, temporary depression to make a permanent mistake. That still doesn't give the medical community the right or justification to ask the household firearms question on standard forms. If you diagnose someone with depression, sure you have a reason to ask them personally about it. If you're about to prescribe meds that may cause depression, sure ask. However, the question should be specific to the individual and not on a blanket form.

I think this hits the nail on the head squarely. Bring it up if it's pertinent. Don't go fishing to push agenda. NetDoc, et. al. need to see it from this perspective. Given the blatant disregard for rights becoming commonplace and even embraced in this society, those of us who value our Constitution become extremely wary of big brother type questions asked without any pertinence to the issue at hand under the guise of "protecting" us. It's a farce and the crux of the liberal and anti arguments. Forgive me for being suspicious.

 

[Jose]

I'm sure the good doctor will warn me against this. I might get hurt and he might have to do his job.....

 

[Terminator03]

It is not the place of the medical profession to deny an individual the right to control the manner in which they die.



Yes, we do believe that. And no, we don't care what the medical profession's view is about that. We are in control, not you.

ETA Medical Home WTF.......

I hold the same belief, but with a caveat. The point that netdoc was making was that sometimes depression is not caused by mental illness, but can be a side effect of certain meds used to treat other serious conditions. In this situation, if you chose to take your life based on a skewed reality caused by meds, would you believe that it was ok because you had control over the manner in which you died? Even though I agree with you on that point for the most part, it isn't always that cut and dried. Having lived through a close family member committing suicide do to a severely altered mental state from a bad cocktail of meds, I can see this point with great clarity.

 

[NetDoc]

Depression is an illness that physicians are trained to treat, and it is a substantial part of the practice of any internist. It is there job to look for, detect, and treat depression in their patients. And, in depressed patients, it is their job to assess the risk of suicide, both in the thoughts of the patient and the likelihood of it occurring. Patients saved from suicides by medication and other treatment are typically very pleased that they weren't simply ignored.


I dont think it is your job to look for depression. Look for and detect? Jesus what if I am having a shitty day? How do you assess the risk of suicide? You can decide the likelihood of it happening by spending what, 15 minutes looking at some half naked guy while probably barely maintaining eye contact and you fill out forms as quickly as possible?

You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Every primary care physician is screening his patients for depression, and many other diseases. Your doctor probably hasn't ever seen that in you, otherwise you would have had a discussion about it. This is not an opinion; it is an essential part of primary care practice, throughout the US.

 

[Jose]

You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Every primary care physician is screening his patients for depression, and many other diseases.

He's not doubting you. He's doubting your profession's methods. As do I.

 

[Gidge]

The disease model of medicine has been around for well over 100 years and it is bought and paid for by "big pharma" (as are the cirrucula in main-stream medical schools) promoting natural supplementation in lieu of pharmaceutical options will never happen -- follow the money.

 

[EddieCoyle]

NetDoc and Bender... Serious question:

If I came to you for a physical, answered "Yes" to the gun question, you saw in me some classic signs of pretty severe depression, and I refused treatment for it, what would you do?

 

[TimMcG74]

I was asked this for the first time at a physical the other day. I basically gave him "yeah, yeah, yeah, next question" and he moved on without pressing the issue.

 

[Len-2A Training]

That being said, I do agree that having access to a firearm makes it much easier for someone in a bout of booze-fueled, uninhibited, temporary depression to make a permanent mistake. That still doesn't give the medical community the right or justification to ask the household firearms question on standard forms. If you diagnose someone with depression, sure you have a reason to ask them personally about it. If you're about to prescribe meds that may cause depression, sure ask. However, the question should be specific to the individual and not on a blanket form.

This is it in a nutshell! If you are asking everyone about guns, but not other tools/devices which are dangerous, it shows a prejudicial bent in your practice.

Some PDs regularly ASK LTC applicants about medical info and people tend to answer honestly leading to denials, requirements for doctor letters (after a 5 year wait), etc.

If someone it taken to the hospital (from home/doc's office), police come with the EMTs and yes they use that info against people. Yes, guns/permits get confiscated and guns go to a bonded warehouse where they are never to be seen again and all that money is lost (since you worry about having enough money at home to eat well)! That in itself is depressing but that is where we are as a society today.

 

[bill o]

The disease model of medicine has been around for well over 100 years and it is bought and paid for by "big pharma" (as are the cirrucula in main-stream medical schools) promoting natural supplementation in lieu of pharmaceutical options will never happen -- follow the money.

There's a reason it's still alternative medicine: because it doesn't work.

 

[sixer]

If asked I might say "not yet, but thinking about it" in an effort to get a true sense of why he was asking. If you say "no" he'll just move on, if you say yes, well you've said yes! If you say NOYFB then he checks the other box next to "angry gun owner".
It would be interesting to see if he tried to dissuade me...

 

[GM-GUY]

EddieCoyle - I can tell you what would happen. The guy from Doomsday Preppers, he went to the doctor and had issues but no money. He said well, what ever happens happens, and the DR contacted 'The Authorities' and they confiscated his firearms.

+1 Sixer: Delete does mean loose.

 

[Gidge]

I am my primary care. I only go to the doctor when there is something I absolutely can't handle. I don't care how advanced medicine gets, my body is mine and I have boundaries. People are sick and obese from generations of allowing government to influence every aspect of their lives, from the FDA approving bad drugs and denying good ones, to the asinine food pyramid.

If people ignore the government, eat clean healthy foods, and exercise, they won't have much use for a doctor. And if people eat like shit, never exercise, drink a case of PBR a day, and cast their own boolits with bare hands in a non-ventilated closet, it is still none of your business if they don't want to tell you. Does it limit what advice you may give? Sure, but that is their choice, not yours.

Bingo !