Friggin' Liberal Doctors!

[Terminator03]

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?

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost in the thread, as I am very interested to hear the answers from these MDs. Great question!

 

[fubar]

Maybe a simplification of the discussion is whether or not my Constitutional Civil Rights are less important than the Insurance Company/Doctors liability policy/medical standards.

it is wrong , to me , that a doctor has the ability - potential ability - to tell me I may not be fit to be a Free Citizen anymore based on policy and the possibility that I may do something in the future.

This is exactly the argument of all gun control : "Just because you haven't done it yet doesn't mean you won't do it later. So we are taking away some of your freedom."

 

[Tim94gt]

It is not an issue of just blindly following the docs advice.

High cholesterol. statin drugs. We are NOT going to argue about homeopathic remedies.

They are known to cause depression. It can be severe.

This is not running to the doc with a runny nose. It is minding his business.

LOTS of people take these drugs. LOTS of people who take them have guns. Those people need to be made aware of what can happen, that they may become depressed, have suicidal thoughts and that they need to be aware of what is happening to them.

Explaining the possible side effects has nothing to do with gun ownership.

 

[joeendris]

Water causes drowning.

This spoon made me fat

 

[bender73]

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?

You can refuse treatment. I would treat you the same as anyone else. The gun question would concern me more with regards to home safety/children actually. A gun is just a gun and does not make someone act violent. People are going to be who they are regardless if they have a gun, knife, or bazooka. If someone showed serious signs (that MDs, NPs, PAs, etc. are trained to recognize) of being a danger to themselves or others then we are required to protect the person and the public.

 

[dcmdon]

I've had 11 different doctors in the past 8 years and I've never run across that question? I guess central MA might be a little more gun friendly.

We took our 3 and 4 year olds to our new pediatricians right on the Arlington, Cambridge line and they didn't ask that question. I was all prepared (wife was worried) to get pissed off if they asked us that. As it was, the only thing she had to worry about was my refusal to give them my SSN.

Don

p.s. Roughly 70 kids are killed in gun accidents every year. Roughly 600 kids are killed in swimming pool accidents every year. If logic prevailed, there would be a swimming pool question on the forms.

 

[NetDoc]

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.

I don't think you looked at this study and its conclusions. It says the opposite of what you said:

Summary

Case-control studies provide strong evidence that suicide risk is heightened where guns are more readily available. The results of these studies are compelling, in part because all of their ancillary findings correspond to current knowledge about risk factors for suicide, and in part because these studies hold constant many important characteristics correlated with suicide. The results from these studies consistently indicate that a gun in the home is significantly associated with a higher risk of suicide, especially among youth. That firearms may pose a higher suicide risk to teens than to older adults is consonant with the notion that adolescents are particularly likely to act impulsively and therefore are more likely to be affected by availability of the means at hand (Rich, Young, & Fowler, 1986).[SUP]38[/SUP] Several cross-national studies have found similar results and lend credibility to the notion that availability of weapons matters, especially among impulsive individuals. Ecological studies provide less compelling evidence linking guns to overall suicide rates, in part due to the difficulty in accounting for cultural differences between comparison groups. Another major limitation of these studies is the lack of reliable data on firearm availability. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that despite poor measures of firearm availability (which should make it harder to see effects even if they exist) many ecological studies, particularly in the United States, still find that firearms are a risk factor for overall suicide rates. Taken as a whole, the preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for suicide, especially among youth. This is precisely the conclusion reached by the American Association of Suicidology in their consensus statement on youth suicide, which provides a fitting conclusion to our review as well: “There is a positive association between the accessibility and availability of firearms in the home and the risk of youth suicide. Guns in the home, particularly loaded guns, are associated with increased risk of suicide by youth, both with and without identifiable mental health problems or suicidal risk factors.”[SUP]39[/SUP]

 

[alohadoug]

Who has the link to the Harvard study about suicides and guns? I have the hard copy on my desk and I'm on my phone and can't find the thread. Basically, a group of researchers did a review of a large number of studies and determined that banning guns would have no influence on the suicide rate.

Just something else to consider, Netdoc.

Aloha

Knew I would find it.

It's an interesting discussion, without the anger and name-calling that is.

Aloha

 

[Terminator03]

We took our 3 and 4 year olds to our new pediatricians right on the Arlington, Cambridge line and they didn't ask that question. I was all prepared (wife was worried) to get pissed off if they asked us that. As it was, the only thing she had to worry about was my refusal to give them my SSN.

Don

p.s. Roughly 70 kids are killed in gun accidents every year. Roughly 600 kids are killed in swimming pool accidents every year. If logic prevailed, there would be a swimming pool question on the forms.

Nah, no need for that question either, it's all just Darwinism after all.

 

[Gidge]

This spoon made me fat

Ban spoon violence !

 

[Rick Roma]

I went to a new medical office this week and the "New Patient Questionnaire" was full of intrusive questions. The worst question, in my opinion, was the one that asked, "IS THERE A GUN IN THE HOUSE?"

My answer was "NO," which was truthful because there are, in fact, multiple guns in the house, not just "a" gun. I wouldn't have told the truth if I had been put to the test, but I was glad that I didn't have to lie about it.

Fortunately there was no question that asked, "Are you packing heat today?" because the answer to that would have been "yes," though I would have lied to keep the peace.

WHY DO THESE LIBERAL MEDICAL DOCTORS HATE GUNS SO MUCH? Guns don't kill people . . . people kill people.

Have any of you seen these iinvasive questions at youru doctor's offices? How do you reply?

Thanks,
ls

My doctor once asked what I do for hobbies. I mentioned skiing, water skiing, hockey, and guns amongst others. He asked me to explain how to go about getting a license and if I could refer him to a gun club. If anyone needs a good doc in Metrowest hit me up and I'll pass along his info..........

 

[alohadoug]

I don't think you looked at this study and its conclusions. It says the opposite of what you said:

Summary

Here's the summary of mine...

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

One study alone solves/answers nothing.

That's why we need studies of the studies.

Aloha

 

[NetDoc]

One study alone solves/answers nothing.

That's why we need studies of the studies.
a

Please look at the study I posted. It was a review of the literature - a study of studies. It was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. Can you tell me where your study was published? I can't tell anything from just the conclusion, while I have posted the entire article.

 

[cekim]

Please look at the study I posted. It was a review of the literature - a study of studies. It was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. Can you tell me where your study was published? I can't tell anything from just the conclusion, while I have posted the entire article.

If you answer EddieCoyle's question you will find the end of this debate.

 

[KMM696]

Knew I would find it.

It's an interesting discussion, without the anger and name-calling that is.

Aloha

Please look at the study I posted. It was a review of the literature - a study of studies. It was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. Can you tell me where your study was published? I can't tell anything from just the conclusion, while I have posted the entire article.

His link was a bit difficult to see, above.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[dcmdon]

I'm actually comfortable with the thesis that access to guns increases suicide rates.

Its your life, you do with it as you please.

With respect to minors, its the parents responsibility to be somewhat cognizant of their kids mental and emotional maturity and health.
If you have a mellow well adjusted kid who knows how to handle guns, then the decision to not restrict access may be reasonable.

If you've got a juvenile delinquent who has already attempted suicide, then they should be locked up.

Don

 

[NetDoc]

Please look at the study I posted. It was a review of the literature - a study of studies. It was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. Can you tell me where your study was published? I can't tell anything from just the conclusion, while I have posted the entire article.

Sorry, missed your link. This isn't a medical review, it is a legal/sociological one. They barely address suicide at the end focusing instead on murder, and don't make reference to the dozens of studies that show that the preponderance of evidence demonstrate a clear effect of guns on suicide. Further, the conclusion states " Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra."

These authors are clearly driving a legal agenda, not examining medical literature.

 

[Mark from MA]

You can refuse treatment. I would treat you the same as anyone else. The gun question would concern me more with regards to home safety/children actually. A gun is just a gun and does not make someone act violent. People are going to be who they are regardless if they have a gun, knife, or bazooka. If someone showed serious signs (that MDs, NPs, PAs, etc. are trained to recognize) of being a danger to themselves or others then we are required to protect the person and the public.

So... The answer is we can refuse treatment but you will report us anyway and we will get our guns taken away because you deemed us a threat

 

[alohadoug]

Thanks, KMM696. I should have been more clear.

Mine is a from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Aloha

 

[bender73]

So... The answer is we can refuse treatment but you will report us anyway and we will get our guns taken away because you deemed us a threat

Some of you are paranoid. If you got that from my post then i don't know what to tell ya.

 

[alohadoug]

Sorry, missed your link. This isn't a medical review, it is a legal/sociological one. They barely address suicide at the end focusing instead on murder, and don't make reference to the dozens of studies that show that the preponderance of evidence demonstrate a clear effect of guns on suicide. Further, the conclusion states " Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra."

These authors are clearly driving a legal agenda, not examining medical literature.

That's true. But it also gives further example of how studies can be influenced by the political agenda of the author. You are asking us to take studies undertaken by an organization that has a well-known political stance on an issue and accept that they are doing it "for our good."

I think that argument is going to fall on deaf ears here.

As for me personally, I've never had the doctor ask me, or my children. Not even at the VA.

Aloha

 

[NetDoc]

You are asking us to take studies undertaken by an organization that has a well-known political stance on an issue and accept that they are doing it "for our good."
Aloha

What organization, Harvard? Harvard University has no political stance on this issue. This is the research of two professors there. After a while, you can't just ignore decades of research results and dismiss them as "biased." These are dozens of case control studies, all of which come to the same conclusion.

 

[PappyM3]

I don't think you looked at this study and its conclusions. It says the opposite of what you said:

I don't think you read the rest of my post.

But here is where I derived the statement you quoted of me:
"A problem with international studies is the difficulty in fully accounting for the disparate cultural factors that may influence the incidence and method of suicide........ The evidence, however, is far from convincing that gun ownership levels are related to overall suicide rates for all age groups. The U.S., for example, has the highest levels of gun ownership, but its overall suicide rate is only 16th out of 26 high-income countries. One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included"

 

[PappyM3]

What organization, Harvard? Harvard University has no political stance on this issue. This is the research of two professors there. After a while, you can't just ignore decades of research results and dismiss them as "biased." These are dozens of case control studies, all of which come to the same conclusion.

Harvard University is most assuredly biased due to their administration and subsequently the bias of the professors that the biased administration hires. This is common throughout academia and especially schools in particular regions(Cambridge/Berkeley). That being said, I do think that a firearm makes suicide easier. Just like I mentioned before. However, you have to be foolish to not see a bias within the academic world.

 

[bill o]

Sorry, missed your link. This isn't a medical review, it is a legal/sociological one. They barely address suicide at the end focusing instead on murder, and don't make reference to the dozens of studies that show that the preponderance of evidence demonstrate a clear effect of guns on suicide. Further, the conclusion states " Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra."

These authors are clearly driving a legal agenda, not examining medical literature.

Why would investigation of causality between guns and suicide fall exclusively (or at all) under medical research?

 

[garandman]

I've had 11 different doctors in the past 8 years and I've never run across that question? I guess central MA might be a little more gun friendly.

My doctor is in Cambridge and he only asked to see if he has any of the same models....

 

[Jose]

Why would investigation of causality between guns and suicide fall exclusively (or at all) under medical research?

More hubris?

 

[NetDoc]

Why would investigation of causality between guns and suicide fall exclusively (or at all) under medical research?

This thread is about physician questions which come from guidelines which are set by an evidence based review of the medical literature. A legal review or sociology paper wouldn't pertain.

 

[fbirdquik6]

They usually find out that I own guns when I take my shirt off for the EKG.....

 

[bill o]

These are dozens of case control studies, all of which come to the same conclusion.

But again, case-control is the wrong methodology, and dozens of fundamentally flawed studies don't make evidence. To arrive at a generalizable, unbiased risk ratio, the researcher would have to randomly select homes to place a gun in, then compare suicide rates over time (good luck with that at IRB). Retrospective studies where households choose whether they own guns mean little, and are at most a starting point for investigation. You could do a million case-control studies, and no matter the results it would still not show a causal relationship between guns and suicide.

Correlation studies are great for when you want to submit a poster for a conference last-minute, but they are inadequate for this research question.