A Medical Voice From The Past Explains Gun Violence In The Present.

1 Comment

I don’t usually applaud anything that the quack physician, Timothy Wheeler, posts on his Doctors for Reponsible Gun Ownership website, but he’s done us all a favor today by digging up a remarkable article that was originally published in 1980 by Lester Adelson, who served for many years as the Deputy Coroner of Cuyahoga County. In case you don’t know it, Cuyahoga is a.k.a. Cleveland, which means that Dr. Adelson knew a lot about gun violence. I’ll ignore the usual stupidities of Wheeler and get right to what Adelson said, because thirty-five years after the fact much of what Adelson observed then remains relevant today.

Adelson confronts us first not with the issues of mortality and morbidity from guns, but with a much more profound problem, namely, the quality of life experienced by those who survive a gunshot wound. He notes that an increasing number of gun-violence victims survive the assault, which is even more true today than it was thirty years ago. But he then raises the post-trauma quality of life issue of which we know very little. Adelson mentions in passing that survivors of gun violence have shortened lives, but he offers no data and I can’t recall a single study which sheds information on this fact. He also talks about post-incident psychological trauma, again an acknowledged result of being at the wrong end of the barrel when a gun goes off, but we lack specific data to better understand this issue as well.

conference program pic Think about this: there may be more than 1.5 million of us alive today who at some point endured the pain, suffering and physical/psychological damage caused by a bullet puncturing and exiting our bodies or remaining inside. What kind of lives do these folks lead after they are discharged from the hospital and told that everything’s “o.k.?” Can they go back to work? Will they live out a normal life-span or expire at an earlier age? We keep very good records on cancer patients in order to determine whether the treatment they received kept their cancers in remission or resulted in reappearance of the “emperor of all maladies.” But the survivors of gunshot wounds, unless they come back to the hospital with another gunshot wound, are largely on their own.

Two other points from Adelson’s article deserve mention. First, he confronts the degree to which we are immune to the issue of gun violence, noting that if Cuyahoga County experienced as many deaths each year from typhoid fever as they did from guns, there would be “mass hysteria.” And Adelson wrote this article in 1980, well before shooting deaths in Cleveland and other major cities peaked in the 1990’s. But this comment struck a chord because I recall that we started rushing medical supplies to Central Africa to ward off Ebola which, if it killed the same number of people in a year who are killed by gunshots in America (roughly 30,000), would have been considered an epidemic by the WHO.

The second, and perhaps more important point raised by Dr. Adelson is the recognition that gun homicides and crimes aren’t the same thing. The idea that gun violence and crime are synonymous has been a convenient way for the pro-gun folks to distinguish between ‘law-abiding’ gun owners who shouldn’t have their guns regulated, as opposed to criminals who do the bad things with guns and just need to be locked away. Adelson cuts right through this nonsense when he says, “The accessibility of a firearm permits the instantaneous metamorphosis of a law-abiding (hot-headed?) person into a murderer,” citing data which shows that most homicides are not associated with other felonies and often erupt in the context of a domestic dispute.

Adelson’s brilliant and prescient article underscores one thing that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt: guns are very, very lethal and no matter what an idiot like Tim Wheeler says, putting one into someone’s hands creates medical risk. That’s not just a problem for gun owners per se, it’s an issue that physicians always need to address.

 

Not All Physicians Think Guns Are Bad - A Few Think They Are Very Good.

Leave a comment

Last month a 3-year old in New Mexico grabbed his mother’s gun and shot both Mommy and Daddy, although luckily both parents survived. The previous month in Idaho, Mommy wasn’t so lucky when her 2-year old pulled a gun out of her purse and shot her to death. Both of these senseless, ridiculous events provoked the usual storm of media coverage leading to the predictable condemnation of guns on the one hand and defense of guns on the other.

Don’t get me wrong. We are all human and we all do stupid, senseless things, from driving when we’ve had too much to drink, to sitting in a full bathtub while trying to plug a hair dryer with a loose wire into the wall. But what’s different in the case of these gun accidents is that we’re not talking about something as important as an automobile or even as necessary as looking the best we can before we leave home for work. We are talking about the decision to walk around with a gun, based on the idea that guns protect us from crime.

docs versus glocks I have no issue with people who decide to carry a gun and I have never written a single word calling for limits on CCW or gun ownership, believe it or not. But I think that if people decide to buy or carry a gun for self-defense, they should understand the risk involved, and not let the gun industry’s marketing serve as the final word. Unfortunately, some of the most uninformed and blatantly misleading information about guns is provided by a small group of physicians who should know better, if only because physicians are the one profession in which decisions about risk can only be driven by evidence-based knowledge and not by their own personal views of what’s good for a patient’s health. It’s a group of medical crackpots called Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, which began life in the mid-1990’s as a sycophantic, pro-NRA effort to defund gun research coming out of the CDC. They claim to have a network of more than 1,400 health professionals but their website, associated with the 2nd Amendment Foundation, is just a blog on which several physicians post commentaries whose distortions and downright falsehoods have been the subject of more than one of my own posts.

Just to be clear, I don’t have any issue with anyone who wants to opine on any subject at all. But when a professional dispenses professional advice that runs counter to the accepted practices and policies of his profession, then we’re not just dealing with idle talk. In the case of medicine, we are dealing with advice which, if followed by patients, could result in serious medical harm. To cite one example, in a recent DRGO post, the physician-author claims that “research shows how more guns in the right hands can minimize violence.” There is no such research, at least none that meets even a minimal, evidence-based standard. Is this physician counseling someone concerned about violence to go out and buy a gun even though he can’t point to a single, evidence-based study that validates his point of view?

To show you how loony and unprofessional the DRGO group really is, their website carries a commentary by Jane Orient, a physician who told a conspiracy-minded web-hosted talk show that more than 100,000 West Africans who might be infected with Ebola were sitting in Central America getting ready to cross into the United States. If Jane Orient is now the standard by which DRGO defines statements about medical risks from guns, Ebola or anything else, it becomes impossible to imagine that physicians belonging to this organization should be counseling on health risks at all. But the point is that these medical charlatans don’t believe that guns are a risk. And they are happy and even proud to promote this nonsense because they don’t support the Hippocratic Oath. They support the marketing strategy of the NRA. In the interests of full disclosure, I’d love to know how much and to what degree the 2nd Amendment Foundation is supporting them.

 

When It Comes To Guns, Physicians Should Forget The Hippocratic Oath.

Leave a comment

Now that America finally has a Surgeon General, you would think that the debate over his appointment would give way to an honest and serious effort to evaluate Vivek Murthy’s performance as he leads the nation’s public health effort for at least the next two years. But there’s one guy out there who simply can’t leave the issue behind, and as he continues to fulminate over Obama’s choice for Surgeon General, the hot air and the lies continue to expand. I am referring to Tim Wheeler, the sometime head of an alleged organization which claims to represent thousands of physicians who support ‘responsible’ ownership of guns. The NRA has been pushing this quack into the public arena ever since the gun lobby decided that the listing of gun violence as a public health problem meant that physicians had become, to gun owners, Public Enemy Number 1.

      Vivek Murthy, M.D.

Vivek Murthy, M.D.

I didn’t notice the automobile industry attacking physicians when car accidents made the list as a public health problem. In fact, Detroit collaborated with public health researchers when it came to designing and producing safer cars. The same could also be said of the household recreation industry which helped craft legislation passed by state after state which mandated that fences be installed around all in-ground, backyard pools. But somehow the gun industry decided that its products not only did more good than harm, but decided that they did so much more good than harm that the issues of lethality and safety risks didn’t need to be discussed at all. Enter Timothy Wheeler, who has doggedly led the fight to disconnect physicians from any public discussion or publicly-funded research about guns. And if you doubt the validity of anything he says, remember, this is a guy who claims to be an M.D.

Now I’m not an M.D. but I can do simple math. And if guns are the method of choice in 100,000 fatal and non-fatal but serious injuries each year, then we’re not talking about chopped liver in medical terms. We’re talking about a medical condition which costs countless lives, billions of dollars and untold family trauma each year, the human results of which inevitably end up in a critical-care treatment bay with the terrified family and friends waiting to be told whether they’ll ever be able to speak to the shooting victim again.

 

Wheeler’s latest effort to spread misinformation and stupidity about the role of physicians in gun violence is an op-ed on the National Review website which features his bizarre frothings from time to time. In this particular effort, he not only takes aim at Murthy and the potential danger that he represents for gun owners over the next several years, but he also repeats the fiction that physicians have no right to invade patients’ privacy by advocating “gun control” in the examining room.

If Wheeler is so lacking in the most rudimentary understanding of how medical professionals attempt to asses patient risk he can be excused if only because he may not know how much disinformation he’s handing out. But if he’s aware of how physicians are trained to assess medical risk then he’s just pandering to an audience who can be excused for not knowing what Wheeler’s supposed to be talking about.

Physicians usually begin an examination by asking the patient how he or she feels. The answer to that question prompts the next question, the answer to the next question prompts a third, a fourth and as many questions and answers as the physician needs to ask in order to assess the health risk of the patient sitting in the examination room. To place any limits on the doctor-patient exchange of information is to ask a physician to violate the Hippocratic oath. But Wheeler’s not interested in the method that physicians use to reduce harm. He’s interested in helping the NRA marketing team, which means he’ll say whatever the gun industry needs to have said in order to sell guns. He’s a good salesman from that point of view; as a physician he says things that simply aren’t true.

Why Should Doctors Talk To Patients About Guns? Let The NRA Do It.

Leave a comment

When the 11th Circuit re-instated the Florida gag law on physicians talking to patients about guns I knew that sooner or later we would hear from Timothy Wheeler and his gun-promoting group which believes that 19,000 gun suicides, 11,000 gun homicides and 50,000 (or more) intentional gun injuries each year shouldn’t concern physicians at all. Wheeler is the doctor who began promoting the idea that doctors who inquire about gun ownership are their patients’ worst enemies, and his organization is rolled out by the pro-gun lobby whenever they need additional ammunition to keep America from adopting a common-sense approach to the issue of gun violence.

Wheeler’s organization, for which his claim of having thousands of members has never been verified in any way whatsoever, has just launched a small campaign to support the Florida gag law, at the same time that a coalition of medical associations and advocacy groups are going back to the 11th Circuit to ask the entire court, en banc, to overturn the recent ruling. Which is exactly why Wheeler and his buddies in the gun-blogging community are trying to tilt public opinion the other way.

docs versus glocks In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I am married to an attending pediatrician, and am also a member and certified gun trainer for the NRA. I have no issue with private ownership of guns but I take personally these indecorous attacks on physicians who are required to speak with patients about any matter which they feel might pose a medical risk, particularly involving something as potentially lethal as a gun. The shabby attempt by physicians like Wheeler to pretend that guns do not constitute a health risk reminds me of the pathetic charades conducted back in the 1950’s by a few physicians and scientists who publicly disavowed any link between smoking and cancer.

Of course Wheeler and his cronies, in this case a psychiatrist named Robert Young, don’t want their audience to believe that they are against safe use and storage of guns. After all, everyone’s in favor of safe gun use these days, just ask the NRA and they’ll tout their gun safety program, aka Eddie Eagle which has “reached more than 26 million children in all 50 states.” The same website that contains this information about Eddie Eagle also states that the NRA is “not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers,” which is, simply put, a lie. But Dr. Young seems oblivious to the requirement in his own medical profession to base clinical decisions and strategies on evidence-based information, since he advises his medical colleagues to use the Eddie Eagle handouts in contacts with patients who might or might not own guns.

I saved the best part for last. Although Dr. Young believes in educating children in safe behavior around guns, he also wants to make sure that the safety of children is balanced out by the requirements for self defense. And I quote: “Even the sound practice of storing guns and ammunition in separate, locked places isn’t always right if they are intended to be used for emergency protection.”

This guy’s a physician? This guy took the Hippocratic Oath which requires him to counsel patients about risks to their health? There is not one single piece of credible research which shows that keeping a loaded, unlocked gun around the house creates protection from crime that outweighs the risks of injury or death from the existence of that gun.

People like Robert Young and Timothy Wheeler find media outlets for their destructive ideas because we really are committed to the idea of hearing “both sides” in the public policy debate. But I don’t think that there are two sides when it comes to discussing a health issue which claims 80,000 or more victims each year. Unless, of course, you’d rather believe that mortality and morbidity at those levels has nothing to do with health at all.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers

Build a website with WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: