Comments on: ACEP doesn’t speak for me on this one

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:01 +0000

If the medical societies truly wished to support public policies that benefitted their clients, whether that is physicians or patients, I would not have an issue with it. However, they do not. Information that supports gun ownership is ignored, eg Lott, Kleck, the fact that homicide and crime rates go down in non-discriminatory LTC states, and the rise in crime following gun bans in Washington DC, Britain, Australia, etc. Evidence that corellates firearms with any increase in crime, homicide, suicide, global warming, stagflation, etc is touted.

Based on my personal observations, it appears that the voting members are largely ignorant of firearms issues, but do not let their ignorance stand in the way of their taking a position. I was at a meeting of the ACP in Philadelphia, during which a presentation was made of a survey of physicians and surgeons regarding good measures to take to prevent gun violence. The top three were 1) register machine guns, 2) no sales to felons, and 3) no sales to mentally unstable people. The fact that these have been federal law for decades completely escaped the audience and the presenters.

If I asked how to reduce automobile injuries, and the “experts” suggested requiring that all cars have seatbelts and safety glass, without noting that all cars already have these things, I would concude that the “experts” were ignorant and not worth listening to.

The same applies here.

By: NOTR

NOTR — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:55:58 +0000

Grunt Doc,

Thanks! After my optho type doc who lives across the street from me echoed tripe about gun banning I had about given up on the med profession. It is one I never understood, it is the ultimate capitalist guild, yet it constantly panders to those who prefer statism. Never could break the code. Your comments renew my faith that there are some thinkers left in your profession. :)

By: David Weber

David Weber — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:48:22 +0000

Aw, gee, doc Russia. Thanks. I almost feel as if I’ve been pandered to. And there’s nothing cuter than a pander.

By: Goesh

Goesh — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:54:08 +0000

Well, it is refreshing to see Doctors engaging in this debate, since we are supposed to be a participatory democracy. The AMA’s position on assault rifles makes as much sense as say the Teamsters taking a position that physicians should be subject to mandatory, ultra-high liability settlements regardless of the nature of the liability. Unattractive suturing would pay as much as leaving a clamp in the abdominal cavity, since the AMA knows as much about assault rifles as the teamsters do about medical procedures. Democracy is a bitch. I suppose it is all in the definition of terms, but most people can’t afford to buy assault rifles. Common sense dictates that most folks will keep a $300.00 Taurus .38 in the home for the extremely remote possibility that some maniac could come busting in. Instead of spending say 1500.00 on an assault rifle, they will use the $1200.00 ‘saved’ for their kid’s college tuition. That type of common sense is what gets us through, generation to generation, not the pontificating by the AMA and Teamsters.

By: De Doc

De Doc — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:49:11 +0000

doc Russia: If you’d like a scrip for that, in order to make Mr. Weber happy, please feel free to drop me a line.

I think you need something in 6.8 SPC, if I’m not mistaken; you strike me as being mildly allergic to 5.56…

ahem.

;-)

By: Derrick

Derrick — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:45:40 +0000

While I respectfully disagree with gruntdoc’s position regarding an assault weapons ban, I agree with him that this is a political issue that ACEP has no business choosing a side on. With reduced Medicare reimbursements, ED overcrowding, poor access to follow up clinics, and the threat of bioterrorism, there are MANY issues which require a unified voice of Emergency Physicians. Choosing battles which divide and weaken this voice only serves to dilute the strength of ACEP.

By: doc Russia

doc Russia — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:37:33 +0000

Mr. Weber;
I quite agree. People should need prescriptions for guns, and medicare should help pay for them.
Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to self-medicate….

/sarcasm

By: TheNewGuy

TheNewGuy — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:20:53 +0000

As a physician, I have to say that I disagree… these are not medical decisions, these are political issues. We will deliver the care whether a motorcycle helmet is worn or not. We will deliver the care whether a GSW victim is a cop or a gang-banger.

I attempted to change some things in the AMA early in my career. However, the folks I dealt with weren’t the slightest bit interested in debating the issues. What I received instead was a continuous regurgitation of ideological boilerplate.

Those of us who won’t join our professional societies to avoid supporting positions that we find objectionable are simply voting with our feet. Many of us feel these issues are NOT important in daily practice, and positions taken by small professional societies are unlikely to change political realities. Rather, these positions smack of naked political favor-currying. I’m busy enough… and I have no time or patience to fight my own professional organization while they happily use my dues money to print up glossy fliers bragging about their support for landmine bans and “no nukes,” just in time for the next Greenpeace convention.

Passionate advocates for divisive stands within an organization can cloak their advocacy in whatever sanctimony they like… but far from being appropriate and brave, it’s actually self-defeating and foolish, particularly if the stated goal is to forge a large organization to advocate for nuts-and-bolts EM issues. Instead of keeping the group together for large and important fights, such schisms divide and drive away members. That’s fine if you’re trying to build a small cadre of true believers… not so fine if you need numbers to swing greater political weight.

The ONE thing we have in common is that we’re all ER docs; they might consider starting with that.

By: David Weber

David Weber — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:23:30 +0000

Actually, it seems to me — a non-physician — that many hot-potato issues are very pertinent to day-to-day practice, not least the issue of gun violence. Healthcare coverage, end-of-life care, sexuality, drug and alcohol control policies, abortion, smoking, highway speeds, motorcycle helmets, auto emission standards… all have health impacts and all push somebody’s hot button. I think it’s appropriate and brave of influential groups to address things that affect them. Of course, the stance the group takes ought to be subject to vigorous internal debate. And somebody’s ox is going to be gored, no matter what. The gorees can quit in disgust — or stay and keep pushing the rational arguments for their position.

By: TheNewGuy

TheNewGuy — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:44:07 +0000

“Who the heck are the liberals anybody feels they have to pander to these days?”

An excellent question, Mr. Weber… an excellent question indeed.

These positions have been a part of ACEP and the AMA since the early/mid 90′s (the last time I considered joining). During that time frame the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was de rigueur, both in the medical community and the public health community… never mind that there was no data to support it.

It’s long past time for professional societies to drop the hot-potato issue advocacy and start advocating for their respective professions… not for the current political issue du jour. Until they regain their focus on issues that are important in day-to-day practice, they will languish in their current state.

Unfortunate, but unlikely to change.