Doctor Turned Kids Away Over Gun Question

[baldeagle]

However, if this increase occurs without proper education, then there is also likely to be an increase in the number of weapons in homes of less experienced users. This is essentially the basis of my concerns about equal measures of advocacy and education. I am not asking for education to become primary - just equal.

Now explain why it's the responsibility of the NRA to do that education.

The general tenor of your comments have been that it is someone else's responsibility to do something. You want the doctor to educate parents about the dangers of guns, the importance of wearing seat belts, etc. You want the NRA to invest equal amounts of effort in safety education to the amounts they spend on defense of the 2A. Do the parents have a responsibility to educate their children? Or are they passive recipients of the efforts of others?

I'm curious what your life philosophy is, because it seems you want lots of other people telling you what to do, unless I'm misunderstanding your point entirely.

[Zero_G]

I'm jumping into this discussion a bit late, but I want to throw something in from the doc's side.

I'm a physician, Family Practice, so I've done thousands of 'well child checks'. I have to disagree with those that have vocalized that inquiring about safety issues is outside the bounds of these visits.

A lot of medicine, especially in the well child visits, fall into the realms of preventive medicine and anticipatory guidance. Basically, it's trying to anticipate common problems and answer questions before they come up. Health and safety is as important as plotting the growth curve and listening to the heart an lungs -- probably even more important. The biggest killer of kids is accidents and injury. Car seat use is pushed from the moment the child leaves the hospital for the first time. The earliest thing that kids do is put small objects in their mouths, so that's a very early safety topic. As the kids get more mobile we move into the topics of climbing over the rails of a crib or pulling things down on themselves. Older kids ride bikes, so bike and traffic safety become big topics. Many checklists I've had included questions about guns in the home, and since my practices have been in rural areas and the military guns are common. The way I've handled them has been to mention if you have guns you need to keep them secured as kids can get into the darnedest places.I usually don't even ask the direct question "do you have guns in the house". It's not a big topic in my book as drownings and poisonings kill many more kids than accidental (or even intentional) firearm discharges. While the gang on this forum is very safety conscious, the average level of patient that you deal with in most physician offices tends to be socially challenged and often has never considered safety. (Consider that the recommendation from the American Academy of Family Physicians is to keep all patient handouts to the 7th grade reading level or below. Also most medical teaching institutions deal with an indigent population who are notoriously difficult to deal with given their social difficulties. This tends to bias a lot of the material coming out of academic centers)

I would certainly agree that he doc in Florida went way too far in pushing his political agenda and was out of bounds, but asking the basic question about firearm safety is very much in the framework of general child safety and an appropriate part of the well child check.

Keith

[VoiceofReason]

This incident with Dr. Chris Okonkwo and Children's Health of Ocala should be given as much publicity as possible so gun owners do not go to that clinic or to that doctor. The incident being in the news paper was a good start.

The doctor was out of line with that question. A handout concerning dangers to children in the home (poisons, suffocation, electric shock, etc. along with guns) would have sufficed.

Any further comment would just get me in trouble with the moderators.

[Oldgringo]

This incident with Dr. Chris Okonkwo and Children's Health of Ocala should be given as much publicity as possible so gun owners do not go to that clinic or to that doctor. The incident being in the news paper was a good start.

The doctor was out of line with that question. A handout concerning dangers to children in the home (poisons, suffocation, electric shock, etc. along with guns) would have sufficed.

Any further comment would just get me in trouble with the moderators.

Is Chris Nwachukwu Okonkwo the guy you speak of?

[Beiruty]

That's ridiculous! I would be happy to find a different doctor!

Our kids ped asked the question several years ago. We said yes, he asked if they were secured, we said of course. He moved on to the next question.

I have no problem with anyone encouraging proper weapon storage in a home with small children. In fact, that is one area IMHO, the pro-gun lobby organizations (including, but not limited to) the NRA is not vocal enough.

I know this may not be a popular opinion here but I think that the NRA should go as far as to market and sell a low cost, quick access, handgun safe marketed to families with small children. And perhaps even, don't throw tomatoes at me, subsidize them for low income families. It would be the most expedient way to disarm the argument that the pro-gun crowd doesn't care that children are killed by guns in homes - and perhaps save a few lives in the process.

An Okay small safe will cost some $50 that is the cost of 250 rds of 9mm. Isn't the law that if you have small children, all guns should be in a safe?

[terryg]

While the gang on this forum is very safety conscious, the average level of patient that you deal with in most physician offices tends to be socially challenged and often has never considered safety. (Consider that the recommendation from the American Academy of Family Physicians is to keep all patient handouts to the 7th grade reading level or below. Also most medical teaching institutions deal with an indigent population who are notoriously difficult to deal with given their social difficulties. This tends to bias a lot of the material coming out of academic centers)

I would certainly agree that he doc in Florida went way too far in pushing his political agenda and was out of bounds, but asking the basic question about firearm safety is very much in the framework of general child safety and an appropriate part of the well child check.
Keith

I wholeheartedly agree. I all depends upon the intention of the physician. This doctor in FL obviously had radical views and used the information inappropriately. But I firmly believe that the vast majority of pediatrician who might ask this question are simply attempting to access and help educate the parent. Thats what my ped did. He asked if there were any guns in the house. We said yes. He asked if they were secured. We said 'of course'. He moved on. He has been, and remains, a very close and trusted partner in the health of our children. If he had reacted inappropriately once he learned of this information - we would have simply found another provider. He works for me - not the other way around.

[Oldgringo]

However, if this increase occurs without proper education, then there is also likely to be an increase in the number of weapons in homes of less experienced users. This is essentially the basis of my concerns about equal measures of advocacy and education. I am not asking for education to become primary - just equal.

Now explain why it's the responsibility of the NRA to do that education.

The general tenor of your comments have been that it is someone else's responsibility to do something. You want the doctor to educate parents about the dangers of guns, the importance of wearing seat belts, etc. You want the NRA to invest equal amounts of effort in safety education to the amounts they spend on defense of the 2A. Do the parents have a responsibility to educate their children? Or are they passive recipients of the efforts of others?

I'm curious what your life philosophy is, because it seems you want lots of other people telling you what to do, unless I'm misunderstanding your point entirely.

Good eye, baldeagle. I was kinda' wonderin' the same thing.

Is "telling" and "responsible for" the same?

[karl]

Seems to me terryg's statements were taken a bit off the deep end. I only see a (possibly overzealous) vision, parts of which I can agree with. Lots of people have ideas of how to make things better and discussion and debate forge those ideas into things that actually work. We citizens lobby to representatives and senators to cater to our political preferences and the NRA has a much larger group of the population to represent. Of course the NRA can't possibly make everyone happy but I can't fault someone for having an idea that may have some flawed logic but ultimately lead towards a safer, more educated pool of firearm owners.

[terryg]

However, if this increase occurs without proper education, then there is also likely to be an increase in the number of weapons in homes of less experienced users. This is essentially the basis of my concerns about equal measures of advocacy and education. I am not asking for education to become primary - just equal.

Now explain why it's the responsibility of the NRA to do that education.

The general tenor of your comments have been that it is someone else's responsibility to do something. You want the doctor to educate parents about the dangers of guns, the importance of wearing seat belts, etc. You want the NRA to invest equal amounts of effort in safety education to the amounts they spend on defense of the 2A. Do the parents have a responsibility to educate their children? Or are they passive recipients of the efforts of others?

I'm curious what your life philosophy is, because it seems you want lots of other people telling you what to do, unless I'm misunderstanding your point entirely.

Yes, I think that you are grossly misunderstanding my point. I also sense some hostility and I don't know if that is because you misunderstand my points - or if the hostility is the reason you misunderstand my points. I am weary of trying to re-state them in a way that can't accidentally be misunderstood. I am also leery of continuing this rabbit-trail. But in an effort to clear things up - I will try again.

First of all, yes of course, parents bear the burden of the responsibility to educate their children. I feel this more deeply than most and have had occasions to stand up for that right and responsibility in the past. However I, as a parent, also welcome information that will assist me in accomplishing this task. The more knowledgeable I am, the better equipped I am to educate my children. But this is really not the issue. The primary education I am asking from the NRA is educating parents about how important it is to store weapons safely in the home. Yes, teaching kids what to do when they see an unsecured weapon is important - but it is better if the weapon is never unsecured at all.

Now explain why it's the responsibility of the NRA to do that education.

I think it the NRA bears some responsibility to help educate gun owners because by promoting gun rights and gun ownership (which I applaud), a higher number of less experienced people will own guns. As Dr. Zero_G pointed out (very timely - I might add):

While the gang on this forum is very safety conscious, the average level of patient that you deal with in most physician offices tends to be socially challenged and often has never considered safety.

If they Darwin themselves because they a lack of knowledge - that is very sad. But if their kids injures or kills themselves or a sibling or a neighborhood kid because the parent didn't know they could secure the weapon in a way that would still grant them fast access (i.e. a good quick access safe); then it is beyond tragic. I think its pretty clear that the promoter of gun rights bears some of the burden of safety education. TAM didn't even really argue that point with me - he primarily argued that the NRA is already very strongly involved in gun safety education.

But beyond that, I also strongly think it is in the NRA's own best self interest to become synonymous with gun safety in the public eye. This is because the continued occurrence of accidental shootings is one of the last best arguments the anti-gun lobby has left. Statistics in CCW areas have shown handgun crime has decreased with the relaxing of gun laws. So they can't really continue to yell "Fire" about increased crime. But they can parade horrible stories about young lives lost, or forever altered, by unsecured weapons. The more we can disarm these arguments, the more progress can be made in further relaxation of gun laws.

... because it seems you want lots of other people telling you what to do ...

And finally, I can't really see where you get that I wan't other people telling me what to do. I want those with whom I contract for services to provided those services. I expect that part of those services will be to pass information on to me that I may or may not already know. I will then take that information and, hopefully, make the best decision for myself and my family. I don't see the act of recommending to me that I keep my weapons secure; or that my children use seat belts; or if possible, ride in the back seat instead of the front until age 12; as them telling me what to do. They are simply passing on useful information that they have received as a result of their training, experience, and professional networks.

Much of this information I already know;
some of I don't;
all of it I value;
most of it I choose to follow;
none of it is "telling me what to do".

[G26ster]

I'm not sure the message that the OP originally posted is being addressed. Perhaps I'm wrong. According to the link the OP posted, it said, "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, pediatricians are urged to inform parents about the dangers of guns in and outside the home and they recommend that they incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who have guns to remove them from the home." That's a far cry from recommending that they be secured and away from children. I'm certainly all for child safety, but this appears to go beyond that IMHO.

Is this a "first step" in an "anti" lobby tactic? First you have reputable organizations "suggest" actions to parents. Sort of like "carbon emissions and saving the planet." Next you have teachers/schools teach children about the "dangers of a practice" (read - guns in the home). Then you have government or interest groups making booklets and promos to be shown/distributed in the schools. Then the other "interest groups" can join in the promotion. You know, "do it for the children." Soon, it's not your physician counseling you on the issue, it's your children.

Oh, yeah, I like the part about, "that they incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking" too. Now with the new healthcare electronic records provisions, we now have an official record of gun ownership. Or, you can just ignore what I said above, because maybe I'm just too old, and awfully tired of the interference in our private lives. That's always possible.

[flintknapper]

I'd answer the question with "Do you have seat belts in your car?"

Tsk, tsk, TAM...you should know better than to throw logic at a lib

Or common sense.

You can throw both.....but don't expect either to "stick". I firmly believe "Libs" have teflon in their DNA.

[VoiceofReason]

This incident with Dr. Chris Okonkwo and Children's Health of Ocala should be given as much publicity as possible so gun owners do not go to that clinic or to that doctor. The incident being in the news paper was a good start.

The doctor was out of line with that question. A handout concerning dangers to children in the home (poisons, suffocation, electric shock, etc. along with guns) would have sufficed.

Any further comment would just get me in trouble with the moderators.

Is Chris Nwachukwu Okonkwo the guy you speak of?

I copied the name from the article.

[VMI77]

Just answer no and go on down the road, yes and it goes on the forever electronic socialist med charts that's comming from with Obamacare.

It has no bearing on medical care or history.

If it were only that simple. That's not how the system is evolving. If socialism is coming, coming with it will be prison terms for anyone lying on government forms (already the law for some forms). Since the presumption with these Nanny State attitudes is that you're not competent to run your own life and must be instructed by your betters, then lying to your betters cannot possibly be in your own interest and must be punished.

[VMI77]

I don't agree. Is it improper for the pediatrician to ask and recommend that children wear bicycles helmets when riding?

Yes, I think it's entirely improper. It's none of the doctor's business. He's there to determine the health needs of my children, not check to see if I'm parenting properly.

What about asking about seat belt use in the car?

None of his business. The government is intrusive enough without allowing people you engage for services asking you those questions.

I'm a computer security expert. Would you appreciate me asking you if you lock your guns? Wear your seatbelt? Make your children wear safety helmets? How is that relevant to my job? And no, it's not relevant to the pediatrician's job either, unless you think somehow that knowing you wear seat belts and insist that your children do as well impacts their diagnosis somehow.

How many times have you passed a car and witnessed a young child climbing around without a seatbelt? I know we all did this when we were kids - but most of us now know that this is not a very wise practice.

I see all sorts of things that parents do that I disagree with. But I tell my wife, not them, because I'm not responsible for them nor would they appreciate me lecturing them. That's what's wrong with America today. Everybody thinks they need to be up in everybody else's business. Go live your own life and leave me alone. You will have more than enough of your own problems that you'll never need to take the time to solve mine.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm surprised by how many people seem to be ready to open their lives up to anyone with some kind of State issued credential.

[VMI77]

It has nothing to do with verifying whether or not you are parenting properly and everything to do with make sure you have the information you need to make correct decisions. That's the line of parental sovereignty. You then take that information and decide what is best for your family. This doctor in FL crossed that line.

I am engaging their service because they are a trusted partner. They have education and experience that i don't, and can not possibly, have. Does that mean I take everything thing they say and every opinion offered as gospel? No. But do I appreciate and value their services and opinions? You betcha! I wouldn't waste my time or money if that were not true. Have they first hand seen young children's lives ruined in ways that I can not possibly imagine? I know in fact that they have. Helping equip me with information that can prevent accidental harm to my child absolutely has a bearing on the health of my child. So I value their input.

It's not for someone else to decide that I need information they are providing. Lot's of people think they have information I should have, accept, agree with, etc, and it's up to me do decide whether I want it, not them. If the doc wants to offer information by telling me he has information of these subjects if I'm interested, fine. If I'm interested I'll pursue it. If I'm not interested and he attempts to impose such information on me then he has crossed my line of parental sovereignty.

I only go to the doctor because I have to. My wife is my trusted partner, not my doctor. Doctors have other interests at stake that are often in conflict with your interests. Furthermore, just because someone went to medical school and has experience practicing medicine doesn't mean he's competent or will provide good advice. In fact, my experience with doctors has been much the opposite. They often provide contradictory information and information that is flat out wrong. I've had to take action of my own at least twice to prevent doctors from harming members of my family, and I'm pretty sure doctors hastened the demise of my father. And having people in the family who work in the medical profession I have heard numerous horror stories of doctors making serious and sometimes lethal mistakes. Then they lie about it to escape the consequences. That doesn't meet my definition of trusted partner. And finally, a lot of time and money is wasted, not because the doctor provides a valuable service, but because they provide a monopoly service, and have managed to make it illegal for you to get the equivalent service at a cheaper price.