I think that a purpose of the spate of articles in medical journals -
particularly in the 1990s, trying to show that firearms are a public health
problem - was to try to make this topic a legitimate area for
physician/health professional inquiry and intervention.
We can argue, and I do, that it was poor quality research and slanted to
substantiate the researchers prior convictions against firearm ownership -
but it was published in medical journals which were not open to the "other
side" as an editorial policy.
Might a health care professional today cite that literature as a
justification and successfully defend against a boundary violation?
--henry schaffer
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Phil Lee <maryland_al...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems you disagree with the professional boundaries set for medical
> professionals. Let me try to explain. Suppose an accountant started
> advising his clients on legal matters. In addition to a boundary violation
> the legal profession might view the matter darkly.
>
> You might understand that many professions have ethical codes that are
> intended to guide professional advice and set boundaries that are not
> ill-defined as much as broad. If you read my reference, you might see the
> boundaries for doctors are clear enough. As a lawyer, you clearly will
> understand that it is better to avoid a lawsuit for malpractice in the
> first place than try to defend one for professional misconduct.
>
> If I go to the doctor with the flu, whether I own guns or how they are
> stored isn't relevant to my treatment (nor is whether I use seat belts).
> But the doctor isn't "barred" from asking about my guns (or seat belt use)
> by a professional boundary. What he shouldn't be doing is advising outside
> of his professional expertise which is medicine (and offering advice where
> he lacks training).
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu>
> *To:* firearmsregprof <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2013 7:22 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Doctors asking patients about guns
>
> I’m skeptical of talk of “boundary violation[s],” which is
> rather ill-defined term. It seems to me that if doctors want to ask
> patients about things that they think are relevant to the patient’s health,
> they should be entirely free to do so. To be sure, if they give the
> patient advice that is unreasonable and harmful to the patient, they could
> be liable for malpractice and for professional discipline. But I see no
> basis why doctors, lawyers, accountants, or anyone else should be barred
> from asking their patients questions.
>
> Eugene
>
> *From:* firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Phil Lee
> *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2013 4:13 PM
> *To:* firearmsregprof
> *Subject:* Doctors asking patients about guns
>
> President Obama suggested the other day as part of his "gun safety"
> initiative that it was appropriate for physicians to ask about their
> patients' guns.
>
> Doctors who advise outside of their area of expertise have committed a
> professional boundary violation.
>
> The link:
> www.ethics.va.gov/docs/necrpts/NEC_Report_20030701_Ethical_Boundaries_Pt-Clinician_Relationship.pdf,
> "Ethical Boundaries in the Patient-Clinician Relationship," National
> Center for Ethics in Health Care, July 2003,
> defines "for physicians: Professionalism is the basis of medicine’s
> contract with society. It demands placing the interests of patients above
> those of the physician, setting and maintaining standards of competence and
> integrity, and providing expert advice to society on matters of health."
>
> So, if a physician asks about guns in the home of a patient, it may be
> argued that question has little to do with the patient's health unless he
> observes a condition such as mental disturbance that justifies such a
> question for a particular patient. Even if there were a circumstance with a
> patient justifying the question, doctors advising on guns may be questioned
> about their training ("standards of competence") to do so. It is rare that
> a physician has been medically certified to advise about gun safety and
> rarer still that a physician studies the perils a patient may face (i.e.
> crime in his neighborhood). Unless a physician undertakes a study leading
> to his certification and unless he studied the patients unique
> circumstances, in advising he would not have limited himself as a
> professional should do. According to the linked document "A boundary
> violation occurs when a health care professional’s behavior goes beyond
> appropriate professional limits."
> Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
