Gun violence is an ever-growing concern in the United States, and there’s no question that emergency physicians are at the front line for treating its victims. But how far should emergency medicine go in advocating for or against gun control?
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 35 – No 07 – July 2016ACEP Now asked two physicians with opposing views for their opinions on the matter. The following is a summary of their conversation.
Participants
Moderator
Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, FACEP, chief medical officer–emergency medicine and chief risk officer for TeamHealth, executive director of the TeamHealth Patient Safety Organization, and medical editor-in-chief for ACEP Now
KK: Do you think that ACEP should be weighing in on Second Amendment rights?
AF: I think that we should be active on certain things that are specifically relevant to physicians. Regarding the Second Amendment, it’s the law of the land, and I don’t think there’s any debate about that. I think there are certain bills that are more relevant to our members, and those are the ones we should take a position on.
MC: Firearm injury is a very important topic in emergency medicine because we’re on the front lines. However, there are some facts that need to be addressed.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the top-four most common non-fatal accidents in 2007 were caused by falls, motor vehicle accidents, other specified injuries, and poisonings. Non-fatal accidents and hospitalizations due to firearms were second from the bottom; only dog bites were lower.
As far as fatal accidents in 2007, only 0.5 percent were from accidental firearm fatalities and injuries. The top four that year were motor vehicle accidents, poisonings, falls, and otherwise unspecified, and at the very bottom were firearms. Since 1993, gun violence in this country has dramatically dropped, from 15.2 to 10.5 deaths by firearm per 100,000 people, in 2013. We cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment. Andrew’s right about that.
KK: Andrew, Marco has given a bunch of stats and his perspective on things, and I want to give you an opportunity to respond. I assume that you don’t necessarily agree with everything he said.
AF: I don’t agree with everything he said. One thing I will respond to is the issue of mental health. I think it’s a big issue, and it’s important. I think more funding for mental health treatment is absolutely necessary in this discussion, and we do have to keep in mind that those individuals with a mental health diagnosis have actually been shown to be less likely involved in firearm violence, but we know that anyone who commits suicide is mentally ill.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page
4 Responses to “Gun Control Issue Fosters Pro–Con Advocacy Debate in Emergency Medicine”
July 24, 2016
PaulThis is a shame that ACEP is even trying to have a debate on this issue. As emergency physicians who treat victims of gun violence, it’s pretty clear our position should be that we should be doing everything we can to ensure fewer gun deaths. The ecological data from other countries and from studies in the United States is clear, in spite of what Dr. Coppola is suggesting – where there are fewer firearms, there are fewer firearm deaths. If ACEP wants to consider his position that we should we should become an even more armed society, it only has to remember we are already by far and away the most armed first-world country in the world and have more gun violence and gun deaths than any other such country. Coincidence? I think not.
July 24, 2016
Otis Mark Hastings MD FACEPMurders are being committed using knives, axes, trucks, and bombs as well as guns. THE ONLY THING MORE REGULATIONS WILL DO IS LIMIT LAW-ABIDING ACCESS. GUN VIOLENCE IS WORSE IN CHICAGO IN SPITE of strict gun laws. We need to treat mental illness and have a data base that allows physicians to enter patients who should not pass a background check. We need to vet immigrants to be certain we are not welcoming terrorists.
July 25, 2016
Timothy Wheeler, MDThanks to ACEP Now for acknowledging that there are two sides to this issue. But let me correct an error that has been endlessly perpetuated by those who wish to even further restrict firearm civil rights.
Congress did not prohibit firearm research at the CDC. I know. I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House Appropriations Committee in March 1996. We showed the committee hard evidence of the CDC leadership’s overt gun control advocacy. It was that anti-civil rights advocacy that Congress quite reasonably prohibited, not firearm research.
The events of that era are documented in my three-part historical series “The History of Public Health Gun Control” at DRGO’s website, drgo.us.
Timothy Wheeler, MD
Director
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation
August 21, 2016
Mark BuettnerOnce again the leaders of ACEP have embarked on a course of action that disenfranchises a significant population of physician members. This is a political course of action advocating for anti-civil rights. From the start ACEP has aligned itself with the political left by adopting the terms “Gun Violence” and “Firearm Violence”. This political path is deceptive and irresponsible. It is deceptive to use the terms “Gun Violence” and “Firearm Violence”. By design these terms attribute a greatly undesirable “action” or “state of being”, i.e. “violence”, to an inanimate object, the gun. It extracts the necessary element of “proximate cause” for the action of violence and attributes it to the inanimate gun. This helps the left to advocate for controlling “violent guns” without a discussion on the proximate cause for the violence. How often does President Obama address the proximate cause of black on black violence in his home town of Chicago? The security of maintaining political correctness for politicians is more important than the security for citizens knowing the proximate cause of violence when elements of toxic culture are involved. ACEP will serve as an agent of the left in this issue. In doing so they will poorly represent their physician members and poorly advocate for their Emergency Department patient populations.