Question asked at my pediatricians office

[Glocktogo]

It IS a safety issue, and it IS relevant to whether a home is a safe environment for a child, yes. Now, you can say all you want that they should then ask about electrical outlets and cords, pets in the home, if cabinet doors are locked for child safety, if medicines are locked up and out of a child's reach, if they watch too much TV, if household cleaners are stored safely, if stairs are carpeted, if there are safety railings, if there are baby gates, if electrical appliance cords are zip-tied and tucked away or secured, if anyone smokes in the home (this IS asked), if there is a fireplace, if there is a doggie door they could get stuck in, if toilet seats are secured so they can't play in the water, if plastic baggies or trash bags are locked away so they can't suffocate on them, if loose change is laying around they could swallow or choke on, if French fries or hotdogs are cut into small pieces before they are fed to the child, if small hard candies are laying around, plastic wrappers unsecured, if trash cans are locked to prevent access, if cat boxes are secure and inaccessible, if there is a stop/reverse trigger on garage doors, if door handles have protective covers, if doors themselves have top-mouted anti-closure devices, if there are fire/smoke/C02 detectors in the home, if there are safety ladders for window exit in a fire, if water heaters are set to below 120 degrees, if there is lead-based paint, if there is asbestos-based ceiling treatment, if there are objects that could fall off the wall or be pulled down, if the stove is child-friendly to prevent unauthorized activation, if there is alcohol in the home and if it is safely secured, if knives and forks are stored in a place that can't be reached, if your child has an alarm or tracking collar you can use to track them if they wander off, if you've had them fingerprinted for identification purposes, if you use a kid-leash while walking in public or in the mall....

You get the point (I hope).

It may be a question you find invasive, redundant or unnecessary, as would be many of the ones above, but the fact is, in-home safety IS a concern that is relevant for a medical professional, especially those doing "well child checks" where safety is one of the topics in evaluating a child's life and health (and potential for harm). Though guns may be a trigger-issue (no pun intended) for some, and it is a right for you to own, and the way the question is asked may make you feel like you are being interrogated, it IS a safety issue, which IS a concern of the healthcare field and since guns are a hot-button issue, that question makes the cut where many others may not. Answer it how you like, and if you think it's none of their business, then express those feelings. Otherwise realize that the majority of people asking these questions are doing so because it is a checkbox on a form, and like it or not, the insurance companies and EMR companies include that information for the sake of thoroughness (is that even a word??? lol).

I'm not saying those questionaires couldn't or wouldn't be used against you in some Orwellian future scenario, but man... just say, yes, no, I don't want to answer that, or find another place to go.

But please don't claim it's irrelevant. While firearms in the home may be your right, they are without a doubt a statistical safety issue that we should all take seriously from a responsibility standpoint. And let's face it... alot of people don't.

Look, it's one thing to sign up for a class or appointment for childproofing a home. That would also apply to the medical community providing a pamphlet outlining how to childproof your kid's environment.

It's another thing entirely to ask if there are guns in the home and document that in a medical record. That does nothing whatsoever to promote "child wellness". So asking the relevance of the question when taking your kid in for a medical issue is, well, relevant!

Really really, you're redirections all around. A pediatrician doesn't have to be an SME on fire or firearms to distribute pertinent advice where those topics intersect your child's health and development.
Your Ped doesn't have to be an electrician to recommend outlet covers, doesn't have to be a chemical engineer to recommend that you put up your bleach, doesn't have to be a remodeler to recommend that you don't leave the cords from your blinds hanging down near cribs, doesn't have to be a fireman to recommend that you remove/secure the hip-high knobs from your stove, doesn't have to be a chef to recommend that you cut up your toddler's hot dogs, doesn't have to manufacture shoes to recommend that you put shoes on your kid, and doesn't have to be an NRA and CLEET certified instructor to recommend that you don't leave loaded, unlocked guns where kids can get to them. I didn't see his post when replying, but tRidiot really covered all of that part pretty well.

Now after 5 kids I have been asked just about everything, but I did find that our Ped's office was set up to give a free gun lock pamphlet to anyone who said they had guns in their home. It had 5 or 6 addresses where you could get free gun locks around OKC and some more crap about where to learn about gun safety. No expertise required for that.

ETA: One thing I've noticed is that they ask the question a very specific way. They don't ask if you own guns, they just want to know if there are any guns in the house itself. If you just have a shotgun in the shed, it sounds like they put down "no."

See above. If you went in and asked for information on keeping your child safe and they give you information on gettting free gun locks or outlet covers or how to secure your pool, well that does make sense. Categorizing you as a gun owner on a medical record, doesn't.

Context makes all the difference in the world.

 

[LightningCrash]

Look, it's one thing to sign up for a class or appointment for childproofing a home. That would also apply to the medical community providing a pamphlet outlining how to childproof your kid's environment.

It's another thing entirely to ask if there are guns in the home and document that in a medical record. That does nothing whatsoever to promote "child wellness". So asking the relevance of the question when taking your kid in for a medical issue is, well, relevant!

See above. If you went in and asked for information on keeping your child safe and they give you information on gettting free gun locks or outlet covers or how to secure your pool, well that does make sense. Categorizing you as a gun owner on a medical record, doesn't.

Context makes all the difference in the world.

Read my post then. You're reading in the context you want to see while again ignoring the question that was asked.

 

[tRidiot]

If you don't believe that evaluating and promoting safety is part of healthcare, then I'd say the answer is simple - don't participate in healthcare if it offends you that much. Nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[Surveyor1653]

This is an entirely inappropriate question on a general health screening, period, message ends. Besides, what's their definition of "safely"? They're asking a question, the repsonse to which is dependent upon an undefined standard.

I think everyone needs to question the true motivation of the people who put that question on the form and not COUNTLESS others. Is it really that hard for this group of people to figure out? Apparently it is for some.

 

[Glocktogo]

Read my post then. You're reading in the context you want to see while again ignoring the question that was asked.

Context to the OP: 9 month olds check-up; asked if guns are in the house; no follow up(?) after the question was asked. So, is this a "well child check"? (whatever that is) If so and the question is asked, is there a follow-up or is it merely noted on a chart? The OP didn't elaborate further, so the context is somewhat vague. My responses have relevance, depending on the unanswered questions.

Context to your posts: "When is gun safety unimportant?" My relevant answer: When you aren't handling guns and seeking medical attention/screening. "Was it on a form the OP was filling out, or did someone ask?" Well we don't have that information, but other posters have stated before that it was merely noted on a chart or form after being answered. "To use a comparison, is fire safety only important when a house is on fire?" My relevant response is that fire safety is not a priority item when seeking medical attention/screening. If you want information on fire safety, consult a fire safety professional. Then you pedantic and unwitty retort "A redirection on both accounts, how very boring." Followed by "Fortunately he was at the pediatrician's office, not his own PCP for his own needs. I'd imagine consulting a pediatrician about the physical well-being and safety of a child is a great venue for such concerns. I know, I know, crazy talk." Again, why question about guns and not pools, knives, stoves, etc.? Perhaps they did? We don't know the answer because it wasn't provided. What do we know? The AMA, AAP, APA, CDC, etc. are all anti-gun oriented. Therefore any materials promulgated by them that do not specifically provide for unbiased follow up regarding guns in the home should rightly be suspect.

Now after significant back and forth, you finally weigh in with a non-snarky response: "Now after 5 kids I have been asked just about everything, but I did find that our Ped's office was set up to give a free gun lock pamphlet to anyone who said they had guns in their home. It had 5 or 6 addresses where you could get free gun locks around OKC and some more crap about where to learn about gun safety. No expertise required for that.

ETA: One thing I've noticed is that they ask the question a very specific way. They don't ask if you own guns, they just want to know if there are any guns in the house itself. If you just have a shotgun in the shed, it sounds like they put down "no.""

Finally! Something we can work with! So I reasonably respond: "If you went in and asked for information on keeping your child safe and they give you information on getting free gun locks or outlet covers or how to secure your pool, WELL THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. Categorizing you as a gun owner on a medical record, doesn't.

Sadly, you apparently didn't get that: "Read my post then. You're reading in the context you want to see while again ignoring the question that was asked."

I don't need to read your posts again, I got the gist of them correct the first time through. Perhaps you should go back and re-read mine instead?

If you don't believe that evaluating and promoting safety is part of healthcare, then I'd say the answer is simple - don't participate in healthcare if it offends you that much. Nothing more to say on the matter.

I get that you're a doctor and don't appreciate being questioned on things within your domain, but your last post really sounds a lot like what Gov. Cuomo said about NY conservatives. Basically "don't let the door hit you..." Not cool. While you may be pro-gun yourself, your industry is not. We have a right to question their motives, if not yours or the functionary carrying out their edicts. You said yourself "they have to ask the questions". Fine, but "they" are not paying the tab, your CUSTOMERS are. If the customers find the process onerous or out of context (as the OP obviously did), then they have a right to question that process. Do you consider it reasonable to cancel a patient's appointment if they are 5 minutes late, but it's OK to leave them waiting an hour and a half past their appointment to see the service provider? Are we allowed to question that? You expect patients to willingly pay their full bill (or copays and deductibles), without first getting to see the bill. What other industry gets to do that? Would you buy a car or a meal or a pair of shoes on that basis? Of course not! Now add in the fact that you can go without a car or a meal from a certain vendor, but health care is kind of an essential service. A service that you can't exactly go across the street and get on the same day from another vendor.

Face it, your industry has credibility issues and rightly so. I trusted my Dr. of 15 years that got run out of practice by Obamacare, but I didn't trust the faceless corporation she worked for, the other faceless corporations she worked with or the system that was designed to protect them more than the doctors they used or patients they get rich off of.

Now factor in an out of control government that apparently has zero concept of boundaries, and you get REASONABLE skepticism. Now I could go the cheap shot route and say if you don't like it, go flip burgers for a living, but that wouldn't be cool. So instead, try taking off the white coat and walking a mile in your customer's shoes. Like it or not they do pay the costs, in more ways than one.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is an entirely inappropriate question on a general health screening, period, message ends. Besides, what's their definition of "safely"? They're asking a question, the repsonse to which is dependent upon an undefined standard.

I think everyone needs to question the true motivation of the people who put that question on the form and not COUNTLESS others. Is it really that hard for this group of people to figure out? Apparently it is for some.

Finally, someone who gets it! Who promulgates these types of questions? How about the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)? What might their position on the issue be? Well I'm VERY glad you asked. It's not exactly difficult to find:

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-a...cePreventionPolicyRecommendations_Jan2013.pdf

American Academy of Pediatrics Gun Violence Policy Recommendations
Firearm Safety
AAP’s 2012 policy statement, Preventing Firearm-Related Injuries in the Pediatric Population, states that the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.
The AAP continues to support a number of specific measures to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents through the implementation of the following recommendations.
• Enact a strong, effective assault weapon ban;
• Eliminate the gun show loophole and require mandatory background checks and waiting periods before all firearm purchases;
• Ban on high-capacity magazines;
• Enact strong handgun regulations; and
• Require safe firearm storage under federal law.
Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban
The AAP supports regulation of the manufacture and importation of high-powered assault weapons. With the expiration of the 1994 federal Assault Weapons ban in 2004, some states have considered enacting their own assault weapons ban. An effective ban on assault weapons should a broad definition of an “assault weapon.” It should ban possession, manufacture, transfer, sale, and import of assault weapons. Current assault weapons should not be excluded from the ban by “grandfathering” them. The ban should include stiff penalties for violating the statute. Civil and criminal sanctions should be included. The ban should also include a prohibition on the purchase, sale, or possession of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.
Eliminating the Gun Show Loophole
Other measures aimed at regulating access of guns should include legislative actions, such as mandatory waiting periods, closure of the gun show loophole, mental health restrictions for gun purchases, and background checks. In addition, the AAP continues to support law enforcement activities that trace the origins of firearms used in the commission of crimes and that these data be used to enforce regulations aimed at preventing illegal sales to minors.
Safe Gun Storage
Safe gun storage (guns unloaded and locked, ammunition locked separately) reduces unintentional injury and suicide risk for children and adolescents. In addition, a number of design options have been proposed to decrease the likelihood of unintentional injury by a firearm, as well as limiting access by unauthorized users.
The AAP urges that guns be subject to consumer product regulations regarding child access,
safety, and design. These include trigger locks, lock boxes, personalized safety mechanisms, and trigger pressures that are too high for young children.
2
Child access prevention (CAP) laws establish criminal penalties for owners who do not store their firearms appropriately (e.g., unloaded, in a locked compartment). The best CAP laws make it a felony offense for a gun owner if an injury results from a child accessing an unsecured gun.
Prevention and Public Health
Our nation has made great strides in improving health outcomes related to maternal health, vaccine-preventable disease, motor vehicle safety and tobacco usage due to a commitment to long term public health strategies in these areas.i Effective gun violence efforts must embrace support for effective prevention activities and research. Furthermore, these initiatives must eliminate current barriers that restrict long term progress in addressing this issue such as those tied to program evaluation and data collection activities. The AAP recommendations are designed to ensure that comprehensive, long term firearm safety activities are in place to substantially and effectively address this issue over time.
Gun Safety Research, Surveillance and Data Collection
Research is an important component of long term prevention and public health strategy. The National Institute on Child Health and Development within the National Institutes of Health and the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control have been instrumental in conducting important public health research related to firearm safety in the past, much as they do for other threats to the public health. Funding for firearms-related research within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and related agencies has been subject to both budget cuts and legislative restrictions.ii Since 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been prohibited from engaging in gun safety activities, including surveillance and research. Since 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been restricted from releasing gun crime trace data. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 also included language prohibiting to the entire Department of Health and Human Services from activities that advocate or promote gun control. This legislative language serves to prevent HHS from any worthwhile research regarding the public health effects of firearms for fear that they may be interpreted as advocating or promoting gun control. The AAP urges the removal of all federal restrictions and the renewal of gun safety research and prevention funding....continued ad nauseum

And:

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/firearms_slr.pdf

AAP Policy
In 2012, the Academy reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for the strongest possible firearm
regulations. The absence of guns in homes and communities is the most reliable and effective
measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. The AAP supports a
number of specific measures to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and
adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of
firearms; a ban assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. To prevent
gun-related death and injuries, the AAP recommends that pediatricians provide firearm safety
counseling to patients and their parents.
2012 State Action
Following in the steps of a high profile 2011 Florida law, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia
all introduced bills that would restrict physician firearm counseling. The Tennessee and West
Virginia bills were worded similarly to the Florida law, threatening disciplinary actions for a physician
that asked about the presence of guns within a child’s home and play areas. The Oklahoma bill
would have required physicians to provide patients or their parents with information stating that the
patient was aware that they could refuse to answer any questions on firearms. Though all of these
bills failed to pass, they represent a trend that is expected to continue into the 2013 legislative
session.
In late June 2012, US District Judge Marcia G. Cooke (Southern District of Florida-Miami) issued a
ruling permanently enjoining the Florida law restricting physician speech on firearms counseling
from going into effect. The state of Florida has appealed the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for
the 10th Circuit. . The Academy has signed on to an amicus brief supporting the lower court’s ruling,
along with other physician organizations including the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, the American
College of Preventive Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
American Psychiatric Association.

So to those of you who see our questioning of this "harmless" question, do you agree with these positions? If you don't, then how can you possibly support asking these questions when you know their source and what they believe in?

 

[EhlerDave]

I have yet to be asked such a question, and my Daughter and I are frequent fliers in the ER.

I guess if we are asked I can reply with "yes I have guns, to hell with all those felony convictions."

Then we will see what they do with the info.

 

[carry guy]

along with other physician organizations including the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, the American
College of Preventive Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
American Psychiatric Association.

All of whose memberships are composed of officious, politically-oriented busybodies at the top.

 

[761mph]

why not answer with a "that's not an issue in my house" statement
any of the members here that have kids have no doubt started some kind of safety training to educate them about the dangers of irresponsible handling of a firearm

 

[LightningCrash]

I don't need to read your posts again, I got the gist of them correct the first time through. Perhaps you should go back and re-read mine instead?

You do need to read it again. Nobody in his Ped's visit asked him about gun ownership, but you're convinced they're asking him if he owns guns on forms that he fills out. Neither is the case. Start over, you get a mulligan here.

Is the OP's pediatrician a member of the AAP? How would you know? You're assuming an awful lot here.

Which other causes of death by unintentional injury are off the table for a pediatrician to try to talk to a parent about?