Ask your doctor if guns are right for you?
An article in The Atlantic by assistant editor Nancy Walecki, titled, “The Doctor Will Ask You About Your Guns Now,” has drawn the ire of gun rights advocates and right wingers on social media over what is perceived as yet another example of the liberal media pushing for the removal of firearms from ordinary Americans. Its subject is a growing movement among physicians to ask patients about the guns they own, how those guns are stored, and the risk factors that these patients may have with regard to misusing firearms. The article itself quotes only medical professionals who seek to reduce the number of deaths and injuries made by guns, but it does acknowledge a number of concerns that gun owners may have when these questions are raised.
Those concerns specifically are the ability of owners to get at their firearms if needed for self-defense, the invasion of privacy created by a kind of registry of gun owners in medical records, and the power that medical professionals have in many states under red flag laws to have firearms removed on the suspicion that the owner is a risk to self or others.
As I have said before, I do not find the concept of red flag laws to be categorically beyond the pale, but in the current political atmosphere, gun control advocates give far too little attention to the need for due process protections to bring such laws into compliance with the Constitution. In the same way, I do not reject out of hand the idea that doctors might have a useful role to play in advising their patients about guns. But as with so much in the debate over arms in America, there are some things to consider first.
To start with, while guns are relatively simple mechanical devices to operate, especially in concept, there is a lot more to the subject than mere working. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to use a gun, be that use a display of the gun itself or a firing of the same, what type of firearm and ammunition is appropriate in a given situation, what are the laws related to possession and use of firearms—these are some of the categories of questions to consider, and a medical degree does not give its holder any special qualifications to answer any of them. A physician likely can explain the trauma of getting shot, what makes a shooting justified or not, moral or not, and wise or not are things that each person must seek out explicitly to learn, and medical professionals neither more nor less often become educated on these than any other member of the public.
And then there is the matter of medical care in America. Visits with doctors are already far too short for patients when we are able to get them, and the list of things we need to discuss during that brief time is long. Anyone who has the fortune to reach middle age will find that there are many drugs available now that were never imagined not that long ago, drugs with abominable names that treat the normal accumulation of ailments that once made achieving old age a rare privilege. And that is all only for those who do not have conditions that add on their own schedules of medications and complexities. This is all assuming that these patients can afford medical care in the first place, but the Democratic Party finds solving that problem to be a policy goal too far and too hard to reach.
I must also ask how many subjects touching on health a doctor is supposed to address and what practical treatments will be on offer. I am told, for example, that being married increases one’s life—and active life—expectancy. Will my doctor recommend a good dating site or a matchmaker along with advice about the safe storage of firearms? Or given how it is better for one’s health to be rich than to be poor, can I expect some guidance on which stocks to buy at my next checkup?
This may seem absurd, but it gets back to the fact of expertise in that while many things affect our health, only some of them are within a doctor’s competence. As Walecki’s article admits, there is a significant difference between the consumption, say, of large volumes of sugary sodas and the possession of guns. One obvious distinction that the author at least did not spend much time noticing is that of safe usage. Yes, it is possible to get away with drinking regular Coke (used here in the generic sense popular among southerners that refers to all brown, non-alcoholic carbonated beverages), but for the most part, drinking that will be getting away with something, not a beneficial act unachievable any other way. With guns, by contrast, there are many unique goods that can be gained by owning them.
In that way, guns are more comparable to alcohol than refined sugar. There is good and harm to be had, and choosing between the two outcomes is a possibility available to most owners. What guns certainly are not is a disease.
Doctors should ask their patients about their mental health. Doctors who see signs of abuse in their patients ought to address that subject. If a patient is in crisis in these areas, discussing any guns the patient may own makes sense. Having information available about the risks associated with guns might also be appropriate, though such brochures need to have knowledgeable gun owners involved in the writing, since pontification out of ignorance is a sure way to annoy the gun community. It would be best, in fact, if doctors who intend to address this subject were to get informed by experts—actual experts who own, train with, and study guns. And HIPAA should have much stronger protections for patient privacy, especially for any reference to firearms if doctors are going to make that a part of routine consultations.
Given the state of medical affairs in this country, it may be best if we all tell our doctors that we have never been close to a firearm in our lives and leave the discussion there.