No.
The fact I read the code for electrical work in houses does not qualify me to
certify that work conforms to code in any jurisdiction that I know. The key is
training in the subject area and certificate of training.
Moreover, the articles I've read in this arena are not only shoddy research but
more importantly they are generic. Medicine is about individuals and their
treatment. An individual whose has training and years of experience with the
safe handling of firearms should not benefit from advice on firearms by a
doctor whose only qualifications are that he read a few general research
articles and whose only contact with firearms (outside of movies or TV) is that
he may have treated a few bullet wounds. What is the training -- if none,
there is no professional expertise to offer.
Phil
________________________________
From: Henry Schaffer <[email protected]>
To: firearmsregprof <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Doctors asking patients about guns
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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]>
>To: firearmsregprof <[email protected]>
>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:[email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] 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 [email protected]
>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 [email protected]
>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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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.
