Physician murdered for not prescribing narcotics

[Angry Birds]

Half of all workplace assaults happen in the health care setting. it isnt just about being shot, its about a tech who had his teeth knocked out, another tech tore his ACL, a nurse who had a patient wrap IV tubing around her neck.

The list is all stuff that happened at places I work.

perhaps where you work it is more docile. This isnt a political issue and my post isnt in reference to bringing a gun to work. It is pointing out that we work in a dangerous place. If you fail to see that I dont know what to say.

"In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data reported healthcare and social assistance workers were the victims of approximately 11,370 assaults by persons"

Think about how many were never reported.

This is all a straw man argument. I never claimed that our work was necessarily safe. In fact, as physicians we assume a level of danger, and this is a part of the altruism that is built into our profession and which we should accept and display.

I don't doubt that there are assaults at hospitals. A mental patient took a swing at me. Should I have then shot him dead?

Indeed, this brings up another great point. If we accept a society of armed doctors, can you imagine how many doctors will end up shooting patients? Many of you on this forum seem especially hot headed and ready to pull the trigger at a moment's notice. I've heard "I'm gonna kill you" from a patient before. You could construe that as a threat to your life and then shoot the person. Imagine how many shootings we will have of patients, with little but the physician's word to go by once the patient is dead.

The proper response to assaults is proper security, not armed doctors.

Again, a straw man argument.

The problem is that studies like this are usually performed by people who have a vested interest in reaching a preordained (anti-gun) conclusion and are of notoriously poor quality.

Compare this to actual crime statistics which correlate drops in violent crime with increases in the prevalence of gun ownership and concealed carry

Let's be honest. You just reflexively said that even without knowing which studies I am talking about, and possibly/probably not even having heard of the weapons effect before. This is why I feel it is useless talking to conservatives and Trumpeters, because like Trump, facts mean nothing. There are always "alternate facts" to rely on.

In any case, it is almost exactly the opposite of what you say. As for the studies showing the weapon effect:

A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.​

As for your claim that gun ownership and concealed carry decreases violent crime, this is untrue and not supported by facts. The claim was initially popularized by John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime. Not only has his work been debunked and denounced (such as by the National Research Council), but remember where you said that the problem is that these studies are conducted by people who are biased? Lott is a gun nut who works for Fox News... He was exposed as a fraud who almost certainly invented an entire study, and was even revealed to have operated a sock puppet named Mary Rosh, in which "Mary Rosh" claimed that Lott "was the best professor that I ever had." In any case, all of this led to Lott's exile from academia and entry into the Fox News nut factory.

OK, so now we know that it is exactly the opposite as you claim. What do the neutral sources claim on this issue you have raised? As for concealed carry, let's see what FactCheck.org says:

In 2008, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center reviewed the reams of scientific research on concealed gun-carrying laws and broadly concluded “the changes have neither been highly beneficial nor highly detrimental.”​

And more importantly, more guns lead to more gun violence including more gun homicides and murder in general. FactCheck.org says (although of course with the necessary disclaimer about causality being difficult to establish):

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. ​

But, of course, none of this matters to you, because conservatives and Trumpeters work on "truthiness" and "alternative facts," and consider Alex Jones and Fox News to be more reliable than non-governmental organizations and FactCheck.org and other such organizations/sites.

An armed society is a polite society.

Mo' guns, mo' homicide. See above.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I personally know of other incidents. One happened to a friend in Washington.

Half of all workplace assaults happen in the health care setting. it isnt just about being shot, its about a tech who had his teeth knocked out, another tech tore his ACL, a nurse who had a patient wrap IV tubing around her neck.

The list is all stuff that happened at places I work.

perhaps where you work it is more docile. This isnt a political issue and my post isnt in reference to bringing a gun to work. It is pointing out that we work in a dangerous place. If you fail to see that I dont know what to say.

"In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data reported healthcare and social assistance workers were the victims of approximately 11,370 assaults by persons"

Think about how many were never reported.

Incidents I know from the last three years from my hospital:

Residents had knives pulled on them.

PA assaulted and out of work for months.

At least 10 nurses and techs assaulted and out of work for months, some now on permanent disability from TBI.

A PCA was sexually assaulted by a patient.

Those are only the incidents I heard about.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I would prefer NOT to carry a gun to work. In fact I don't want to carry one at all. My problem is that hospital admins, in the name of "customer service" and fear of litigation have actively made the hospital more dangerous:

1. No metal detectors as it will negatively impact "customer perception" of the facility.
2. No screening/vetting or limitations on vistors to patient rooms. One hospital I work at will routinely have 5-10 family members show up in a small room, and no one is asking who these people are, or what they are doing there.
3. Security guards who can't "touch patients" for fear of liability.
4. Security guards who don't carry lethal weapons
5. No dedicated psychiatric personnel, or lock-down monitored areas for potentially violent patients.
6. Boarding of psychiatric/drug-addicted patients for days, sometimes weeks. Hospital could easily solve this by having a dedicated, 24-hour licensed psychologist/screen for the ED.
7. Police dumping drunk/drugged/intoxicated and violent patients in the ED rather than taking them to jail (where they can still get medical care).

 

[lucid_leprechaun]

The problem is that studies like this are usually performed by people who have a vested interest in reaching a preordained (anti-gun) conclusion and are of notoriously poor quality.

Compare this to actual crime statistics which correlate drops in violent crime with increases in the prevalence of gun ownership and concealed carry

I wonder if the rural vs urban crime statistics against the urban vs. rural gun ownership statistics don't confound any such data. Data do not support any link between gun carrying and crime prevention, there are only anecdotes. Not to say there is no connection, just seems like rural vs urban is an obvious confounder for the statistics you cited.

 

[deleted109597]

Keep it civil or it's getting moved or locked. There is no reason to belittle people over your perception of their political stance.

My argument is not that everyone should have weapons. My argument is that we should be allowed to make that decision ourselves.

And no, the concealed carry literature shows that that group actually commits fewer crimes than even the police. They know they've got a giant target on their back from people who want to demonize anything that isn't a dull stick. And yes, saying someone could shoot someone because of a threat is both a)hyperbolic and b)an entire village of strawmen.

 

[doctorFred]

I would prefer NOT to carry a gun to work. In fact I don't want to carry one at all. My problem is that hospital admins, in the name of "customer service" and fear of litigation have actively made the hospital more dangerous:

1. No metal detectors as it will negatively impact "customer perception" of the facility.
2. No screening/vetting or limitations on vistors to patient rooms. One hospital I work at will routinely have 5-10 family members show up in a small room, and no one is asking who these people are, or what they are doing there.
3. Security guards who can't "touch patients" for fear of liability.
4. Security guards who don't carry lethal weapons
5. No dedicated psychiatric personnel, or lock-down monitored areas for potentially violent patients.
6. Boarding of psychiatric/drug-addicted patients for days, sometimes weeks. Hospital could easily solve this by having a dedicated, 24-hour licensed psychologist/screen for the ED.
7. Police dumping drunk/drugged/intoxicated and violent patients in the ED rather than taking them to jail (where they can still get medical care).

#7 is the worst. What happened to good old fashioned drunk tanks?

 

[Angry Birds]

And no, the concealed carry literature shows that that group actually commits fewer crimes than even the police.

A claim repeated almost verbatim from Brietbart and John Lott, who I mentioned above:

Brietbart article: Lott: Police Commit More Gun Crimes Than Concealed Carry Permit Holders​

Not only is this another instance of moving the goalposts, but I've already addressed concealed carry above. Moreover, the key issue is that more guns = more homicides. The problem is guns falling into the wrong hands. What happens is that guns sold in areas with lax gun laws are then trafficked to places with strict laws.

And yes, saying someone could shoot someone because of a threat is both a)hyperbolic and b)an entire village of strawmen.

Really? You don't think some doctors will resort to shooting the patient when they perceive a threat? You really truly believe that?

Also, in order to claim a straw man, you have to prove a straw man, not just say the word, let alone claim a whole village of them. Here was the flow of the conversation:

1) I asked how many ER doctors are shot and killed every year divided by the total number of ER doctors.
2) Then, someone listed the number of assaults on healthcare workers.
3) I called this a straw man because these assaults do not necessarily indicate a gun response, i.e. if a patient takes a swing at me, this does not justify me shooting him dead. Therefore, the relevant number is how many ER doctors are shot and killed (i.e. lethal force), not the number of assaults of any and all kind.

Where is the straw man on my part?

 

[deleted109597]

This is all a straw man argument. I never claimed that our work was necessarily safe. In fact, as physicians we assume a level of danger, and this is a part of the altruism that is built into our profession and which we should accept and display.

The other parts of your argument can be misconstrued and spun by either side, but I'm going to hone in on this part.

Absolutely not. We should not accept and proudly display that we are put in dangerous situations. Never. We can study it or mitigate risk by whatever means we want, but we must not simply accept it.

 

[Angry Birds]

The other parts of your argument can be misconstrued and spun by either side, but I'm going to hone in on this part.

Absolutely not. We should not accept and proudly display that we are put in dangerous situations. Never. We can study it or mitigate risk by whatever means we want, but we must not simply accept it.

Another straw man argument by you.

I never said that we should "simply accept [violence]" nor that we shouldn't "study it or mitigate risk." In fact, I am the one who believes in basing opinions based on studies and actual data instead of what feels right and emotion or political dogma. What I said is that altruism is a part of our job, and this entails an acceptance of a level of risk and danger. This does not equal justification of violence against healthcare workers, which I agree is never acceptable and should be stopped. As I said, the proper means to do is increased security measures, not armed doctors which is a recipe for disaster.

 

[deleted109597]

It isn't addressed above. Criminals are criminals, and when they have guns they don't magically stop being criminals.
People with CCWs are not criminals, and putting guns in their hands does not make them gunslingers.

If you want to show some data relevant to concealed carry and not to criminals, I'd be happy to read it.
And no, I don't read breitbart, and didn't get my statement from that website. I got it during my CCW class, which happens to be in Texas, which happens to be the state with the data. Just because someone you don't like has said it doesn't make it not true.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Angry Birds,

The point we have been trying to make is that hospitals are refusing to do even basic security protocols to enhance our safety. In fact they actively make policies that make the ED MORE dangerous for us. I routinely feel unsafe around patients, and know that because of lax security personnel that I am on my own if someone decides to assault me. Given this fact, I would prefer to make my own decisions about how to best defend myself since the hospitals, police, and lawyers have refused to help.

 

[Angry Birds]

Angry Birds,

The point we have been trying to make is that hospitals are refusing to do even basic security protocols to enhance our safety. In fact they actively make policies that make the ED MORE dangerous for us. I routinely feel unsafe around patients, and know that because of lax security personnel that I am on my own if someone decides to assault me. Given this fact, I would prefer to make my own decisions about how to best defend myself since the hospitals, police, and lawyers have refused to help.

General,

For once, I actually found your comments in this thread to be near reasonable.

I agree with everything other than above, if it implies doctors carrying guns.

It isn't addressed above. Criminals are criminals, and when they have guns they don't magically stop being criminals.
People with CCWs are not criminals, and putting guns in their hands does not make them gunslingers.

McNinja,

I never claimed that CCWers are criminals. So, I don't know why you are even saying this. In fact, I specifically cited data that there was no provable correlation between CCW and crime; I cited the following from
FactCheck.org:

In 2008, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center reviewed the reams of scientific research on concealed gun-carrying laws and broadly concluded “the changes have neither been highly beneficial nor highly detrimental.”​

If you want to show some data relevant to concealed carry and not to criminals, I'd be happy to read it.

I just did. Above.

And no, I don't read breitbart, and didn't get my statement from that website. I got it during my CCW class, which happens to be in Texas, which happens to be the state with the data. Just because someone you don't like has said it doesn't make it not true.

Can you see how what you learned in a CCW might not exactly be devoid of bias?

In fact, by now specifying Texas, you strengthen my assertion that in fact you are only regurgitating (albeit unknowingly) the analysis of the dubious John Lott and his equally dubious organization. The study on Texas that is oft-cited, and was no doubt cited in your CCW class, was done by Lott's organization. Moreover, the methodology cannot be taken seriously. The percentage of concealed carriers is so small that the analysis is not valid.

But none of this is relevant and it is a straw man argument. I never asserted that CCW'ers are more criminal. Rather, the initial statement was made that guns and CCW makes places safer. As for increased guns, this leads to increased gun deaths and homicide in general. As for CCW, there is no correlation positive or negative based on what I cited above.

 

[WilcoWorld]

This thread is a microcosm of modern American political discourse.

Instead of finding a solution to something that we can all agree is a problem (the fact that ED's are becoming increasingly unsafe places to work), we are arguing about minutiae of gun violence statistics.

There IS a problem. GV, McNinja and others are correct to want to protect themselves. Yet I am skeptical that carrying a handgun in the ED is an effective way to address said problem.

 

[Angry Birds]

This thread is a microcosm of modern American political discourse.

Instead of finding a solution to something that we can all agree is a problem (the fact that ED's are becoming increasingly unsafe places to work), we are arguing about minutiae of gun violence statistics.

There IS a problem. GV, McNinja and others are correct to want to protect themselves. Yet I am skeptical that carrying a handgun in the ED is an effective way to address said problem.

Also, I am disturbed by how much time I have been spending on SDN (due to a couple months off from work) and desperately need to get a life.

 

[GeneralVeers]

This thread is a microcosm of modern American political discourse.

Instead of finding a solution to something that we can all agree is a problem (the fact that ED's are becoming increasingly unsafe places to work), we are arguing about minutiae of gun violence statistics.

There IS a problem. GV, McNinja and others are correct to want to protect themselves. Yet I am skeptical that carrying a handgun in the ED is an effective way to address said problem.

I am skeptical too. But as I've stated no one else is looking out for our safety. I think at the very least effective security personnel, and enforced limitations on visitors would help greatly.

I work at one hospital in TX that has an actual off-duty police officer in uniform stationed in the hospital. I find it's a great deterrent when patient/family see him there. If we have any issue with mouthy or agitated patients we call the officer. After a talk with them they usually behave.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I am skeptical too. But as I've stated no one else is looking out for our safety. I think at the very least effective security personnel, and enforced limitations on visitors would help greatly.

I work at one hospital in TX that has an actual off-duty police officer in uniform stationed in the hospital. I find it's a great deterrent when patient/family see him there. If we have any issue with mouthy or agitated patients we call the officer. After a talk with them they usually behave.

Security at my hospital are explicitly barred from doing anything more than puffing up their chests - and I suspect even that could come under scrutiny if someone complained.

Those poor security officers are probably in greater danger than I am.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Security at my hospital are explicitly barred from doing anything more than puffing up their chests - and I suspect even that could come under scrutiny if someone complained.

Those poor security officers are probably in greater danger than I am.

The nurses are in the greatest danger. They are the ones who usually have to physically restrain the patients, since the security officers are not allowed. I am not sure how we think that this is okay - to have nurses get into physical altercations with agitated/psych patients while paying a "security officer" to stand by. I for one never restrain violent patients, or stop anyone from leaving. At the slightest whiff of danger or aggression, I am out of the room. Nothing is worth getting killed, injured, or permanently disabled.

 

[Angry Birds]

I am skeptical too. But as I've stated no one else is looking out for our safety. I think at the very least effective security personnel, and enforced limitations on visitors would help greatly.

I work at one hospital in TX that has an actual off-duty police officer in uniform stationed in the hospital. I find it's a great deterrent when patient/family see him there. If we have any issue with mouthy or agitated patients we call the officer. After a talk with them they usually behave.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually agree with you.

During residency we had a small police station like thing in the hospital. I think we need to at least have one uniformed officer in the hospital or within five or so min distance.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Im not a proponent of guns at work by docs. Perhaps you took that the wrong way. On another note, I dont remember being assaulted at work as one of the things I should accept with being a doctor. Thats idiotic.

Do you believe this statement you made? "In fact, as physicians we assume a level of danger, and this is a part of the altruism that is built into our profession and which we should accept and display."

Its not like I am a boxer and expected to take a punch. Does my plumber have to assume a level of danger that someone will assault them on the job?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Yup, if a psych player breaks free and seems violent I just point to the exit. It takes the PoPo all of 20 minutes to track them down walking down the road in their paper scrubs.

 

[Vandalia]

It isn't addressed above. Criminals are criminals, and when they have guns they don't magically stop being criminals.
People with CCWs are not criminals, and putting guns in their hands does not make them gunslingers.

FWIW from an interview on local radio news. (I am probably the last person in the state who listens to an actual radio station.) I haven't seen/heard this elsewhere and don't know exactly what official they were interviewing, so take with a huge grain of salt:

1) Apparently Michael Jarvis - the shooter - had an Indiana handgun permit (CCW).
2) LE seemed to be backing off from the idea the shooting was about opioids. Or at least solely about opioids ("We will never know for certain what the final argument was about....There were some other things they argued about during the office visit.")

 

[goodoldalky]

Quasi related question, anyone had their name removed from their county property tax assessor website? I'd love to do this but Texas makes it impossible, unless you or a first degree relative are a judge, US attorney, etc.

 

[EctopicFetus]

My point is less about opiates and more about violence. Listen I am no small dude and can handle myself but that isnt the point. I think few of us went itno medicine thinking we would be assaulted, have guns or knives pulled on us etc.

 

[deleted109597]

Yes. I find it ironic that they intentionally remove the last names of the nurses, techs, and literally everyone else in the hospital, but don't help us keep from being google searched. I mean, I get it, they deserve to know who their doctor is. But I should be able to do like my dad did when he was in the sheriff's department. Have everything else removed (or in wife's name, etc).

 

[MSmentor018]

Take the number of ER doctors killed in the last year and divide by the total number of ER doctors. That is what you are worried about.

i am sure the doc in Mishawaka thought the same

 

[Angry Birds]

i am sure the doc in Mishawaka thought the same

Yes, that goes without saying. The logic is as follows:

1. Very few people get struck by lightning every year.
2. Those who are struck by lightning can definitely say "I thought the same."

1. Very few ER doctors are shot and killed per year.
2. Those who are shot and killed can definitely say "I thought the same."

Im not a proponent of guns at work by docs. Perhaps you took that the wrong way. On another note, I dont remember being assaulted at work as one of the things I should accept with being a doctor. Thats idiotic.

Actually, you took what I said the wrong way, since I never said that we should accept being assaulted at work. Rather, I specifically stated that we should use increased security measures, including with police involvement.

Do you believe this statement you made? "In fact, as physicians we assume a level of danger, and this is a part of the altruism that is built into our profession and which we should accept and display."

Yes, it's basic medical ethics, which you should have been trained in. Did you never take a class on medical ethics, which is the basis of your profession?

Does my plumber have to assume a level of danger that someone will assault them on the job?

The fact that you compare yourself to a plumber indicates that you skipped that medical ethics training. It's precisely because your profession expects altruism from you that you are in fact not like a plumber or a car mechanic.

A plumber is not expected to deal with mentally unstable or psychotic customers, and has no obligation to do so. You do. This entails a level of risk, which of course should be mitigated as much as reasonably possible.

 

[cellsaver]

And frankly, I don't blame any physician for wanting to carry. .....But I'll tell you who does love docs and nurses putting their safety on the line in the name of altruism: Administrators.

I have had a concealed weapons permit for many years from my home state. My husband and I moved to a different state for my medical school and the state has reciprocity with our home state. I carry and my husband carries. Given the fiasco of our culture in America, we do not leave home without our guns.

Then there is this rich gem:

‘Beyoncé Professor’ Kevin Allred, who wished someone would shoot Trump, rants about being FIRED – twitchy.com

lovely

 

[RustedFox]

Yes, it's basic medical ethics, which you should have been trained in. Did you never take a class on medical ethics, which is the basis of your profession?

Yeah, do you hear yourself?

Nowhere in any of my medical ethics classes nor memory (nor common sense) can I remember an assumption of danger to self being a condition of employment.

Dude. Its get a grip time.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Yeah, do you hear yourself?

Nowhere in any of my medical ethics classes nor memory (nor common sense) can I remember an assumption of danger to self being a condition of employment.

Dude. Its get a grip time.

Agree. I don't do anything that has even a small chance of risk to my life or health.

 

[WilcoWorld]

It is a false dichotomy to claim that you EITHER have to support doctors carrying guns at work OR accept violence in the workplace.

I can think it is unwise to carry a gun in the ER while also having zero tolerance for aggressive patient behavior. In fact, I do.

 

[MSmentor018]

what's the groups thoughts on stun gun or tasers?

 

[bravotwozero]

I don't have a problem with non lethal weaponry ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Incidents I know from the last three years from my hospital:

Residents had knives pulled on them.

PA assaulted and out of work for months.

At least 10 nurses and techs assaulted and out of work for months, some now on permanent disability from TBI.

A PCA was sexually assaulted by a patient.

Those are only the incidents I heard about.

That's an unfortunate list; but not one incident would have been prevented, improved, or better handled if a physician displayed or kept concealed a gun.

HH

 

[Angry Birds]

Given the fiasco of our culture in America, we do not leave home without our guns.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Angry Birds]

Yeah, do you hear yourself?

Nowhere in any of my medical ethics classes nor memory (nor common sense) can I remember an assumption of danger to self being a condition of employment.

Dude. Its get a grip time.

The underlined is a rewording and twisting of what I was saying.

Altruism entails that there are times in which you would be expected, by your noble calling, to assume a certain amount of risk in order to affect a greater good. The classic example (from Beauchamp and Childress if memory serves me correctly) is that of a child drowning in a body of water. In saving the child, the risk to you is non-zero. However, it is small enough and the upside is very large, so you are ethically (but perhaps not legally) obligated to save the child's life.

The other example, more specific to medicine, is that of surgeons who had to operate on HIV positive patients in the 1980's/90's, at a time when the risk of needlestick transmission was considered much higher than now.

Again, the idea is not that you accept harm, but rather that your noble profession can sometimes (if but theoretically*) entail the assumption of a non-zero level of risk in order to save life. Physicians are like the people who sit in the exit rows on planes. Society should give them a little extra legroom but in case of emergency, the physician ought to take the lead in helping others.

* Theoretical example: an epidemic breaks out, and healthcare workers are needed to deal with the victims, thereby putting themselves in harm's way. Of course whatever can be reasonably done to mitigate harm should be done, and the level of risk and upside must be carefully considered.

 

[deleted109597]

I can think it is unwise to carry a gun in the ER

For whom? Just physicians? Off duty cops? On duty cops? Security?

I'm still curious as to what everyone is afraid of. We are literally talking about criminals killing doctors. And even if you want to just pull back from that specific scenario, people killing people. I mean, every argument everyone is making can also be modified for any other area of concealed carry.
I keep envisioning you guys thinking everyone becomes Wyatt Earp and starts off every conversation holding a pistol to someone's head. It's called concealed for a reason. Pulling it out is called brandishing, and is pretty universally illegal everywhere except in the defense of another crime.
And while I agree that open carry is pretty dumb for the average joe, every single cop does it for a reason.

Also, for the record, I get an express lane at my state capital with my concealed carry card. They clearly think it's safe. I doubt seriously anybody is going to try and shoot up the Texas Capital though.

 

[deleted109597]

* Theoretical example: an epidemic breaks out, and healthcare workers are needed to deal with the victims, thereby putting themselves in harm's way. Of course whatever can be reasonably done to mitigate harm should be done, and the level of risk and upside must be carefully considered.

Yep. And we should refuse to work at hospitals that don't protect the staff. OSHA has started fining places for it. It is a federal requirement, but ask any nurse where you work what they think of the reporting policy and they'll probably tell you that it's strongly discouraged. One of our nurses got hit so hard she had to get stitches that night.

She got fired a week later.


For the record, I wouldn't pull a weapon in that situation either.

 

[WilcoWorld]

For whom? Just physicians? Off duty cops? On duty cops? Security?

I was speaking for myself.

 

[deleted109597]

I was speaking for myself.

I mean, sure.
But since there are orders of magnitude more negative outcomes with EPs and narcotics, maybe we should all have guns and not have a pharmacy?

 

[RustedFox]

The underlined is a rewording and twisting of what I was saying.

Altruism entails that there are times in which you would be expected, by your noble calling, to assume a certain amount of risk in order to affect a greater good. The classic example (from Beauchamp and Childress if memory serves me correctly) is that of a child drowning in a body of water. In saving the child, the risk to you is non-zero. However, it is small enough and the upside is very large, so you are ethically (but perhaps not legally) obligated to save the child's life.

The other example, more specific to medicine, is that of surgeons who had to operate on HIV positive patients in the 1980's/90's, at a time when the risk of needlestick transmission was considered much higher than now.

Again, the idea is not that you accept harm, but rather that your noble profession can sometimes (if but theoretically*) entail the assumption of a non-zero level of risk in order to save life. Physicians are like the people who sit in the exit rows on planes. Society should give them a little extra legroom but in case of emergency, the physician ought to take the lead in helping others.

* Theoretical example: an epidemic breaks out, and healthcare workers are needed to deal with the victims, thereby putting themselves in harm's way. Of course whatever can be reasonably done to mitigate harm should be done, and the level of risk and upside must be carefully considered.

It took me long enough to reply.

Your argument breaks down in terms of the present discussion.

You cite the example of a child drowning. That's great... if you can swim. Go on with your bad self and save the child. I was a lifeguard during my teens and twenties. It was in my skillset to do so. I accepted the non-zero risk to myself as a term and condition of my job/profession/employment ( a continuum that you like to argue; fine.) If you can't swim; don't get in the effing water, dude.

You cite the example of surgeons operating on HIV+ patients. That's fine. They're acting within their skill set. They know how to do so safely and effectively.

In the present discussion; your logic suggests that we as EPs deal with weapon violence as an incumbent part of our profession/etc - yet we're not exactly formally trained in such situations.

I'm not a cop. There's no tin-star and revolver at my side. I'm not even formally schooled in the art of ass-kicking; let alone how to physically restrain a violent offender with a weapon.

That's not part of our ken. It shouldn't be. Any reasonable individual would not be willing to accept the "non-zero risk" of gun/weapon violence in our work environment.

But, do go on with your archaic appeal to authority. Its one of my favorite logical fallacies. Its just like the muggles who like to spout off about he "Hippocratic Oath" when they have no idea what it says, or that nobody swears it anymore.

 

[d2305]

If the perp has a gun, I want more than a taser. The only situation more dangerous than a drug seeker, is a disability seeker. We need an opioid free zone, not a gun free zone.

 

[MSmentor018]

If the perp has a gun, I want more than a taser. The only situation more dangerous than a drug seeker, is a disability seeker. We need an opioid free zone, not a gun free zone.

disability seeker? I don't think an opioid free zone will ever exist. it's not just getting the 1-2 doses of narcs that these dirtbags want, it's the rx

 

[d2305]

Social security, VA, and Voc Rehab all get upset when they don't get what they want. Not something that the ER deals with much.

 

[Angry Birds]

In the present discussion; your logic suggests that we as EPs deal with weapon violence as an incumbent part of our profession/etc - yet we're not exactly formally trained in such situations.

I'm not a cop. There's no tin-star and revolver at my side. I'm not even formally schooled in the art of ass-kicking; let alone how to physically restrain a violent offender with a weapon.

That's not part of our ken. It shouldn't be. Any reasonable individual would not be willing to accept the "non-zero risk" of gun/weapon violence in our work environment.

Bolded part is exactly why you shouldn't get a gun in the ER, and reinforces my argument that we should have increased security with police involvement in the ER, as opposed to "playing cop."

Thanks for making my point.

 

[RustedFox]

Bolded part is exactly why you shouldn't get a gun in the ER, and reinforces my argument that we should have increased security with police involvement in the ER, as opposed to "playing cop."
Thanks for making my point.

Way to ignore your earlier argument about how we're supposed to accept the noble risk of whatever.


PFFFFT.

 

[gro2001]

For me, the biggest argument against physicians carrying guns to hospitals is that I don't want the neurosurgery resident armed when I consult them.

 

[Birdstrike]

Bolded part is exactly why you shouldn't get a gun in the ER, and reinforces my argument that we should have increased security with police involvement in the ER, as opposed to "playing cop."

Thanks for making my point.

My advice to anyone that's vehemently anti-gun: Take a concealed carry gun glass. Do this without any intention to ever carry a gun or even own one. Do it to meet the people taking the class. Learn why they're taking it. Learn what their intentions are and judge for yourself if they're the "bad people" you pre-judge then as.

When I took my class a year and a half ago, half the class was women, and several were little old ladies, widowed, that lived alone, didn't have enough money to live somewhere as safe as they wanted and truly felt vulnerable and live in a poor area with dismal police response times. Encountering them, changed my perspective. You may meet women who are domestic abuse or rape victims, who haven't felt safe, who haven't been safe, who's lives are in danger and know that no police force will assign them a 24/7 personal officer to protect them. These are the people most vulnerable to violent crime. Talk to them and decide if you still feel gun owners are 'bad' and that truly having a meaningful method of self defense is inherently 'bad' and only for bad people with monstrous intentions. Ask them to their face, why they're sitting there with you, learning and memorizing guns laws and gun safety and subjecting themselves to a test on the subject and a practical test to prove knowledge and proficiency with gun safety.

While you're there, learn how to safely handle a gun and shoot a target with an instructor, under safe conditions, just once. You may not change your stance on the issue, but I guarantee you, it will change your perspective. It may open your mind a little to a different world, of people who live and think differently than you, and who aren't blessed with the privilege to be able to assume a life of guaranteed safety, privilege and security.

 

[throckmortonDO]

I don't know what the right answer to the gun debate is.

But I do know that ED's need waaaay more security.

handgun on CT is real. residents getting punched in the face for not writing Rx for narcs is real. Sexual assault on nurses and female physicians is real. Gang bandits coming into the ED to finish the job and shoot up the place is real. Security guards who are never present and mostly over the age of 65 who aren't stopping anyone is real. psych patients pulling out 20 knives on their person like the joker is real. 20 family members showing up during a code and going ballistic assaulting multiple staff is real.

Getting seriously hurt or injured on the job is a major risk - way more than we would like to admit or recognize.

I'd love to have a pat down or some metal detectors. or even off duty cops pulling shifts in the ED. especially on summer nights, weekends and holidays. "patient satisfaction" be damned.

I minimize threats to myself with potentially violent patients. that includes leaving the room asap, letting them elope, or doorway exams. I have a family to go home to.

it is what it is.

 

[ranvier]

Terrible and tragic story.

 

[MSmentor018]

in this new entitled, everybody gets a trophy world why are we not complaining and reaping these benefits too? it seems like we're the only profession that shrugs their shoulders and say "oh well, that's all part of working in the er". what is acep or aaem or nempac doing about this? is a dangerous workplace some kind of osha violation?