Gun Control Doctors - Part Trois

Five days ago I continued my campaign against "Gun Control Doctors" (see original comments as part of a related post, and see Part Deux), especially Pediatricians who take upon themselves the responsibility of advising parents on Risk Management in the home. (Special emphasis there on The Evil of The Gun.)

The world may not be following my lead, but this is a topic which is becoming increasingly identified as a disturbing social issue.

The Donovan at ARGGHHH! today included the following comment:

Hey - speaking of kids and guns - some advice for pediatricians who are annotating gun presence and storage practices in child medical records... Just click here for some advice. And parents - there's a form in there for you to ask your Doctor to sign *and* put in the records, too! H/t, Jim C. -the Amorer

The cited form is intended for patients to print and bring to the next physician appointment. The form requires the medical doctor to attest and affirm that he/she is qualified and certified to advise not only on medical issues, but also on Risk Management issues ... and states:

I further warrant that, should the Patient follow my firearm safety counseling and remove from the home and/or disable firearms with trigger locks or other mechanisms, and if the patient or a family member, friend or visitor is subsequently injured or killed as a result of said removal or disabling, that my malpractice insurance and/or personal assets will cover all actual and punitive damages resulting from a lawsuit initiated by the patient, the patient's legal reprerentative, [sic] or the patient's survivors.

This is a two-part form. The second part (page 2) includes a cautionary note in the form of an article titled "Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don't Borrow Trouble."

The thrust of this note is a reminder that Physicians are not usually qualified (read: certified or even trained) to advise on Risk Management issues, and when they go beyond the limits of their field of expertise in advising their patients, they become vulnerable to litigation if anyone in the home suffers injury from causes which might have been covered under a qualified Risk Management analysis.

Here are some of the passages which are the most pertinent to this forum:

Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers. It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home defenseless against violent crime.

The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person would have surmised.

If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

It seems obvious that physicians who have practiced this unsolicited procedure of non-medical consultation may not have considered the possible consequences of their actions. They may not be concerned that their advice is inadequate, groundless and/or unsolicited; possibly they consider that their minimal advice is better than no advice at all, especially when they find a patient whose home life doesn't meet the personal standards of the physician.

However, when confronted by a knowledgeable patient (or patient Parent) who chooses to confirm the qualifications of the physician to dispense such advice, the physician may decide to stick to the consultative issues which he or she is trained and competent to address.

This may not be the final or even the best response to intrusive physicians, but it serves at least to put them on notice that the parent is generally considered to be in the best position to make Risk Management decisions within the home.