(Reposted from 2010 Examiner.com article recovered from Internet Archive)

 Washington DC  Politics  Gun Rights Examiner

Is 'gun safety' prescribed by Kaiser Permanente based on science or politics?

April 6, 10:56 AM

I received the following from a colleague, who, due to the personal nature of medical information, wishes to remain anonymous:

My wife came home from her OBGYN tonight and showed me a health form they provided her for her visit. I've attached the form and blocked out her personal information. If you look at the last line of the "personal care instructions" you'll see that they recommend she keep all guns unloaded and locked in a cabinet. This struck me as odd because I can't figure out what this has to do with OBGYN health?

They offer other suggestions like wearing a seat belt and using appropriate sunblock but how did they select such comments? Surely there are other things more dangerous to womens' health, right? They don't mention the use of condoms or abstinence to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. What about drinking and driving or smoking cigarettes? How about drinking alcohol during a pregnancy? We are talking about the OBGYN aren't we?

As an NRA life member I am bothered that this form contains such language and with the new Health Care Bill rammed down our throat I fear will we see a gun grab attempt under the guise of "health care". I don't have a problem in promoting safe storage practices but a gun for home defense needs to be loaded and easily accessible in my opinion. Children in the home obviously add a safety dynamic but there are many ways to keep a loaded gun accessible and keep children from gaining unsupervised access as you well know. In any event, these issues have no place on a medical form.

Here's the form in question, with personal information erased and the relevant section highlighted—click on it to enlarge:

My correspondent is exactly right when he says this is inappropriate. Physicians, and notably pediatricians, have been dispensing gun advice for years, despite the fact that selective bias on the part of the American Medical Association when it comes to firearms has been well documented.

In "The AMA, Firearms, and Intellectual Dishonesty," by Robert J. Woolley, M.D. (published 11 years ago, so it's not like this is new information), we find an interesting observation about the AMA "bible" on the subject, the "Physician Firearm Safety Guide":

Further evidence of the authors one-sided intentions comes from mention of funding from the Joyce Foundation, which is well know for supporting anti-gun causes.

Indeed. One might even consider the Joyce fixation against your being armed rabid and fanatical.

The "Safety Guide" is a tool for promoting an agenda, and a useful one, because it carries the weight of perceived medical authority, to which many simply defer without question. Being a peer, Woolley doesn't have to, and he demonstrates how the "defensive value of guns" is "glaringly omitted" from the tract, that their "deterrent value is ignored," that some households have higher risks than most, that claims are carefully worded to produce a desired reaction, that evidence is inconsistently evaluated, and that the whole damned effort smacks of a legislative, rather than a medical agenda.

But without knowing that, it's not surprising a doctor and staff are going to follow suit and present "company" forms without question.

Which brings to us an opportunity to educate them, or at least make them—and their risk management departments—think twice about whether or not they really want to go on record prescribing gun safety advice without being able to document their personal qualifications and credentials for doing so. Let's plan on looking at that tomorrow.