The NRA. I think the only major mistake the NRA made here was in terms of public relations (PR). Despite being in the right, it looks bad for the NRA to pick a fight with physicians.
By the way, the NRA wasn't saying doctors should "stay in their lane" out of thin air. Rather, the NRA was responding to a group of physicians who gave the impression that they were authorities on gun control based on a series of case studies rather than better kinds of research (e.g. randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses).
Physicians. If physicians want to offer their thoughts and recommendations on medical and health issues, sure, that's well within their wheelhouse (e.g. how to hemodynamically stabilize a gunshot victim; how to surgically remove a bullet from this or that part of the body; how to help a mentally ill person before they snap and go on a shooting spree and/or attempt to commit suicide).
However, if physicians want to advocate gun control (e.g. restricting the types of firearms Americans are allowed to purchase), then they're no longer speaking as physicians but as laypeople. It's not as if med school and residency makes a physician an expert on gun control.
In addition, med school and residency don't teach much public health, though many physicians who favor gun control are now trying to sound as if they're public health experts too. Instead, physicians and others normally have to obtain an MPH degree if they want to become experts in public health. Some physicians do spend more time (years) studying to obtain an MPH, but most don't.
The American College of Physicians. Keep in mind what the ACP is actually arguing for. For example, see the paper "Reducing Firearm Injuries and Deaths in the United States: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians". Whether one agrees or disagrees with this paper or the ACP in general, it's clear the ACP is arguing for gun control, arguing for changing national gun policy, and so on. It's not as if the ACP is a neutral party in this debate, even though they're now trying to sound like they're impartial.
Research on gun violence. To my knowledge, and despite the histrionics from many physicians on social media, physicians were never prohibited from conducting gun violence research. The only recommended "prohibition" was in engaging in gun control advocacy qua physicians.
Moreover, I grant the Dickey Amendment could have used clearer and better language, but even the Dickey Amendment was clarified by Congress earlier this year when Congress explicitly spelled out that the CDC is not prohibited from gun violence research.
The NRA. I think the only major mistake the NRA made here was in terms of public relations (PR). Despite being in the right, it looks bad for the NRA to pick a fight with physicians.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the NRA wasn't saying doctors should "stay in their lane" out of thin air. Rather, the NRA was responding to a group of physicians who gave the impression that they were authorities on gun control based on a series of case studies rather than better kinds of research (e.g. randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses).
Physicians. If physicians want to offer their thoughts and recommendations on medical and health issues, sure, that's well within their wheelhouse (e.g. how to hemodynamically stabilize a gunshot victim; how to surgically remove a bullet from this or that part of the body; how to help a mentally ill person before they snap and go on a shooting spree and/or attempt to commit suicide).
However, if physicians want to advocate gun control (e.g. restricting the types of firearms Americans are allowed to purchase), then they're no longer speaking as physicians but as laypeople. It's not as if med school and residency makes a physician an expert on gun control.
In addition, med school and residency don't teach much public health, though many physicians who favor gun control are now trying to sound as if they're public health experts too. Instead, physicians and others normally have to obtain an MPH degree if they want to become experts in public health. Some physicians do spend more time (years) studying to obtain an MPH, but most don't.
The American College of Physicians. Keep in mind what the ACP is actually arguing for. For example, see the paper "Reducing Firearm Injuries and Deaths in the United States: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians". Whether one agrees or disagrees with this paper or the ACP in general, it's clear the ACP is arguing for gun control, arguing for changing national gun policy, and so on. It's not as if the ACP is a neutral party in this debate, even though they're now trying to sound like they're impartial.
Research on gun violence. To my knowledge, and despite the histrionics from many physicians on social media, physicians were never prohibited from conducting gun violence research. The only recommended "prohibition" was in engaging in gun control advocacy qua physicians.
Moreover, I grant the Dickey Amendment could have used clearer and better language, but even the Dickey Amendment was clarified by Congress earlier this year when Congress explicitly spelled out that the CDC is not prohibited from gun violence research.