Attorney Elisabeth Ryan, who sat on the Firearms License Review Board, has an
article in the Northeastern University Law Review entitled "Firearms and
Physicians - A Duty To Discuss. I have attached it. She posted about its
publication, with a link to the story, on LinkedIn. This being yet another
effort to insinuate doctors into a political discussion, I was less than
receptive to her post. Specifically, I put this abbreviated rebuttal under her
story:
What "articulated duty" would there be for physicians to intermeddle in their
patients' choice to exercise a fundamental freedom? How are physicians even
qualified to discuss firearms? Do physicians have an "articulated duty" to
lecture patients about other lifestyle choices, such as skiing, riding
motorcycles, or mountain climbing? Do physicians presume to inquire about pools
or trampolines? In 2015, the CDC reported 35,369 deaths from motor vehicle
accidents, versus 505 deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms. Yet it
is the latter which doctors are now to have an "articulated duty" to lecture us
on. With what qualifications to do so? Doctors interjecting themselves into the
non-medical aspects of their patients' lives by creating an "articulated duty"
is another manifestation of the politicization of the medical profession.
Simply put, this is outside the scope of the doctor's role. The military would
call this "mission creep." The term for such intrusions by a physician is
"boundary violation." It should be treated accordingly. You may wish to go on
LI and add your thoughts to this latest proposed Great Leap Forward. KGL
____________________________________________________________
1 Cup Of This (Tonight) Will Burn Your Belly Fat Like Crazy
smartfithelp.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5c891338c3c9113355e9bst01vuc
Attachment:
Elisabeth Ryan law review article.pdf
Description: Elisabeth Ryan law review article.pdf
