Counseling about firearms: Proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2168-2172
Number of pages5
JournalPediatrics
Volume118
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2006

Fingerprint

Firearms
Legislation
Counseling
Physicians
Aptitude
Medical Societies
Malpractice
Licensure
Practice Guidelines
Medicine
Pediatrics

Keywords

  • Anticipatory guidance
  • Firearms
  • Injury control
  • Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Counseling about firearms : Proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients. / Vernick, Jon S; Teret, Stephen P; Smith, Gary A.; Webster, Daniel W.

In: Pediatrics, Vol. 118, No. 5, 11.2006, p. 2168-2172.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d6d1da6cd5e04277921a781c42933a10,
title = "Counseling about firearms: Proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients",
abstract = "In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.",
keywords = "Anticipatory guidance, Firearms, Injury control, Policy",
author = "Vernick, {Jon S} and Teret, {Stephen P} and Smith, {Gary A.} and Webster, {Daniel W}",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1542/peds.2006-1120",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "118",
pages = "2168--2172",
journal = "Pediatrics",
issn = "0031-4005",
publisher = "American Academy of Pediatrics",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Counseling about firearms

T2 - Proposed legislation is a threat to physicians and their patients

AU - Vernick, Jon S

AU - Teret, Stephen P

AU - Smith, Gary A.

AU - Webster, Daniel W

PY - 2006/11

Y1 - 2006/11

N2 - In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.

AB - In early 2006, 2 separate but virtually identical bills were introduced in the Virginia and West Virginia legislatures that would have profoundly affected the relationship between a physician and his or her patients. Each bill would have prohibited a physician from asking a patient if he or she owned firearms for the purpose of counseling that patient about ways to reduce risks associated with firearms. Penalties for violation of the bills included revocation of a physician's license to practice. The Virginia bill was initially approved by its state House of Delegates by a vote of 88 to 11. It was ultimately defeated in a Virginia Senate committee. The West Virginia bill did not receive a vote during the 2006 legislative session. Although neither bill became law this year, this type of bill is likely to reappear in future legislative sessions. The Virginia and West Virginia bills were contrary to the best-practices recommendations of medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anticipatory guidance regarding firearms can indeed reduce risks to patients. Yet, the bills would have preferred the judgment of legislators over physicians regarding this aspect of the practice of medicine. In addition, the 2 bills raise legal issues regarding both medical malpractice and the First Amendment protection of the freedom of speech. The Virginia and West Virginia bills would have treated risks associated with firearms differently from other hazards and interfered with a physician's ability to protect his or her patients. The Virginia bill was defeated, in part, through the efforts of physicians to educate legislators. However, physicians must remain prepared to respond to similar state legislative initiatives in the future.

KW - Anticipatory guidance

KW - Firearms

KW - Injury control

KW - Policy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750946060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750946060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1542/peds.2006-1120

DO - 10.1542/peds.2006-1120

M3 - Article

C2 - 17079591

AN - SCOPUS:33750946060

VL - 118

SP - 2168

EP - 2172

JO - Pediatrics

JF - Pediatrics

SN - 0031-4005

IS - 5

ER -