BruceBanner Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 2014-C-06 "AAPA believes that civilians should be banned from owning automatic and semiautomatic firearm/magazine combinations capable of firing, without reloading, more than ten times per minute." Screw them. This is where they crossed the line, & are supporting the restriction of guns from legal & responsible gun owners. I, too, am tired of them spending their time & our money on hot button political issues when they should be concentrating on advancing the profession. I will not be renewing my AAPA membership any time soon. Agreed. Fvck them and their political pandering. We pay outrageous membership fees, and for what?? So they can save face on irrelevant issues to the future of PAs? Or spend valuable funds on marketing and public education?? Stop trying to "educate" the public on what a PA is. Advance our scope. How about these issues: Name change Degree creep Independent practice rights for primary care Equitable insurance reimbursement NPs advancing their legal scope whilst we fail to evolve Oh, never mind, gun rights position statements are more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinntsp Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 People need to keep in mind that these resolutions are brought forward by individuals or constituent organizations. It's not "AAPA" doing it. If you disagree with a resolution's premise or even its existence then it is your responsibility as a member(hopefully you're a member) to tell your representatives that you disagree or that it shouldn't even be on the agenda. That way your rep can(hopefully) speak up for you in the HOD. I give a pass to anyone that spent 20+ years dealing with AAPA and state orgs and decided the effort was fruitless, but anyone else should be paying AAPA dues and trying to gain delegate status to bring up resolutions that matter and make your voice heard. Nobody is willing to put their money where their mouth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 2014-C-02 "AAPA believes that all existing gun laws be strictly enforced." 2014-C-06 "AAPA believes that civilians should be banned from owning automatic and semiautomatic firearm/magazine combinations capable of firing, without reloading, more than ten times per minute." Negative implications include above and that the law may be a violation of a citizen's constitutional rights. All the stuff going on in our world, and this is what we worry about? I have news for you, AAPA: I have never been an NRA member, but if you pass this trash I am resigning from the AAPA and joining. 2014-C-02: This is a real winner. Since we are making a distinction, which are the laws that AAPA thinks do not need to be "strictly enforced?" The ones against burglary? Rape? Maybe next year they could come out with a position paper supporting humans metabolizing carbohydrates. 2014-C-06: You intrusive little scum. First, it is damned near impossible for a civilian to own an automatic weapon of any sort. Second, what is with the magic number 10? (Rhetorical question - I realize it is merely a stopping point on the way to 5, then zero.) The only person that needs concern themselves with my "extra" bullets are those who would visit harm upon me or my family. Make no mistake, I like taking care of sick people but if someone comes looking for trouble I would put them down in a heartbeat. I love the impact statement - they are trivializing the violation of a "citizen's constitutional rights." AAPA has always had a progressive slant. This is getting to be a little too much for my atrophied sense of humor to tolerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialMedicine Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 FBIDoc ... Your review of firearm injury in the US, as far as I am concerned, is in agreement with my thoughts of firearms being a significant public health issue. If something is responsible for 16% of accidental deaths .... Thats a pretty BIG DEAL. Especially if it is something that potentially could be improved. ALSO we have to keep in mind the public health ramifications indirectly due to violence. I already mentioned survivor issues and PTSD. By no means am I saying this is priority number one ... and that clinicians need to incorporate gun discussions into physical exams etc. But I do not think it is unreasonable for public health and medicine to recognize it as an issue and consider ways to improve upon it that are feasible, ethical, and within the scope of practice. I really love when people state that firearms are a public health issue, or that death by firearms is a large source of mortality in the US without either knowing the true data or by choice omitting it. The most recent facts (2011 data) from the DOJ, FBI, and CDC are as follows, which clearly point to the fact that despite higher per capita firearm ownership than ever before, the exact opposite is trending: mortality and morbidity are declining and violent crimes using firearms are at an all-time low violent firearms crimes are 49% lower than 1993 accidental deaths by firearms account for 11,078 homicides and suicides 19,392 - fewer than falls, motor vehicle causes, and poisonings combined, all firearms mortality account for 16% of accidental death and 1.2% of all-cause mortality - to put this in perspective, there are more deaths in the US from Parkinson's disease and pneumonitis from solids than by firearms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 FBIDoc ... Your review of firearm injury in the US, as far as I am concerned, is in agreement with my thoughts of firearms being a significant public health issue. If something is responsible for 16% of accidental deaths .... Thats a pretty BIG DEAL. Especially if it is something that potentially could be improved. ALSO we have to keep in mind the public health ramifications indirectly due to violence. I already mentioned survivor issues and PTSD. By no means am I saying this is priority number one ... and that clinicians need to incorporate gun discussions into physical exams etc. But I do not think it is unreasonable for public health and medicine to recognize it as an issue and consider ways to improve upon it that are feasible, ethical, and within the scope of practice. More deaths, both directly and indirectly, due to alcohol consumption every year than all firearm related deaths combined. Alcohol is by far one of the most destructive and insidious forces I have seen on a consistent basis. Ban alcohol. Pass resolutions on alcohol. Educate more on alcohol. Any work done here will do more good, save more lives. Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddoc Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 FBIDoc ... Your review of firearm injury in the US, as far as I am concerned, is in agreement with my thoughts of firearms being a significant public health issue. If something is responsible for 16% of accidental deaths .... Thats a pretty BIG DEAL. Especially if it is something that potentially could be improved. ALSO we have to keep in mind the public health ramifications indirectly due to violence. I already mentioned survivor issues and PTSD. By no means am I saying this is priority number one ... and that clinicians need to incorporate gun discussions into physical exams etc. But I do not think it is unreasonable for public health and medicine to recognize it as an issue and consider ways to improve upon it that are feasible, ethical, and within the scope of practice. Additionally, "F" there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between more guns in the hands of Americans and fewer firearm deaths (e.g. the old "an armed society is a polite society saw") Re the social sciences discussions an equally compelling reason is the tendency for firearm deaths to be among younger generations while our population is aging. My only experience with gunshot mortality is in children and any percentage is too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 While I can understand and agree with you there, as I've highlighted; the AAPA is not merely people. An association that supposedly represents nearly 100k professionals would do well to actually wait to get feedback from those they represent before making a political statement that proves to be a very divisive topic. Especially at a time when a group like the AAPA desperately needs to come across as unified. The AAPA is there to represent their members, not ALL PAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGoLong Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Quote ---: While I can understand and agree with you there, as I've highlighted; the AAPA is not merely people. An association that supposedly represents nearly 100k professionals would do well to actually wait to get feedback from those they represent before making a political statement that proves to be a very divisive topic. Especially at a time when a group like the AAPA desperately needs to come across as unified. --- end quote I'm pretty much done with this topic, but replace "AAPA" with "America" and see how you feel about the statement. It too is an organization and a collection of people that needs to come across as unified and instead is too busy trying to find divisive issues and yelling at each other about them. If you are looking for reasons to be angry with the AAPA, I'm guessing there are better ones that the fact that they consider motions brought up by voting members! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBIDoc Posted May 22, 2014 Author Share Posted May 22, 2014 Additionally, "F" there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between more guns in the hands of Americans and fewer firearm deaths (e.g. the old "an armed society is a polite society saw") Re the social sciences discussions an equally compelling reason is the tendency for firearm deaths to be among younger generations while our population is aging. My only experience with gunshot mortality is in children and any percentage is too high. Well "e", your point is diversionary at best. If you make the unsupported claim that there is no cause & effect between more guns and fewer firearms deaths, I refer you to the cited counterclaim that there are not more firearms deaths in the presence of more firearms. My assumption is your experience with GSW mortality in children has led you to the emotional conclusion that we must legislate our Constitutional freedoms away to save even one child...bollocks sir! It is not the place of the AAPA, the Maine Academy, nor any other professional medical society to wade into the political morass...let's stick with what we're responsible for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Additionally, "F" there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between more guns in the hands of Americans and fewer firearm deaths (e.g. the old "an armed society is a polite society saw") Re the social sciences discussions an equally compelling reason is the tendency for firearm deaths to be among younger generations while our population is aging. My only experience with gunshot mortality is in children and any percentage is too high. " Violent crime ( and deaths by guns) have been reduced in EVERY state that has enacted right to carry laws. In the first full year after Heller overturned the DC gun ban, gun deaths are at their lowest rate in 40 years in DC? Chicago, which has a hand gun ban, has a higher violent crime rate then comparible size cities with no handgun ban...why?" (From an editorial in local newspaper... Easily verified truisms unpopular with the gun control or limiting crowd) it is clear to me that the More armed our law abiding citizenry is, the fewer gun associated crime and deaths. No one likes even one child's death, but I am unwilling to forgo ANY rights to preclude one. The AAPA delegates continue to lose me at their promotion of the progressive issue of the day, and the denigration of those in opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 No one likes even one child's death, but I am unwilling to forgo ANY rights to preclude one. Amen! If you want to talk about death and rights, talk about the hundreds of thousands of men and women who fought and died all over this world to hand us the fragile rights we now possess. One person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not grounds to suture everyone's mouth shut to prevent it from happening again. If people choose not to have a full range of options to defend themselves, that is their choice. Do not presume to limit my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Yes, god forbid the Academy attempt to address an issue that IS a public health concern. There has been substantial research and publication in public health journals, JAMA, HA, etc.etc.etc. Please feel free to read the attached. You'll note that they are all (with the exception of one) published in peer reviewed journals. It's somewhat amazing to me, that otherwise intelligent professionals get so worked up over something like this. Heuristic processing indeed. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409 http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/313.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22072043 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/2/575.full http://www.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 " Violent crime ( and deaths by guns) have been reduced in EVERY state that has enacted right to carry laws. And, you would be wrong... http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/77.short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 BTW, I'm not making a judgment either way. I don't choose to own guns, but nowhere in here have I ever stated that owning one makes you a bad person. I care about the data. I care about the public health perspective...... What I am saying is that there has been substantial research in this area with multiple publications in public health and medical journals over several decades. Having this discussion in the House is completely reasonable. It likely won't go anywhere, and will be sent back for further discussion.....but that's how the HOD works. This is how policy works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taotaox1 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 No matter how you feel about guns, the level of divisiveness that can be seen in just this thread is more than enough proof that this is a poor subject for the AAPA to be taking on when there is so much more they could be doing (like promoting and lobbying for our profession). Not to be crass but no one in Congress gives a $*#0@ what the "assistants" at the aapa think about guns (because we are just assistants.. right?). If all of these pass it will not change a thing in anyone's practice of medicine or in Congress. No one cares when the "real doctors" in the ama release grand proclimations like this and it has only served to weaken the organization. If you feel strongly about the public health issue surrounding guns, do something about it through an organization dedicated to it instead of weakening the organization meant to be our collective voice in professional issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 No matter how you feel about guns, the level of divisiveness this causes in just this thread is more than enough proof that this is a poor subject for the AAPA to be taking on... Very well said. I recall some years ago the HOD took up the issue of making a statement that pharmacists should be required to make available abortifacient medications even if they had ethical reservations. My thoughts were: 1.) Who the eff are we to tell another health profession what to do? 2.) All the health challenges facing our nation and this is what we worry about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 And, you would be wrong... http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/77.short How can you look at an aggregate pool of "homicides" and attempt to draw a meaningful conclusion? -Some percentage of these will be "homicides" caused by police officers in the line of duty. Most of these will be "good shoots." -The bulk of homicides will likely be caused by criminals who do not care what the law dictates. Some percentage of these homicides will involve criminals shooting other criminals, the ultimate net effect of which is a benefit to society. -Some percentage will be newly armed citizens who successfully kill an assailant. This is sort-of the goal in carrying a weapon in self defense, and to me a happy outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted May 23, 2014 Administrator Share Posted May 23, 2014 "1. Reporting by physician assistants to law enforcement agencies persons in their care exhibiting behavior dangerous to themselves or others making them unfit to purchase or own firearms. " How about a duty to report people who are unfit to drive? Certainly seems like a bigger public health issue to me, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted May 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2014 How about a duty to report people who are unfit to drive? Certainly seems like a bigger public health issue to me, many states require that you report folks with a seizure or syncope of unk. etiology to the dmv... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted May 23, 2014 Administrator Share Posted May 23, 2014 many states require that you report folks with a seizure or syncope of unk. etiology to the dmv... Right, but there are plenty more elderly out there who couldn't pass a test, who PAs know to be still driving, who are a menace to the public and themselves just by being on the road. I've run across far more of these in my practice than I have of people who I consider to be a danger if they had access to firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted May 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2014 Right, but there are plenty more elderly out there who couldn't pass a test, who PAs know to be still driving, who are a menace to the public and themselves just by being on the road. I've run across far more of these in my practice than I have of people who I consider to be a danger if they had access to firearms. not arguing with you, just clarifying your statement re: duty to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted May 23, 2014 Administrator Share Posted May 23, 2014 not arguing with you, just clarifying your statement re: duty to report. Fair enough--we agree that a current legal 'duty to report' doesn't extend to ALL cases where a patient is known to be a danger to self or others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted May 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2014 Fair enough--we agree that a current legal 'duty to report' doesn't extend to ALL cases where a patient is known to be a danger to self or others. sure, we all know folks who are too impaired/stupid/whatever to drive/be parents/have pets,etc. folks have a right to do this in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialMedicine Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 just make drunk driving illegal and put people who drive drunk or fight drunk on probation or in jail. they do that already. :p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinntsp Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 No matter how you feel about guns, the level of divisiveness that can be seen in just this thread is more than enough proof that this is a poor subject for the AAPA to be taking on when there is so much more they could be doing (like promoting and lobbying for our profession). Not to be crass but no one in Congress gives a $*#0@ what the "assistants" at the aapa think about guns (because we are just assistants.. right?). If all of these pass it will not change a thing in anyone's practice of medicine or in Congress. No one cares when the "real doctors" in the ama release grand proclimations like this and it has only served to weaken the organization. If you feel strongly about the public health issue surrounding guns, do something about it through an organization dedicated to it instead of weakening the organization meant to be our collective voice in professional issues. Now if only you would join AAPA and share your perspective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.