RSN Fundraising Banner
After NRA Mocks Doctors, Physicians Reply: 'This Is Our Lane'
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45639"><span class="small">Laurel Wamsley, NPR </span></a>   
Monday, 12 November 2018 09:38

Wamsley writes: "A mocking tweet from the National Rifle Association has stirred many physicians to post on social media about their tragically frequent experiences treating patients in the aftermath of gun violence."

A man in a wheelchair is taken away from the site of the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. (photo: David Becker/Getty Images)
A man in a wheelchair is taken away from the site of the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. (photo: David Becker/Getty Images)

After NRA Mocks Doctors, Physicians Reply: 'This Is Our Lane'

By Laurel Wamsley, NPR

12 November 18


mocking tweet from the National Rifle Association has stirred many physicians to post on social media about their tragically frequent experiences treating patients in the aftermath of gun violence.

"Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," the NRA tweeted on Thursday. "Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves."

The NRA was criticizing the American College of Physicians' (ACP) new position paper, in which the physicians' group outlines its public health approach to reducing deaths and injuries from firearms.

"We are not anti-gun: we are anti-bullet holes in our patients," Esther Choo, a doctor and professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, replied on Twitter. "Most upsetting, actually, is death and disability from gun violence that is unparalleled in the world."

The NRA posted its tweet just hours before a man shot and killed 12 people at a country-western bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

"I would like to graciously extend the invitation to the author of this tweet and anyone else from the NRA to join me at the hospital the next time I care for a child who has been hurt or killed by a gun that wasn't safely stored or was an innocent bystander," tweeted Jeannie Moorjani, a pediatric doctor in Orlando.

More physicians weighed in, often using the hashtag #ThisIsOurLane.

"Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn't just my lane. It's my f****** highway," wrote forensic pathologist Judy Melinek, in a tweet that has gone viral.

A trauma surgeon in Utah tweeted a photo of his blue scrubs covered in blood. "Can't post a patient photo," he wrote, "so this is a selfie. This is what it looks like to #stayinmylane."

The NRA's criticism of the physicians' position paper hinges in part on research studies cited by the ACP.

"The problem is that the ACP cites 'studies' that wouldn't qualify as 'evidence' in any other debate," the gun advocacy organization argued in an article posted at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "One cited study was focused on a single rural county in Iowa. Another was of 106 outpatients at a single clinic. The authors acknowledge evidence is limited but cite their own belief there is 'enough evidence' or simply argue the policy should be enacted anyway. Inconclusive evidence is not 'enough evidence.' Applying narrow findings to a larger population is not 'enough evidence.'"

The paper's co-author, ACP Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Robert Doherty, responded to the NRA's criticism in a series of tweets.

"All of our recommendations are supported by a comprehensive review of research on the causes of gun violence, & policies that could reduce it. Where the evidence is limited, we said so," he wrote. "All of our recommendations were reviewed and approved by ACP physician-members who serve on our health policy committee, several of whom are gun owners."

Doherty also noted that the paper calls for increased funding for research on gun violence.

For years, the NRA has lobbied to prevent the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research on gun violence. A spending bill passed in March of this year notes that the CDC has the authority to do research on the "causes" of gun violence. But it doesn't change the 1996 law that mandates "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." The rule has had a chilling effect on gun research in the U.S. ever since.

Which makes the NRA's criticism about physicians not having adequate research particularly frustrating to doctors like Melinek.

"We aren't against the second amendment," she told The Guardian. "What we are against is not researching, not putting effort into researching, and not putting the funding into researching what can be used to prevent gun violence and death, whether it's trigger locks, security, training or the idea of requiring insurance and having people have insurance in case their gun is used to kill someone else. We need to have the research and we need to have the data to back it up, and right now that's not happening."

"We need to do something, and telling doctors to say in their own lane is not the way to do it," she told the newspaper. "We're the ones who have to deal with the consequences. We're the ones who have to testify in court about the wounds. We're the ones who have to talk to the family members. It breaks my heart, and it's just another day in America."

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+8 # Macserp 2018-11-12 12:02
This is maddening. Does anyone really doubt that the NRA funded Dickey's federal provision? To read the NPR interview cited above, Dickey would have you believe otherwise but I'm buying.
+2 # economagic 2018-11-12 15:41
I think the doctors are being FAR too kind to the ignorant, arrogant, death-worshipin g thugs who have taken control of the NRA. That excessive kindness extends to the sane and decent gun owners who are members of the NRA--possibly still a majority--for failing to rein in those thugs. Among other things, they could and should make a far better case for research even on the basis of research conducted before 1996. I have read some of the PRO-gun "research" of John Lott, and it hardly qualifies, as numerous studies of his "research" have concluded. "Ya want research, WE'LL show ya research!"
+2 # Jim Young 2018-11-12 16:12
Seems rather incredible to be blaming Doctors (and CDC) for not conducting research, when the NRA and legislators it donates so much money and support to, have gone to such extremes to prevent funding.

Per wikipedia, "...While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can conduct research into gun violence, but cannot use government appropriated funds to do so.[15] It was signed into law by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018..."

Here's some research the Trump administration should fund (legally required)transi tion briefings they skipped.

“… It’s legally required, said Christie. Trump asked where the money was going to come from to pay for the transition team. Christie explained that Trump could either pay for it himself or take it out of campaign funds. Trump didn’t want to pay for it himself …
…Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown Washington, DC, along with computers and trash cans and so on, but the campaigns paid their people…”

Lewis, Michael. The Fifth Risk (p. 21). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
+2 # Ken Halt 2018-11-13 11:21
The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue. Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.