It is estimated that from 2006 to 2014, the cost of gunshot wounds in American hospitals reached over six billion dollars (Spitzer). This means that annually, there are six billion dollars allocated to help hospitals bounce back from the loss of resources they experience when a patient with a gunshot wound comes in. Up until recent events, the public controversy surrounding gun control revolved around gun owners and non gun owners. There were those who believed in stricter gun laws to prevent mass shootings, and those who believed any and all gun laws were breaching their second amendment rights. However, as new voices came to light the controversy changed to include medical professionals and the scientific field. It was now a question of whether or not doctors and other medical staff had the right to weigh in on gun control, and if their voices, experiences, and publications were credible enough to support the fight for stronger gun laws. On the other hand, the NRA also become more involved in the the gun control debate and began releasing videos, articles, and papers of their own in support for guns and gun owners. As the public took all the new information in, the debate on gun control and gun laws began to include professional medical opinions, and the people again were divided on how guns impact the healthcare system, if they do at all.
While the cost of gunshots wounds seems unreasonably high, the numbers add up when the needed resources are taken into account. Doctors and nurses must first clean the wound and stop the bleeding so that they may find and remove bullet pieces. There is also the possibility of a gunshot breaking bones, which means the pieces of bone need to be found and removed as well. If there is too much damage done to a certain part of the body, or an organ, then it might need to be removed which is an intensive process. Finally comes stitching the person back up, antibiotics, cleaning everything off, sanitizing, ect (Heller). The man power and medical supplies needed add up very quickly, hence the high costs. Doctors and other medical staff also mention extra supplies for themselves such as needing to keep spare scrubs in case the first pair becomes covered in blood (Gordon). Doctors and staff are the ones who must restock the supplies and ensure there is enough to go around when an emergency patient comes in after a gunshot wound. Many supporters of gun control agreed and brought up the fact that doctors and other medical staff are the first lines of defense against those hurt by gunshot wounds. Doctors mentioned they simply wanted better gun laws, not to ban guns as a whole. They wanted laws and procedures that were “common sense” and could help keep the public safe. In the Canadian Medical Association Journal doctors from the north showed their support. They mentioned being able to help patients with things like HIV, cancer, smoking, and a number of other problems, and that they also wanted to help this country with its gun problem (Owens). As people who frequently face the consequences of guns, Doctors believe they should have a say in providing information on what gun control should look like.
On the other hand those who are pro guns, and do not want any more gun laws put into place dismiss all the concerns put forward by medical professionals. There are numerous counterarguments “debunking” so called medical myths and misinformation put out there by medical professionals to scare the public. One article published by David Burnett who is a writer for the NRA’s institute for legislative action said, “the data simply doesn’t support exaggerated claims of a public health “crisis.” Research listed on the AAP’s own website admits that youth homicide from firearms and accidental deaths are at record lows (Nra-Ila)”. These types of articles sparked public anger and many protested the fact that medical staff had any say in how politicians should govern the people and how guns should be monitored. However, a quick fact check reveals that his source is a Centers of Disease Control report regarding a thirty year low of youth homicide from 1981 to 2010. This essentially renders any citation of the information past 2010 useless because it does not mention present day statistics. Burnett’s article is published in 2017 and so for him to cite the article as if it was a present day low is ethically immoral of him because he is contributing to the misinformation he is self reportedly fighting against. The CDC itself even states within the same article that, “We are encouraged to see a decline in the homicide rate among our youth but unfortunately, homicide continues to rank in the top three leading causes of death for our young people (Press Release)”. With this kind of information out there, and with people from either side providing information that might not be necessarily true or trustworthy, the public can be misled and fall back onto their own opinions without giving the other side a chance to explain their viewpoint.
Aside from the cost and resources needed to treat gunshot wounds, there is trauma that doctors and medical staff experience, that does not stop once the surgery is complete and the patient moves out of their care. Doctors must go about their day and continue caring for the others in their charge after witnessing such intense trauma. In fact it was noted by Kristen Choi, a trauma researcher, that while doctors might have the medical training necessary to deal with the gunshot wounds, they do not have the psychological training. “Researchers call the psychological consequences of caring for trauma victims “secondary traumatic stress” or “vicarious trauma” … it can appear to be like post-traumatic stress disorder (Gordon).” It is important to mention that doctors who spend hours in surgery with such patients, who end up covered in blood, who have to break the news to the family and watch their initial reactions, are also human. They must live with the images; doctors are professionals who oftentimes have their work follow them home. Numerous doctors and nurses started the hashtag #ThisIsOurLane with pictures of bloodied scrubs, ER rooms covered in bloodied supplies, and bullets pulled from children and adults alike, proving that they had a right to be included in the discussion. Those in support pointed out the fact that doctors and nurses work as hard as they can to help save people and must deal with the consequences when they cannot. Many over social media platforms such as Twittered pointed to doctors and nurses treating gunshot wounds, and dealing with the aftermath, but having no say in the prevention of such tragedies. If doctors now more than ever deal with gunshot wounds and patients who pass away from semi automatic weapons, should their opinions not be regarded in the discussion if they have first hand accounts of the damage that can be done?
On the other hand, perhaps victims of shootings would not end up hurt if the attacker knew a potential victim was also armed, making them less likely to shoot someone in the first place. At least, this seems to be one of the main arguments for the NRA who believe in the right to protect oneself and family. In a statement they issued, Cox and LaPierre stated, “ In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities… We urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence (LaPierre).” The consensus for the NRA and its supporters seems to be that more guns will keep us safe. They also very boldly published a statement telling doctors to “stay in their lane” which prompted the previous hashtag and social media uprising. Many who support the NRA and the decision to not pass gun laws, believe that any gun laws are an attempt to simply begin the process of removing all guns from gun owners. There seems to be widespread misinformation that gun control means taking away guns. This is not the case because many are simply prompting for smarter gun control laws and more thorough background checks. However, even this seems to be too much for some who are pro gun. In the Journal of Family Practice Adam Soto writes, “I, too, agree that the common American has no need for a fully automatic weapon; however, that does not mean we need a law banning its possession (Soto)”. Many who are pro gun refuse to even see reason with a weapon that can fire up to a hundred and fifty rounds per minute. Supporters have also been very admanent that gun violence is not a public health crisis, and therefore medical professionals should not be getting involved in a topic that does not concern them. Many NRA members and supporters of the organization hold true to the belief that medical professionals do not hold the credentials to speak out against gun ownership due to the fact that they have not conducted any research of their own.
There is no doubting the large divide between doctors and NRA members, or between those in urban cities protesting guns versus those in suburban areas fighting for their second amended rights. If gun control was about taking away all guns, then the ideal middle ground would be taking away guns from people who are not supposed to have them such as minors, violent offenders, and those with a history of violent mental illness. However, because gun control is not about taking away guns but more of an effort to better monitor who can and cannot have them, a solution seems less clear. Many doctors and those in the medical fields want better gun laws that can prohibit them from getting into the wrong hands, as well as stop the selling of automatic and semi automatic weapons. Those in the NRA and supports of the second amendment refuse to have any type stops on the kinds of guns people can buy, and believe that trying to mounted who can and cannot buy guns is a serious breach of rights. With multiple mass shootings in churches, schools, malls, and any other public space imaginable, the future seems like a scary place without gun control. While a solution that will please both sides does not seem likely to emerge, there is not denying that something needs to be done in order to stop the countless killings our society has faced to date.
While the gun control debate has waged for many years, the new addition of medical input has sparked interesting points. If hospitals spent less on gun wounds, could they provide better care and allocated money to other areas of research and aid? If gun laws would be put into place would they unfairly discriminate against those who made one bad decision in the past but now simply want to protect themselves and their families? When looking at the facts, it is clear that due to a lack of gun control, there are more victims of shootings. More shootings place a financial burden on both the victim and the healthcare industry. Shootings also induce trauma for both victims and medical professionals who help nurse them back to health. This means that those in the healthcare field deal with the effects of a lack of gun control. As people who suffer alongside victims, they should have their voices heard and be taken into account when attempting to push for stronger gun control laws.
Citations
1. Gordon, Mara. “How Doctors and Nurses Cope with the Human Toll of Gun Violence.” Minnesota Public Radio News, 14 Nov. 2018, www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/14/npr-how-doctors-and-nurses-cope-with-the-toll-of-gun-violence.
Mara Gordon is a doctor in DC and is doing her fellowship at NPR. In the context of my paper, she helps shed light on what doctors go through behind the scenes after dealing with gunshot wounds and victims.
2. Spitzer, Sarabeth A., et al. “Costs and Financial Burden of Initial Hospitalizations for Firearm Injuries in the United States, 2006–2014.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 107, no. 5, 2017, pp. 770–774., doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.303684.
Sarabeth is a medical school student and the other writers all work within the department of surgery at Stanford. In the context of my paper, they are experts who help to shed light on the financial burden caused by gunshot wounds not only to hospitals but to the people injured themselves.
3. Heller, Jacob L, et al. “Gunshot Wounds – Aftercare: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 22 Mar. 2019, medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000737.htm.
Heller is a doctor and the medical director who helped to review and put the information together has medical field experience. They help introduce new information about how mentally and physically taxing gunshot wound care is.
4. LaPierre, Wayne, and Chris Cox. “Joint Statement.” NRA.ORG, home.nra.org/joint-statement.
Wayne is the executive vice president of the NRA and Chris is the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. They help to shed light on the other side of the debate and give insight to how those who are pro gun think.
5. Nra-Ila, and David Burnett. “ILA | Doctors Falsely Claim Guns Are Public Health Crisis.” NRA, 24 Oct. 2017, www.nraila.org/articles/20171024/doctors-falsely-claim-guns-are-public-health-crisis.
David Burnett is the former president of Students for Concealed Carry. In my paper he helps to give insight to the opposing sides thoughts on if doctors should be able to weigh in or not.
6. “Press Release.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0711-homicide-rates.html.
The center for disease control is a website which aims to inform the public on a number of different health and wellness topics. In my paper they help to debunk a pro gun argument made.
7. Owens, Brian. “Gun Violence Is an Epidemic and ‘We Solve Epidemics with Medicine, Not Politics.’” CMAJ, CMAJ, 14 Jan. 2019, www.cmaj.ca/content/191/2/E59.
Brian Owens has written multiple articles for the CMAJ on topics that affect physicians and staff as well as the public such as cannabis and different pharmaceutical drugs. In my paper he helps to bring to light that the issue of gun control in America is so great it has sparked worry and reflection in other places.
8. Soto, Adam. “Gun Control Is Not Clinically Relevant.” Journal of Family Practice, vol. 60, no. 4, Apr. 2011, pp. 180–181. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59857844&site=ehost-live.
Adam Soto is an MD in Georgia who does not necessarily believe that guns and their implications, and doctors, relate. He helps to showcase a more extreme viewpoint in my paper.
