Stay in your lane #stayinyourlane
Previous Post
Next Post

“Stay in your lane!” they yelled, as I barged into the OR. The self-righteous Neurosurgeon glared at me icily as I marched over behind him. “Get the hell out of here – I’m in the middle of Mrs. Jones’ brain, and her glioblastoma! What do you think you’re doing ?!?” he yelled.

“I’m the neuroradiologist, you inconsiderate fool” I shouted back. “I know she’s got a glio – that’s why I’m here!” I screamed back at him.

“Time and again I see these people come back, and their tumors ALWAYS recur. It’s obvious to any fool that you never resect enough – I’m here to demand you excise that tumor with wider margins, and I won’t leave until I see that its done properly!”.

“Stay in your lane!” they yelled at the oncologist’s office, as I stomped into the infusion center. “These doses are insufficient – it’s obvious!” I exclaimed. “These poor people with small cell lung cancer – they get better for a while, and then I read their CAT scans, and their tumors always come roaring back a year or so later! Why do you stop their treatment before the cancer is gone – don’t you care if they get cured?!” I demanded.

“Stay in your lane!” they demanded at the hospital’s Breast Cancer Working Group’s monthly meeting. “We are following the current guidelines, and constantly tracking our statistics to modify our treatment and surveillance regimens.” they claimed. “But I still see women dying from breast cancer every year – it’s obvious all you care about is getting paid – if you cared at all about these patients, you’d start screening mammograms in their teens, and do them every six months for life! I don’t need to read the literature to know you need to be doing more!” I cried.

“Stay in your lane!” the internist insisted when I barged into his afternoon hypertension clinic. “These people already have high blood pressure, and medication compliance is my number one problem in treating it; the last thing they need is some uninformed loudmouth screaming about alternative therapies and making things worse!” he fumed. “Really?!” I demanded. “How many of them have had CT angiograms to exclude a treatable renal artery stenosis?” I asked, fixing him with my own, righteous icy stare.

Did any of this actually happen? Of course not – I may be board certified in radiology, with certification in neuroradiology and a senior member of the American Society of Neuroradiology, but that doesn’t make me an expert in anything except diagnostic radiology and neuroradiology.

I’m comfortable with that – I know that if I do my job well, I can help my colleagues in neurosurgery, oncology, internal medicine, etc., take advantage of the incredible power of modern diagnostic imaging to optimize the care of their patients. I can help the ER doctors take care of their patients with chest pain, headache, and even those with gunshot wounds.

But it doesn’t mean I can make useful judgments about clinical care and decision-making for which my education and training has not provided me with their expertise.

I own firearms. I have a concealed carry license, and I practice and train with my firearms in one way or another every single day. I make sure that I handle firearms as responsibly and skillfully as possible, and I do everything in my power to minimize the odds of me ever having to use my firearm to defend my life, or the life of a family member, friend or neighbor.

But if that awful day comes, if I am wounded, I hope I am lucky enough to have a doctor as skillful and knowledgeable as Dr. Haughey taking care of me. I won’t offer her advice on emergency medicine, and I won’t ask for her advice on firearms, tax shelters, or anything outside her area of training and expertise. I want her to stay in her lane, because that’s what she does best.


Tom Vaughan, MD is a neuroradiologist in private practice in Louisville, KY.  He is a shooting enthusiast who believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I don’t care what the doctors say. Preventable medical mistake deaths far exceeds firearm deaths by a huge margin. Shove that factoid down their medical throats.

    • “Shove that factoid down their medical throats.”

      I think you have the wrong direction and the wrong orifice too.

      • @Ralph
        I’m trying to act my age just a little! I have a tendency to be blunt and rather opinionated and be a real……”Richard”, especially over things I’m passionate about, like the environment and busy-bodies thinking they can or should dictate what I lawfully own to protect myself with 🙂
        Trust me, I’m fully cognizant of where the medical field can stick it.

        I can’t figure out why people don’t scream bloody murder over the 440,000 yearly tobacco related deaths in the USA each year. That just amazes me.

        • I smoke like a chimney. It will more than likely kill me. I don’t need your advice, thank you. Mind your business

        • I’ll help you then. Most of those who suffer the consequences of smoking tobacco made the choice to use tobacco at some point. There are exceptions with second hand smoking. Many of those who are the victims of gun violence did not make the choice to gamble with their lives. Again there are exceptions, gang bangers “playing” with guns, suicides, people doing their best to get shot by a cop, burglars…

        • Well guys, reliable estimates put second hand smoke as killing more than firearms.
          I personally don’t give a rats ass if people kill themselves just like I don’t care what kind if slob you are and if your car stinks. But when you throw you stinking cigarette butts out the window or anywhere you please, and don’t say you don’t, well that bothers me and don’t subject me to your stinking ass smoke.

        • actually toby you’re wrong. The vast majority of gun fatalities and injuries are due to gang violence and people acting outside the law. More people are injured by drunk drivers and they were hardly “gambling” either.

  2. i just dont understand what they bring to the argument.

    Guns cause wounds….yes, we know, thats why we want them. bad people are trying to harm us and as i’m not Bruce Lee, i need a firearm to stop them.

    So what do they want us to do? Use battle-axes? they might find those wounds a little vicious as well.

    Do they want us to die? i’m going to go with ‘no’ on that one.

    So, they’ll just have to suck it up and patch up the wounded, or…alternatively, i suppose they can find another line of work.

    • “Do they want us to die? i’m going to go with ‘no’ on that one.”

      If you listen to the rantings of some anti-gunners, I’m not so sure ‘no’ is a safe assumption. Particularly Eric Swalwell, who suggested a “buyback” of firearms and nuking anyone who doesn’t comply and resists.

  3. Over a hundred years ago people were afraid to go to the hospital. That was where you went to die. Sanitary conditions were terrible. Now it’s where you go to loose your civil rights.

  4. the holier than thou ama has bullshitted the american people into thinking that they are the worlds best in see the countless adds on the television for new developed chemical meds then a 500 word cover your ass list of the many things that can happen if you are stupid enough to take them… the jungle meds from our ancestors CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH NO ADVERSE PROBLEMS , YOU CAN TAKE THEM WITH THE FULL EXPECTATIONS OF THE DRUG WORKING WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS.. BEFORE JUMPING OFF THE BRIDGE, CHECK WITH A GOOD NATUREOPATH …

    • Years ago there was a skit on some show about some cold medicine that could cause anal seepage as a side effect, and that was really on the real commercial for it.

      • Recently there’s been one on, can’t remember the name, I think it was an anti depressant. Out of the side effects listed I distinctly remember hearing “anger, hostility, and severe diarrhea”….

      • “…about some cold medicine that could cause anal seepage as a side effect,…”

        Back around 1998 or so, there was a potato chip being sold that used some kind of synthetic oil that had low calories.

        And one of the symptoms listed on the bag was oily, slimy, anal leakage.

        Found it! The oil was ‘Olestra’ :

        Lay’s WOW chips :

        “…As Olestra caused “abdominal cramping, diarrhea, fecal incontinence [“anal leakage”]

      • My favorites are anti-depressants that cause suicidal tendencies. Then, once on them for years and you decide you want off of them, you stop abruptly and end up becoming a mass shooter.

    • Of course for those same ancestor tetanus was a death sentance. Btw is there a natural botanical to cure excessive caps?

  5. Yeah, she needs to stay in her lane…but she won’t. And because of that, she deserves the criticism she’s earned. The gun violence she’s dealing with isn’t caused by the NRA or millions of lawful gun owners. It’s being aided and abetted by politician who, for political gain, are turning a blind eye to the the malefactors. These are the kinds of politicians I would be bet a year’s salary she supports and votes for. I would hope she would treat a gun-owner, if he or she is seriously ill or wounded, but because she seems to view things through a purely political prism, I have my doubts. A classic case of ‘Doctor, heal thyself’ if there ever was one.

    • The gun violence issue in America is mainly the fruit of too many mentally ill people, and too much materialism, drugs, gang bangers, etc.
      Give an AR15 and a pistol to every family in some other nations and you will still have a low rate of violent crimes with guns. on the other hand Mexico, Venezuela and Honduras do not have anything even close to a Second Amendment yet the rate of violent crimes involving the use of firearms is high.

      • As has been said many times before, it is not a gun violence issue. It is a violence issue. Period. The tool used does not matter. Far more homicides are done with hands and feet, than by all rifles (which includes the scary “assault rifles”). The behavior is the issue not the tool. All homicides involve homicidal behavior, but not all homicides involve a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, etc. If you can address the behavior, you can reduce the total of all homicides, not just the much smaller number if you continue to focus on the tool used. Also, by focusing on the behavior, you are not unjustly affecting the people who do not exhibit the unwanted behavior, like is done with all gun regulations.

  6. Gotta say that after looking at the paper the trauma surgeons issued, even though I don’t agree with all of their proposals, also see how the same things that affect them are gonna land in “my lane,” too, eventually.

    Quite sure the day will come when I get asked to offer a professional opinion on something like an ERPO situation despite there being no quality clinically based evidence, training or recommendations in my field at this time. Meaning I’ll have to send it out to someone else, if they can even find someone else with the right training given the lack of training, and that person will probably have a wait list as long as your leg.

    It lands in “my lane” when a person I’m trying to help has a problem and a firearm is in that problem. We’re not trained to deal with that. My “training to deal with that” is only this: being a firearms owner myself.

    Had a client recently buy a gun and go after someone who threatened a family member of theirs. Client did not come see me while this was going on, probably because of knowing I would not be happy with them. Happily nothing bad happened although it could have. Came back in, told me what happened (good for them) and was subjected to an extremely stern, extremely loving talk about how owning a gun is not a joke and you are not to be doing kamikaze justice with that stuff. But was that talk part of what I am trained to do clinically? Hell no it is not. And I do not want to be asked to do that kind of thing without real research to look at and real training, which at this point does not exist in any meaningful way.

    Yet, I’m sure it will land “in my lane” just the same.

    • Every time you post I throw up in my mouth. It’s always blah blah blah, but.

      I will stop replying to your posts from here on out but I see you clearly for what your trying to do. I hope everyone else sees this as well.

    • “It lands in “my lane” when a person I’m trying to help has a problem and a firearm is in that problem.”

      And just how, precisely, does a firearm become “that problem”.

      Already asked, but unanswered – specifically how do you change your course of treatment for underlying mental disorders based on whether or not a firearm is accessible to the patient? Firearms are not, not, in any way comparable to addictive drugs or alcohol, where removal of the drug or alcohol IS required to treat the patient. Maybe you could cite examples of firearms causing an addiction that would not otherwise be present? Or a case where removal of a firearm cured your patient of whatever disorder presented?

      • @Sam

        With respect, I wish you actually understood how the process of mental health treatment works, or the responsibilities of therapist to client, or what happens when law enforcement “stuff” can get involved with something happening with a client, the new considerations that have to be taken in and how that complicates the process.

        As such, your questions don’t make sense in the context of the actual work. Not trying to avoid you, it’s that your questions don’t actually apply to how things operate.

        • My questions are quite pertinent. You have a patient with mental health problems (however that patient was presented). Those problems have root causes. Those causes exist whether or not the patient is clothed, short, tall, fat, brilliant, a complete dullard. Those causes exist whether or not the patient digs graves, or drives limousines. Those causes exist under any external circumstance you can concoct.

          There may be physical causes of the mental illness, but access to firearms causes no mental illness. Therefore, the treatment of the patient cannot be dependent on whether a person has access to a gun. Removal of firearms may be necessary to subdue a belligerent mental health patient, but the firearm is not the root cause of the mental illness. If a patient has deadly proclivities, they are not that way because weapons are accessible. The idea that weapons are a root cause of mental illness is the wet dream of enemies of personal liberty.

          I have asked, and you continue to deflect to professional mumbo jumbo about people not knowing what really goes on in your profession. Tell us how access to weapons, of any kind, alters the way you treat a patient with access compared to a patient without access (removal of tools is not treatment; it may be many things, but it is not therapy or drugs).

          So, asked another way, “What root cause(s) is treated by removal of weapons?” A “cause” generates behavior, not the other way round.

        • @Sam

          You’re not accurately reflecting the kind of situation I deal with. In no way is anything I do related to thinking that firearms cause mental illness. It DOES have to do with what can happen when a person who is suffering has access to one that may be used in ways that can harm them and others.

          • “It DOES have to do with what can happen when a person who is suffering has access to one that may be used in ways that can harm them and others.”

            Yes, it actually may. But whether or not a gun is accessible has no bearing on the course of treatment. You are mixing treatment with a concept of safe precautions (a concept open to debate).

            From this exchange present, I conclude that access to firearms (or any other weapon) does not affect treatment, but is only a safety concern.

        • @Sam

          Actually, it may indeed.

          It may be the difference between whether someone comes in for a therapy evaluation or heads straight to a psychiatric hospital.

          It may be the thing that gets a LE mental health deputy called which may then be followed by a trip to the hospital. Or not.

          • Let’s dispose of this first…in no way is LE a form of treatment for a disorder. It is a form of control, maybe a safety measure.

            Do I understand that if you know someone with depression or other issue has access to a gun, you would send them straight to a psychiatric hospital? Really? Based on what disorder? Are you saying that mental health protocols discriminate between gun owners and non-owners? Based on what logic of treatment? Are you saying that two people presenting the exact same symptoms are treated (as in course of action) differently just because of the presence of an inanimate object? Are you saying you would conduct the same protocol for both patients, but the gun owner would be consigned to a mental health ward, where the other makes scheduled visits to your office?

            If the above is true, does the profession understand how people would refuse to seek help because of the differential in handling?

        • Elaine, Sam asked what looks like to me a very clear and understandable question. Your response, basically indicating you’re at a loss for an answer leaves me to suspect that whatever “the process of mental health treatment works, or the responsibilities of therapist to client” really is, it’s a bunch of bullshit that even you can’t quantify, and you’re just playing along to get a paycheck.

          • “…it’s a bunch of bullshit that even you can’t quantify, and you’re just playing along to get a paycheck.”

            Ouch. That’s pretty harsh.

        • Replying here really to Sam, but this fits here:

          Within behavioral health, much of the architecture is firearm presence dependant. It’s not popular to admit, but risk assessments and treatment models do consider firearms access as a factor. They frankly shouldn’t, from a scientific standpoint, but, and what I assume Elaine is alluding too, from a practical standpoint, firearm access is a factor in so much as guns are a favored tool for everything from intimidating or injuring family members to suicide attempts, and the latter they greatly increase success rates.

          While physical medicine wouldn’t dwell on either modality (style) or incidental factors (like access to guns), behavioral health, as an industry and an art is both perpetually left with an inferiority complex (since the nature of behavioral health problems are rarely so straight forward in cause or treatment as physical maladies, and because ‘success’ in behavioral health treatment is individual and often somewhat chimeric, with the sole exception of “did the patient commit suicide successfully or not”. Since suicide by anything but gun isn’t statistically likely to be fatal on the first try, from a behavioral health standpoint having a gun is like stage 4 cancer, much more likely to kill the patient than whatever other factors may affect them.

          Please keep in mind, I’m a 2A absolutist, I’m merely attempting to explain why (in my own supposition) Elaine is saying what she is. Having worked in a behavioral health environment, I can say that “access to firearm” is treated like “Having cancer” in so much as it is a massive risk factor for (successful) suicide.

          Put another way: Though behavioral health practitioners don’t generally like to speak of it as such, a failed suicide attempt has nothing like the impact of a successful attempt, and minus a gun, the patient is statistically likely to fail at the first attempt. Thus, from a short term practical stand point, it does matter if the patient has access, even if ultimately it may not matter. I believe that if behavioral health didn’t have the stigma it does, and it’s practitioners weren’t operating under a sense of perceived illegitimacy, such incidental factors wouldn’t matter so much, but as it exists in the US, the nature of behavioral health is such that they can and do downplay failed suicide attempts in a way that successful one’s cannot be discounted…given both are signs of the same “failure” both should carry the same weight…but in reality, failed attempts his lack the impact of successful attempts, and thus having the most statistically effective means, a gun, is essentially treated as a risk factor.

          Put more bluntly: a failed suicide attempt isn’t a “failure ” on the part of the behavioral health practitioners, but a successful attempt is, thus access to more effective means is a risk factor for failure in behavioral health circles.

          This wouldn’t be so if failed attempts were weighted, as they likely should be, with successful attempts, but no one important in the BH industry wants it to be so. Thus the short hand practical approach of treating guns as a risk factor…thet don’t make you mentally ill, they don’t make suicide attempts more likely, but they do make success more likely, and unfortunately, BH in the US just doesn’t see failed attempts as being as serious as successful one’s.

          Consider, it’s like an oncologist padding his success rate for patient survival by counting all the patients who didn’t die of cancer this month, rather than waiting either for remission or eventual death by cancer before tallying his success rates. Put another way, BH basically takes all failed suicide attempts as a form of success when compared to successful attempts, as if BH interventions goal was the lessened lethality of the attempt rather than preventing the attempt…this is essentially cooking the books to make BH look good, so to speak, and since it’s purpose has been so perverted, the focus on guns makes sense.

          • Thanks for the input.

            My quest is to determine if mental health professionals actually “treat” issues based on whether or not a gun is present. Do the same “treatment” protocols apply to any other weapon? It may be intuitive to people who are insulated from non-insiders, but their audience also lies outside the secluded world of “trained specialists”.

            It seems the mental health practitioners conflate establishing a “safe environment” is the same as offering options, alternatives, hope, regimens, drugs, talk. These are items the world looks at as “treatment. Safety is considered tangential. For example, guard rails for people with impaired walking skills are not “treatment”. Why is a patient having a gun (and only a gun) a matter of “treatment”? Removing access to a gun address zero causes underlying mental health of a patient.

            Also, if the specialist does not take the same steps to remove other potentially deadly weapons from a patient, or potential patient, then the whole idea that removing guns is a matter of treating mental health issues becomes nothing more than a manifestation of ignorant prejudice against guns and gun owners.

            A statement, such as, “First, the mental health professional seeks to ensure a patient or potential patient seeking help does not have tools available that could lead to injury to self, or others. After safety for everyone is assured, treatment can begin for the patient, or potential patient” would clearly separate safety from “treatment”. A statement like that would demonstrate (or maybe coverup) a bias against guns as more threatening to others than knives, screwdrivers, chisels, hammers, propane torch, and so on.

      • @Sam

        The person does not have to own the gun. But if they have one and a phone call comes in, the assessment of what’s going on has to begin right at that moment.

        Is the person with the gun coherent? Is it loaded? Have they expressed a specific threat or intent? Are they under the influence of any substances? Do they seem like they are grounded in reality? Are they willing to accept help/be assessed or not?

        Let’s say they’re coherent. Unloaded. No specific threat or intent though obviously they’re thinking about something. Are they willing to give the firearm to someone else right now? At that point it’s a call between do they want to talk to someone or do they need medical help and stabilization.

        Let’s say: drunk or high or seemingly not in reality for unknown reason. Can’t answer questions. Unknown and unable to assess if loaded or threat or intent. That’s the cops. Mental health deputy. If truly out of contact with reality that’s probably a trip to the hospital escorted by LE for inpatient treatment.

        Every situation is different. I’ve gotten calls from total strangers unknown to me, the armed person unknown to me, begging for help with what to do. I doubt many TTAGers would want to receive those kinds of calls.

        • If a you would you treat someone with a screwdriver in hand differently? A table knife? A Skilsaw? What if a person calls while holding a tool, but displays no belligerent behavior/intent. Is it necessary that the tool be confiscated?

          Again, safety measures are not “treatment”. Safety measures address no root causes of mental health. Withholding treatment because someone has access to guns is also not “treatment”.

          If someone contacts you and says, “I want to kill somebody, anybody”, and they deny having access to a gun, what is your protocol for addressing the root cause of the intention?

          If someone states, “I have a gun and want to kill somebody”, once the gun is safely contained, what is your protocol for addressing the root cause of the intention?

          Are the protocols different? The threat remains the same, only the means to carry out the threat in terms of time is possibly different. Again, removing the tool does nothing to facilitate the recovery of the patient from crisis.

          Now, let’s get to the civil rights issue (which is what this is all about). The person who claims to want to kill randomly has committed no crime almost everywhere in the country. This is because to be declared a criminal, one must be lawfully arrested, charged with a specific crime, and tried in public. Only if a conviction results has a person “committed a crime”. Issuing a warrant (which is what an ERSO is) for confiscation of firearms where no crime has been committed is pre-crime punishment. It is not mental health treatment. Neither is it mental health treatment that a person losing firearms under an ERSO must prove innocence before those firearms can be recovered. Proving innocence of a crime should be anathema to every one who thinks civil rights matter.

          Confiscating property of any kind because a person has committed no crime should be tolerated by no one. Today, the gun is the favored taboo, next year it could be what your read.

          If a person declares they have a gun and are coming to kill you specifically, that is a violation of the law almost everywhere. For that specific threat a person can be arrested for suspicion of committing a crime, and guns confiscated (which is another whole can of worms, but let that go for now). However, the arrest and confiscation cannot be characterized as mental health treatment.

          It is the presumption that someone seeking help for mental illness must be deprived of weapons of self defense that is insulting, offensive, and a perversion of the power of the state. If a mental health worker believes the armed seeker of help is a clear and present danger, contact authorities and lodge a formal complaint of a criminal act. Otherwise, get on with treating root causes.

        • Please Sam, I don’t see the military giving up small arms for screwdrivers, table knifes and skilsaws. A carry gun is a weapon, first and foremost. And one that can easily kill at range with any mishandling.

          • “Please Sam, I dont see the military giving up small arms for screwdrivers, table knifes and skilsaws. A carry gun is a weapon, first and foremost. And one that can easily kill at range with any mishandling”.

            My questions are about whether any weapon availability would alter “treatment”, or is it only guns that are considered cause to refuse treatment, or doe the availability of any weapon get the same “treatment” and response from ElaineD.

            The military is not under discussion.

        • @Sam

          Both of the theoretical situations I posted lead to treatment for the person. In other words, getting them some kind of help. The day I get a call about someone holding a screwdriver, I’ll let you know but it hasn’t happened yet in 10 years.

          I’ve also never gotten a call from the person with the gun, it’s always someone who loves the person with the gun and is scared out of their mind and so far has always been someone who doesn’t know anything about guns either. I’ve helped those people, total strangers, at no cost to the best of my ability.

          As much as TTAGers like to rail on medical and mental health professionals and claim we’re incompetent, the day you or someone you care deeply about needs one of us is going to be a day you’ll have to make a decision about how deeply you’re going to let those beliefs dictate the progression of a situation.

        • “As much as TTAGers like to rail on medical and mental health professionals and claim we’re incompetent, the day you or someone you care deeply about needs one of us is going to be a day you’ll have to make a decision about how deeply you’re going to let those beliefs dictate the progression of a situation.”

          Nice appeal to emotion to prove the scientological basis of mental health. Replace ‘medical’ and ‘mental health professionals’ with shaman or priest or mumbling gypsey and your argument has the exact same logical basis.

        • @Gladius

          Simply a statement of fact.

          I’d be quite happy if all TTAGers are able to live full and fulfilling lives without ever having to deal with hard situations like the ones I described. I have plenty of work and don’t need to advertise or shill for any on this blog, so it’s no skin off my particular back.

        • @Elaine- Enormous difference between emergency medical care and routine medical care/mental health. One saves lives, the other unnecessarily kills 250,000+ Americans/year. The numbers speak for themselves, no matter how much people that profit from the system wish the numbers didn’t exist.

    • @Elaine: A suggestion is that you recommend such people at least read a book on the law of self defense. I recommend the books by Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca. YOU should DEFINITELY invest in taking a course from one of them. Branca packages his courses in DVD form. Ayoob does a combo live presentation and DVD presentation.

      It’s often said that I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In my opinion, the proposition is about 50:50. If you so much as mention that you are carrying a gun you are starting down a path that is very likely to lead to a prison cell.

      I would hope that people who don’t know any better will begin to realize by reading such a book how little they really know and how much they think they know is complete BS.

      • I have Ayoob’s book. I greatly enjoy it. Hadn’t heard of Branca, will look him up.

        I would certainly rather have my clients talk to me about firearms than not if there is a concern; that said, what to do from there? “Ay, there’s the rub.” Because if there IS a concern, LE’s gonna have to get involved. Some way or another. And that’s pretty complicated. Hasn’t happened yet, have been able to head things off at the pass, but can’t count on that being that lucky forever either.

        • Had issues with depression and was referred to a “professional”. Wanted to do shock therapy on a 12 year old because I thought my alcoholic mother was “out to get me” with a kitchen knife. I think most mental illness professionals are mostly a fraud. And Freud was a perv. with mommy and phallic issues. A good therapy for me is to go and bust some caps and let each round carry away a little of the issue. Granpa gave me single shot savage .22 and taught me to shoot. Running through the north woods when not in school or snowbound, was the best thing ever. I had 15 min. before bus ride home-hit the hardware store for a box of .22lr on Friday for a great weekend. Could wing shoot grouse, hunt wabbits and other pesky varmints. ( mid ’60 s)

        • @dave

          Things have changed a lot since stuff like shock therapy was the norm.

          Fields do change and evolve.

          Of course there are lots of things in life that are therapeutic that aren’t about therapy. Motorcycles, nature for me.

          But good competent mental health help ain’t nothing to sneeze at either.

  7. I would add being an actor or celebutard doesn’t mean you know chit about guns…but you’re good at pretending!

  8. I have great appreciation to my healthcare providers who serve me well.

    I would like to point out the third leading cause of death in the US is medical malpractice. 200,000 to 450,000 annual victims. Only heart disease and cancer deaths are higher.

    With mortality like that, it’s not “stay in your lane”. It should be “get off the road”. Cast that critical eye in your own industry where you have an immediate positive impact. How about doing less harm if you can’t “do no harm”? Doing no harm doesn’t only apply to a patient’s body and mind.

    • It’s funny how when antis talk about gun deaths, the POTG respond with stats about DGU and how many lives guns save.

      Yet, when doctors spout off about gun deaths, the POTG respond with (inflated) stats about medical malpractice, with zero mention of the number of lives saved by medical means. Curious, that.

      • Your point is valid, but until we see the same medical crusade against say swimming pools as a public health crisis, their motivations seem more political than anything else. Stastistically accidental deaths, particularly for children, are far more likely with a pool present than a gun. 1 in 11000 vs 1 in a million. Until these virtue signaling medical professionals target the more obvious things first the gun stuff just seems like an excuse to use their status to achieve a personal political goal.

      • @Jonathan

        Yep. Same with mental health. Lots of raving about all the damage we do and nothing about all the lives, marriages, and families that we save.

        Hey, if people want to believe that there is nothing good or valuable in medical or mental health professionals or medical or mental health care, that’s their right. As someone who’s worked in both and still work in the latter, though, I’ve noticed how quickly that view tends to change when people suddenly find that they actually need one of us.

        Par for the course. You can crap on something you don’t need until you actually need it. Kind of like the whole debate about guns, ironically enough.

        • Social or peer pressure, especially urbanites, and younger people on social media are more in need of therapy IMO. The stress of living in tight habitats causes problems that the human animal was not evolved for. Both rat and chimp studies have shown this. Chicago is an example of this theory. Tight living conditions, lack of resources and no natural outlet for relief i.e. open spaces safe from predators. We evolved to watch the horizon not our feet.

        • @daveinwyo

          The factors you listed are certainly sometimes involved. There are others. I’m a trauma therapist, so I often see people after they’ve tried other therapies and are “at the end of the road.”

          Things I see people for ages 19 to 90.
          Chronic illness
          Aftermath of crimes, assaults, home invasions
          Trauma from medical procedures, surgeries etc.
          Trauma from caregiving for people who die under difficult circumstances, particularly family members, particularly parents or children
          Parents of special needs kids
          Survivors of childhood sexual abuse
          Mentoring the first generation kids of poor folk who need help to learn how to go for good schools, good jobs, and good relationships
          Young people whose parents are dead or missing because of crime, drug addiction, mental illness

          That’s just a few of the things.

        • Elaine

          You realize that you’re just going back and fourth with the same dozen or so 60 or 70 something fat retired white guys living out in nowheresvilles right? They live in an entirely insular, self affirming online world. They’re entertained by discussing photos of what is essentially the same thing (a Glock a pocket knife and a smartphone) everyday. You’re a woman and you have a degree that’s already reason enough for them to never concede a point to you. Unless this is part of some sort of clinical endeavor I’d pack it in.

        • @Come On

          Actually, I didn’t know that. LOL.

          I’ve read TTAG on and off for a while but until I decided to volunteer to do a bit of writing for Dan, honestly, never even looked at the comment section, only the articles. So this has been a new experience.

          It does seem to be a bit of an echo chamber, but then again TTAG has a LOT of readers who never comment, who may find value in dialogue. However, writing the articles is the most interesting part to me anyway, so I’m likely to put most of my energy into that from now on. The readership of TTAG is far more diverse than what you see in the comments section, I’ve learned.

          Thanks for your humorous thoughts and enlightening feedback.

        • Elaine

          It’s much worse than just an echo chamber. It’s a transparently cynical business model. Zimmerman is just monetizing the propagation of violent extremist rhetoric. Yes most of it just amounts to cathartic “venting” on the part of a disenfranchised demographic, but some it is actually quite insidious. These threads contain quite a bit of commiseration and rumination on committing politically motivated mass murder. Eventually this site is going to find itself in someway connected to someone that crosses the line and authority’s will become involved. I wouldn’t associate my self professionally with this site if i were you.

          • And you frequent this blog for what purpose? From what you posted today, it appears you are deep into self-flagellation. You are perfectly within your rights to visit or squat on any blog you wish. I just don’t understand why.

      • “Yet, when doctors spout off about gun deaths, the POTG respond with (inflated) stats about medical malpractice, with zero mention of the number of lives saved by medical means. Curious, that”

        We respond with CDC data the shows deaths by gunfire at 100 on the list of causes of death. Medical malpractice, and 98 other causes are greater in whole, or individually than gun related deaths and injuries.

        When anti-gun people claim that privately owned firearms kill thousands and thousands every day, we respond with the CDC validated number of DGUs at ~ 1,000,000. No matter how you slice it, armed law-abiding citizens are not the source of out-of-control mass shootings, or the preponderance of gun-related deaths annually (33,000).

  9. What an unfortunate posting. The title indicated something really interesting, but the litany of interventions was confusing, and the “pay off” muddled because of it.

    DanZ, could you get the “TTAG Contributor” to re-think the article, improve the context, and clearly present the point of the article at the end? There is something useful in there, and it should get the reading it deserves.

  10. Long ago, it was established that certain patients needed to be kept at abnormally low body temperatures to ensure successful surgeries. The solution at the time was something revolutionary. It was a body suit surrounding the patient, with ice packed in compartments on the outside of the suit. The patented device was known as “The Winchell Suit”. Obviously, Mr. Winchell was a professional surgeon, someone thoroughly trained in both surgery and physiology, able to take advantage of a combined insight into what had been a vexing problem in certain critical situations. The development of “The Winchell Suit” was not something amateurs* could accomplish by barging into the medical profession and declaring, “Eureka; I have the solution”

    *”The Winchell Suit” is named after its inventor, a popular ventriloquist of the 1950s, Mr. Paul Winchell. He was not educated or trained as a medical specialist or practitioner.

  11. Good lord these people are full of themselves, what a collassal asshole. Guy oughta be a proctologist.

    “I know some stuff about tumors & can follow a diagnosis flow chart, therefore I know EVERYTHING! WORSHIP ME!”

    I sure hope this cocky turd has clients aware of his arrogrant ignorance. I also hope his insurance is paid up since this attitude probably carries into his operating room. “I know what I’m doing! I know all about this here aorta!” (Jimmy Ferris dynamite story reference)

    • Because the article was a bit off center, it is understandable that one misses the thrust of the posting.

      The author was not defending intruding in “the lane” of other professionals, but declaring that doctors resent other experts intruding on their specialty, but are quite happy to intrude on the civil rights of others…and they should stop it.

    • “Let’s address medical mistake violence first.”

      Has nothing to do with the intent of the article. The posting is a take-down of smug doctors who demand non-specialists stay out of their business, but have no limits on intruding in areas where they are non-expert.

  12. Their M D degree means squat to the largest percentage of them as to the Constitution and firearms.

    • “Their M D degree means squat….”

      Which was the entire thrust of the article, somewhat muddled though it was.

  13. The author of this article is disingenuous at best. He wrote a misleading and outright false article for DRGO which destroys any credibility he pretends to have.

    • As I read it, the author used the hypothetical examples to show how arrogant it is for trauma surgeons to claim some superior understanding of effective gun policy. It was overly long and not as clearly presented as a more straightforward narrative would have been.

      • He has another article on the DRGO website where he is either intentionally lying, or he is repeating lies he has heard without researching the topic for himself. Not credible.

        • “He has another article on the DRGO website where he is either intentionally lying, or he is repeating lies”

          Do you have a link?

      • “As I read it, the author used the hypothetical examples to show how arrogant it is for trauma surgeons to claim some superior understanding of effective gun policy.”

        That was my “take” after the second and third read-through. Think a lot of people skimmed for key words, and responded as if the article were justifying docs weighing-in on gun policy.

    • “The author of this article is disingenuous at best. He wrote a misleading and outright false article for DRGO which destroys any credibility he pretends to have.”

      Read the article again. While the writing is clunky and somewhat opaque, I understood that the thrust is to press upon doctors that they have nothing to offer in the realm of firearms, unless they are gun owners, and trained/informed of the history of the nation, the constitution, and the Second Amendment, can explain how any of their medical training can have a positive impact on the pro/anti gun debate. If not, they should just mind their own business.

      Not familiar with any article the author produced for DRGO that was misleading/false.

  14. This quote inspires me:

    ““Stay in your lane!” they demanded at the hospital’s Breast Cancer Working Group’s monthly meeting. “We are following the current guidelines, and constantly tracking our statistics to modify our treatment and surveillance regimens.” they claimed. “But I still see women dying from breast cancer every year – it’s obvious all you care about is getting paid – if you cared at all about these patients, you’d start screening mammograms in their teens, and do them every six months for life! I don’t need to read the literature to know you need to be doing more!” I cried.”

    If they are going to start administering mamaograms to youger women, I’m going to study to become a radiology technician.

  15. I work in a large hospital In the South, lots of nurses, therapists, and Doctors shoot, carry guns and hunt, and that’s just the girls.

    These Doctors don’t speak for all of us.

    Most GSWs are gang/drug related, not innocent victims

  16. Blah, blah, blah, etc. Let’s just get to the real story behind this article. Essentially, a bunch of rich Marxists who work in the medical industry want to obliterate the 2nd Amendment so that We The People can be conquered and controlled. You can argue with these leftists folks all day, but unless you recognize what “ends” means when they say “the ends justify the means” you aren’t going to change their narrative. You aren’t arguing with “doctors”, you are arguing with hardcore Marxists who wear white smocks in order to convince you that they are superior to you.

    • The thrust of the article was to tell the medical profession to stay in their own lane, and leave things gun to those people who know what they are talking about.

  17. Here’s the biggest problem with “therapy” from a professional. They all work from that same anti-gun playbook. I was hoping to find someone well versed in CPTSD and went through about half a dozen therapists before giving up. Aside from learning that a lot of therapists are more about taking cash than solving problems they all had one thing in common. Ask about guns, then “encourage” me to give them up. The best tool to ensure I never repeat the source of my troubles and the professional clowns all demand they be the first to go. This new therapist blogger has my hackles up and alarm bells ringing with every word she posts. That WA bill that just passed proves me right in using a fake id with cash up front for the therapists I met with. Think about that, years before this current I1639 nonsense when I needed help I knew even then it wouldn’t be safe to get it as myself.

Comments are closed.