Remember that article from the New England Journal of Medicine I linked to a few days ago? I should have looked her up when I noticed the JD next to her name. An intrepid reader did, and she’s with a Califnornia law firm, and filed a brief supporting Chicago in McDonald. The brief was not cited, despite the fact that it was essentially a justification for total firearms prohibition.
I anxiously await the New England Journal of Medicine taking editorial articles from actual practicing pro-gun doctors, of which I seem to have a number of among my readers.
I note that the NEJM piece was actually an editorial, which is not peer reviewed at all, rather than an article, which is peer reviewed and subject to criticism before publication.
If I were her I’d want a ban on pitchforks and torches. Yech.
Mikee,
I actually just got into a debate over peer review. ‘Subject to Criticism’ is a misnomer as the editor decides who gets sent the paper for review. There have been lots of controversies over the current system since it tends to be heavily biased, leading to stinging critiques by the editors of JAMA and Lancet as well as symposiums on different methods to improve it.
http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/2005/0502sec1.html
Timothy Wheeler is a real physician, and he’s pro-gun. He heads Claremont Institute’s “Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership:
http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.39/project_detail.asp
Don’t forget pro-gun med students too!
I’ll grant that the piece she wrote was an editorial. However, publishing it in what is supposed to be a medical journal is an effort to bootstrap the writer’s bias into something that looks “expert” and “medical.” We are supposed to be wowed, I suppose. Ho, hum.
Maybe journals pretending to science should avoid publishing editorials at all. Aren’t there enough places for opinion?
And, more to the point: If a doctor is going to editorialize by pretending that her medical expertise encompasses into its scope all manner of non-doctorish things, then she is fair game.
I bet all of you gun owning doctors out there–and I know there are lots of you–are pretty disgusted.
MJM.luckygunner.com
AntiCitizenOne:
We have to have our opinions signed off by an attending and reviewed by the resident. Then we are allowed to have an opinion on this issue.
Just to clarify:
@Mikee — It’s a Perspective piece. Not peer-reviewed. See info about different kinds of NEJM articles here: http://authors.nejm.org/help/Articles.asp
@jones — I’m actually all for robust rights. My point: individuals should make informed decisions about whether or not to exercise those rights.
@Thirdpower — see @Mikee above.
@One of the women — Thanks for the link. I agree with Wheeler — Doctors should not use a doctor-patient relationship to advance a political agenda of any kind. Same with the conscientious objection argument. Keep your politics out of the exam room and treat the patient. It’s an exam room, not a bully pulpit.
@MJM — Goal was to provide some food for thought for physicians. Again, the piece doesn’t speak for the NEJM board. See @ Mikee above.
@Pete — Don’t let medical training squelch you. It’s brutal. Hope you come out on the other end with your opinions intact or at least challenged in a meaningful, thoughtful way. Hope it’s more than just hazing. Good luck.
Thanks —
Julie