Mental health experts say a new tougher New York state gun control law might interfere with treatment of potentially dangerous people and even discourage them from seeking help.

The law would require therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to tell government authorities if they believe a patient is likely to harm himself or others. That could lead to revoking the patient's gun permit and seizing any guns. (source)

New laws tend to have unintended consequences worse than the conditions or situations they are intended to remedy. The hysteria over the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has such strange bedfellows as the NRA and some of the most liberal Democrats calling for psychological or psychiatric evaluations of potential gun owners. 

Question: Does the state have enough of an interest to require a breach of the privacy normally holding between a patient and his clinician making the state an invisible presence in the conference room?

Question: Might more mayhem be prevented by letting clinicians do their job rather than imposing requirements on them.?

Question: Might imposing a reporting requirement on clinicians expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his counselor has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?

Question: Given the ambiguities holding between what clients talk about and what they might actually do might a reporting requirement expose clinicians to needless criminal and civil sanctions if their best guess turns out to be wrong and a client they thought safe did something horrendous? The point is, it's a lot easier to judge how dangerous a patient was in retrospect and hold a clinician responsible.

Tags: control, gun, psychiatry, psycology

Views: 1298

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion that's funny;

...the fact that...They won't even look at the facts.

The vitriol and hyperbole on both sides of the gun debate is ridiculous.

Regardless what anyone's opinion is the 2nd Amendment is clear about the Right to "keep and bear Arms" and it's clear about who's Right that is.  It is also unambiguous about who the phrase "shall not be infringed." is directed at. 

All laws written to infringe on the Right bestowed upon "...the People..." are a direction violation of First Law and the Supremacy Clause takes precedence.

Under the founding Constitution of this country exercising a "Right" does not require permission nor a permit nor the paying of fees.

Tyranny even in small doses is still unacceptable to free persons.

I suppose I should have looked at your picture...sorry!

Bursts out laughing, no offense mate!  And I'm hoping I'm not addressing this post to a cute puppy dog :)

(and if I am, err...nice red collar you have there)

I don't think that even if there were enough support to amend the Constitution that it could be changed, aside from my feelings that the bill of rights shouldn't be changed for the worse, it seems to me that many politicians treat it not as the Bill of Rights but rather the Bill of Suggestions.  It's sad that it's gotten to that point.

It was intended, after all, to constrain politicians.  So of course many of them won't like it.

I assume you mean that they won't like the idea of changing it.

They would sell us all out (and the Bill of Rights) to get a few votes and stay in office, they will do whatever will take them to that end. They will do the expedient thing and not care if it was the right thing to do, all they want is to have their comfy job, even if it sinks the ship. They'll try, if enough short sighted people push it.

Our legislators shouldn't be paid as much as they are, turning their work into public service not self-service. They should be forbidden for a long number of years from serving in any corporation they may have had in their purview (e.g., a bank if they are on a committee that influences legislation regarding banks). Ditto for lobbying.

The cushy healthcare they and their families are entitled should be withdrawn. How can they understand the ordeal healthcare is for most of us if they don't have to wrestle with it themselves. I can almost guarantee that if they did, we'd have a national healthcare program in short order. 

No, I mean the politicians don't really like the bill of rights.  It doesn't allow them to do everything that they'd like to do.  (In particular they are good at ignoring the ninth and tenth amendments.)

I WANT (stomps his feet) A P90 (stomp,stomp,stomp) I WANT A P90 and I want it NOW!!! (stomps off into the distance........

The only P90 I know is a kind of guitar pickup. I gather you mean something more deadly.

Good grief what on earth for?!  Unless something has changed in the last decade or so, Ruger semiautomatics SUCK.


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service