Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Gun control: a health issue for which physicians rightfully advocate

Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ April 23, 2019 191 (16) E434-E435; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.190401
Matthew B. Stanbrook
Deputy editor, ; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

A Canadian gun lobby group recently launched an aggressive, coordinated attack on Dr. Najma Ahmed, a Toronto trauma surgeon and founder of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.1 The group had its supporters file nearly 70 complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, alleging that Dr. Ahmed’s advocacy for gun control constitutes immoral and unprofessional behaviour. If the intent was to discourage her and other physicians from such advocacy, these efforts appear to have failed spectacularly: the college appropriately dismissed these complaints within a week, and physicians across Canada subsequently rallied in support of gun control. However, this novel attempt at political intimidation constitutes an alarming threat against public health advocacy, to which physicians must respond with resolve and determination.

Canadians may think that gun control — and the gun lobby’s toxic brand of political bullying — has relevance only south of our border. Yet the indiscriminate mass shooting in Toronto’s Danforth neighbourhood in 2018, in the context of rising rates of gun violence nationally,2 has provided impetus for new federal legislation on gun control — Bill C-71 — now making its way through Parliament. These developments have simultaneously prompted unprecedented organization and advocacy by Canadian physicians for stricter firearm controls. Unprecedented, but not new: Canadian physicians have advocated for gun control for decades.3

The gun lobby’s stated objections against physician involvement in the gun control debate encompass the downright ridiculous. They have argued, for example, that such advocacy will lead to children being shot by police coming to raid homes of gun owners.3 Their more measured, but equally implausible, assertions are that physicians are not qualified to discuss the harms from guns, and furthermore, that physician advocacy for gun control is unethical and radical.

Suggesting that physicians who treat injuries and disability and witness death should say and do nothing about their causes is ludicrous. Preventive medicine is responsible for much of the past century’s triumphs over diseases and increases in human life expectancy, ranging from major sociological threats to health issues such as tobacco, alcohol and motor vehicle use — all indisputably within the purview of physicians — to global political threats such as nuclear proliferation, for which physician advocates have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Physician advocacy for public health, interpreted broadly, is not radical; it is our moral and professional duty. And physicians who choose to enter the gun control debate are quite capable of understanding the arguments on both sides of it well, as the debate is far less complex than many patient care issues they face every day.

Gun control policy, as with all health policy issues, should be founded upon the best available evidence. Physicians know scientific evidence and are good at producing, appraising and explaining it to the public. In contrast, the gun lobby has been good at hindering both production and discourse of evidence linking guns and health. It has induced the United States Congress to forbid the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding research on gun violence and has influenced several US states to pass laws preventing physicians from counselling patients about gun safety4 — measures all democratic nations that value fact-based public policy should find abhorrent. But perfect evidence is neither attainable nor necessary before reasonable action can be taken to reduce deaths and injuries from guns. Political leaders in New Zealand, which had until now some of the weakest gun laws among developed nations, acknowledged this by committing to enact strict gun control laws within hours of the recent mass shooting in Christchurch — swifter and with more consensus than Canada’s response to the deadly events in Toronto.

Canadian physicians must maintain the resolve to push back hard against the gun lobby’s malign influence, just as our US colleagues have done.5 Stricter gun control measures are a rational strategy, supported by ample evidence, to reduce morbidity and mortality from gun injuries. Any engaged citizens, including physicians, can reasonably argue in support of this as they see fit. No one should be marginalized or silenced from engaging in reasonable debate about where the line should best be drawn between public health and safety and individual choices — least of all key stakeholders whose job it is to look after the public’s health.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/site/misc/cmaj_staff.xhtml

References

  1. ↵
    1. Weeks C
    . Ontario doctors’ college dismisses gun-control complaints against Toronto surgeon. Globe and Mail [Toronto] 2019 Mar. 13. Available: www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-doctors-college-dismisses-gun-control-complaints-against/ (accessed 2019 Apr. 4).
  2. ↵
    1. Fletcher R
    . Canada gun facts: here are the latest stats on firearm deaths, injuries and crime. CBC News 2018 Aug. 30. Available: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-gun-facts-crime-accidental-shootings-suicides-1.4803378 (accessed 2019 Mar. 13).
  3. ↵
    1. Brown RB
    . Brown: Yes, doctors have a vital role in toughening gun laws. Ottawa Citizen [Ottawa] 2019 Feb. 27. Available: https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/brown-yes-doctors-have-a-vital-role-in-toughening-gun-laws (accessed 2019 Apr. 4).
  4. ↵
    1. Dzau VJ,
    2. Leshner AI
    . Public health research on gun violence: long overdue. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:876–7.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Taichman D,
    2. Bornstein SS,
    3. Laine C
    . Firearm injury prevention: AFFIRMing that doctors are in our lane. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:885–6.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (16)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 16
23 Apr 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gun control: a health issue for which physicians rightfully advocate
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Gun control: a health issue for which physicians rightfully advocate
Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Apr 2019, 191 (16) E434-E435; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190401

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Gun control: a health issue for which physicians rightfully advocate
Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Apr 2019, 191 (16) E434-E435; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190401
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The role of physicians in the violence epidemic
  • Tighter gun control laws are unlikely to prevent shootings
  • Gun control: a health issue, a legal issue or both
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Death and long-term disability after gun injury: a cohort analysis
  • Tighter gun control laws are unlikely to prevent shootings
  • Gun control: a health issue, a legal issue or both
  • The role of physicians in the violence epidemic
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Regard sur la santé des personnes noires et le racisme anti-Noirs dans les systèmes de santé au Canada
  • A focus on access to health care in Canada
  • L’avenir de la médecine est ici et vous en êtes la trame narrative
Show more Éditorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Health policy
    • Human rights
    • Medicine & the law (including forensic medicine)
    • Public health

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire