|
|
Yeah, thats a pretty broad range. Reminds me of the anti-gunners that love to include suicides in their "violence" stats."Evidence shows that 1 life is saved for every 10-20 ERPOs issued."
Well, which is it - every 10 or every 20?
So, 1 in 20 ?
Dear XXXX,
Below is a letter I received. I take free courses online through Coursera, and listed firearms as one of my subjects of interest. So I receive pings when courses/learning becomes available on the subject through Coursera. This came into my inbox today.
Did you know that clinicians can petition for Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)?
We just released a new learning activity on What Clinicians Need to Know, available now under ERPO FAQ on the Implement ERPO site – a one-stop-shop for all things ERPO – hosted by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative. This tool provides step-by-step instruction from leading subject matter experts and features simulated patient-clinician encounters modeling effective counseling strategies. What’s more—What Clinicians Need to Know is eligible for CME credits! Interested clinicians can process CME credit here.
Evidence shows that 1 life is saved for every 10-20 ERPOs issued. ERPOs are legally issued civil orders that allow people on the front lines to ask a court to prevent someone at imminent risk of harm to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing firearms during a critical period of danger.
As of April 2020, ERPO laws are active in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In 2018, Maryland became the first state to designate clinicians as authorized petitioners and since then, Hawaii and D.C. have followed suit. Clinicians in these states can improve their standards of care and impact national efforts to reduce deaths from firearm violence, including gun suicide, with ERPOs part of their toolkit.
As several states currently consider ERPOs for the first time and others update existing legislation, the early experiences of clinician petitioners provide key insight for future implementation. A recent survey of Hopkins physicians found 70% of respondents initially reported being unfamiliar with ERPOs. But after receiving a brief description of ERPOs, 92% reported that they encounter patients for whom they would consider an ERPO petition and 60% indicated they would be likely to file an ERPO petition for qualifying patients.
Whether you are a medical, mental health, and/or public health practitioner/advocate/educator, you are part of a broader community that can benefit from learning more about what ERPO laws are, why we need them, and how they work. We invite you to explore What Clinicians Need to Know and encourage you to share this evidence-based strategy with others to further advance our collective mission to enhance public safety and improve public health for all.
Please contact us at gunpolicy@jhu.edu with questions and thank you again for your support!
Keep well,
Your friends at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy & Research
![]()
![]()
Evidence shows every new gun law leads to between 0 and 20 genocides."Evidence shows that 1 life is saved for every 10-20 ERPOs issued."
Well, which is it - every 10 or every 20?
I believe in NYS that extreme risk protection order or "red flag" laws as they are commonly called have law enforcement officers, family members, and school officials as those who are permitted to file them. Doctors/medical professionals are not listed. For the record, none have come before my desk (though they might go to the County level). Barring any strong evidence that the individual was about to commit an offense I would never sign one. I rarely do it with regular Orders of Protection and I've done more of those than I care to discuss.
Medical professionals have a different entry point into the system. They have the ability to report a patient directly to the state, which bounces around between various state agencies and then comes down from there. This was implemented as part of the original SAFE Act in 2013.
Ever see your doctor's view of your electronic medical records? There's a huge button on the main screen that takes them directly to the reporting portal.
So according to the article, making people defenseless, costing them time, money and inconvenience, along with VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS, is an acceptable solution to possibly help someone.
To me, thats fucking ridiculous, and surely there are better ways to deal with potentially bad people than to trample the Constitutional rights of citizens.
You're right. I forgot about that. I know that's true for mental health providers but wouldn't be surprised that regular physicians are the same.
hosted by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative.
Definitely.This is ALL you need to see in the post!!