Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99


News Opinion Op-Eds

Bills to keep guns out of the hands of psychiatric patients pose risks

In December, a young man in Newtown, Conn., killed 20 small children and seven adults, including his mother, and then committed suicide. This tragic massacre has prompted legislators to reexamine firearms laws and quickly propose legislation that might prevent future mass murders. Much of it focuses on people who have sought mental health care.

The Maryland General Assembly is considering legislation that requires mental health clinicians to report patients who are potentially dangerous for the purpose of restricting their access to guns. Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposed 2013 Firearms Safety Act (SB 281) includes a number of items that are specific to patients with mental illnesses. The act would require that all voluntary psychiatric patients who are hospitalized for 30 days or more be reported to an FBI database.

Most patients with mood and psychotic disorders are released much sooner than 30 days, and this mandate may well capture populations who are at low risk of becoming spree killers. Involuntary patients would be reported much sooner if they are determined to be potentially dangerous, presumably at the time of their commitment hearings. If any of these individuals later wants their right to own firearms returned, one step of the process includes having a psychiatrist or psychologist file a certificate that states the person is safe to own a gun. I don't know any mental health professional who would be willing to risk the liability of making such predictions about safety; we are psychiatrists, not clairvoyants.

House Bill 810, sponsored by Del. Luiz Simmons, requires that mental health professionals report patients they believe are likely to be dangerous to, in its words, the "Director of Mental Hygiene," who would then decide whether to report those patients to the State Police.

Although the Newtown massacre spawned this legislation, so far there has been nothing in the media to suggest the Newtown shooter would have been brought to the attention of authorities if such laws had been in place. We've heard he had an autism-spectrum illness; that he was anxious, intelligent and a loner — but no reports that he'd been violent, hospitalized, or ever told a mental health professional that he was planning a school shooting.

The hope might be that more funds will be funneled into following up on all those who are identified as dangerous, reclaiming their weapons, and overseeing the storage of firearms by residents of their households. Proposed legislation, however, seems to be more about populating government databases. Increased treatment of those identified as dangerous is certainly desirable, but it remains to be seen if such funding will follow these measures — especially in times when psychiatric hospitals are closing, medical reimbursements are decreasing, paperwork burdens are shifting doctor time away from patient care, and psychiatric services are difficult to access.

Let's be thoughtful. These bills are not about public safety; they are about "doing something" — and in the process, scapegoating the mentally ill in a way that distracts from enacting substantive legislation. And shouldn't we acknowledge that all this talk of identifying and reporting those with psychiatric problems is at direct odds with the intention to increase access to care and decrease stigma as a means of preventing tragedies?

These proposed laws set in motion a barrier to getting help for those who most need it. Who would willingly seek treatment and tell a psychiatrist their dark thoughts, knowing such thoughts will be reported to law enforcement authorities and entered into an FBI database? Certainly no gun owner, and certainly no troubled law enforcement officer.

True, other laws have sometimes overridden doctor-patient confidentiality, but those laws address problems that have already happened. While I am an avid proponent of stricter gun control regulation, as a psychiatrist, I find the requirement to report patients to the police to be quite troublesome. It makes us agents of the state, whereas to be a physician one must be an agent of the patient; the ethical conflict here is profound. These laws annihilate psychiatrist-patient confidentiality in the most egregious of ways: by inserting the government into situations where violent acts have not even occurred. They mandate government intrusions into our ruminations, and they set a precedent to end the relationship that is necessary for psychiatric treatment to occur.

Keep in mind that violent thoughts are very common, and in the absence of specific indicators, mental health professionals are not particularly good at predicting who will act on them. If we allow this, in the name of public safety and health, what else might we extend reporting requirements to include? The sexual activities of patients with HIV? Patients who drive while intoxicated? The financial behaviors of those running Ponzi schemes?

Ironically, all of these measures target mental health settings, while preserving doctor-patient confidentiality elsewhere. As a result, a person having violent thoughts who wants to retain his gun rights or to stay out of a government database may be more comfortable confiding in his internist and refusing care by a mental health specialist. Is this really what we want?

Dinah Miller, M.D., is a psychiatrist in Baltimore. Her email is

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • What gun rights and marriage equality (should) have in common

    What gun rights and marriage equality (should) have in common

    In the article, "A unique Maryland marriage sits at center of Supreme Court case considering gay nuptials" (March 13), Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, is quoted as saying the following:

  • Maryland's gun law is working

    Maryland's gun law is working

    The gun lobby's lawsuit against Maryland's life-saving Firearm Safety Act described in Saturday's front page article does not challenge the constitutionality of the key provision of the act — requiring handgun purchasers to first obtain a fingerprint based background check and license from the...

  • Guns and the 'permanent darkness'

    Guns and the 'permanent darkness'

    By overwhelming margins, polls show Americans support universal background checks for those seeking to purchase a firearm to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill. Clearly, the last thing you want is for some paranoid personality, ranting and raving...

  • NRA's paranoia is catching

    NRA's paranoia is catching

    The Sun's editorial reflecting on the National Rifle Association convention in Nashville is an important statement on how the NRA has devalued our lives and our society ("Guns and the 'permanent darkness,'" April 16).

  • NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    As sure as nine people have been butchered by yet another gun-wielding maniac, there will be an outcry for more laws controlling the sale and registration of firearms, and the NRA will again claim they are heroically upholding the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen by opposing such...

  • Hogan, guns and the attorneys general

    Hogan, guns and the attorneys general

    During the recent gubernatorial campaign, The Sun and several thoughtful citizens were perplexed about the discrepancy between the National Rifle Association's notorious A- rating for Larry Hogan and the candidate's repeated promise that he won't overturn Maryland's gun law if elected. In fact,...