guns-980.jpg
Congressman and psychiatrist Jim McDermott says some of President Obama's gun proposals pose an ethical dilemma for mental health workers. (AP image)

Psychiatrist Congressman Jim McDermott faces ethical dilemma in gun debate

BY Josh Kerns  on January 17, 2013 @ 10:53 am (Updated: 11:52 am - 1/17/13 )

President Obama's proposal to require mental health professionals report to authorities when they think a patient is a shooting threat is posing a difficult ethical dilemma.

Washington State Congressman Jim McDermott has a unique perspective. He's a longtime psychiatrist who has championed numerous gun control measures during his over 20 years in Congress.

"It triggers a very difficult situation for a psychiatrist, in that you are giving the patient the protection of anonymity and security and not saying anything at the same time you have a responsibility to the public," McDermott said in an interview with Seattle's Morning News.

McDermott has treated a number of patients who've said threatening things at one time or another. But the challenge for a mental health professional is determining if they're really dangerous.

"Very often in marital disputes or job difficulties or all kinds of things people make statements and you have to make a judgement about whether they are real or they are just blowing off steam," he said.

New proposals including legislation passed this week in New York would authorize law enforcement to seize firearms from patients reported as potentially dangerous. Those that don't would be added to a criminal background database and prohibited from buying guns.

McDermott insisted he would always report someone if he felt they were a danger regardless of whether it's the law or not. But there's plenty of opposition to making that a requirement.

"The idea of a federal bureaucrat or your own doctor sharing your information with a federal bureaucrat I think is something that would worry a lot of Americans," said Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

McDermott said President Obama was wise to issue a number of executive orders around some of the most controversial gun measures he announced Wednesday rather than trying to convince a sharply divided Congress to approve them.

McDermott is confident Congress will ultimately pass at least several potentially controversial measures including a limit on the number of bullets in a magazine, mandatory background checks for all gun buyers and an assault weapons ban.

"I say that today we can get the votes if the people press the members of Congress. It's not a partisan issue. It's not Democrat or Republican. It's how you view protection and safety in a society."

Josh Kerns, MyNorthwest.com Reporter
Josh Kerns is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle Sounds (Saturday nights 7-8) and a digital content producer for MyNorthwest.com.
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (23)


  • Add A Comment

  • irony wrote...
    ironic that he would prefer
    January 17, 2013 10:50 am
    to take away everyone's guns instead of protect people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    McDermott?....ethics?
    January 17, 2013 10:51 am
    BWAHAAAHAAA
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Lets see the Government lets criminals run free in society
    January 17, 2013 11:02 am
    and the "Democrat's" want to take guns away?Anytime you hear a demagogue talk about "bullets in a magazine" you know they don't know what they are talking about.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Jim McDermott + ethical dilema
    January 17, 2013 11:15 am
    The 2 are synonymous
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JMGilday wrote...
    Wait? What?
    January 17, 2013 11:43 am
    you used 'McDermott' and 'ethical' in the same sentence...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Commonsensical wrote...
    BAN GUNS..
    January 17, 2013 11:47 am
    That are black and scarry/cool looking with the thingys on the end that have holes and stuff. But the brown guns are okay >..< 0
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saltchucker wrote...
    Ban the black guns?
    January 17, 2013 12:04 pm
    Is that why all these very popular firearms are now available in hot pink? Men, you can't have those black guns...but the ladies can keep the pink ones! As for Bagdad Jim.....when we wall Seattle off from the rest of the state he should stay where the folks believe his baloney.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • shark75 wrote...
    BAGHDAD Jim McDermott?
    January 17, 2013 12:19 pm
    He should be in federal prison for committing treason against the united states. Better yet he should be in an Iraqi prison with women's underwear on his head. Who cares what this prik has to say about the gun debate!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    I thought HE was the crazy one -
    January 17, 2013 12:45 pm
    no he the crazy one is in 'your' mirror. think i'm joking go look!! hope it don't crack when you do!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Ethical ???????? Mc Dermott
    January 17, 2013 1:00 pm
    Just look at his past. THAT tells how ethical. Enough said.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }