By Jason Sattler

Chief Medical Officer: ‘I’d Like You To Put My Trauma Center Out Of Business’ [Video]

September 16, 2013 6:50 pm Category: Memo Pad, Memo Share, Politics 14 Comments A+ / A-

In her statement to the press about the mass shooting at the U.S. Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 dead — including the shooter, who has been identified as Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth — Washington Hospital Center’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Janis Orlowski, expressed her frustration with “these multiple shootings, these multiple injuries.”

“There’s something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate,” Orlowski said.

“I’d like you to put my trauma center out of business. I really would,” she added. “I would like to not be an expert on gunshots and not to be an expert on this. We are. We do it well. Very experienced surgeons. But quite frankly I’d rather they were doing their surgery on other things. And it’s a great city. It’s a great country. And we have to work together to get rid of this because we just cannot have one more shooting, with so many people killed. We’ve got to be able to figure this out. We’ve got to be able to help each other.”

There’s been no official word on how Alexis got the weapon he used. Reports have emerged that the Fort Worth police arrested him in 2010 for discharging a firearm. In 2004, he was arrested in Seattle for what the police department calls an “anger-fueled” shooting.

An amendment to expand background checks proposed earlier this year in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was filibustered, though 54 senators supported it.

Dr. Janis Orlowski

Chief Medical Officer: ‘I’d Like You To Put My Trauma Center Out Of Business’ [Video] Reviewed by on . In her statement to the press about the mass shooting at the U.S. Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 dead -- including the shooter, who has been identified as Aar In her statement to the press about the mass shooting at the U.S. Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 dead -- including the shooter, who has been identified as Aar Rating:

More by Jason Sattler

5 Ways Republicans Could Still Lose The House

This should be the Republicans’ year. Democrats need to defend 20 U.S. Senate seats, seven of which are in states Mitt Romney won, even as he lost to President Obama by nearly 5 million votes. The GOP only needs to win six of those seats to take control of the upper house of Congress. In 2012,

Read more...

Rand Paul Can Try To Be His Party’s Bill Clinton, But He’ll Never Be President

This post originally appeared at Eclectablog.com. Rand Paul continues to fling any turd he can find at the Clintons for pretty obvious reasons. The first-term senator from Kentucky has to do something to show the GOP establishment he can be competitive in a general election, and he’s trying to keep the former president out of

Read more...

5 Reasons It’s Time For The GOP To Dump Sarah Palin And The Tea Party

Conservative columnist Matt Lewis seems relieved. “We may have finally reached a tipping point: Conservatives, it seems, are finally safe to criticize Sarah Palin (without fear of being written out of the movement, that is),” he wrote on Tuesday. A flurry of criticism from the right has swarmed around the one-time Republican nominee for vice

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • dtgraham

    No chance of her trauma center going out of business. Dominick Vila recently left a post, where he thought it best that the Democrats simply give up on the idea of reasonable gun control measures due to it being a continually losing wedge issue for the party and something that’s not going to happen anyway. I’m thinking that he may have been on to something. Lack of gun control laws is not really going to lessen or worsen the lives of ordinary Americans, so long as you don’t get shot—with the last 7 words being the key proviso there.

    Why waste time with the impossible? The gun culture is too deeply ingrained into the American psyche and the forces opposed to even moderate changes are too strong. The gun crowd is fanatical, organized, well financed, and they always vote. They also now enjoy the unquestioning loyalty of the modern Republican party for their most extreme ideas. Even the weak, watered down assault weapons ban of the early nineties is not going to be repeated, let’s face it.

    With each new massacre, I see another round of pass-out-the-pistols legislation enacted in the various states. They can now be concealed—or open—carried into bars, churches, state legislatures, schools, and other public places. I imagine there’ll be a sudden upsurge in straight A students in those schools. Hell, they’re even handing out guns to the blind in Iowa now. I heard the Deer were the only major group in favor of that.

    Some kind of weird urban legend or national myth has taken hold, which says that virtually any type of weaponry needs to be allowed in order to enable American citizens to fight back against their own tyrannical government…if need be (as if that would do it). That’s the reason for the second amendment supposedly. In that same vein, I keep hearing that if only the Warsaw Jews had guns for example, the holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Right. The mighty Soviet Union was near collapse against the Nazis and I think the Russians had guns. It’s impossible to argue with someone who actually believes something like that (the second amendment legend)—–and it’s very wide spread.

    Well there is one possible out. If women were encouraged to take up arms to defend their reproductive rights, I’m guessing that the Republicans would ban semi automatic weapons tout suite.

    • rochelle762

      what Michelle explained I am inspired that anyone able to make $7564 in 1 month on the internet. why not try these out w­w­w.J­A­M­20.c­o­m

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        IF you really believe that AD, I’ll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge too.

    • TZToronto

      I don’t see things changing for the better any time soon. I’m just hoping that at some point the Supreme Court hears a case in which the right to bear arms as the framers of the Constitution intended in the Second Amendment (i.e., a well-regulated militia) is central to the argument. As part of that, it might be interesting to consider what the framers’ idea of arms actually comprised, such as muskets and cannons.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        IF if was the case and IF our country conducted itself exclusively by the wording in the Constitution AND the wording was acted upon LITERALLY we wouldn’t have;
        public education
        medical facilities
        interstate highways
        university or college systems
        The List is endless…………….

        Our country would have NEVER advanced as far as it has since the founding of this country.

        Our Constitution regardless what some believe, is flexible and can change with the needs of our people. We seriously need to amend the second amendment to reflect our current needs. Access to guns of all types in our society has gotten way out of hand and is destroying our country as we speak.

        This is not only about limiting access to assault-type weapons, but the mindset of a small group of people who have hijacked the political process of democracy.

        Maybe if a few more kids get killed in our school systems, maybe if more people get killed in movie theaters, maybe if more people get killed on our military bases, MAYBE people will return to using common sense.

        But, I doubt it!

        • TZToronto

          One problem is that you and I see those things you listed as being beneficial to life in America. We see the obvious detriment to America that results from unlimited gun ownership. But those who defend unlimited gun ownership see that, too, as beneficial to America. I don’t know how many people public education,
          medical facilities, interstate highways, or university or college systems have killed (interstate highways can be dangerous, of course, but have many undeniable benefits), but it’s easy to see how many Americans have been killed by gun violence. (On the other side, how many have been saved by guns in the hands of ordinary people?) If only a few people were killed by guns every year, that would be bad enough, but we’re talking many tens of thousands over the past decade alone. When will people recognize that the elephant in the room is trashing the place?

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            The ONLY benefit I can think of, is that these people who own these types of weapons are only looking forward to the day when they get to really use them in a revolution to overthrow this government.

            There was an issue here in Ohio last year. An older type of guy was getting Altzimers. He was flashing around a auto machine gun in his yard. The cops were called. In his basement was over several hundred weapons of every description one could think of. And, he had various forms of explosives as well.

            He didn’t live out in the sticks. He lived right in the middle of a very urban area of a local town. They weren’t for personal protection either.

            Now, why would someone own that many weapons and mostly automatics? These are the type of people who take the second amendment way to the extreme.

            They sure weren’t for hunting Deer either.

            Yea, we have an Elephant, and it’s called Stupidity!

          • Yappy2

            The Elephant is called GREED. Follow the money.

      • dtgraham

        Yes, the second amendment reads to me like it actually meant that the right of the individual States to have a well regulated militia to protect against foreign invasion or whatever, should not be infringed. It’s been badly twisted and reinterpreted to mean something else entirely different in my opinion.

        In the late 18th century I’m sure the framers weren’t opposed to private gun ownership per se, but I don’t think that was the reasoning behind the amendment.

        • TZToronto

          During the American Revolution, the British tentatively offered the “colonies” a form of self-rule, which would free the colonies from the unfair taxation to which they had been subjected. Hostilities would cease, and those involved in the rebellion would be given amnesty. Now, this is the important point: In return, the colonists would give up their weapons. The colonists felt that the British could not be trusted to abide by any such agreement and that once the guns had been surrendered, the British would go back to their old ways. Obviously the “Americans” did not go for such a deal. Eventually the British public tired of the war, and the Treaty of Paris ended the hostilities. However, the new United States recognized the precarious nature of their relationship with Britain, especially since the British were still resident in Canada. The Americans knew that sooner or later there would be trouble with the British (see the War of 1812), so they enshrined the right to bear arms (Second Amendment) so that well-regulated militias could be maintained in the states for the inevitable “Round 2″ with the British.

          • dtgraham

            Well said Toronto. There are solid historical reasons for that amendment. They were quite aware that what was to become Canada in close to 100 years was still just New England North at that time. Much is made in Canada of the war of 1812, but it really was just the revolutionary war part two, with the British coming out ahead this time.

            The men joining the militias in that era would have had to supply their own weaponry, hence the right to bear arms.

  • Pamby50

    I praised the doctor when I heard her say that last night. She need not think her job is going away though. We are never going to do anything about guns in this country. We are having mass shootings at least once a year. Since Newtown there have been 8241 matched deaths from guns. The CDC estimates the figures should be around 24,580 because so many of the gun deaths are suicides and not reported. Even if it is 8,241 that’s still to many.

    • ralphkr

      I agree that trauma units shall never be shut down. Not just because of guns but also because of vehicles, knives, etc. Among industrialized countries the US is not only number one in gun violence but also number one in injuries/deaths from sharp objects and blunt objects. The problem is not that there are so many guns, etc. but that US citizens are a very violent people. It must be the water or the air because the countries they came from are much more peaceful.

      • dtgraham

        America is a great nation ralph, but it is going through an unusual period right now.

scroll to top