Advice on incorrect doctors letter to police?

[Bloke]

I am not a doctor, unlike some of the posters on here, but have worked with medical staff of all levels for some years and I have been involved in some similar cases regarding innacurate or "misleading" medical reports. I would bet that in the majority of cases, the doctors are justifiably wary of being held as responsible if some nut job goes off and shoots someone, we have all seen the Daily Mail style headlines "Local doctor fails to spot killer!!!" etc, etc.The doctor would then be trawled through the court system and vilified by the press and public alike, with every lawyer for the defence trying to place the blame on the doctor for not spotting the problem, rather than on the individual for commiting the crime. I have a lot of sympathy for the docs - the average GP may only see the individual for about two or three minutes a year, less in some cases, yet they could be blamed for not spotting something the person's family and friends failed to see.

 

My local FEO said that at no time did they ask the doctor for their opinion of the individual/shooting, they were just asked if there were any health problems that may affect the individuals ability, and to list them if there were. It was then the FEO and their superiors that would decide if this was an impedance to granting the licence. My FEO said that an inherent difficulty was that the doctor was not supposed to comment on suitability, yet the FEO and colleagues, with no medical training, were supposed to interpret the doctor's report and decide.

 

Having said that, this seems on the surface an outright case of giving false evidence to the police. Surely it would be appropriate to pursue this through the Data Protection Act if you cannot sort it out any other way? If these statements can be proved innacurate and yet are taken from the medical notes (usually held electronically now) then is this not a breach of the act?

Edited January 20, 2011 by Bloke

[docholiday]

The trouble is the police are all too happy to abdicate responsibility by deferring to the doctors report and most doctors are really quite cowardly and over cautious, protecting their own rear end rather than trying to ensure that their patient has a happy and fulfilled life.

 

Also, most doctors know nothing about shooting. Probably a bit anti and politically correct about the whole thing.

 

 

What a load of boll...s

Go to most pheasant shoots and you will find a good percentage of guns are Doctors, as they are involved in stalking etc.

 

Like to see you put your job/training/pension etc on the line

doc

[al4x]

would it come back to haunt you were a person to do a Cumbrian type massacre Doc or is it enough to write in your opinion?

Its a little like mentors signing people off, would there be any comeback if an accident happened afterwards

[docholiday]

would it come back to haunt you were a person to do a Cumbrian type massacre Doc or is it enough to write in your opinion?

Its a little like mentors signing people off, would there be any comeback if an accident happened afterwards

 

 

I am sure someone would try, as said i think the idea is that you list any medical problems that may be a cause for concern, but dont pass an opinion, who knows who is going to be trouble.

 

I am not a GP so not involved apart from when I get my cert.

[HDAV]

surely it is only current and past medical conditions as anyone can suffer virtually anything in future and no doctor can predict that.

 

I haven't seen the report, nor am I an FEO while the process is far better than most it does seem inflexible I hope it can be sorted sensibly I have no idea what happened about medical reports with my application as i have NEVER been to my current GP apart from a new patient check up with a nurse....so their ability to comment is pretty much impossible as they have never met me... I can count on one hand the times i have been to the GP in the last 10 years...surely if they follow their own guidance (from professional bodies GMC?) then thats covered them? I still think there are options worth pursuing, what happens if a cert is denied on medical grounds? Can you reapply at another time?

[docholiday]

I think the whole thing is flawed as you are trying to predict the impossible, ie who is going to go over the edge.

However if you try to say certain categories are at risk then thats all it is, ie a greater risk than someone with no risk factors.

just means a lot of people who would never cause trouble are eliminated as well. just the way the system is, cant think of a better way of doing it as you can not predict the unpredicable

doc

[docholiday]

surely it is only current and past medical conditions as anyone can suffer virtually anything in future and no doctor can predict that.

 

I haven't seen the report, nor am I an FEO while the process is far better than most it does seem inflexible I hope it can be sorted sensibly I have no idea what happened about medical reports with my application as i have NEVER been to my current GP apart from a new patient check up with a nurse....so their ability to comment is pretty much impossible as they have never met me... I can count on one hand the times i have been to the GP in the last 10 years...surely if they follow their own guidance (from professional bodies GMC?) then thats covered them? I still think there are options worth pursuing, what happens if a cert is denied on medical grounds? Can you reapply at another time?

 

 

your GP will have all your medical records from Birth, doesnt need to have known you before, if you have any illness then it will be recorded and available, so changing your GP wont change your medical records.

[HDAV]

just means a lot of people who would never cause trouble are eliminated as well. just the way the system is, cant think of a better way of doing it as you can not predict the unpredicable

doc

Could they issue information in your medical history to make a judgement like, Mr X smoked cannabis/ had a drink problem/took this medication 20 years ago now he cant have a liscence?

 

ALso i know that medical records follow you (or should) so in that case why contact your GP? Why not just have any old doctor pull the notes and review them (force medical examiner?)? I thought the purpose of it being your GP was because they know you?

 

Is there an actual list of exclusions anywhere?

[Mungler]

your GP will have all your medical records from Birth, doesnt need to have known you before, if you have any illness then it will be recorded and available, so changing your GP wont change your medical records.

 

 

Wot he said.

[Vince Green]

On point one the FEO asks for a doctors opinion and are you suggesting if it is negative then they should over rule them and hand out tickets to all and sundry :o

 

and on the second I'm sure they know a gun can kill in the wrong hands,

 

If you look back through the enquiry into the cumbrian massacre you get an idea they have to be able to justify every part of the licensing procedure if the worst happens, its the way it should be and personally I do feel that us having firearms is a bit of a privilege more than a right. I know a lot won't agree with that but the more slip ups happen the worse it will be for all of us in the long run

On point one, no I never suggested they should hand out licences to all and sundry. I believe I used the word abdicate as in pass the buck. Its my feeling that some police forces are referring to doctors for really quite minor hings. I can under stand why, they are touchy and feel vunerable. Its a risky job and I wouldn't want to do it. However that is the job, but when you have a FEO covering his butt by referring everything to exonerate him from any responsibility and a doctor covering his butt by being negative its not the recipe for a happy outcome

 

On the second point. Actually you are wrong, in law the ownership of a shotgun is a right, the police have to find good reason to say no and that comes back to point one. The question is almost unresolvable you just go into a loop.

 

What I meant by doctors not knowing about shooting is that they don't necessarily understand how a clay club is organised and run and like any other member of the public has preconceived ideas and notions. How can a doctor attest to whether a patient would be safe at a clay range if he has never been to one himself?

 

 

Eventually, if you go far enough down this road you could get to the point where police take up references routinely with your GP for every application. It has been suggested and more than once, but if your doctor is a "NO" doctor you are stuffed. Remember 25-30 years ago everybody I know went to their GP to get their forms countersigned, it was routine. How many will countersign them now? Probably about the same number as will give you a clean bill of health when the enquiry team ask them.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Vince Green

[Cosd]

I don't know very much about the condition so please don't take offence as it is not intended.

 

What I don't understand, and correct me if I've missed it, is why you want him to have his own license? It sounds as though he has been and still can enjoy shooting till his heart's content; More over, you sound like you are in your element being with him and sharing your passion.

 

I don't doubt you trust your son, but would you really want your son to have his own license and have access to the gun at home? Would you really want him to go without you being there with him?

 

I hope for your son's sake the correct decision is made for him, and if that is to grant the licence then great, but I really can't see why having his own license is so important under the circumstances. God forbid something did happen, and I say that as an accident can happen to any one of us, you know exactly where the finger will point. His condition will be seen as the reason by some.

[J@mes]

A doctor doesn't need to know how a clay ground or any other shooting club works.

 

What he needs to know (and will know) is that the applicant is going to have access to shotguns whenever they like, day or night, drunk or sober, having a good day/week/month or a bad day/week/month and this is what they need to base their actions on.

[phaedra1106]

OK, just to put an end to this.

 

We went and saw the original GP tonight, myself, my son and also his mum, that way there would be at least two adults to listen to what was said and make sure we didn't miss anything.

 

It was fairly obvious from the off he wasn't going to contradict the GP who wrote the letter, he did however say that if he had wrote it he wouldn't have expressed an opinion as to my sons suitablity to hold a SGC (as the other GP had done) as that was up to the police. He then went on to say that neither he or the other GP had any real understanding of my sons condition (Aspergers Syndrome) and that there had been very little contact with him over the years (as there is no medical treatment). He did ask me several times if I was sure the Transistions Team report didn't say he was discharged for lack of progress, I said that I had read it several times and that was not what it said, I also said he could check it himself as it was in his records on the PC in front of him as he had looked at it during the original appointment with him last September.

 

He then went on to say that he may have given the wrong impression during that appointment and that as he remembered it we came to see him about my sons benefits and that I only mentioned the SGC as I was just about out of the door!, this is definetly not true and he made no reference to this during our first meeting after I got a copy of the other GPs letter to the police or in his subsequent letter to me. My son even picked up on this and said that wasn't what happened. He did offer to try and find "some sort of specialist" who would maybe look at my son and give a more current picture of him but he didn't know who to ask and would think about it. I again explained that without him writing to the police and stating that the other GPs letter was in places factualy incorrect and for most of the rest of it presented a completely inaccurate view of my son and was based on a report that is almost 3 years old which in itself was based on only 6x45min visits to the Transistions Team.

 

Seeing there was obviously no way of getting this I changed tack and suggested that as his application is now withdrawn there seemed no point in pushing the issue further and to leave it at that, the last thing I need is to get into a legal fight with him as I will be re-applying for my FAC in about 2 months time.

 

The idea of his own SGC is simple, I will not be here forever, I am physically disabled and it is a deteriorating condition, driving a 50 mile round trip to shoot can be very taxing some weeks, he has a personal assistant who would be able to take him instead of me if he had his own SGC and gun. I must point out, biased or not, that he is a very safe shooter and has almost 5 years experience with more types of firearms that the majority of his fellow club members put together.

 

I am also a member of another shooting club (rifle and pistol) and will see what they say about him joining as he will be able to shoot air powered riles/pistols without a problem. They also shoot 22 rimfire amd pistol calibre rifle and I will ask about him taking the safety course and seeing if he can continue to shoot using club guns without applying for a FAC or if there is a time limit.

 

Once again thank you all for your replies.