doctors

[gallant]

morning all,shooting times last week has a artical on drs notes for all, police to inform doctors of sgc and fac holders, if they do anyone feeling under the weather bit down will not go to there doctor incase they inform the police, this then might get youre cert revoked, hope the basc are looking into this.

[Coolhead]

It's actually much less alarming than that.

 

Forms 101 and 103 already ask you to declare any medical conditions. Also it asks for permission to approach your GP. So you give the police permission to follow up on any medical concerns they have with your GP.

 

The new discussions suggest copying the GP in AUTOMATICALLY on NEW AND RENEWED applications. So every 5 years they'll get a routine notification.

 

This is all well within the discretion they have always had. If there were any relevant medical issues affecting the applicant they should have declared them on the forms anyway.

This falls way short of the "fishing expeditions" and records tags they wanted during the Firearms Committee review. I don't have a problem with it.

 

The GP isn't, and can't, be asked to report on or judge whether the applicant should or should not hold firearms. However a doctor's ethics already oblige them to inform the authorities if a person is a danger to themselves or others.

[Dekers]

As Coolhead said there is nothing particularly new about this, medical history has always been on the agenda.

[phaedra1106]

The GP isn't, and can't, be asked to report on or judge whether the applicant should or should not hold firearms. However a doctor's ethics already oblige them to inform the authorities if a person is a danger to themselves or others.

 

My son has Aspergers Syndrome, a mild form of Autism, he's been shooting clay pigeon for about 6 years, rimfire and centrefire rifle and pistol for over a year, is a member of 3 clubs and qualified for his Safe Shooters Card so is deemed safe to shoot on any MOD range.

 

However, due to a GP giving incorrect information in his report there is absolutely no chance of him being granted an SGC or FAC.

 

The FEO even rang and apologised and wanted me to know that he was more than happy with him and had recommended he be granted his SGC. The GP who has only seen him twice in 21 years (for an ingrowing toenail) and who has admitted he knows nothing about Aspergers Syndrome even wrote "I feel that it would not be safe to grant XXX a certificate at this moment in time" at the end of his report, so much for not giving an opinion.

 

It's now almost a year later and we've just managed to get an appointment with a new consultant for a review of his condition, unfortunately the appointment is probably only going to be a 30min slot and it will take several appointments over many months before we get her report. We've tried to have the original letter withdrawn but his surgery head has done a complete turn around from originally saying he couldn't see any reason not to grant it to "I don't remember you asking about it". The NHS Trust won't get involved as the surgery is a private practice and the PALS service won't touch it as it involves a GP and the police.

[Coolhead]

 

However, due to a GP giving incorrect information in his report there is absolutely no chance of him being granted an SGC or FAC.

 

Oh **** ! You and your lad have my sympathies. He's been truly *$^@?£% over by the practice. Now I am not a lawyer but what's written in black and white doesn't require it.

 

The GP overstepped the mark by giving a specialist opinion he wasn't qualified for. If you had the written evidence you could take him/her to the General Medical Council.

 

The Firearms Licensing Officer overstepped the mark by accepting unsound evidence outside his remit. He can only ask for "Factual information" and not adopt opinions from a non-specialist.

 

Unfortunately the FEO, who has actually met him, is irrelevant. The FLO is the agent of the Chief Constable and has the say. You have grounds to appeal against an unsound decision. Officially this is through a judicial review but he'll back down before that. Losing would set a bad precedent. Back-peddling seems to be the order of the day with these people from what you've written.

 

If your consultant says your son's condition does not make him a possible danger to the public or himself you're saved.

 

In future write to your GP with a copy of it to the FLO. Tell the GP he and the practice is to copy you/your son on all correspondence with the police regarding his medical matters.

 

It's definitely worth re-applying when you have a favourable assessment.

[CharlieT]

morning all,shooting times last week has a artical on drs notes for all, police to inform doctors of sgc and fac holders, if they do anyone feeling under the weather bit down will not go to there doctor incase they inform the police, this then might get youre cert revoked, hope the basc are looking into this.

 

 

I am pleased to note that BASC are on the case and I gather that they are trying to ensure that GP's will deal with this in a fair and subjective manner with proper protocols and guidance and not give GP's the remit to follow their own agenda.

 

The worrying thing is that although this new procedure has not yet been put in place by the HO some forces have jumped the gun and started doing so already.

[Scully]

According to BASC,they are against the 'flagging' of applicants,and have actively suggested this is a bad move,but there is nothing BASC can do to prevent the ACPO and the BMC from coming to any agreement between themselves.

[phaedra1106]

The Firearms manager was very understanding, she accepts that the GPs letter is completely contradictory to the FEOs interveiw and report, we explained everything about his medical condition at the time but unless you know about it it's a difficult thing to explain, most times you say "Autistic" people think of Rain Man :(

 

She allowed us to withdraw his application before it was refused, a refusal would have prevented him continuing to shoot. However, she said that with the GPs letter in his file there was no chance of a grant until the GP wrote correcting his mistakes (not going to happen) or we got supporting evidence from someone who knows what they are talking about (ie. a consultant).

 

It's going to be a long and annoying battle but just one of many we have faced since he was eventually diagnosed at age 15. I'm about to lodge a second formal complaint through the NHS Trust and Social Care Direct as we have been asking/waiting for help from his care co-ordinator since early January this year, despite me kicking him every 3 months we still have no help and as a disabled single parent and sole carer life isn't getting any easier for either of us.

[Coolhead]

According to BASC,they are against the 'flagging' of applicants,and have actively suggested this is a bad move,but there is nothing BASC can do to prevent the ACPO and the BMC from coming to any agreement between themselves.

 

Indeed yes but the Department of Health runs the NHS not two "trade" associations. The police are just using facilities they already had.

 

 

 

It's going to be a long and annoying battle but just one of many we have faced since he was eventually diagnosed at age 15.

 

Best of British chap. Once you have a positive assessment you'll be fine.

 

Your GP was a rogue but this is what concerns me. Any future system requiring someone sitting in judgement of something as subjective as someone's future "fitness" will inevitably result in people playing it safe.

Why not just reject everyone you judge and not risk having any problems coming back?

 

Once a few GP's are sued for sending unqualified psychology opinions to the police there will no longer be a problem.

[Bloke]

My daughter is a doctor in psychotherapy and has several psychologists working under her. I asked her about this and she discussed it with them. Their comment, which almost mirrrored some of the medical statements made in the Cumbria inquiry, was that any clinical assessment made of a person's mental health is only relevant at the precise time of that assessment and not for any time afterwards, making behaviour prediction almost impossible with any degree of certainty. Therefore without any previous self-harm or agressive behaviour documented in the person's past (which would be checked in the same way for all, usually), there is not a Psychiatrist/Psychologist/Psychotherapist of any reasonable qualification who would try and predict/guarantee what a person's behaviour would be 5 years down the line, and NEVER without a full psychometric assessment, which very few (if any) GP's are qualified to do. Hope you get this idiot GP's statement rescinded, all the best to you and your son.

[HDAV]

The issue I potentially have is that I have never met my GP, I have been to the practice once for my "new patient check up" when we moved over 5 years ago (still ahvent been back for the results :blink: ) so how they can pass anything other than confirming my address I dont know.....

 

My GF goes to same practise and it's one where you dont have your own GP just whoever happens to be there at the time, My Old GP was great (a proper hippy doctor) but may not be so good for firearms applications

[gallant]

a quote from a doctor, our overriding duty is to our patients, to give them the best advice and guard the confidences they give to us, patients are not going to tell me things if i am going to pass infprmation on to the authorities, we are the guardians of the patients confidences, not agents of the state.

[CharlieT]

Indeed yes but the Department of Health runs the NHS not two "trade" associations. The police are just using facilities they already had.

 

This is not strictly correct, the police have never before routinely as a matter of course notified GP's of grants and renewals to solicit GP's views.

[Scully]

The Police aren't 'just using facilities they already had';they've never had the facility to inform a GP that one of their patients is a FAC/SGC holder,or has applied for either.Presently,as far as I know,Ho guidelines state that licensing should only contact an applicants GP if there is cause for concern,and not as a matter of routine.

As for pheadras' unfortunate predicament,I think I would buy membership for my son to one of the shooting organisations and then seek their legal advice;GP's are not,under any circumstances,allowed(nor qualified)to offer an opinion as to a persons fitness or otherwise to possess firearms.

[docholiday]

One thing for sure is that the GPs dont want to be involved in this.

[Coolhead]

The Police aren't 'just using facilities they already had';they've never had the facility to inform a GP that one of their patients is a FAC/SGC holder,or has applied for either.Presently,as far as I know,Ho guidelines state that licensing should only contact an applicants GP if there is cause for concern,and not as a matter of routine.

As for pheadras' unfortunate predicament,I think I would buy membership for my son to one of the shooting organisations and then seek their legal advice;GP's are not,under any circumstances,allowed(nor qualified)to offer an opinion as to a persons fitness or otherwise to possess firearms.

 

Hmmm you really haven't grasped this. Forms 101 and 103 grant permission for the police to "obtain factual details of your medical history." This is whether you declare a condition or not and every time you submit a form. They are within the law to do it on variations too. This is not new law they just haven't chosen to do it.

 

They have ALWAYS had the facility to contact a GP and refer to the application since the forms came in. Part of the application is the authorisation to release and MUST be disclosed !

Section 15 and your signature may even be sent lawfully.

 

Guidelines are guidelines. The Chief Constable may use his discretion.

 

When you send in a form they will send a letter "dear doctor, mr. x has applied for a firearm cert authorising us to.. please send us factual details of any medical history which may possibly affect this."

 

This gives them a lawful route to put a note in the doc's mind. perhaps before that there were no conditions that could reasonably concern the FLO.

 

Later the doc decides to contact them. All he has to say is "I am concerned about Mr. x."

 

The doc can do it; http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Medical-Ethics.htm

 

I am happy 99% of doctors won't make vague unsubstantiated statements though. If word got out of what they had done it doesn't bear thinking about.

[Scully]

Fair enough,it would appear BASC have given me duff info'.

[Pole Star]

morning all,shooting times last week has a artical on drs notes for all, police to inform doctors of sgc and fac holders, if they do anyone feeling under the weather bit down will not go to there doctor incase they inform the police, this then might get youre cert revoked, hope the basc are looking into this.

This is all a dangerous area ! what if your GP is one of the anti gun ownership types ? or worse still a member or supporter of the Gun Control Network !. Give you an example , I knew a chap years ago who went too see his GP for a counter sign for his shot gun cert & all he got was a lecture into why the public should not be able to own guns !.

[happypig]

Well Hampshire for one are contacting GP's regardless of circumstances for every new SGC and renewal........ Same for FAC's

 

This costs the force £32.50 from each and every application. As this is the fee paid to the GP.

 

Even money says that this cost will be transferred to the applicant in the near future. Plus this will add weeks to the application renewal time as GP's especially those who are anti will be under no obligation to hurry a reply.

 

Can anyone say how many new applications Hants Pol deal with per year plus how many SGC holders there are in the county?...... multiply the new applicants by 5 for the cert life and add to the current SGC holders and multiply the whole lot by thirty two pounds fifty. Its going to cost a fair whack.

 

This in a time when forces are being squeezed for millions. It does not seem to be with Common Sense or sound judgement or with a degree of proportionality that this hoop is being added.

 

David BASC any thoughts?

[HDAV]

I worte a big reply to this...where did it go?

 

Anyway I recon we are in for £120-£150 for renewals and grants + fees from the likes of GP's

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/fees/fees1.jsp?page=3#DVLA

 

:oops: Should have worked harder at school!

 

However this is interesting

 

43. Is a fee chargeable for the completion of applications for firearms?

The completion of applications for firearms is not covered under doctors’ NHS terms and conditions of services. Doctor’s that chose to do this work may, therefore, charge a reasonable fee based on the time spent completing the form.

 

When a doctor is presented with a firearms application, the following principles should be considered:

 

There is nothing to prevent doctors from countersigning firearms applications when they are simply acting as a person of good standing i.e. where the applicant is not, and never has been, their patient.

Where the applicant is a patient, doctors are advised not to support firearm applications unless they believe that they have sufficient knowledge about an individual to justify a judgement that the individual could safely possess and control such a firearm. Such occasions will probably be rare.

Doctors must make it clear that they are in no position to judge the ’future dangerousness’ of any applicant.

If doctors have reason to believe that an individual has access to firearms and is currently a danger to him or herself or to society they should encourage the individual to return the licence and surrender the firearms. Doctors should, however, also be prepared to breach confidence and inform the appropriate authorities if necessary. They need to bear in mind that they may need to justify the decision if confidentiality is breached without the individual’s permission.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/fees/FeesFAQs.jsp#46

Edited October 26, 2011 by HDAV