harry69koi Posted April 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Ive never been to see her about things like that m8ty,cant honestly understand how she has come to her opinon but she has screwed up my chance of sgc either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 this is actually TRUE as my FAO just told me the other day, its a new thing they have started to do... It isn't. If it is then it is rather worrying and probably illegal. The idea was mooted recently; it was suggested that the medical file of every FAC/SGC holder would be noted accordingly but it hasn't gone ahead yet, as far as I'm aware. What area are you in? Do you have (or can you obtain) anything in writing from your licensing department to this efect? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OvEr_KiLL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 It isn't. If it is then it is rather worrying and probably illegal. The idea was mooted recently; it was suggested that the medical file of every FAC/SGC holder would be noted accordingly but it hasn't gone ahead yet, as far as I'm aware. What area are you in? Do you have (or can you obtain) anything in writing from your licensing department to this efect? J. im in cumbria and he said it was a more recent thing after the derrick bird case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 im in cumbria and he said it was a more recent thing after the derrick bird case Still shouldn't be doing it as you have not given them an authorisation to release that information. They may just be saying that but not actually doing it. It brings up grave potential consequenses as it may make a cert holder very reluctant to go to their GP about things. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Fascinating though this debate is and regardless of your or my or for that matter anyone elses interpretation of the GMC guidelines on patient confidentiality, the British pharmacopeia on SSRIs, or the Home Office Guidance , we are where we are and debate on the above three issues will not change anything. Our friend has been refused, the police based this refusal on medical evidence, there are two options open to him but both will take 10-18 months to resolve. There is no point going to Court to appeal the refusal to grant. Its certainly worth seeing the Doc to uncover the issues and take their advice and the FEOs as to the best way forward. In the interim of course out friend can still go shooting, by borrowing a gun subject to the usual rules. David Edited April 2, 2013 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 David - you are correct. I feel sorry if the GP has overstepped the mark, but these things do happen in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Fascinating though this debate is and regardless of your or my or for that matter anyone elses interpretation of the GMC guidelines on patient confidentiality, the British pharmacopeia on SSRIs, or the Home Office Guidance , we are where we are and debate on the above three issues will not change anything. Our friend has ben refused, the police based this refusal on medical evidence, there are two options open to him but both will take 10-18 months to resolve. There is no point going to Court to appeal the refusal to grant. Its certainly worth seeing the Doc to uncover the issues and take their advice and the FEOs as to the best way forward. In the interim of course out friend can still go shooting, by borrowing a gun subject to the usual rules. David JonathonL, are you not going to tear this post apart? I'd imagine you'd be prepared to use your wisdom and even take on the case for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Try reading " the cult of pharmacology" by Richard DeGrandpree as that would change your stance on SSRI's instantly , a very well referenced book and a real eye opener , I also read somewhere that if you GP charges a fee for providing any kind of reference then its null and void anyway , references must be free of any charge to avoid corruption according to governbent guidelines , there is a huge link between anti depressants and suicide/massacres mostly surrounding The SSRI group of meds which have been shown in tests to be no more effective than placebo's I am more than happy that you take your information from this book should you choose to do so. When it comes to psychotropic drugs there have always been those who are implacably against them and those who embrace them, I guess I belong to the latter group! My opinion is based on 20 years of working in mental health, during which time I read many books, and actually seeing the positive and life changing impact of SSRI's for a large number of people. There are some people for whom SSRI's are a very bad choice of medication indeed and I have experience of working with those people as well and in my experience if there is a negative reaction to them it is early on in treatment not after a period of taking them with no such problems. The GP wasn't asked for a reference, she was asked for a medical report for which there will have been a fee required and paid. There appears to be a contradiction in your post by the way - drugs that are no more effective than placebos are unlikely to be a direct cause in suicides / massacres (unless of course it was because they left someone suicidally depressed in an untreated state, and that doesn't seem to be what you are implying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 It isn't. If it is then it is rather worrying and probably illegal. The idea was mooted recently; it was suggested that the medical file of every FAC/SGC holder would be noted accordingly but it hasn't gone ahead yet, as far as I'm aware. Brilliant From definite fact to probably fact in the space of one post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc0tt Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 this is actually TRUE as my FAO just told me the other day, its a new thing they have started to do... As above it is 100% true. I moved address and never bothered to change my doctors. I sent my application in at the end of January. Mid Feb I was removed from the Doctors register. When I was granted the certificate the Police sent a letter to my GP to advise that I had been granted a certificate. They then responded that they are no longer my doctors. Now I need a different doctors and to send them the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 I am more than happy that you take your information from this book should you choose to do so. When it comes to psychotropic drugs there have always been those who are implacably against them and those who embrace them, I guess I belong to the latter group! My opinion is based on 20 years of working in mental health, during which time I read many books, and actually seeing the positive and life changing impact of SSRI's for a large number of people. There are some people for whom SSRI's are a very bad choice of medication indeed and I have experience of working with those people as well and in my experience if there is a negative reaction to them it is early on in treatment not after a period of taking them with no such problems. The GP wasn't asked for a reference, she was asked for a medical report for which there will have been a fee required and paid. There appears to be a contradiction in your post by the way - drugs that are no more effective than placebos are unlikely to be a direct cause in suicides / massacres (unless of course it was because they left someone suicidally depressed in an untreated state, and that doesn't seem to be what you are implying). I did type out a long and detailed reply but deleted it as I'm at risk of being known as " off topic Paul" . A topic for a different post maybe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Full Pelt Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Sorry but this is simply not true. None of that stuff happens. The police cannot simply go about informing people that you posses firearms. J. Nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highbird70 Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Defo going down the route of second opinon,cant hurt can it :wacko: even if they overrule the doctors opinon im not sure the police will change their minds but if i dont try ill never know eh :blink: Absolutely, I shouldn't even say this, because you come across as a Gentleman...like I said before, ask you Gp in a very polite way and smiley face, if she could exsplain to you, in poor mans wording, the reason or other, why she/he feels you should not have a SGC, at the end give her/him your email and ask if you can have it in writing, due to the fact that you will go to a more specialized Doc, for a further consultation and professional opinion. It might help the cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 You should be able to see a copy of the letter sent to the FLO, suggest you ask for a copy and send it to BASC legal dept. I'm not sure how far a second opinion will carry unfortunately unless original doc will make a retraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry69koi Posted April 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 You should be able to see a copy of the letter sent to the FLO, suggest you ask for a copy and send it to BASC legal dept. I'm not sure how far a second opinion will carry unfortunately unless original doc will make a retraction. Off to the docs this afternoon to see if i can have the copy of the letter,be intresting reading if nothing else lol also got a appointment to see the said doctor and a day later a appointment with a totally different doctor,who was i the army for many years so shouldnt be anti gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Sorry but this is just rubbish. Things like Prozac do work and there is lots of evidence to support it. It seems that they are dangerous to use on people under about their early 20's but that's about it. J. As much as it pains me, JL is right and SSRIs can be and are extremely effective drugs. You can prove that any drug is linked to anything if you spin the study in the right way (or in the way that those who are funding the study want you to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 It seems you have to change the scumbag doctor and get a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 As above it is 100% true. I moved address and never bothered to change my doctors. I sent my application in at the end of January. Mid Feb I was removed from the Doctors register. When I was granted the certificate the Police sent a letter to my GP to advise that I had been granted a certificate. They then responded that they are no longer my doctors. Now I need a different doctors and to send them the details. Did they inform your doctor due to some on-going medical condition or is it the case that they are simply informing every cert holders doctor? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc0tt Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Nope, I have no medical issues. They just informed them that I had been granted a SGC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 harry69koi, there are two things you need, the first is the letter sent to your doctor from the police, and the second the docs response, don't debate with either until you have these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) As much as it pains me, JL is right and SSRIs can be and are extremely effective drugs. You can prove that any drug is linked to anything if you spin the study in the right way (or in the way that those who are funding the study want you to). Like spending a portion of the billion pounds + annually in revenue your drug brings in on undisclosed out of court settlements to keep the naysayers at bay and the shareholders happy? Always follow the money my friend and this is a blockbuster drug we are discussing here with annual profits in the billions , do you think the companies behind it will simply say " we fudged the initial studies and they cause more harm than good so we will just forget about the billions in future revenue" , its no conspiracy and all the facts are out there if anybody is concerned enough to look outside of the box Edited April 3, 2013 by Twistedsanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Like spending a portion of the billion pounds + annually in revenue your drug brings in on undisclosed out of court settlements to keep the naysayers at bay and the shareholders happy? Always follow the money my friend and this is a blockbuster drug we are discussing here with annual profits in the billions , do you think the companies behind it will simply say " we fudged the initial studies and they cause more harm than good so we will just forget about the billions in future revenue" , its no conspiracy and all the facts are out there if anybody is concerned enough to look outside of the box Sounds very much as though you are spinning a conspiracy theory to me mate! I simply don't believe it. You contradict your own argument when you say that they hide the fact that they cause more harm than good to protect future revenue. If they don't work or are that harmful then people won't buy them because doctors will realise very rapidly that they are a waste of time. Hence, there will be no future revenue anyway! Why would organisations like the NHS buy and use the stuff if it doesn't work or is dangerous? Even if you could make people belive that the drug companies covered all this up then there is surely a problem with doing the same in relation to the NHS as they would be the ones getting sued rather than (or along with) the manufaturer? Why would the NHS bother prescribing stuff that doesn't work as there is no benefit ion doing so? Surely they have better things on which to spend their finite resources? This pyrennial myth that you can just throw ever increasing amounts of cash at any problem that comes along and it will sort it for you is just that - a myth. You seem to forget that for every lawyer in the pay of someone covering up something like this there are hundreds who are not and who are just as keen to win a big settlement as their oponents are of avoiding one. SSRI's work. There is no argument that they do not. I know people who have been on them, or are currently on them, and they do work. I'm sure that any doctors on here will agree with that. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Sounds very much as though you are spinning a conspiracy theory to me mate! I simply don't believe it. You contradict your own argument when you say that they hide the fact that they cause more harm than good to protect future revenue. If they don't work or are that harmful then people won't buy them because doctors will realise very rapidly that they are a waste of time. Hence, there will be no future revenue anyway! Why would organisations like the NHS buy and use the stuff if it doesn't work or is dangerous? Even if you could make people belive that the drug companies covered all this up then there is surely a problem with doing the same in relation to the NHS as they would be the ones getting sued rather than (or along with) the manufaturer? Why would the NHS bother prescribing stuff that doesn't work as there is no benefit ion doing so? Surely they have better things on which to spend their finite resources? This pyrennial myth that you can just throw ever increasing amounts of cash at any problem that comes along and it will sort it for you is just that - a myth. You seem to forget that for every lawyer in the pay of someone covering up something like this there are hundreds who are not and who are just as keen to win a big settlement as their oponents are of avoiding one. SSRI's work. There is no argument that they do not. I know people who have been on them, or are currently on them, and they do work. I'm sure that any doctors on here will agree with that. J. They work for people who have a seratonin imbalance. They don't work for people who are simply unhappy even if profoundly so. Mental illnes is an over-used term and the urge to medicate away unhappiness does more harm than good. Unpleasant emotions are natural. The brain produces them for a reason and for most people who suffer them too frquently they are nothing more than an early warning system: your brain's red warning light, like the oil light in your car. We've come to expect contentment as a normal state with any prolonged absence indicating a dangerous mental abnormality that requires medication. More often than not it isn't. Modern life is toxic. We run ourselves into the ground and when the oil light comes on the brain may just be trying to tell us not that something has gone wrong with our chemistry but that there is something wrong with the way we are living our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry69koi Posted April 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 harry69koi, there are two things you need, the first is the letter sent to your doctor from the police, and the second the docs response, don't debate with either until you have these Went today m8ty to ask for them,but they wouldnt give me them without a doctors say so So I have to go back tomorrow for them Could swear they are my medical notes? Even asked the receptionist just to press the print button as its not that hard lol Oh well tomorrow ill have them Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OvEr_KiLL Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) they shouldnt be your medical notes, lets see what jonathanL says lol edit. you know what the reason is, the gp said you are unsuitable but yes i can see you need proof ie. the letters Edited April 3, 2013 by OvEr_KiLL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts