Been turned down for sgc :-(

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - I think your ego is getting ahead of your limited intellect.

 

I presume you can read your own post, which was rather unnecessarily printed in red.

 

 

You really need to calm down and grow up.

 

PS - perhaps you could send a letter to Andy Marsh and let him know that he isn't really in your league - delusional.

 

Well, this is a first. I have to say that I utterly fail to see the point of anything you have written in that post. Is this an argument against or a post in support of what I wrote. If the former then I assume that you agree with everything I wrote that you didn't quote; namely that, the authorisation you sign does indeed restrict the information that the police can obtain to bare facts from your medical history and does not authorise yur GP to give an opinion?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Lads,

 

Lets not argue amiong each other...having said that, not wishing to argue against you Jonathan, but a couple of points if I may.

 

Firstly, one of the big problems we come up against is that many police authorities do not follow the HO guidance or if they do they cherry pick the bits they like and ignore the rest!! After all its guidance only as they are quick to tell us!

 

Yes, in a lot of cases they do cherry-pick the bits they like. They even cherry pick between different guidance books when it suits them such as when they quote the ACPO guidance on ammunition holdings which is lower thn the HO one.

 

The thing that people keep missing, or not appreciating, is that the guidance isn't only 'guidance'. Calling it 'Guidance To The Police' is a rather unfortunate choice of language because lots of what is in it is settled law. The word 'guidance' suggests that it is all open to interpretation or variation depending upon the circumstances which is most certainly not the case. It's really an 'Operations Manual', rather than purely guidance.

 

 

Secondly, although I agree 100% with the bits in red straight out of the text book as it were, and the exact guidance that we bash the police with (metaphorically) the next bit reads ' though it is open to them to do so'.

 

Anyone is free to offer an opinion on whether to endorse or oppose anything they like. If a doctor does so based on your medical history then they have breached their confidentiality as you have not given them persmission to do that. All you are authorising via the section on the application form is for the police to enquire as to what is written in your medical records and nothing else. The HO guidance makes that very clear and that is clearly how the question on the form is worded.

 

J.

 

I read somewhere that you had to be 10 years free of anti depressants before applying, might be wrong but deffo said that.

 

There is no rule like that. Every single case is dealt with on it's own facts and merits.

 

J.

Edited April 2, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

David - fair point. That said, the poster cited the exact guidance, but conveniently missed off the most salient point -

 

This does rather cut across this little gem:-

 

I notice that you conveniently omitted all that I wrote after that about a doctor being able to breach his confidentiality under certain circumstances hence, taking that one sentence completely out of context. That seems to be your style, however.

 

J.

[IXI KARL IXI]

I had spoke to my lass about this post (she's a mental health nurse). What she had said is the tablets you are on, carry a bit of a stigma around them. It's noted and well documented about the side effects of the pills mainly the suicide/dark thoughts (as she put it). She had thought due to this, maybe they are on a bar list of some kind. She had said ( like most people have on here) is to the have a word with your doctor, with what he/she said. If the tablets are on a bar list you maybe able to change medication to something else but still get the same benefits. I hope you get it sorted, you seem to have the help of basc and the determination to see it though. Fingers crossed and good luck.

[harry69koi]

Thanks for that m8ty never had any dark thoughts like your good lady mentioned but i guess it can happen

[Jolly]

Was this following your GP's advice to the authorities,or a decision made soley by your licensing authority?Do you know what consultations took place between your GP and licensing,and what your GP stated to licensing?If not it would be advisable to find out.I know of several people who have FAC and SGC and who have been consulted to their GP with symptoms of depression/anxiety.

Don't give up just yet.

 

 

It sounds to me that you may have been put on the at risk register by your doctor, this happened to me and because of it i was refused life insurance. I went to the docs and asked why it had been done without my knowledge and was told a new doc had done it to "be on the safe side" I then asked if she thought i was at risk and she said not at all so she promptly removed my name from the said list. Also before I applied for SGC and FAC I asked the docs if they had any issues and they said no go ahead. Being on anti-dpressants is no reason to be refused either

[Anonymouslemming]

Look, the form says you have to give persmission for your doctor to provider 'factual details of your medical history'. If the doctor gives an opinion then that is not a factual deatail of your medical history and they should not even be asking the question. What do you think the authorisation actually means Gordon?

 

For mine and my wife's SGC applications, our doctor was specifically asked whether or not they believed we were fit to hold these certificates.

[Full Pelt]

Clearly it is a good idea to keep in touch with your GP so that your GP knows in advance that you are going to make your application and that they may be contacted by the police in due course.

 

If you only see your GP for your medical stuff and they get contacted out of the blue by the police about your application they may not be wholly supportive.

 

The reality is that if / when your appliaction is granted the police will contact your GP anyway to advise them that you now hold a sgc / fac ; you then go on the surgery's list those who possess shotguns / firearms and of course your GP will be keeping an eye on you if you see them for anything. It is just common sense.

[David BASC]

The GMC guidelines allow doc to give information in some cases even if consent has not been given, if the doc has information that they believe it would be in the general public interest to divulge to the authorities

 

I don’t think there is a case to argue against what has happened in law, I could be wrong and if there is a lawyer on here who is looking for a bit of pro bono work…

 

David

[Gordon R]

Jonathan - I will not react further to your rather juvenile scribbling. You clearly cannot read your own flawed posts.

 

It is clear that GPs can and do offer more than the straight medical history, yet they have not been struck off - as you said they could be. I don't recall any GP facing the Medical Council for such a disclosure.

 

You are out of touch with reality.

[pboro shot]

shame they didnt control car licences the same same a lot of accidents ,im sure basc will hopefully help

[Cranfield]

Some members need to stop confusing reasonable debate, with petty personal bickering.

If you don't agree with someone, its fine to say so, but without the personal insults.

[Twistedsanity]

everything has been said I guess except perhaps that Prozac (which is what this is) is taken by many many thousands of people in every walk of life, occupation and profession. These people most certainly do not automatically pose any risk to self or others. Taking an SSRI antidepressant is not of itself any good reason to refuse a SGC.

 

Clearly the OP needs to meet with GP and check A) if she was actually asked for a medical report and if so B] what she said in that report. Most but not necessarily all GP's would be very cautious about expressing a view rather than straightforward facts. Depending on what the position is after that meeting with GP BASC may well be in a position to offer very real help.

 

I wish you the best of luck with this Harry69koi

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

[harry69koi]

Well bit of a update guys

 

Found out today via my local Feo that its basically my gp who has put the halt to owning a sgc :( She has said im not suitable so obviously the police are only doing there job with the information they are given :wacko:

How she has come to that conclusion i dont know as ive never been to see her saying i feel angry etc and never had violent thoughts , Im seeing her shortly so will be asking a fair few questions as to why she wrote what she did and whether she is anti gun (you never know)

But at the end of the day it wont change anything but i will be seeking a 2nd opinon by a shrink or something lol

 

I must thank Basc for getting in touch with me and at least pointing me in the right direction but as it stands it looks like ill be coming off the tablet,then waiting 1 or 2 years and then re-applying :wacko:

 

Will keep ya posted how i get on with the doctor :yp:

 

 

Lee

[shaun4860]

Good luck, hope it works out for you

 

[Jolly]

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

someone said to me recently about another very well researched book that "the devil can quote scripture to back his own aims" I have read the cult of Pharmacology and whilst I agrre that certain drugs are foisted on us as the surgery gets better deals than they would normally get, SSRI's have been found to be hugely benificial in many many cases. If you quote research and statistics it is more important to look at tthe funding for that research and the leanings of the person asking the questions

 

JAT

[JonathanL]

The reality is that if / when your appliaction is granted the police will contact your GP anyway to advise them that you now hold a sgc / fac ; you then go on the surgery's list those who possess shotguns / firearms and of course your GP will be keeping an eye on you if you see them for anything. It is just common sense.

 

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.

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - I will not react further to your rather juvenile scribbling. You clearly cannot read your own flawed posts.

 

It is clear that GPs can and do offer more than the straight medical history, yet they have not been struck off - as you said they could be. I don't recall any GP facing the Medical Council for such a disclosure.

 

You are out of touch with reality.

 

They may do. What I'm saying though is that they should not do so unless there is a very pressing reason to do so. If doctors release information or give opinions which are not pursuant to a specific authroity to do so then they can, and most probably will be investigated for it. Believe me or not, I don't reallty care, but that is the reality of the situation.

 

J.

[parapilot]

Ask her then if not happy get a second opinion and/or your drugs changed. GP's are quite often wrong that's why you should be referred to a specialist with any non minor complaints. GPs can't know everything. So if you can convince a specialist that alls ok then he can write to police you be away.

[OvEr_KiLL]

Clearly it is a good idea to keep in touch with your GP so that your GP knows in advance that you are going to make your application and that they may be contacted by the police in due course.

 

If you only see your GP for your medical stuff and they get contacted out of the blue by the police about your application they may not be wholly supportive.

 

The reality is that if / when your appliaction is granted the police will contact your GP anyway to advise them that you now hold a sgc / fac ; you then go on the surgery's list those who possess shotguns / firearms and of course your GP will be keeping an eye on you if you see them for anything. It is just common sense.

 

 

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.

this is actually TRUE as my FAO just told me the other day, its a new thing they have started to do...

[JonathanL]

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

 

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.

[harry69koi]

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:

[Paul T]

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:

It can't hurt, but I'd deffo be speaking with your original GP to find out why. At the moment you don't know whether it's a drug based, personal or a complete anti reasoning behind it. Once you know that you can start on the right course of action to prove you ARE suitable to own a SGC.

 

Best of luck, mate

[harry69koi]

Be intresting paul to see what her issue is,knowing my luck she will be anti gun :blink:

[JonathanL]

The GMC guidelines allow doc to give information in some cases even if consent has not been given, if the doc has information that they believe it would be in the general public interest to divulge to the authorities

 

The standard though is very high. Unless there existed a significant risk to life or the threat of serious injury then it probably wouldn't be justified. The public interest reasoning has to outweigh the patients' right to confidentiality and that will rarely be the case.

 

The other thing about FAC/SGC applications is that unless someone is clearly very mentaly unstable to the point of being irrational then a doctor can't really say anything which won't amount to speculation. If a person has simply been suffering from depression or aniexty or something then where is the justification for expressing the opinion that they should not have the cert granted? If, on the other hand, they had been in the previous week because they had cosidered suicide or that they had wanted to harm their spouse then that's a different matter.

 

J.