POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?

[Hornet 6]

How many people on here would like to work for nothing.

Doctors, work for nothing, you are joking aren't you.
But just incase, they are paid by the national health to do their job, if government decide filling a form in is part of the job then they are going to have to do it.
(note government says, not police decide they want it done)

Neil.

 

[jimbo123p]

The downside of the system. Now19minutes 28 seconds into a phone call waiting for a reply. Please hold and you will be transferred when someone becomes available. 20.52, help I am losing the will too live. Police on Wednesday. Want my doctors line?

 

[jimbo123p]

26.12 still waiting

 

[jimbo123p]

36.10 time to give up. They just don’t answer the phone.

 

[kes]

Wrong. They are not public servants. The GP practice is an independent small business which provides a contracted service to the NHS. For any work that falls outside of this contract, a fee can be charged. If the customer (patient) feels the fee is excessive/inappropriate/unacceptable, they are free to find another provider who will do it at an acceptable rate to them.

I'll take your statement 'wrong' and double it - read this and please dont try and excuse doctors - even though you may be one. Also doctors shape the means by which they provide the contracted service to the NHS If they choose to employ a practice manager, nurse, receptionists, its up to them but the service to be provided remains as does the NHS requirement to PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE
https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-urges-members-not-to-pay-gp-fees/
There's even a statement near the end of the article by a BASC Council Member and Psychiatrist, condemning GP's pecuniary response. GP's reps changed their minds and reneged no ifs or buts.
Oh I presume the meeting of the medical working group also endorsed the doctors opt-out for 'conscientious objectors'. I dont see anyone being justified changing contractual terms as they see fit - maybe if you are a smoker they will refuse to treat you ?

 

[FrenchieBoy]

That makes for a very interesting read Kes. Thanks for posting it.
One thing that is particularly interesting is the following paragraph :- [FONT=&quot]“This Home Office guidance is not an optional extra; it applies to doctors as much as the police. Applicants for certificates should continue to follow the guidance as given by the Home Office.”
[/FONT]I note that it says "It applies to doctors as much as the police" This statement surely means (If I am reading it correctly) that the police should follow the Home Office Guide Lines rather than changing things to suit themselves much in the way that Lincolnshire Police seem to be doing!

 

[N1mr0d]

I have not been asked by BASC, BDS nor the NGO whether I would be willing to pay a doctors fee - any statements by any of these 3 organisations suggesting that their membership would be willing to pay will not be based on fact as far as I am aware.

I imagine that a lot of folk on here have very rarely seen their GP and when they have it will have been for a very short time in relation to a matter almost certainly not linked in any way to mental health. Although I understand the store by which a GP's opinion is based I am not at all convinced that any report they produce will make for a safer community. It is already the case that one's medical record will be flagged as a firearm holder to the GP. This is sufficient in my opinion for the GP to look out for any troubling signs which they can then immediately report to the police should they feel it necessary. I certainly trust my GP to act on this basis. For these reasons I am a no.

Would that the same care and resources were put into driving licences, it would potentially save around 65 folk a day being killed or seriously injured on our roads.

 

[mealiejimmy]

This is all about the Police passing the buck. They have been found wanting over the Dunblane type incidents and are expecting doctors to be able to take the blame if something similar happens again. Doctors should have insurance to cover their mistakes, so perhaps that is the sound of ambulance chasing lawyers that I can hear in the distance.

This not about the police passing the buck. Legally, it's the police who must make the decision on whether or not an application for the grant/renewal of an FAC/SGC is granted. Doctors don't get to make that decision, although the police may use information received from a doctor in reaching their grant/refuse decision.
In actual fact, this whole medical information thing is simply another tool that's been given to the police to make it easier for them to refuse applications and therefore fit in with their long term strategic aim of eliminating privately held firearms in the UK (as per the McKay report)

Cheers

Bruce

 

[howy308]

Doctors, work for nothing, you are joking aren't you.
But just incase, they are paid by the national health to do their job, if government decide filling a form in is part of the job then they are going to have to do it.
(note government says, not police decide they want it done)

Neil.

It is not part of the nhs criteria for doctors to fill in FAC form it is extra work load for an already overworked surgery. Most forms are filled in after the doctor finish the surgery hours and in there own time

 

[kes]

It is not part of the nhs criteria for doctors to fill in FAC form it is extra work load for an already overworked surgery. Most forms are filled in after the doctor finish the surgery hours and in there own time

Why was it part of their original agreement then? Secondary reports, where a listed medical condition is apparent would, we have accepted, be at the cost of the applicant.
Surgery's aren't overworked - our new one has doctors off everyday and not just as part of a rota - or are you saying doctors never have problems with kids at school, need to go into another town, never go for weekend breaks let alone holidays. Please lets stop playing the poor doctors card, bit like teachers being overworked.

 

[ferretmanabu]

I'll take your statement 'wrong' and double it - read this and please dont try and excuse doctors - even though you may be one. Also doctors shape the means by which they provide the contracted service to the NHS If they choose to employ a practice manager, nurse, receptionists, its up to them but the service to be provided remains as does the NHS requirement to PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE
https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-urges-members-not-to-pay-gp-fees/
There's even a statement near the end of the article by a BASC Council Member and Psychiatrist, condemning GP's pecuniary response. GP's reps changed their minds and reneged no ifs or buts.
Oh I presume the meeting of the medical working group also endorsed the doctors opt-out for 'conscientious objectors'. I dont see anyone being justified changing contractual terms as they see fit - maybe if you are a smoker they will refuse to treat you ?

Sorry kes, but you’ve completely missed the point. Read this and you’ll have a better understanding of exactly what GPs are obliged to provide free of charge to their patients. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GMS-16-17.pdf#page134
This is the contract that GPs have with the NHS. Any work outside of it can either be refused or charged for. It’s up to the Practice to decide as an independent business. Just to make it very clear, completing any form from the police regarding suitability for firearm ownership is not in the contract.

What the BMA, BASC, your friendly BASC arse licking psychiatrist cook up between them behind closed doors is not binding on any GP. A huge percentage of GPs are not even BMA members.

 

[rover]

Hi. I voted NO in Scotland we are told no doctors cert no firearms simple. I had to pay £35 for mine. Not happy about it at all.
Jim

 

[kes]

This not about the police passing the buck. Legally, it's the police who must make the decision on whether or not an application for the grant/renewal of an FAC/SGC is granted. Doctors don't get to make that decision, although the police may use information received from a doctor in reaching their grant/refuse decision.
In actual fact, this whole medical information thing is simply another tool that's been given to the police to make it easier for them to refuse applications and therefore fit in with their long term strategic aim of eliminating privately held firearms in the UK (as per the McKay report)



Cheers

Bruce

I would tend to disagree that this is not about the police passing the buck. You will recall what was said of Durham constabulary in the wake of the killings and the subsequent Inquiry into Durham police process - the police staff were untrained and did not recognise the function of Home Office Guidance and did not use it. It was in 2006 when Durham first started to ask for additional medicals - clearly to compensate for a firearms illiterate section. Who would believe a Police Firearms Section authorising the use of deadly weapons by any shooter would not know how they were required to do it. Gross negligence nothing less - so hence I disagree.

 

[kes]

Sorry kes, but you’ve completely missed the point. Read this and you’ll have a better understanding of exactly what GPs are obliged to provide free of charge to their patients. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GMS-16-17.pdf#page134
This is the contract that GPs have with the NHS. Any work outside of it can either be refused or charged for. It’s up to the Practice to decide as an independent business. Just to make it very clear, completing any form from the police regarding suitability for firearm ownership is not in the contract.

What the BMA, BASC, your friendly BASC arse licking psychiatrist cook up between them behind closed doors is not binding on any GP. A huge percentage of GPs are not even BMA members.

So you are a doctor - and calling a professional psychiatrist what you did, suggests frustration not objectivity.

 

[zambezi]

Hi. I voted NO in Scotland we are told no doctors cert no firearms simple. I had to pay £35 for mine. Not happy about it at all.
Jim

My GP completed the requisite response with zero charge and no fanfare. Would the form take more than 120 secs to fill in? Doubt it. Should even that meagre time of a professional carry a fee? Probably. So for any uncomplicated GP response I believe all would be happy to pay £20 which fee covers the period of the FAC.(currently 5 years) That seems fair all round.

If the GP does not have a working relationship with the individual (e.g. big practice, rarely attended by applicant) then some database research may be neccessary by practice admins before GP in the practice signs. £35, tops.

But to have a system where there is no standard to the fee structure is anathema. And it cannot be beyond the wit of all concerned to put in place a structure that is predictably fair and which achieves the broader goal of safety within the sport. The BMA do not speak for all GPs. Fine. So the solution needs to be legislated and tariff set nationally.

 

[drut]

I would tend to disagree that this is not about the police passing the buck. You will recall what was said of Durham constabulary in the wake of the killings and the subsequent Inquiry into Durham police process - the police staff were untrained and did not recognise the function of Home Office Guidance and did not use it. It was in 2006 when Durham first started to ask for additional medicals - clearly to compensate for a firearms illiterate section. Who would believe a Police Firearms Section authorising the use of deadly weapons by any shooter would not know how they were required to do it. Gross negligence nothing less - so hence I disagree.

Totally agree but Durham appear to have emerged unscathed despite the coroner's damning comments.

 

[kes]

Totally agree but Durham appear to have emerged unscathed despite the coroner's damning comments.

Which Police Force hasn't where there has been a mass shooting by an apparently legal gun owner. Durham, Cumbria, Police Scotland. If correct process had been followed no-one would be dead in these incidents because they simply would not have occurred. The same is also true of Hungerford and Ryan. We have a RIGHT to be angry over this mess.

 

[Frank Homes]

What the BMA, BASC, your friendly BASC arse licking psychiatrist cook up between them behind closed doors is not binding on any GP. A huge percentage of GPs are not even BMA members.[/QUOTE]

This for me sums up the whole saga admirably.

F

 

[ferretmanabu]

So you are a doctor - and calling a professional psychiatrist what you did, suggests frustration not objectivity.

No frustration here. I’ve shown you the evidence to highlight your factually incorrect statement regarding payment for private services by doctors and their status as “public servants”.

There is perhaps some frustration as a FAC holder that another layer of nonsense has been added to the whole process so that the police can pass the buck.

 

[Hornet 6]

It is not part of the nhs criteria for doctors to fill in FAC form it is extra work load for an already overworked surgery. Most forms are filled in after the doctor finish the surgery hours and in there own time

OK, but home office guidelines say we don't pay, I'm good with that.
However the police say we should, even though part of the reason they got awarded more money for doing the licence bit, and charge us for is so they could cover the doctors report cost for the few times it was actually needed, there is no reason they need a report for every issue. See my point about earlier about innocent till proven guilty.

Neil.