Pretty much the same as my experience. To be honest I would have had more respect for the Doctor if he had put up a bit more of a fight, mine just shrugged his shoulders as if to say 'oh well, it was worth a try, maybe the next mug will fall for the scam'.
POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?
- Thread starter FrenchieBoy
- Start date
Pretty much the same as my experience. To be honest I would have had more respect for the Doctor if he had put up a bit more of a fight, mine just shrugged his shoulders as if to say 'oh well, it was worth a try, maybe the next mug will fall for the scam'.
ferretmanabu
Well-Known Member
My impression from the post was there was an element of resentment towards the GP for his mate having lost his HGV license. Apologies if this is not the case.
Look, the issue here is that the whole "medical clearance" aspect of the new process has understandably generated a lot of frustration and anger from shooters who are having to dip into their pockets, or at least being asked to do so. This topic comes up on SD quite frequently and the impression I get is that most of the anger is directed at GPs who have had the audacity to want to charge a professional fee for their services.
The point I'm trying to make is that the anger needs to be directed at the people truly responsible for this such as the police, the Home Office and even BASC and other shooting organisations who were complicit in the process. I don't believe that this step should ever have been added in to the application process because there is no evidence to suggest it will add anything to public safety, and also the potential to cause serious harm to doctor-patient relationships. As doctors, we often see this when we have to tell people they can no longer drive and I can imagine the reluctance people will have to see their doctor about mental health problems if they are shooter for this very reason.
The BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners were involved in the process initially. Remember though that membership of these organisations is voluntary and none of their guidance/advice is binding on any doctor, similar to how BASC is not a prescriptive organisation to a shooter. As an example, I am a GP but I am neither a BMA or RCGP member. What the BMA and RCGP found was that as soon as those letters started dropping on GPs' desks, there was an immediate backlash from GPs who didn't want involvement in the process and also due to funding issues. They revised their guidance based on this backlash.
Clearance for sporting activities often is directed at GPs and shooters simply join the queue of other sportsmen including runners, charity parachutists, divers etc. who want forms signed so that they can continue their sport. This is endemic in today's society where so many organisations are trying to cover their arses to avoid or protect from litigation. GPs have never asked for this work to be directed to them but when it does come their way, it is quite rightly charged for. If I have to do extra work which is going to keep me away from stalking, I think it is reasonable that their is a charge for this service. If people are unhappy with the charge, they are free to find other doctors in private practice who can also do the work. This rarely happens, though, because people soon realise how much more expensive a route that is.
The point I'm trying to make is that getting angry is justified but just get angry at the right people. In this case, it is certainly not the GP.
When you tell DVLA that one of your patients is no longer medically fit to drive, do you charge the patient for the report? Or DVLA?
This can happen with an ordinary license, it's not just HGV.
ferretmanabu
Well-Known Member
No. And if a firearms owner became a risk and this required reporting to the police, there would be no charge for that either.
AndrewS, I know that an ordinary licence can also be revoked/suspended due to health issues, but in this case (and others that I am aware of) - ONLY the drivers vocational licence was suspended.
Ferretmanabu, I may have given the wrong impression with a badly constructed post; the irony that I was trying to get across, was the fact that the doctor, and/or DVLA deemed it unsafe for the driver (my mate in this case) to continue driving HGV, (both my mate and myself, agree with that determination as it happens)because it endangered the public BUT it is NOT somehow, unsafe for him to continue driving his car!
I know that it is not quite the same issue that we are dicussing here, and I don't want to derail this topic.
Your post demonstrates quite well, that doctors in general want to (will) charge for a certificate of fitness, to 'allow' a person to carry out an activity, but will not charge if they are found 'unfit' to carry out the same activity.
Does this mean then, that if a doctor were to charge for a medical exam/certificate (as requested by the police), and the subject (not 'patient') of the exam were to be immediately deemed unfit, and the police so informed, there would also be no charge?
I also firmly believe that if the police ask for this information, that doctors should be sending the bill to the police.
If doctors were to bill the police, who are 'requesting' that you do this extra work, they would soon stop asking - less work for you, no charge for the shooter, everyone happy, AND you would still be able to tell the police (for free) if or when the subject becomes unfit to hold firearms.
Ferretmanabu, I may have given the wrong impression with a badly constructed post; the irony that I was trying to get across, was the fact that the doctor, and/or DVLA deemed it unsafe for the driver (my mate in this case) to continue driving HGV, (both my mate and myself, agree with that determination as it happens)because it endangered the public BUT it is NOT somehow, unsafe for him to continue driving his car!
I know that it is not quite the same issue that we are dicussing here, and I don't want to derail this topic.
Your post demonstrates quite well, that doctors in general want to (will) charge for a certificate of fitness, to 'allow' a person to carry out an activity, but will not charge if they are found 'unfit' to carry out the same activity.
Does this mean then, that if a doctor were to charge for a medical exam/certificate (as requested by the police), and the subject (not 'patient') of the exam were to be immediately deemed unfit, and the police so informed, there would also be no charge?
I also firmly believe that if the police ask for this information, that doctors should be sending the bill to the police.
If doctors were to bill the police, who are 'requesting' that you do this extra work, they would soon stop asking - less work for you, no charge for the shooter, everyone happy, AND you would still be able to tell the police (for free) if or when the subject becomes unfit to hold firearms.
Last edited:
Lots of GP bashing here
im a GP who also shoots. I know most local shooters and have had discussions with basic about this.
just to make completely clear- this is not an NHS service and so those who say they have paid for this service through taxation are completely wrong. The NHS contracts me to provide a range of services but many are not funded- same with DVLA , employment medical, insurance certificates etc. The time of the GPs and secretaries I employ has to be paid for.
the initial form appears to be a simple tick box but really the problem with it is it is an attempt by the police to divert liability and blame should something go wrong- onto the GP. There is also a lot of trawling through notes and the perpetual need to inform the police re potential medical issues of a firearm holder.
it is a terrible solution to the licensing problem. It discourages patients to seek help with mental problems, further stigmatises mental health and I doubt it is very good at preventing problems.
the other Gp's will not do the form as it's non-contractual. We charge approx £15 for secretarial time.
but it's probably best to remember that your gp will be extremely busy and dealing with the care of sick patients, non- contractual forms may not be their top priority.
im a GP who also shoots. I know most local shooters and have had discussions with basic about this.
just to make completely clear- this is not an NHS service and so those who say they have paid for this service through taxation are completely wrong. The NHS contracts me to provide a range of services but many are not funded- same with DVLA , employment medical, insurance certificates etc. The time of the GPs and secretaries I employ has to be paid for.
the initial form appears to be a simple tick box but really the problem with it is it is an attempt by the police to divert liability and blame should something go wrong- onto the GP. There is also a lot of trawling through notes and the perpetual need to inform the police re potential medical issues of a firearm holder.
it is a terrible solution to the licensing problem. It discourages patients to seek help with mental problems, further stigmatises mental health and I doubt it is very good at preventing problems.
the other Gp's will not do the form as it's non-contractual. We charge approx £15 for secretarial time.
but it's probably best to remember that your gp will be extremely busy and dealing with the care of sick patients, non- contractual forms may not be their top priority.
Half of you are missing the point here, the licencing system may require a report, it should fall to the operators of that system to have pay for it.
This is a real issue and a very good point actually. I recall a writer for an airgun magazine wrote a very frank and honest article about his depression, which was both brave and possibly helped others. But who would dare admit to such an issue if they hold a FAC or SG cert? I'm not sure what the answer to that problem is actually. Though it would be interesting to know what the actual statistics are where license holders and a mental health issues have been a problem. Most are probably issues of self harm actually.
Last edited:
there have been many suicides with legally held firearms, it still has a great impact on those left behind.
i would think that a fairer view would be those who gain the benefit of a firearms licence would pay the associated costs.
its quite interesting that there is such a resentment for a professional to charge a fee for their work- is stalking free? can i ask my solicitor for free conveyancing? ive got a farm shed that needs roofing- but i expect you to do it for free.. its absurd.
YOU ask your Solicitor for help, not another body.
I agree - but that would be the public at large: for the principle behind FAC/SGC is not to grant the holders a priviledge, but rather by vetting the holders to maintain the safety of the public.
It would be bad if we lost sight of this important point.
Last edited:
yes that is true.
you are asking the police for a licence- they have come up with a licence system that requires a third party to do un-funded , non contracted work. im a BASC member- and would have left due to the view they hold on this, but the association i am in has a group policy.
As I (and others) have said, we are not expecting doctors etc. to do the work for free - just that the bill/fee/invoice, whatever you like to call it, is passed to the correct person or entity.
In this case, the police who request the information are the client or customer. The person they are enquiring about is NOT. The person that the client/customer is enquiring about, is the SUBJECT or, alternatively, the OBJECT of the enquiry.
Why attempt to charge a fee to the subject/object of an enquiry, rather than the person or entity that has requested or demanded the information?
In this case, the police who request the information are the client or customer. The person they are enquiring about is NOT. The person that the client/customer is enquiring about, is the SUBJECT or, alternatively, the OBJECT of the enquiry.
Why attempt to charge a fee to the subject/object of an enquiry, rather than the person or entity that has requested or demanded the information?
Absolutely you are not asking the police for a licence.
You are applying to the police to be issued with a certificate of your fitness to hold firearms.
We really must stick to the facts about what is colloquially called 'firearms licensing', and keep in mind that this thread not about GPs working for nothing.
GPs are a powerful body, and have shown themselves more than capable of negotiating their own business arrangements, with or without the BMA. We shouldn't be worrying about them.
This thread is about the idea that costs associated with changes to the requirements for medical input in the firearms certification process should not be passed on to the applicants.
The fees for application, renewal etc. of these certificates is set in law - and that should remain that.
Last edited:
my time and my employees time is not free
Similar threads
