Mmmmm. Many/most GPs have already done the tick box piece of work for nil cost. Certainly mine did. I doubt it took her 60 secs. Is seeking more than a token sum about absolute cost or avarice?
POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?
- Thread starter FrenchieBoy
- Start date
Mmmmm. Many/most GPs have already done the tick box piece of work for nil cost. Certainly mine did. I doubt it took her 60 secs. Is seeking more than a token sum about absolute cost or avarice?
C.J
Well-Known Member
So what does my G.P know about me ? I don't even know any names of the G.P's at my local health centre , and several have come and gone , during the 15-20 years since I last saw a doctor.
This is indeed a colossal problem, as we see on this thread. I think it likely that many of those who see no problem in paying a GP a 'reasonable' fee have no concept of the gulf between GP-reasonable and applicant-reasonable.
I say again, if these repsonses and reports are indeed to remain mandatory, the only way their cost-effectiveness will ever get examined is if the FLD has to pay for them.
Medical practitioners are not able to predict risk, and are unlikely to be willingly held to account on the false supposition that they can. If it is going to cost the country a great deal of money to obtain reports that serve no useful purpose in maintaining public safety, then the system might be reviewed.
If it's just costing applicants a lot of money, well - who cares?
Dr. Forster, will you PLEASE see some patients so that I too can get on with some work, instead of replying to this!
Off topic, but, I knew two people that killed themselves with rifles (both in the army) when their wives left them; in retrospect, these suicides (or at least an attempt) could have been forseen, and not just by a doctor.
One of my brothers committed suicide by hanging, when his girlfriend left him (long time ago now), my father attempted the same when he and my mother split.
I know other people that have also attempted to commit suicide, but, as with my brother and father, using means other than firearms, although, in all likelihood, these were just 'attention grabbers'.
I have never attempted, or even contemplated self harm, let alone suicide (I'm too much of an ars£y ba5tard) - although I do have to admit to occasionally contemplating my own mortality, particularly whilst on ops (Gulf) when the chances of dying were just ever so slightly raised!
Would a doctor who doesn't know me consider me to be a risk?
I don't believe that I am. I personally believe that I have lived through, and survived some serious ****, and have become mentally stronger for it, but a medical professional might say different.
The details above, are things that I believe are unlikely to be on my medical records, and I am unlikely to ever disclose those details to my GP - if I ever find out who he/she is, never mind get to have a consultation with him/her.
I won't disclose those details through fear of repercussion, but just because it has nothing to do with the doctor, or with my current situation or mind set.
I also had a friend who died in front of me last year, in hospital (cancer) - there are more, but you get the picture; all of these deaths, and 'close calls' will have, no doubt, had an effect on my mental state, detrimental or otherwise.
Anyway, sorry for derailing things.
Off topic, but, I knew two people that killed themselves with rifles (both in the army) when their wives left them; in retrospect, these suicides (or at least an attempt) could have been forseen, and not just by a doctor.
One of my brothers committed suicide by hanging, when his girlfriend left him (long time ago now), my father attempted the same when he and my mother split.
I know other people that have also attempted to commit suicide, but, as with my brother and father, using means other than firearms, although, in all likelihood, these were just 'attention grabbers'.
I have never attempted, or even contemplated self harm, let alone suicide (I'm too much of an ars£y ba5tard) - although I do have to admit to occasionally contemplating my own mortality, particularly whilst on ops (Gulf) when the chances of dying were just ever so slightly raised!
Would a doctor who doesn't know me consider me to be a risk?
I don't believe that I am. I personally believe that I have lived through, and survived some serious ****, and have become mentally stronger for it, but a medical professional might say different.
The details above, are things that I believe are unlikely to be on my medical records, and I am unlikely to ever disclose those details to my GP - if I ever find out who he/she is, never mind get to have a consultation with him/her.
I won't disclose those details through fear of repercussion, but just because it has nothing to do with the doctor, or with my current situation or mind set.
I also had a friend who died in front of me last year, in hospital (cancer) - there are more, but you get the picture; all of these deaths, and 'close calls' will have, no doubt, had an effect on my mental state, detrimental or otherwise.
Anyway, sorry for derailing things.
Thanks for taking the time, and having the nerve to fight your corner - even without us having an appointment
Careful, you haven't had the bill yet!
Good summation. So we all need to resist paying any fee that produces a report of doubtful value. It is only if the cost of such a flimsy report falls elsewhere that the efficacy of the measure will be questioned. From nforsters's post above, GPs cannot divine any individual's frame of mind/future actions for even those with whom they have close relationship, so what chance meaningful interpolation from sporadic meetings in brief consultations with strangers. And as teabag_46 pointed out, those who sadly chose to take their own lives will find a way apart from firearms.
Some very valid points there by all. As a shooter I see these forms as mainly irrelevant, partly subversive, and I doubt my gp has any relevant information to make any safety assumptions.
as a gp I feel it was imposed on us by a police service (with the aid of Basc) and a very weak ill informed union rep from the Bma. I don't think it's a step forward in public safety it stigmatises mental health problems- and may be a barrier to someone seeking advice when needed.
I think it was a reactionary policy a bit like AirGuns in Scotland but I can't recall the case that led to the new forms.
I suspect that nil empirical data was involved in the birthing of this idea. And all scrutiny of the mechanism shows flaws and risks that put even notional value in the shade. No, this has all the hallmarks of gesture politics. This is legislation intended to confer on its authors the appearance of having done something. As with all gesture politics, it is about aggrandisement of the source of legislation, with near zero benefit to the majority over whom it is cast.
Highlandsjohn
Well-Known Member
Is that right..john
The several GPs that have posted appear to consider the whole exercise is one of passing the buck by the police.
If they have no concerns, all they have to do is ignore the Police for 21 days.
When a certificate holder appeals the revocation of his certificate on health grounds, the GP will be expected to stand up in court and be asked questions by a barrister that BASC has found. The first question will be about his psychiatric qualifications.
If they have no concerns, all they have to do is ignore the Police for 21 days.
When a certificate holder appeals the revocation of his certificate on health grounds, the GP will be expected to stand up in court and be asked questions by a barrister that BASC has found. The first question will be about his psychiatric qualifications.
Enlighten me John. Per all posts above, including the input of GPs, this scheme is unlikely to confer quantifiable safety at any price. And it may cause some who need help to avoid seeking that help for fear of a prejudicial impact to a sport they love. Set all that aside: where is the hard data that suggests that any GP input would have secured different outcomes in the history of UK tragedies involving legal firearms? AFAIK, the reports on most of those found issue with deficiencies in police enforcement of extant legislation. So yes, this looks like gesture politics unless you can explain otherwise. Vince
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
Not happy to pay. I wouldn't be "paying for the doctor's time", as he's already getting paid at tax payer's expense; I'm a tax payer, ergo, I'm already paying for his time. The requirement has been foisted on me, so he's not signing the report "for me", he's signing it for whoever is asking me to provide it.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
Zambezi, as far as I am aware those who committed the UK gun tragedies had not been near their doctors (*I know this because I am friends with a medic who has looked into it). They should have done, the outcomes could have been different.
Fencing along rail lines, restrictions on sale of paracetamol, emission controls on car exhaust have all served to reduce suicides by those means. If suicides by guns are reduced by doctors involvement in their regulation I am all for it.
Fencing along rail lines, restrictions on sale of paracetamol, emission controls on car exhaust have all served to reduce suicides by those means. If suicides by guns are reduced by doctors involvement in their regulation I am all for it.
Your twin statements actually bolster the argument against this particular additional layer of regulation. You rightly state those who were involved in illegal use of legally held firearms "had not been near their doctors" though they may have benefitted from that. So this scheme would never have detected them. They were unknown to their GPs. Worse, GPs in this forum believe introducing this measure will further deter those needing help from seeking it. Hayduke, we all want safer outcomes. Per the professional opinions here, this won't confer that result.
First, FACs and SGCs do not exist to allow us to persue our hobbies: they exist to maintain the safety of the public, and the peace - for everyone; the whole public.
That gives us two possibilities:
1. The taxpayer shouldn't pay; because it does nothing to maintain the safety of the public, and the peace.
2. The taxpayer should pay; because it does help maintain the safety of the public, and the peace.
I'm not sure that's right: psychiatric qualifications do not impart clairvoyance either - and when a GP gives a statement of fact based on accessing his notes, or even an opinion based on an actual examination of his patient, it will be understood by the people asking for the information/opinion that he's giving it for better or worse as a GP. If he's any sense, he will like nforster have pointed out that he is not competent to predict the unpredictable.
If the barrister did indeed ask that, the obvious thing would be for the prosecution to get a psychiatrist to examine the patient as well - problem solved.
I suspect that a revocation based on a GP's view would be just as likely to be on physical grounds as psych ones.
This is an important point: are GPs actually being asked 'Is this applicant safe to possess and use firearms and ammuntion?'?
I was under the impression that the first approach was rather more a case of 'As far as you are aware, does the applicant have, or has he had, any of these conditions?' and 'Are you aware of any factors that might impair his fitness safely to possess and use firearms?'.
Answering 'No.' to the second question might be seen as meaing 'He's safe' - but it is in fact a long way from that. It just happens to be the best that a standard non-clairvoyant practitioner can do. A forensic psychiatrist would be rash to attempt to do better.
Last edited:
I acknowledge that is the received wisdom and it is proffered by the BMJ on their site at: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f403. However, there seems to be some statistical weakness in their method. They take the suicide trend between '93 and '98 as being the UK national trend. Since a drop is seen after 1998 (Q3 1998 paracetamol sales were controlled) , it is handily attributed to the paracetamol legislation. But the ONS data for the period 1982 - 2016 shows a year on year drop. The '93-'98 rise was a blip, seemingly used to vindicate the measure's efficacy. Suicides in the UK - Office for National Statistics
Last edited:
You are factually incorrect, please take the time to look into how GPs are paid to fulfil a GMS contract ( I did explain earlier but you obviously have not read it)
Similar threads
