BASC says don’t pay medical fee

I have never had to do this but surely if your GP demands a fee and you refuse and they in turn refuse to respond to the FLD without payment it will not be possible to process your application further?
 
I have never had to do this but surely if your GP demands a fee and you refuse and they in turn refuse to respond to the FLD without payment it will not be possible to process your application further?
It says,if there us no reply within 21 days it will be assumed there sre no problems,win win for doctor and patient
 
Here we go. I was just waiting for this issue to blow and to be honest, I am surprised that it has taken so long to happen. I am a GP and find the latest press release confusing at best and offensive at worst. BASC says that the BMA and GMC agreed to a "no fee" structure for an initial response. But, the BMA website sings an altogether different tune - https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms

Firearms reports do not fall under the contract of a GP. It is therefore an extra job for the GP to do. If I had a choice, I would ask the police not to involve me in the process at all.
"Under the guidance the general practitioner is required to check the applicant’s medical record and inform the licensing authority of any medical facts that may be relevant to the grant or renewal of a certificate." Does BASC consider this to be NHS work or do they feel that it involves no effort on part of the GP?
So, what happens when there is a significant medical history to the applicant? The GP will have to furnish a full report on the applicant's present and past health. The statement that "A fee only becomes justified if the licensing authority require further medical involvement beyond the initial response." is rubbish. The police do not need any "further involvement" from the GP.
BASC maintains that if a GP does not respond in 21 days, the police can assume that there is nothing wrong. I cannot see this in any of the guidance for medical professionals. It has always been a practice (at least in North Wales) for the police to send notification of a patient's grant or renewal of license with a wording of "if you have any concerns, please let us know". This did not involve an "official report". All the GPs would check the records to make sure there are no concerns and the matter ended there. The present situation is very different. The police contact the GP with "request" for a report and the BMA (British Medical Association) advises GPs to respond within 21 days.

And finally, this

"Paul Dale, BASC Firearms Officer said: “ After all the work that the representatives of all interests put into the agreement on medical involvement I am deeply disappointed that some doctors see the process as yet another chance to make money. Public safety should mean more to them than a fee.”

I would not dignify that statement with a response. Suffice to say, I will not be renewing by BASC membership this year. Rant over!!
 
Having read the BMA guidelines I must take issue with no.5

"That the GP has a conscientious objection to gun ownership and no other GP in the practice is available or able to undertake the work. Please notify the police without delay."

To my mind it is very unprofessional for a GP to allow their personal opinions and prejudices to interfere with their professional judgement, to quote GMC Guidelines on Good Medical Practice

"Treat patients and colleagues fairly and without discrimination"
 
As I stated in another thread on the subject the process is shot full of holes and potentially unenforceable.

A veritable dîner de chien!
 
In all fairness the BMA should have refused to take part in this initiative until their members had agreed an acceptable way forward.
However, from the little I know' the discussions between the BMA and HO have been going on some years and more to the point, the BMA themselves from the outset are on record stating their perceived concerns that medical conditions may affect public safety and their wish to be involved in the licensing process. The outcome of all these years of discussion has resulted in GP's having to tick 3 boxes on a form and return it to the police and place a marker on their patients record.

For some GP's to charge their patient for what is basically 2 minutes work, work that they themselves felt necessary for public safety, seems to me wrong. Particularly as it will cost more to raise the invoice than the cost in time of the work involved.

In my view BASC have got it right.
 
For some GP's to charge their patient for what is basically 2 minutes work, work that they themselves felt necessary for public safety, seems to me wrong. Particularly as it will cost more to raise the invoice than the cost in time of the work involved.

In my view BASC have got it right.

I agree, is it really too much to ask of those whom already receive a six figure annual salary from the taxpayer?
 
With all due respect to all GPs the BMA is just a trade union and has no authority to instruct doctors on what and how to conduct themselves, this is the job of the General Medical Council, all they can do is make recommendations. just like FEOs

Ian.
 
In all fairness the BMA should have refused to take part in this initiative until their members had agreed an acceptable way forward.
However, from the little I know' the discussions between the BMA and HO have been going on some years and more to the point, the BMA themselves from the outset are on record stating their perceived concerns that medical conditions may affect public safety and their wish to be involved in the licensing process. The outcome of all these years of discussion has resulted in GP's having to tick 3 boxes on a form and return it to the police and place a marker on their patients record.

For some GP's to charge their patient for what is basically 2 minutes work, work that they themselves felt necessary for public safety, seems to me wrong. Particularly as it will cost more to raise the invoice than the cost in time of the work involved.

In my view BASC have got it right.

What do those 3 boxes say?
 
If GP has concerns because there is significant history on record they simply tick the box that clearly suggests that there is significant medical evidence that there could be an issue, the police may then ask the applicant to obtain a full report

Unbelievable that BASC stand up for shooters rights and a member says they are not going to renew because of it! Perhaps you will now join a shooting association that says all medical reports, even a simple tick in the box, should be paid for...cant see that organisations keeping its members for very long...

As stated in our press release all this has agreed in meetings, shame that the interpretation by some is not as clear as was agreed...
 
What do those 3 boxes say?

From the BMA website.......

[h=3][/h]In the same letter the GP will also be asked to notify the police if they have any concerns. At this stage the GP will only need to respond to the letter by ticking yes or no to the following questions.

  1. Do you have concerns about your patient being issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate?
  2. Has your patient suffered from any relevant medical conditions listed below during the previous five years?
    • Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma
    • Suicidal thoughts or self harm
    • Depression or anxiety
    • Dementia
    • Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness
    • A personality disorder
    • A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy
    • Alcohol or drug related abuse
  3. Have you placed a firearm or shotgun reminder code on the patient record?
 
You beat me to it! just about to post the same thing

I stand to be corrected, but the time to tick the boxes costs less than the price of the stamp to post it back I suggest
 
If GP has concerns because there is significant history on record they simply tick the box that clearly suggests that there is significant medical evidence that there could be an issue, the police may then ask the applicant to obtain a full report

Unbelievable that BASC stand up for shooters rights and a member says they are not going to renew because of it! Perhaps you will now join a shooting association that says all medical reports, even a simple tick in the box, should be paid for...cant see that organisations keeping its members for very long...

As stated in our press release all this has agreed in meetings, shame that the interpretation by some is not as clear as was agreed...
Rather strident reply from an org in some disarray.
 
I stand to be corrected, but the time to tick the boxes costs less than the price of the stamp to post it back I suggest

In order to correctly answer/tick box 2 will surely require a detailed examination of the patient's records going back over the previous 5 years will it not? What price would that stamp be?
 
Back
Top