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

Are you happy to pay whatever fee is asked for medical certificate.


  • Total voters
    0

FrenchieBoy

Well-Known Member
In light of the recent proposals that require you to pay whatever fee your GP wants for a medical certificate for your FAC/SGC renewal there seems to be some controversy over what percentage of shooters are happy to pay for a medical certificate in order to get their FAC/SGC renewed - Which is currently against the Home Office Guidelines. Form what I can gather the majority on members on here are against having to pay but the shooting organisations (BASC, SACS, CA and the likes) are saying that the majority of their members are saying that they are happy to pay whatever fee their GP asks in order to get their certificates renewed.
This poll is quite simple with just one question which requires just one of two possible answers:
Are you happy to pay whatever fee your GP asks for a medical certificate - Yes or NO.

Please feel free to add a comment if you so wish!
 
Last edited:
I am happy to pay a fee if a follow up report after the initial Yes/No response is required.
I am happy to pay a fee, the value of which has been set in stone by HO Guidelines.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee for the initial Yes/No response.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee which has been decided by the the Random Fee Generator.

I ticked "No" above as it doesn't go into enough detail for me to answer any other way.
 
To me its fair for the doc to get paid for their time even if it cost £150 its still cheap over five years, i dont like the cost of basc a year, or insurance on a veichle i only use at weekend but these are needed for most types of shooting and dont cause the same level of anger
Shakey
 
I. Farticus - What you have said is a fair point! I started this poll in reply to the opinions from the shooting organisations who say that the majority of their members are happy to pay the fees. As such I made it a simple Yes/No poll and it seems that it is too late to change the possible answers on the poll now.
Apologies for that!
 
Voted 'NO' as I'm not happy to pay whatever the doctor 'deems appropriate'.
A fee is fair as i am paying for someones time though, an initial assessment of someones medical suitability to possess firearms could involve trawling back through years and years of history. That takes time.
Im not happy paying the same fee on a renewal for the doctor to reply 'no changes since last renewal'
All in all, I'm still in the 'NO' camp.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, applicants are not being asked to pay for any 'medical certificate' as such - for that generally refers tp the written report of a medical examination of the patient: but rather, for the initial screening overview of the medical notes and a statement to the FLD of the absence of particular conditions which might be of concern.

This is the part of the procedure which the medical practitioners' trade union originally agreed would be carried out at no cost, presumably recognising that it wasn't a particularly big deal in terms of time and effort expended. As is their right of course, as independent businesspeople, many GPs seem to have decided that this is a task for which it is worthwhile to raise an invoice.
So be it - though I would object to having to pay such an invoice because I would already have paid the fee which the law requires from me for the grant/renewal of my certificate - a certificate which is granted not for my benefit, but as part of a process mandated by statute to improve the safety of the public and to maintain the peace.

One could argue that it is in fact those applicants who are not successful who should pay, rather than those who are - since it is because of them that the system actaully needs to exist, and not those to whom certificates are granted.

Anyhow, so far so good - for the HO Guidance obliges the police (in E&W, at least) in law to 'have regard' to the idea that the certificates should be granted even if the GP does not return this initial screening. I guess that part of the their thinking would be that, having told the GP that their patient was a firearms-owner, it would be incumbent on the GP to let the FLD know if there was any problem. Not unlike the 'safeguarding' duties that lead healthcare professionals to alert the relevant authorities if (for example) children may be at risk because of a patient's medical condition.

So, that bit really ought just to be imposed across the UK, including Scotland, Lincolnshire and other dissident enclaves. Then it wouldn't matter whether the applicant pays the GP or not.

The bit that actually does involve a 'medical certificate' - and this was recognised by the HO as needing a fee because of the skill and time spent on examining and writing - is the additional work required in cases where there actually is one condition or more of concern.
Fair enough that this should attract a fee - not because of the supposed risk that the practitioner is putting themselves at for 'signing someone off as safe', when in fact that person might go on to cause harm with their firearms; it seems unlikely that a wise practioner would ever write a report that could be read in that way: but rather because exercising professional skill to examine and write a balanced and fair report of a patient's condition/s is part of the legitimate money-earning activities of a medical practitioner.
It is the job of the FLD to certify shotgun and firearms-owners as 'safe' (within the reasonable understanding of that word) - not that of any medical practitioner.

So, back to paying the fee: it is incumbent on the FLD to satisfy themselves that the applicant is able to possess firearms without danger to the public or the police. I maintain that if this require medical reports, then those need to be paid for by the FLD as part of the process for which the applicant has already paid his statutorily mandated part.
It seems to me grossly discriminatory that folk who by definition have particular illnessess should be penalised financially as part of a statutory system intended to improve public safety, and for which they have already paid.
 
Last edited:
I am happy to pay a fee if a follow up report after the initial Yes/No response is required.
I am happy to pay a fee, the value of which has been set in stone by HO Guidelines.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee for the initial Yes/No response.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee which has been decided by the the Random Fee Generator.

I ticked "No" above as it doesn't go into enough detail for me to answer any other way.

^^^^ this but I have voted the other way - for the same reasons tho'
 
The very important thing that everyone (including the Doctors and the Police) seem to be missing here is that we are constantly being told to be more open about mental health issues yet this debacle has set the rural community back years in this respect. Who on earth is going to go to a GP and seek help now? Totally and dangerously counterproductive.
 
I am happy to pay a fee if a follow up report after the initial Yes/No response is required.
I am happy to pay a fee, the value of which has been set in stone by HO Guidelines.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee for the initial Yes/No response.
I am NOT happy to pay a fee which has been decided by the the Random Fee Generator.

I ticked "No" above as it doesn't go into enough detail for me to answer any other way.

+1

On another note, I really wish they'd remove the option for "conscientious objection" which could cause enormous problems for those who do not have easy access to another doctor. A doctor's personal opinion has no bearing on their professional one and shouldn't be allowed to interfere with lawful choices of their patients.
 
The very important thing that everyone (including the Doctors and the Police) seem to be missing here is that we are constantly being told to be more open about mental health issues yet this debacle has set the rural community back years in this respect. Who on earth is going to go to a GP and seek help now? Totally and dangerously counterproductive.
Agree - this is a fundamental issue.
 
The very important thing that everyone (including the Doctors and the Police) seem to be missing here is that we are constantly being told to be more open about mental health issues yet this debacle has set the rural community back years in this respect. Who on earth is going to go to a GP and seek help now? Totally and dangerously counterproductive.

Absolutely correct.

This whole debacle just adds another layer of mistrust between Doctors, Police and the shooting community as if there wasn't enough already?

They still can't see that trust has to be earned?
 
A chargeable report is, apparently, only required if the GP has concerns about his patient's suitability to own firearms. Who is going to be willing to pay for that sort of report?
 
The very important thing that everyone (including the Doctors and the Police) seem to be missing here is that we are constantly being told to be more open about mental health issues yet this debacle has set the rural community back years in this respect. Who on earth is going to go to a GP and seek help now? Totally and dangerously counterproductive.
+++1
 
Useful to have this, as excuses about being 'willing to pay' are dangerous propaganda and, I believe untrue.
Simply put my answer is NO.

If we go back to when the 'old' system applied; the simple doctor reference was fair and sensible and within the licence fee as doctors were civil servants (for the public good).
After BASC's (et al) attempts at a ten year cert (to reduce delays), the whole process was reviewed with a 'flag' attached to medical records and, as previously, an obligation to inform the police if there was a deterioration in the health of a patient which might be of concern to a doctor. Remember, most doctors used to know their patients for a very long time, as they usually served them for life. Monitoring individual helath was simple and regarded as a professional obligation. (I am named after the doctor who delivered me whom I knew to his death).
After the infamous meeting,( BASC, HO, Police etc, doctors reps) the doctors trade union decided they were something other than public servants and should be paid. Reneging, we are told, on the original agreement.
Scotland does what Scotland does.
BASC very, very lately, decides to take on individual forces, not the original group where the agreement was sealed, I repeat far too late to stem the problem.
I also cannot understand why a reconvened meeting of the original (10 year) group could not simply say, "we agreed this - all parties will abide by the agreement or be considered to be in breach and have it publicised as such. And the police (whom we control; (HO being the senior partner to the agreement) will work to the agreed principles".

I don't have long to go with higher calibre rifles, so it wont affect me for long but I am passionate about retaining the freedoms I have had for those who come after. The system has moved from NO controls, even on shotguns when I started, to the present confusion. (excepting auto weapons)

WE did not get the 10 Year licence agreement which necessitated the medical records agreement and precipitated this debacle. Bad judgement and depressing failure
BASC may think its the voice of shooting but to me, the initial approach, the lax agreement, the subsequent method of reinforcing the agreement reached, all confirm an organisation badly led with no passion.
I would go further than say NO- I would say BASC has made a difficult climb into a slippery slope and they MUST be required to make good the mess they created.

We need a very different approach to that we have excused for years as 'barely adequate'. because it includes shooting insurance.
 
Last edited:
Agree - this is a fundamental issue.

Indeed but given this suggests people may conceal the very condition/s this requirement is intended to identify, how long before a compolsery medical assessment that focuses on mental health is introduced and to be conducted by a "Home Office approved physician in your County"?

1 hour in a psyhiatrist's chair for all FAC applicants?


K
 
Indeed but given this suggests people may conceal the very condition/s this requirement is intended to identify, how long before a compolsery medical assessment that focuses on mental health is introduced and to be conducted by a "Home Office approved physician in your County"?

1 hour in a psyhiatrist's chair for all FAC applicants?




K

I agree - the slippery slope, and let us not forget, the people who have killed with LEGALLY held guns, should, without exception, have been refused certificates by the police - all were obvious and even extreme, risks.
Its like asking the man holding the bar - Jump - yes - how high would you like ?
 
If I pay for a Doctor's service & subsequent report then surely the report is mine?

I then submit it as part of my (re)application

if I don't like it then perhaps I'd not submit it and seek an 'alternative opinion'.

What I'm suggesting is that there is something fundamentally odd about paying for something that doesn't then belong to you

They can't have it both ways.....
 
I voted no,and i still say its against statute law AND HO guidelines for rogue quacks and rogue police plus complacent shooting orgs both here and north of the border to have even considered all this ******** and then try to muddy the water by throwing out spurious lies about (our) membership are happy with it.

Cant fault that but I tried to put a bit of 'flesh on the bones' of my disgust.
 
Back
Top