Cost GP Medical Checks

[gixer1]

You are wrong, they are well within their rights to refuse.

No one is saying we should treat ourselves as lepers but if your GP is being awkward simply step over to one of the alternative sources for these reports. We don’t help ourselves sometimes being obstinate when there is a straight forward alternative available.

Actually, The NHS GP’s have a duty of care - yes, they can refuse a service but must give good reason.

and why would we need to jump around to get these reports? By doing this we are allowing ourselves to be unfairly treated, if the firearms Licencing/home office requires doctors reports them when the legislation was put in place it should have covered the requirement for doctors to complete the service, it’s a ridiculous system as if, as you say any doctor could refuse you could in theory wipe out all firearms licence holders renewals based solely on the fact no doctors complete the reports.

As a U.K. citizen you should be able to complete the process without “stepping over to alternative sources”….how many sources should we need to go to to be able to take part in a perfectly legal hobby?

regards,
Gixer

 

[gixer1]

No GP has to help us with an application. This is non-NHS work, and they are free to refuse - particularly at a time when they are rather busy with their NHS work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise private GP work for our hobby? They don't do it for diving medicals, or even work-related ones, such as for HGV drivers, who have to pay very hefty fees for their medicals.

They don't have to help the police if it isn't in their NHS contract.

And I wouldn't bang on about public safety - the obvious answer there is simply to ban the ownership of firearms for recreational purposes.

Actually there are plenty of GP’s providing reports for other lines of work - offshore, HGV, marine etc.

mans it’s not FOC - we are (in most cases) paying for the report.

if they really could refuse it would be a perfectly legal loophole to get rid of every cert in the U.K. just by GP’s refusing, and that’s nonsense.

maybe the GP’s need clearer guidance but for them to refuse or try to price gouge is ridiculous.

 

[andyk]

The shooting orgs are in a really difficult spot with this one. It's quite clear that FLDs were not happy that the 'self certification' process was reliable and were determined to do something about it by requiring GP confirmation that it is correct.

In some ways, the fact it isn't in the HO guidance makes the situation worse, it means FLDs make their own rules within their constabulary. At least if it were dictated from the top down, there would be some consistency. It would also make lobbying easier, because you just have to convince the HO and not 90% of Chief Constables. Given this is now so entrenched, a national approach seems the only logical outcome, with set procedures to be followed and fixed charges, so as to ensure no-one is taken advantage of or refused a renewal because of the current approach.

Back to the point, if the orgs opposed it completely they would risk appearing to not care about public safety. If they succeeded in opposition and someone did go on to kill in a situation where the perpetrator lied about their conditions, the blowback on the shooting community would be considerable, as the Police would wash their hands of responsibility and say 'told you so'.

Now it's here, other problems arise as noted, GPs conscientiously object or charge fees out of proportion to the time commitment required, either profiteering or (more likely in my view) simply because they don't want to do it.

The orgs could make a lot of noise about this but, again, where does that take things. The NHS contract is such as to mean there is no mechanism to force GPs and, in the court of public opinion, I'm not sure I'd back shooters over doctors. Conscientious objection is a different matter, most doctors I know love to go on about how non-judgmental they are of patients' life choices. For some reason there seems to be a caveat for shooting.

As to who pays, the orgs could push for the Police to meet the charge. However, forces are already complaining that the real cost of administering licensing is out of all proportion to the fee charged. To argue the police should meet the GP fee would open up a larger debate about the overall. It doesn't seem that implausible that they might get the GP fee paid by the police only to have the application fee varied to the true cost, so an overall loss for shooters.

I fear medical verification is here to stay. While I'm not convinced of Connor's suggestion that we might want the Firearms Act totally overhauled (not because it isn't a good idea in theory but because so commonly you end up with a worse mess than the previous) I do think there needs to be a uniform approach underlined by a proper system for providing the verification, if FLDs are to continue to require this.

 

[Hayduke]

At renewal / application Police in my area write to the GP as a matter of course and ask if there are any relevant questions / concerns they need to know about, giving 21 days for GP to respond, if no response within 21 days equals no medical concerns.
If the GP has concerns mine sends the letter to the to the applicant first to discuss with them before it goes to the Police. Doctors words were "I would want to talk through questions / concerns with the patient first and not write to the police about them without doing so". Not many letters are required and when they are, they cost £10 to £20 depending on how complicated questions / concerns are. Sensible Police and rural GPs round us.

 

[Liveonce]

It is non contractual private work for a GP to complete the medical report, yes they do lots of other types of private medical work like, HGV, pilots licence, diving certificates.
However they are under no legal obligation to do the work.

Hence we have the likes of medcert.

 

[Liveonce]

At renewal / application Police in my area write to the GP as a matter of course and ask if there are any relevant questions / concerns they need to know about, giving 21 days for GP to respond, if no response within 21 days equals no medical concerns.
If the GP has concerns mine sends the letter to the to the applicant first to discuss with them before it goes to the Police. Doctors words were "I would want to talk through questions / concerns with the patient first and not write to the police about them without doing so". Not many letters are required and when they are, they cost £10 to £20 depending on how complicated questions / concerns are. Rural GPs rounds us.

Your first paragraph is compliant with the Home office guide 2016 for firearms licensing but it is only a guide and the Chief Constable does not have to abide by it and few are now, most require the GP medical report at the time of application, obtained by the applicant.

Have you checked you area recently?

 

[Hayduke]

Yes, I have a bunch of friends who are medics / GPs.

 

[Apthorpe]

Your first paragraph is compliant with the Home office guide 2016 for firearms licensing but it is only a guide and the Chief Constable does not have to abide by it and few are now, most require the GP medical report at the time of application, obtained by the applicant.

Chief Constables don't have to abide by it, but they ought to in the absence of good reasons not to. They are under no obligation to deviate from it either.

I'd also add that most of the administrative burden that blights firearm licensing and ages it so inefficient is entirely self-generated.
If the Police stopped participating in bureaucratic and expensive continual processes aimed at tightening the law for no good reason and left the business of legislating to those whose business it is, then we'd all be far better off. They'd be less "overworked", we'd have less expense, delay and aggravation, and it makes not one jot of difference to the public.

Have you checked you area recently?

 

[25 Sharps]

Actually there are plenty of GP’s providing reports for other lines of work - offshore, HGV, marine etc.

mans it’s not FOC - we are (in most cases) paying for the report.

if they really could refuse it would be a perfectly legal loophole to get rid of every cert in the U.K. just by GP’s refusing, and that’s nonsense.

maybe the GP’s need clearer guidance but for them to refuse or try to price gouge is ridiculous.

Ah, for 95% of us we are not talking work though, it’s a hobby.

They can refuse and some have been doing so! It wouldn’t be a loophole to get rid of every FAC in the country as acceptable alternatives are already available. I think you are the one now sounding a little like the paranoid ‘they just want to get rid of all the guns’ brigade

 

[25 Sharps]

I disagree. They may be within their rights to refuse to help a patient, but they are not well within their rights to refuse to co-operate with the police, and impede the working of a police scheme which exists ostensibly to improve public safety.

Ok. But the FACT (rather than your opinion) remains some are still doing so without any reprisal.

 

[gixer1]

Ah, for 95% of us we are not talking work though, it’s a hobby.

They can refuse and some have been doing so! It wouldn’t be a loophole to get rid of every FAC in the country as acceptable alternatives are already available. I think you are the one now sounding a little like the paranoid ‘they just want to get rid of all the guns’ brigade

Not at all - I am simply showing that your statement on “they can refuse” would be a way that could prevent a person taking part in a legal hobby - how many refusals are acceptable? 2, 5, 10?? Not really on is it? especially when some may need to travel way further to achieve this requirement.

The “they want to get rid of all guns” brigade is not paranoia…it’s pretty much a given that in the next decade or so I don’t think recreational gun ownership will be easily possible and there are many changes implemented in the last few years to support this and north of the border the main party is absolutely anti-fieldsports, they openly mention it!

regards,
Gixer

 

[kes]

Who rewrote the process that required a 'medical' - the police?
No change to doctors informing Police if a Firearms owner looks potentially dangerous that was always part of the process, so why have the medical requirements changed ?
Why would the Police unilaterally change a process when they might be challenged for doing so, need for cash or a 'quid pro quo'
It seems plain to me.

 

[mealiejimmy]

It changed as a result of a coroners inquiry into the death of 2 people who were murdered by an FAC holder who was mentally unstable.
The coroner recommended to the Home Office that the GP of all applicants for an FAC or SGC should be involved in the process by reviewing the applicants medical history to ensure the applicant was not telling lies on the application form and to place a marker on the applicants medical record so that the GP would be able to contact the police if the certificate holders medical condition became an issue during the validity of the certificate.
The Home Office accepted the coroners recommendations and following discussions with the police, BMA, BASC and others, they were included in the current Home Office Guidance which came into force on 1 April 2016
So, it was not the Police who changed the process, it was driven by the Home Office
But wait - there's more!!!
The draft version of the new Home Office Guidance on Firearms is here https://assets.publishing.service.g...aft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf
Nobody seems to know when it will come into force but check section 2.24 to 2.42 -Medical Information from the Applicants GP and you'll see that things are not going to get any easier

Cheers

Bruce

 

[25 Sharps]

Not at all - I am simply showing that your statement on “they can refuse” would be a way that could prevent a person taking part in a legal hobby - how many refusals are acceptable? 2, 5, 10?? Not really on is it? especially when some may need to travel way further to achieve this requirement.

The “they want to get rid of all guns” brigade is not paranoia…it’s pretty much a given that in the next decade or so I don’t think recreational gun ownership will be easily possible and there are many changes implemented in the last few years to support this and north of the border the main party is absolutely anti-fieldsports, they openly mention it!

regards,
Gixer

Glad I don’t live north of the border, as for how many refusals, it doesn’t matter it is their prerogative, you disagreeing doesn’t change that.

 

[gixer1]

Glad I don’t live north of the border, as for how many refusals, it doesn’t matter it is their prerogative, you disagreeing doesn’t change that.

It also doesn’t change the fact that someone could in theory fail to obtain a cert due to repetitive refusals to respond to a Gp report - regardless of their suitability, not a great set up s it?

As said, GP’s - like most professions have a duty of care and this could be seen as a duty as refusal could be deemed as detrimental to someone’s wellbeing (inability to peruse their hobby, profession etc)

Regards,
Gixer

 

[Apthorpe]

Ok. But the FACT (rather than your opinion) remains some are still doing so without any reprisal.

So are most criminals. Both facts say more about the effectiveness of the police than the rectitude of GPs.

 

[mealiejimmy]

There have been a very few occasions where an applicant who needs a firearm for work and whose GP has been uncooperative have had their certificates renewed by Police Scotland.
Basically, those were people who have an uncooperative GP and live in a remote area where there are no other GPs.
I think that probably would not happen now as the Police would simply tell the applicant to use Medcert

Cheers

Bruce

 

[purdey24]

Mine was done free by my very attractive female doctor but I think she fancies me.

 

[Hayduke]

Home Office or Chief Constable can ask for what they want, the fact is GPs have a highly regulated contract to deliver against, and monitoring people for FAC / SGC suitability (markers on records) or reporting on them and the inherent responsibilities these tasks entail are not included. They are contracted to provide a range of services and are more stretched than ever due to increased covid deaths and patient care, rolling out vaccinations, increased mental health work, cancer diagnosis and care and inability to get patients into hospitals quick enough. Our ask isn't a high priority for them relative to the scheme of things, (and it isn't in their contract).

Similarly, if you pay a garage to replace your car engine you can't then expect the mechanic to replace the brake pads for free. (which is what Home Office seem to be doing, but forgetting that GPs/medics are busy and have a regulated contract).

 

[kes]

One Chief Constable recently said the Police force was being used as a 'punch bag' by the public he accepted no responsibility for his comment, does that make his opinion right or unchallengeable ? I think all CC decisions are challengeable by due process, dont you ?