timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Has anyone from the BMA ever given any thought to the damage that this issue may have caused to GP-Patient relationships?
POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?
- Thread starter FrenchieBoy
- Start date
foggy
Well-Known Member
Asside from all the political nonsense, and what BASC etc say or indeed firearms or home office guidelines say,
i would be and will be happy to pay a fair fee for my doctors time to fill out any forms i ask or indeed the police ask for.
At the end of the day, i expect to be paid for my time and because of the huge amount of people turning up to the doctor,
and indeed A & E because they have a splinter or worse a cold, there time is limited...
I wouldn't want the job....
i would be and will be happy to pay a fair fee for my doctors time to fill out any forms i ask or indeed the police ask for.
At the end of the day, i expect to be paid for my time and because of the huge amount of people turning up to the doctor,
and indeed A & E because they have a splinter or worse a cold, there time is limited...
I wouldn't want the job....
Odders
Well-Known Member
Not so in the case of Derrick Bird in Cumbria, as he had no medical issues that might have indicated he was no longer fit to have firearms & had shown no violent or unstable tendencies right up to the night before he committed his crimes (I happen to have known him personally for many years).
Highlandsjohn
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif].... that officers carried out the process "robustly and professionally" and had no legal grounds to ban Bird from gun ownership despite his criminal record of theft, drink driving and allegations of threatening behavior. [/FONT]
[FONT=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif]Yes right [/FONT]
john
Odders
Well-Known Member
It's not FAC holders who want doctors to do something; it's the government & what they want isn't for FAC holders' bebefit, rather it's supposed to be for the benefit of the public as a whole.
Thus if the doctors want paying, they should be paid out of general taxation, not solely by FAC holders/applicants.
Odders
Well-Known Member
.... that officers carried out the process "robustly and professionally" and had no legal grounds to ban Bird from gun ownership despite his criminal record of theft, drink driving and allegations of threatening behavior.
Yes right
Yes, right.
The suspended sentence for theft wasn't legal grounds for revoking his licence & happened 20 years prior to his cime
His drink driving conviction was 28 years prior & the threatening behaviour over a taxi fare 10 years prior was a claim made by the person who tried to do a runner without paying.
Your argument fails completely.
Highlandsjohn
Well-Known Member
Yes, right.
The suspended sentence for theft wasn't legal grounds for revoking his licence & happened 20 years prior to his cime
His drink driving conviction was 28 years prior & the threatening behaviour over a taxi fare 10 years prior was a claim made by the person who tried to do a runner without paying.
Your argument fails completely.
You're the one who's arguing in defense of a guilty dead murderer
His crime was used, along with Hamilton et all, to attack our legal rights to hold certain firearms, which he should have had removed. john
.... that officers carried out the process "robustly and professionally" and had no legal grounds to ban Bird from gun ownership despite his criminal record of theft, drink driving and allegations of threatening behavior.
Yes right
Thank you
There seems to be some cross-purpose on this thread.
The question is not about whether it is right for GPs to claim fees for work done; but rather about who should be paying those fees if either the brief initial review of notes to declare the absence of certain conditions, or any subsequent more in-depth review of notes and/or report after clinical examination, are considered by the GP to be chargeable tasks.
We must remind ourselves that the initial agreement (and we shouldn't trouble ourselves whether this was right or not - that's between the BMA, the FLDs and the HO) was that the first-line brief review of notes should not attract a fee. That meant the psoition of the HO and FLDs is that shooters at that stage should not be charged - a position that they could homorably maintain by paying the fees demanded by GPs who are (quite within their rights, of course) not in accord with the BMAs initial position. They would even be in a good position to negotiate a set fee for that not-too-onerous task. On the other hand, they might conclude that it's not worth paying for, since the position officially remains (in E&W, at least) that the absence of this review would not stop the FAC/SGC being issued.
The second thing, that was originally and therefore presuambly is still chargeable, is the 'proper' report required in case of particular conditions. Those who believe that they'd be OK paying a 'reaasonable' fee for this would do well to think hard about (unless they are quite well-off) what a medical pracitioner considers 'reasonable', rather than what they might have in mind themselves.
The question is not about whether it is right for GPs to claim fees for work done; but rather about who should be paying those fees if either the brief initial review of notes to declare the absence of certain conditions, or any subsequent more in-depth review of notes and/or report after clinical examination, are considered by the GP to be chargeable tasks.
We must remind ourselves that the initial agreement (and we shouldn't trouble ourselves whether this was right or not - that's between the BMA, the FLDs and the HO) was that the first-line brief review of notes should not attract a fee. That meant the psoition of the HO and FLDs is that shooters at that stage should not be charged - a position that they could homorably maintain by paying the fees demanded by GPs who are (quite within their rights, of course) not in accord with the BMAs initial position. They would even be in a good position to negotiate a set fee for that not-too-onerous task. On the other hand, they might conclude that it's not worth paying for, since the position officially remains (in E&W, at least) that the absence of this review would not stop the FAC/SGC being issued.
The second thing, that was originally and therefore presuambly is still chargeable, is the 'proper' report required in case of particular conditions. Those who believe that they'd be OK paying a 'reaasonable' fee for this would do well to think hard about (unless they are quite well-off) what a medical pracitioner considers 'reasonable', rather than what they might have in mind themselves.
My co-terminus renewal was due February, received my renewal notice from TVP last October. Received a letter from my GP charging me £60 for the medical report, I wrote back refusing to pay & explained why, received a letter by return from the practice manager quoting various BMA statements & trying to change my mind. I told them I did not expect them to provide the report free of charge but refused to pay as there is no legal requirement. My renewed certificates arrived last week.
FrenchieBoy
Well-Known Member
Good to see that someone has taken the initiative and not had to pay - And got away with it! I wonder what would happen if someone from Lincs were to do the same if and when it happened to them? After all why would you want to pay for something that you did not want and had not ordered or asked for?
Fal
Member
It's all a swizz, a search into your medical history would take minutes. They don't have to sit there trawling through your history for hours and hours that's rubbish.
It's all on a database a simple search for key words or conditions would provide all the info they needed in seconds. Why can't we just make an appointment with the Dr and go get a report printed there and then? That way we wouldn't be taking up any of their time outside of hours or our extra to their working day to incur an extra cost.
I wouldn't mind paying some sort of admin fee, a realistic one. Like £20 but £150 as mentioned earlier in the post is obscene. No chance I'd pay that.
It's all on a database a simple search for key words or conditions would provide all the info they needed in seconds. Why can't we just make an appointment with the Dr and go get a report printed there and then? That way we wouldn't be taking up any of their time outside of hours or our extra to their working day to incur an extra cost.
I wouldn't mind paying some sort of admin fee, a realistic one. Like £20 but £150 as mentioned earlier in the post is obscene. No chance I'd pay that.
Sad that 'practice managers' whose sole job is 'business management' should seek payment without legislative justification. Sadder still that the police who are supposed to be responsible for the overall management of the delivery of licensing did not specify the terms of the Medical Working Group Agreement. Licensing is not a 'service', its without doubt becoming, a deliberately obstacle-strewn process that only the determined manage to negotiate.
Just to add to the confusion - it seems that doctors are able to choose what to do anyway, regarding payment for services; I, in common with other HGV drivers, after the age of 45, must have a medical examination every five years (mandatory/law) which doctors charge the individual (or company) for, yet, if during that five year period, you suffer an illness or condition that is deemed to make it unsafe for you to drive HGV, they inform DVLA immediately, and without charge to that individual!
DVLA then puts a 'stop' on your HGV licence, effectively forcing you to give up work for any period of time that they see fit - they do not (usually), however put a 'stop' on your normal licence.
As an example, a friend of mine recently attended a doctors, due to suffering from dizzy spells for a couple of days, he is no longer permitted to drive a truck, due to 'safety issues' - he can, however, continue to drive his own car, as much as he likes!
The doc did not charge for this service, and made this decision to ensure public safety (oh, the irony!)
DVLA then puts a 'stop' on your HGV licence, effectively forcing you to give up work for any period of time that they see fit - they do not (usually), however put a 'stop' on your normal licence.
As an example, a friend of mine recently attended a doctors, due to suffering from dizzy spells for a couple of days, he is no longer permitted to drive a truck, due to 'safety issues' - he can, however, continue to drive his own car, as much as he likes!
The doc did not charge for this service, and made this decision to ensure public safety (oh, the irony!)
Fal
Member
Well, this is a revelation. Why can't we just do it ourselves and provide it? I'd do it to save money lol
??
I am pretty sure that teabag_46's point is not decrying GP intervention regarding safety. Rather, they manage to tick box/sign form (upaid, unbidden) just fine for some tasks so why special tariff treatment for FAC? That is the point.
Agreed - interesting that others can skirt the truth when an FAC application, falsely completed, usually leads to prison and loss of the ability to shoot ever again.
Similar threads
