This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

All GPs must help patients obtain firearms licences if requested, BMA says

GPs who refuse to deal with firearms licensing requests because of conscientious objection have to help patients find another doctor, says updated BMA guidance.

The new guidance says GPs ‘must engage in the process of firearms licensing when requested to do so’ and if GPs refuse to engage with the process based on conscientious objection they have to put in place alternative options for the patient.

Since April this year, GPs have been expected to keep a record of all patients who own a gun – and to inform police if anybody develops a mental health problem such as depression.

Previous BMA advice said that GPs may be able to refuse based on conscientious objection to gun ownership but the updated guidance says this refusal would have to be undertaken in line with GMC guidance.

This requires GPs to notify patients of this objection in advance, and if the service is not easily available from another doctor, ‘the GP that objects has a professional duty to put in place alternative arrangements for the provision of the relevant services or procedures without delay'.

The new guidance replaces previous guidance that stated that GPs should refuse all firearms requests after the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) advised its members to refuse to pay a fee to the GP for this process.

But after discussions with the BASC, the Home Office and taking external legal advice, the BMA has now said that the new guidance ‘takes account of the regulatory obligations on the part of GPs and specifically the requirement to “comply with all relevant legislation”’.

The advice goes onto say that this ‘obliges GPs to cooperate with and agree to facilitate statutory processes in which they have a prescribed role or function’.

The guidance still allows for GPs to charge for firearms licences, saying: ‘However, it is also clear that where a fee for the relevant services has not been provided within the terms of the GMS contract, it may be demanded and that the GP can withhold such services until such time as the fee has been paid.‘

It later says: 'The demand for a fee may form a condition, which if not fulfilled, means the GP can refuse to engage in the firearms certification process.’

The guidance re-emphasises that GPs cannot simply ignore the letter from the police or delay a reply as this places them at professional risk.

This advice only applies to the initial letter from the police, which asks if GPs have any concerns about the patient applying for the firearms licence. BASC still advises any licence applicants to pay if a medical report is requested as part of the licensing process.

Dr John Canning, GPC professional fees and regulation subcommittee chair, said it is 'unacceptable' for GPs 'to take no action at all' when they receive a request.

He told Pulse: 'If someone comes in and says, "I’m a gamekeeper, I’m very depressed and I’ve got a gun and I’m thinking of using it" and I do nothing about it then I’m in grave danger of having to explain myself.'

It comes as GPs received letters from firearms licensing bodies suggesting they could not refuse requests.

The Firearms and Explosives Licensing Department of Hampshire Constabulary wrote that it 'will regard you as having a part to play in the duty of care to prevent harm and loss of life and the management of risk around licence holders'.

Tony Hill, firearms licensing manager at the constabulary, said they 'regard the GP as having shared responsibility with us for the prevention of harm through the use, or threat of use, of licensed firearms'.

He said that if GPs don't engage with the process 'there is a danger that medical conditions that might affect the suitability of a person to possess firearms may go unreported to us'.

He added: 'The possible consequences of this for the patient or others are clearly severe, and it is for this reason that we point out the potential ramifications for these doctors.'

 

 

 

Readers' comments (57)

  • hopefully we will see this new guidance soon Is there a link available?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm self employed
    I can decide what I do!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There actually was a form of Gun Licencing Authority. However the government put paid to this and sacked pretty much everyone in it (in Scotland anyway). This system worked well as everyone knew how to do things properly. Most the officials were ex-policemen anyway.
    The savings were maid so that more police would be put on the beat to fulfil prior promises.
    Unfortunately the police left with this specialised work are regular bobbies wich little or no previous expeirence. They have to do this together with all the rest of the types of work police are ment to do. So they will never have much accumulated experience in this area. This makes it harder for legitimate gun owners as they have to deal with people without the extensive knowledge that the previous people had, which leads to more problems.
    So yes it was a good idea and hopefully it will be re-intoduced again (hopefully with many of the poor folk who were forcibly made redundant) sometime but I am not holding my breath.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the reading ofparagraph 5 of the article suggests to me to mean that if it isn't specified in the GMS contract and paid for,we dont have to do it until it is ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • WHAT is definition of mental illness . if patients says he is stressed then report to police he has mental illness?? "today i examined him/her and he had no mental illness. tomorrow i can not predict my own mental state never mind my patients as i don't know him personally. this is what one should write.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done BMA. After totally ballsing up the junior doctors contract you have now landed this on us. Absolutely useless. Sack yourselves and then sack yourselves again

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does the headline not invite the obvious reply......

    .....or else what?

    It's time we started calling some bluffs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I shoot - for pest control, for the pot, and honestly because I am good at it, the anilmals die quick and clean, and far far better than in an abattoir by ritual slaughter, and it gives me a reason to be out in our glorious countryside doing some good. ( yep, good... as without control the deer would increase exponentially and you would not only have no roses but also no Caledonian forest, and no woodland sssi's.)

    I will shortly need a fac.

    As a shooter i want you to participate as GPs cos if my neighbour is a nutter i really really dont want him having a gun.

    As a GP i think the whole thing is a pigs ear, a legal nightmare, and now legislates that we do the undoable ( Wheras previously it was left to goodwill and common sense)

    Will the world please sort itself out?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They can't hold a gun to my head.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For me the statement from Hampshire police quoted in the article does not surprise me. They have been sending letters along with their request for information stressing that we hold joint responsibility for ensuring safe gun ownership.

    I am happy to provide information on medical history (for a fee), but I in no way accept any such joint responsibility.

    Having briefly shown some backbone, the BMA appears to have reverted to type. Whilst they may be acting correctly from a legal perspective, the statement from John Canning fails to recognise the feeling in the profession with regards to the issue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say