If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume you’re happy to receive all cookies from the BMA website. Find out more about cookies
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies are required
These cookies allow us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information we collect is anonymous unless you actively provide personal information to us.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies allow a website to remember choices you make (such as your user name, language or the region you're in) and tailor the website to provide enhanced features and content for you.
For example, they can be used to remember certain log-in details, changes you've made to text size, font and other parts of pages that you can customise. They may also be used to provide services you've asked for such as watching a video or commenting on a blog. These cookies may be used to ensure that all our services and communications are relevant to you. The information these cookies collect cannot track your browsing activity on other websites.
Without these cookies, a website cannot remember choices you've previously made or personalise your browsing experience meaning you would have to reset these for every visit. In addition, some functionality may not be available if this category is switched off.
Our websites sometimes integrate with other companies’ sites. For example, we integrate with social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to make it easier for you to share what you have read. These sites place their own cookies on your browser as a result of us including their icons and ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons on our sites.
Medical involvement in firearms is complex. It needs to achieve a balance between the public interest, medico-legal risks to doctors and those who wish to have access to firearms.
These tensions were exposed by the response to our 2016 guidance – overwhelmingly you said it was unworkable. Although we quickly moved to protect doctors from legal risk, significant problems remained – with calls from all sides for a clear, streamlined system that keeps the public, and doctors, safe. The fallout from 2016 also put significant strain on our relationships with those stakeholders whose involvement was essential to improve the system.
The last few months have finally seen a thawing of many of those relationships, and we now find ourselves in a much more productive dialogue with partners for the benefit of the public, while retaining protection for doctors. In particular, we have welcomed the increased readiness of the Home Office to listen to our concerns and, more importantly, to understand them. Critically, we have made clear to the Home Office that responsibility for assessing the risk presented by those with access to firearms rests exclusively with the police – it is not a role for doctors. We have also been clear that any use of medical flags does not mean doctors have an active duty to monitor the health of those who have access to firearms. We have also met with the Countryside Alliance and found significant common ground. That which brings us together far outweighs that which divides us.
There is still a considerable amount of work needed to bring us to a point where we have a unified national licensing system into which medical evidence fits seamlessly. A system that protects public and doctors alike. But the dialogue has begun. As issues become better defined through discussion across disciplines it illuminates where our guidance requires better explanation and a clearer narrative. With this in mind we have this week updated our guidance on flagging and conscientious objection. Doctors retain the right to principled opposition to involvement in the licensing process.
None of this signals change to our core position – it simply clarifies it. Your response to these updates will be instructive – and we are committed to listening. Finally, it looks as if a sensible, coherent national licensing system could be within reach: good for doctors, good for the public and good for patients.
Mark Sanford-Wood is BMA GPs committee deputy chair
Read the BMA guidance on the firearms licensing process
Locally we are very seldom asked for reports, merely receive a notification that a licence is to be issued and to contact the issuing authority if we have a concern. Is this therefore contrary to the negotiated advice detailed?
Currently when I receive notification from the police of an application for a firearms license, I take a quick look at the notes checking for any significant psychiatric diagnoses etc and if there is nothing of note, I do not respond and pass the letter to the coding team to summarize. Is this appropriate? If I find anything of concern, I have phoned the police department and discussed. Norfolk GP
I work for Firearms Licensing and totally sympathise with the GP practices - surely the most simple and logical solution would be to ensure as part of the granting or renewal of a firearms licence application, that a GP report paid for by the applicant must accompany the form. If this is not agreeable then maybe the cost of the licence should reflect the police requesting the report/addition of the coding from the GP.
I Really like your article. You write such a good article. please check - <a href="mybeautifuladventures.com/.../">Free Online Tarot Card Reading for Love</a>.