Canada: "Doctors refuse to vet gun licence applicants"

[cuchulainn]

from the National Post

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=18F21A26-ACBD-48BE-898D-B9BC87A45B26

Doctors refuse to vet gun licence applicants

Fear unstable patients

Tom Blackwell
National Post

Friday, August 22, 2003

Thousands of doctors are refusing to fill out medical fitness forms for people trying to get gun licences, fearing they could face violent retribution if unstable patients are denied firearms.

The Ontario Medical Association has urged its members to boycott the work until the process is overhauled, in yet another blow to the federal government's beleaguered gun-control system.

The association says doctors are being told to, in effect, pass judgment on whether some of their patients should be allowed to have firearms, putting them in an awkward and potentially dangerous position.

"A few years back, a physician was asked to fill out a disability form for a patient. That patient then came back to the office and shot him," said Dr. Larry Erlick, the OMA president.

"For a physician to say to someone applying for a firearms licence: 'You're too dangerous to have one,' by itself suggests they're dealing with someone who is a bit unstable. And that's our concern."

Most Ontario doctors have heeded their association's advice and declined to fill out the forms, Dr. Erlick said.

But the Canadian Firearms Centre, which administers the gun-licensing system, said physicians are simply being asked for their input, not to make decisions that could put them in harm's way.

Under the new firearms licensing system, a written application can trigger an interview with the would-be gun owner by a firearms officer. If the officer has concerns about the applicant's mental state or physical condition, he may ask the person's physician to fill out the form.

The doctor's report "is very often used as a stop mechanism, thus preventing high-risk individuals from obtaining a firearms licence," says an OMA statement on the issue.

"Government also refuses to pay for the form, leaving physicians to collect fees for their services from patients -- and possibly placing physician safety in jeopardy."

Dr. Erlick said the system must change so it is clear to patients the doctor is simply providing background information and has nothing to do with the final decision.

"The decision should be based on a whole puzzle or various pieces. We should provide that one piece, but at the same time the patient should never feel we can take away something that they assume is a formality for us."

Doctors in other provinces have apparently not raised similar objections to the requirement.

"It's not an issue that has come up for us at all," confirmed Sharon Shore, speaking for the British Columbia Medical Association.

Irène Arsenault, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Firearms Centre, said officials request a medical report in relatively few cases. Physicians are not asked to pass judgment on their patients, only to provide up-to-date factual information, while the firearms officer makes the ultimate decision, Ms. Arsenault said.

"Sometimes, the report will help the client, and that happens more often than not," she said.

"But there are cases where the report will confirm either a history of violence that isn't under control or other things that will help in the final decision."

If a physician is concerned about retaliation from a patient who is refused a licence, that suggests the refusal "was the right decision," she said.

Still, the government would be open to discussing changes with the medical association, said the official.

[email protected]

© Copyright 2003 National Post

 

[Blackhawk]

I'm with the declining docs on this one.

 

[geekWithA.45]

They should decline, because medical and mental tests are innapropriate, and the medical establishment should not be pressed into a gatekeeper role.

It is not for the citizen to prove his worthiness, rather, it is for the state to prove that his possession of arms creates a clear, present and tangible danger.

The criterion for mental stability should be exactly the same as those used for involuntary commitment.

The person is either a danger to self or others, or he isn't.

The criterion for medical prohibition should be self evident, and I can only think of two:

Absolute blindness, and lacking enough fingers to safely handle a firearm.

And BTW, I know a Korea era marine who only had half thumbs from birth. They weren't going to induct him, until he took up a garand and demonstrated that he could indeed safely handle his rifle. My friend Ike spent the rest of the war creeping around behind enemy lines, blowing up trains, and calling in artillery.

 

[igor]

This is sooooo backwards... "sorry, you're raving mad, no way I'll second your application... that $149, please. Do you need a copy?" :banghead:

 

[Leatherneck]

This is what happens when you try to regulate a basic right.
This:

But the Canadian Firearms Centre, which administers the gun-licensing system, said physicians are simply being asked for their input, not to make decisions that could put them in harm's way.

Is delusional at best, flat-out lying at worst. But what would one expect of this liberal's wet dream?

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Kharn]

"Well, Mr. Anderson, your doctor reports you had a spastic colon about three years back and your chart was marked to indicate that you were 'difficult' regarding giving stool samples on an hourly basis. Denied."
The joys of legislators advancing anti-freedom agendas.

Kharn

 

[dance varmint]

Hard to believe such a demented mixture of 1984 and Catch 22 is going on just north of the border.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Hard to believe such a demented mixture of 1984 and Catch 22 is going on just north of the border.

I don't find it at all difficult to believe: Canada went socialist a long time ago. There's no shortage of leftist extremists in our own nation who'd be delighted to inflict such idiocy on law-abiding American citizens, too.