Must say, the letter's wording is very reasonable. I had dreaded it wouldn't be.
Attachment 205491
Printable View
Must say, the letter's wording is very reasonable. I had dreaded it wouldn't be.
Attachment 205491
Does one of these get sent to everyone's GP?
As I understand it, in the future it will be sent for all new applications and renewals. I see issues arising from this and think there will be matters related to it that will eventually end up being challenged in the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakewire
What concerns me most is that knowing that there is an obligation on their doctor to inform Police could cause some people who truly need a doctor’s help, to avoid getting the help they need.
I am also concerned about how conflicted between a perceived obligation (not aided by the Police ambiguity in their use if the words “must consider notifying”) and patient confidentiality many doctors will feel.
It is also not the case that everyone has a single health practitioner that they attend when ill (many just rock up to an A&E).
The bit that really worrys me is the bit in Red.... It is as though they are expecting to send them to the wrong person from time to time. So much for security....
Attachment 205502
Yes. That bit you highlighted also has undertones of we want to know so we can withhold the FAL because the applicant gave false information. But then I am a cynical old bugger that has lost a great deal of trust.
What's going to happen to people like me that don't have a regular health practioner that they see?
And upon the testimony of this credible witness, I rest my case your honour. You are not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotts
The onus is on the healthcare practitioner in this instance, so not your concern, although you are required to inform the police of your healthcare provider details, so that could get tricky down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotts
Wife is a GP. This has caused some more eye rolling.
Welcome to 1984.
Fark, my GP is Finnish... knowing her she'll make it conditional on me using a Sako.
That is only reasonable. Ha ha ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
Could be worse- could insist on a Tikka....At least Sako has a little bit more class....Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
Keen to know what’s required from your wife as a practising GP what her obligations are when she has a patient whom she considers unfit to drive due to age, medication, injuries etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB
Does she make a notification directly to LTNZ who then go about a medical revocation?
Yes, she does. Not sure of the exact process, but she hates those situations. In some instances, people are losing their livelihoods, but they are a clear danger to themselves and others.
Sh1t oh dear, they are going to love this going forwards just for the shear volume of poaperwork they've just dropped thenselves in and they are going to be processing. In the last 15 months of being injured, I've had 6 GP's due to one going on maternity, 3 locums, a temp and I dunno how long the next one is here for.
And this is in a reasonably large centre, I don't know how people will get on in rural areas where there isn't a permanent GP and you work through a practice with a locum attending once or twice a week!
Added to the sheer crisis our Health Sector is going through at the moment as well from both Covid and Angry's DHB/Health reforms and Police so far behind the 8 ball on renewals I think we are going to see fark-up of magnitude 10 proportions. The end result of the blind leading the partially sighted.
We already have seen one when NZ Police did not follow their own proceedures and issued a firearms licence to some one who would have likely been rejected had proceedures been followed correctly. This person did something very very bad and then NZ Police and govt blamed and financially and otherwise punished a lot of people who were not even involved. All the while whistling "we are perfect.......trust us"Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
I always ask to see a locum gp as they actually read your file and generally helpful and follow up unlike my experience of regular gp's who are either on holiday/not working or only interested in removing the $60 fee as fast as possible and on to the next punter
Im ok,my doctor travels NZ to go in shooting comps in his spare time a lot.
You can put down a local alchemist, naturopath or chiropractor if you go to them. Or if you are in a signs and woder church and don't see doctors put your Minister's name down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotts
A doctor was asked to give his opinion of a patient mental health for FAL renewal. His reply was, he wasn’t qualified in that area and if they needed to know, they would be better asking a suitably qualified professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB
The problem they have is if they say your of sound mind and you prove to be otherwise by you actions, the police will put the buck/blame firmly on their shoulders.
It is wrong on so many fronts, they’ll be doing it with lawyers next
They are not asking for a mental health assessment, they are asking if there are any concerns.
This doesn't bode well... my local healthcare provider has abysmal administrative practices, and on top of that, I have never met my assigned doctor in person. Whenever I've been, I've been ushered through the nurses assessment area and have been seen by whatever doctor they have available in the nurses area. They are so busy that if I wanted to see my actual assigned doctor, I'd have to make an appointment three weeks in advance. My assigned doctor quit a few years ago, and my next assigned doctor also quit before I ever got to see them in person. I honestly could not tell you the name of whoever my apparent doctor is now.
This is also shit for those suffering a mental health crisis, as Rushy points out. They would be less inclined to seek help if it would likely result in their enjoyment of hunting or shooting being taken away. Though I imagine this has probably always been the case - the Police are just being more vocal in reminding doctors of their obligations.
Everyone needs to realise the health system is in a piss poor state.
Not in this case, it was renewal of an endorsed licenceQuote:
Originally Posted by MB
Doctors certainly have some concerns, the buck will stop with themQuote:
Originally Posted by Rush
In that case, I think the doctor concerned did the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
Having being a fal holder on your medical record opens up another window of data insecurity. Medical records are freely transferred and accessible to drs and practice staff.
Plus acc, or if your employer is accredited the info for any current claims can be accessed by any tom dick or harriet at the outfit contracted by your employer. My last claim like that the physio on assessment put down 'can't hunt or use firearms' as part of my injury consequences and under the 'path to healing' section for where I need to get back to. That's emblazoned over everything on that specific claim now, for anyone who opens the case files to see and also has a lot of other personal info like what my job was, movement times, address etc etc. That was an eye-opening moment for me - not impressed to be totally fair but it wasn't the physio's job it's just the system info security and privacy sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
Nope, they are not asking if there are any concerns - the question is basically "in your medical opinion is there any reason this person should not hold a firearms licence?". Average joe or jane doctor is not fairly or fully equipped to comment or consult on this, and I've scraped people bits up when they've got it wrong - and that's literally scraped the bits up. Not a nice job, and it's just one more example of how the system is fully broken through insufficient funding to ensure sufficient numbers of qualified people coming through to replace natural attrition of workers. Without that, burnout and feelings of insufficient remuneration for the workload jump hugely leading to more staff attrition and you can't fix that no matter what you try.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB
At the moment, shift workers are not getting the pay bump over day-only that shift work used to attract - and the shift work roles are usually unionised or public sector which means that it takes a lot longer to get the bump in pay to compensate for the unsocial hours back. Catch 22, when there's a shortage of workers across the board why would you do a night shift role that destroys your social life and body when the day shift guy down the road gets the same or more coin at a private outfit because they are more flexible when it comes to setting rates of pay?
I can understand what Police are trying to do, as they don't employ people who are qualified mental health practitioners to do an interview with every firearms licence candidate. But, there aren't the people (not even specifically qualified mental health practitioners) to do this. Plus, the consequences of stupid politicians making idiotic decisions without thinking about what happens in the years ahead ends up in the situation we are in now with a 10-year licence renewal bulge of 50,000 people all expecting an acceptable level of service and a renewal in 2-4 weeks. They learned from the firearms licence fu*kup when they went to 10-year driver licences and set the renewal off your x5-year anniversary so the system didn't explode. Biggest problem is now, some people are renewing on the 10-year renewal date at their x1-year anniversary, while others are doing it on the x9-th birthday. So, do you extend someone for 6 years and reset to the x5-yearly renewal or short change them with a 4-year renewal and put everyone on the x5 anniversary same as driver's licences?
Either way, the amount of work going on in this space is looking excessive and arguably if firearms licence holders are expected to be vetted to this level when the trigger event was a admin system failure of world ending proportions, then we as a society might as well do all dirver's licence holders as well as more crime and injury incidents occur from the misuse of vehicles than firearms.
Why would it be on your medical record?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
An assumption i admit but after contact from police to report your "fitness" why would a dr not record that interaction as they are expected to notify police if your "state of mind changes"
Doctor is not very happy taking responsibility for the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB
My doctor thinks I’m a bit twisted, but I told her she’s worse than me, by a long stretch.
From recollection, in the original advice given to doctors, they were told the fact that patient has a F.A.L. Should be recorded on their files in a prominent manner, or words to that effect.
Oh dear, another case of the police writing their own 'laws'?Quote:
Originally Posted by StrikerNZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrikerNZ
And if they don’t do that what will happen?
Cops take Drs practicing certificate away?
I had an interesting discussion with my doctor regarding "suitability to hold licence" - and the practice had a check list that they filled out and totalled up the points, and I came up as high risk.
I challenged this, and he showed my the check list (top marks they were being consistent to all), basically I gained to many points becuase I was 1) a male 2) Single 3) had speeding offences - this tipped me to high risk. Thank goodness I hadnt been in for a consultation on depression.
He did at least accept my reasoning and accept they needed to look at the process, but - I mean WTF - it took me to point this out, that half the population were being penalised. I was a little offended that I and half the poulation were being stereotyped in this way.
I'd say your GP practice is run a bunch of anti-gun fruit loops. None of those things are health reasons.
thats quite bizarre. none of those things should be a red flag really.
There's no way a GP should be being asked for a patient's mental health status. That is not their role. Ok, sure if they believe that a person in mentally unstable, then notify the correct dept.
A Dr cannot release any information to the Police directly about a patient.
The answer was
1) Male - higher risk of suicide
2) Single - higher risk of anti social tendances (obviously being single is considered abnormal)
3) Traffic offences - A risk taker with a disregard for authority
The next time I was in - the doctor was a late 50s australiation chappie I saw for an ACC referral for deafness. He was more interested in all the best places for shooting when he wrote up the background for my hearing impediments - alas only a locum and has moved on. (bloody good doctor too - knew all the best things for performance enhancements)
I guess this just highlights some more the stupidity we have to contend with on a day to day basis.
What the heck is a Doctor doing with information about traffic offenses? Nothing to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doghead
