PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE:
2003.08.22
EDITION:
National
SECTION:
News
PAGE:
A1 / Front
BYLINE:
Tom Blackwell
SOURCE:
National PostDisputes; Ontario; Canada
CORPORATION:
Ontario Medical Association; Canadian Firearms Centre
NOTE:
tblackwell@nationalpost.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors
refuse to vet gun licence applicants: Fear unstable patients
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Irene
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.