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.