The vast majority of Western Australian doctors say they will not perform compulsory mental health checks on shooters under the state’s new gun laws, citing the fact that no one can predict whether anyone might commit a gun-related crime and expressing fears the requirement might actually work against public safety.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) of WA saying 79% of WA GPs would not provide firearms health assessments (FAHAs).
FAHAs are required under WA’s Firearms Act 2024, with all licence applicants and renewals needing to have a sign-off from a GP or medical professional attesting the applicant’s medical (including mental health) fitness to hold a gun licence.
GPs in WA have expressed their concerns over the requirements, particularly from a liability and community relations perspective, with the overwhelming majority of them saying they simply were not willing to perform FAHAs — which is going to made things even more difficult for WA shooters than they already are.
Speaking in an interview with The Medical Republic, RACGP WA president Dr Michael Page described the mental health sign-off requirements as “perhaps a cautionary tale for states that might be considering doing the same thing”.
“No doctor can predict who might be unsuitable in the end, or who might commit a gun-related crime in the future,” he said. “There’s no way to reliably predict that.
“What we don’t want to see is doctors being pushed under the bus for not identifying people with unpredictable behaviour, which is, by its very nature, unpredictable.”
In an article published on the RACGP website, RACGP WA co-deputy chair Dr Maria Bahemia said the mental health sign-off requirements in WA only added to the workloads of already overburdened GPs.
“For GPs already managing heavy workloads, this introduces an additional layer of responsibility — one that might be both clinically, and at times, ethically challenging,” she said.
“The consequences of these judgements can be significant.
“Many GPs feel they are being asked to make decisions that fall outside of the typical scope of practice — particularly when it comes to risk assessment and prediction of future risk.”
While the RACGP says that the final decision on who gets a gun licence lies with police and doctors are not decision-makers as part of the licensing process, their members are intelligent people and must be fully aware the chances of anyone a doctor refuses to sign off on getting a licence are effectively zero — meaning that doctors essentially are the arbiters of who gets a gun licence in WA (and anywhere else with similar medical assessment requirements for gun licences), whether they like it or not.
Putting things bluntly, GPs, especially in rural areas, know it’s already hard enough to get people to go to the doctor for issues, and if those people know their GP can essentially deny or revoke their gun licence, they’re highly unlikely to open up about mental health issues or potentially disabling medical issues if it might cost them their licence and potentially their livelihoods as a result.
Dr Bahemia acknowledged this in the RACGP article, and said ultimately health sign-off requirements for firearms licences could end up being counter-productive.
“This has the potential to reduce health-seeking behaviours and work against the broader goals of both public safety and preventive healthcare,” she said.
“The challenge lies in ensuring that this new responsibility does not undermine the therapeutic relationship we have with our patients, especially in smaller communities, where trust and continuity are essential.”
The Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia obtained documents under Right To Information legislation showing that doctors in Tasmania — where the Firearms Registry attempted to introduce intrusive medical and mental health questions for firearms licence applicants — had similar concerns to their colleagues in Western Australia.
Per SIFA’s reports, the RACGP Tasmania was concerned that the process could cause patients to avoid or delay medical advice, out of fear they’d lose (or be denied) a gun licence:
“The RACGP is concerned about anything that may dissuade people from seeking help for their mental health, for suicidal thoughts or intent, if that person perceives it to be a risk to their application for, or renewal of a firearms licence.”
The RACGP Tasmania also noted the potential for additional stress and issues for GPs in rural areas, reflecting the reality that a doctor who is seen to have taken someone’s gun licence from them is not going to be well liked in a rural community, even if they had a legitimate medical reason for making a recommendation against someone receiving or continuing to hold a gun licence.
SIFA said the responses by peak medical bodies just confirmed that the mental health assessment requirements being crowbarred into firearms legislation were critically flawed, not backed by science or evidence, and had been rolled out without the support of the medical profession.
SIFA went as far as describing them as “a ham-fisted attempt to shift the responsibility of risk management from police to already overburdened medical professionals”.
“SIFA has warned jurisdictional law enforcement and Police Ministers about introducing health policies that will ultimately compromise patient care, undermine public trust, stigmatise medical conditions and stop people from seeking medical assistance out of fear they may lose their firearms license,” the organisation said.
0 Comments