Now in a news story, I read that ACPO and the British Medical Association are colluding over a system that would allow your doctor to dob you in, if you went to him feeling a bit down. And then what would they do? The only possible reason is so they can come round and take your guns away - for your own good, and for the safety of those around you.
On the one hand, it sounds like a sensible precaution, but it all depends on how it's applied. And why focus on guns? If the authorities deem you a risk, there are many ways of harming yourself and others. Surely they should be emptying the kitchen knife drawer, confiscating garden tools, belts, shoelaces, and as for the car...
If this is a new police policy, I think we should be told about it. And it should be properly debated before being sneaked in through the back door. If it's not an official policy, then we should stand up to it, rather then let it be enforced by default.
And here's a thought. I wonder if by worrying about all this I'm appearing a bit paranoid. Hang on, there's a knock at the door. Back soon...
5 comments:
I wonder how this will all play out, obviously DC and his chums have a far greater constituency with the country people but, they've taken Murdoch's shilling now. What will this mean? Will they be able to turn back the tide of government intrusion or will Ms Wade expect them to dance to her hysterical jig? Interesting times.
SBW
It's only the lower classes that are mad, bad and dangerous when in possession of guns, though. I suspect that under the forthcoming rule of Rupert (and his dog, Dave) it'll not be the well-off and 'eccentric' that'll be losing their guns so much as the ordinary Jane's & Joe's who happen to have a packet of Prozac in the medicine cabinet...
Indeed, I've often thought that my friends and I are the only people fit to be trusted with guns. And when I'm running the country, I shall pass a law to make it so.
This is very sad. Thankfully, having recovered from depression with the help of a few drugs, a new job and a springer spaniel I was allowed a shotgun. How sad to think in the future that may not be the case. How many gun owners suffering from depression will shy away from seeking medical help in case they lose their guns; that may be enough to send some over the edge. Are the guns withdrawn so they can't harm hemselves? Or he pubic? Depressives rarely hurt others and can easily find other ways to harm themselves.
Vicky's point is well made. For mental heath services to be effective they must be available without stigma or fear of repercussion.
The very idea that health care professionals should be involved in this is actually quite abhorrent.
I'm sure that somewhere along the line a doctor has had a quiet word with the local boys in blue and a gun owner has been asked to 'drop them off at the station for a while', just as it should be, healthcare and policing done on a case-by-case basis by people who knew the person involved. To try to legislate what had occurred organically into a one-size-fits-all policy is counterproductive and unethical. Doctors duty of care begins with confidentiality, and if that confidence is compromised it can only mean that the chances for timely intervention are compromised.
If the policy makers really wished to make an impact on the number of firearms in the possession of people at risk of an episode they would be holding workshops with doctors and the police to raise awareness of the options for communication and the routes to timely resolution.
But once again this isn't what its about. It's about hitting the numbers and if curtailing individual liberty is a price of hitting the numbers then so what. Something must be 'seen' to be done.
SBW
Post a Comment