By WA Firearms Health Assessments Rejected by GPs: Labelled – “A Cautionary Tale for Other States”
The centrepiece reform of the WA Government’s 2024 firearms legislation, the Firearm Authority Health Assessment (FAHA), has been overwhelmingly rejected by the very professionals expected to implement it.
The Firearms Act 2024 requires GPs to make clinical judgements on a patient’s fitness to own a firearm, however, peak medical bodies including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) WA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) WA have now publicly voiced their concerns, with a RACGP poll showing 79% of GPs are unwilling to provide firearms health assessments to their patients.
Poll from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
In a report by The Medical Republic, Dr Michael Page, AMA WA President, was highly critical of the assessments:
“I think the way this has been done is perhaps a cautionary tale for other states that might be considering doing the same thing in terms of the onus that it puts on GPs,”
“No doctor can predict who might be unsuitable in the end, or who might commit a gun-related crime in the future. 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,”
“I don’t think we’re going to have a change anytime soon, but, but what we would like to see is rigorous evaluation, see how it’s working, see if there are any issues that can be ironed out in the future,”
“You want to see a real commitment from government and from the agencies involved to evaluate how it’s going and make improvements where they can for every stakeholder.”
In the same report, the deputy chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) WA, Dr Mariam Bahemia also expressed serious concern with the new laws:
“Making a clinical judgement about a patient’s physical and mental health, in terms of any potential risk, is a new level of responsibility,”
“It’s professionally and even ethically challenging, given the potential consequences of such a judgement.”
This response from the WA medical community shows again that former Police Minister Paul Papalia failed to consult, not only with the shooting industry, but also with the very doctors expected to administer the assessments.
WA’s approach, while the most extreme, is not an isolated case. Other jurisdictions have been adjusting their health policies, including New South Wales, who proposed changes to their Health Risk Assessment, only to walk them back after widespread condemnation and a commitment to revisit it through proper consultation.
Tasmania has also attempted to push through a deeply flawed health questionnaire as part of a firearms licence application, which included vague, intrusive and unjustified questions. Unsurprisingly, documents obtained by SIFA under RTI show Tasmania’s health associations echoing the concerns of the AMA WA and RACGP WA:
Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Tasmania (RACGP)
“The process has the potential to avoid or delay patients seeking medical advice for fear of not receiving a firearms licence or licence renewal.”
“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 process has the potential to create additional stress upon GPs who live and work in the same communities as their patients. “
“The additional workload has the potential to impact upon GPs working in rural and remote areas.”
“The process will not necessarily attract a Medicare rebate and therefore the expense would be borne by the applicant with the fee set at the discretion of the GP.”
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
“We understand the intention of the proposed changes to section 19 of the firearms license application form is to improve the capture of Information about an applicant’s history of mental illness. The RANZCP supports this intention. However, we stress that any adverse outcome of an application should not be solely determined by an applicant’s disclosure of a current or former mental health condition, a suicide or self-harm attempt, attending an appointment with a psychologist or psychiatrist, or being subjected to a mental health plan.”
“Many individuals with a mental illness or a history of mental illness are not at risk of using firearms for self-harm or to harm others. In addition, it is important to note that health practitioners can only assess mental health and associated risks relating to firearms at a particular moment in time. They cannot reliably predict potential future firearms misuse and-or the conditions and context of an illness state that might increase risk.”
The response to Western Australia and Tasmania’s firearm health policies by Australia’s key medical associations are conclusive. They are critically flawed, not backed by science or evidence, and rolled out without the support of the medical profession. They are 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.
It is now time for firearm regulators in Australia to listen to industry and medical experts.
