Saturday, July 9, 2016

Are medical M.Sc's no longer wanted in India's clinical laboratory services?


08th July, 2016

Guidelines on minimum Human Resource requirement in the Standards for Medical (Clinical) Laboratory 026 of the Clinical Establishment Act

1. Clinical Establishment Act (CEA)
The Clinical Establishment Act (2010) guidelines have been specified on the minimum standards of facilities and services for regulation of all clinical establishments in the country. The Act has taken effect in the four states namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, and all Union Territories except the NCT of Delhi since 2012. The Act has been formulated following series of meetings by the sub-committee for the development of Standard Template for the development of Minimum Standards under National Council for Clinical Establishments. 

2. Discriminatory guidelines of CEA
However, many feel that those formulating the guidelines on the prescription for human resource in medical laboratories have erred in the draft -Standard for Medical (Clinical) Laboratory, Standard No. CEA/Laboratory- 026. This error is causing serious resentment among those who are already in employment and fear job loss when the Act would be implemented in their states. While formulating the guidelines the committee had sought public opinion in March 2014. Despite several vehement oppositions to the existing norms, the policy makers went ahead with their discriminatory approach.

3. Interpretations of laboratory results
A clinical diagnostic laboratory has several divisions or specialties such as pathology, microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology etc. These allied or para-clinical subjects are meant to assist physicians in diagnosis through laboratory tests. This requires a thorough understanding of the disease process, sample collection, and testing procedure. It does not require patient interaction as samples are often collected in hospitals and sent to laboratories. The samples are processed and tested by the laboratory technicians. Based on the knowledge, the signatory (such as microbiologist/biochemist/pathologist), validates the results, assesses the importance of results and signs it, sometimes with a comment. Many of the tests under Biochemistry are performed by semi- or fully-automated sophisticated instruments with in-built quality controls. In such cases, the role of biochemists is only to validate the results obtained. The interpretation, if any, issued by the laboratory is only preliminary and it is ultimately for the physician to interpret the laboratory result depending on the patient’s condition. In case of doubt, the clinician has the right to take a second opinion or repeat the test with a different laboratory or testing methodology. No competent clinician would ever blindly trust a laboratory report without applying mind. To squarely blame the laboratory report indicates own shortcomings.

4. Qualifications for signatories in laboratories
There is no denial of the fact that in the field of clinical diagnostic laboratory services, doctors with suitable postgraduate degree in the subjects of Biochemistry and Microbiology are suitable to sign laboratory reports. However, there is another competent degree that many are completely unaware of- the lesser-known postgraduate degree called medical M.Sc degree. This is a 2-31/2 year postgraduate degree, which is awarded under the faculty of medicine by the health universities across India. It is conducted by the same medical colleges that also conduct MD degrees using the same hospital, laboratory and teaching faculties. Like their peers studying MD degree, these students are also taught about the causative agents (etiology), disease process (pathogenesis), specimen collection, performance of relevant diagnostic tests, quality assurance and interpretation of laboratory tests.  The course involves exposure to clinical specimens, its processing in the laboratory and elaborate discussions on its interpretation. The course and curriculum of both these degrees are mostly similar. Upon passing, persons with medical M.Sc degree can competently undertake the professional role in diagnostic laboratories and they have been doing it competently since the inception of this course. Similar courses are conducted in UK too, where clinical diagnostics is a career prospect.

5. Accreditation of laboratories for good quality
All over the world, accreditation bodies such as International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) or Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) follow the guidelines specified in ISO 15189 with regards to medical testing laboratories. India’s own accreditation body, the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) is an autonomous body under the aegis of Department of Science & Technology, too follows ISO guidelines. The ISO document does not specify qualifications. Technical requirements 5.1.2 of the ISO document states the following:

The qualifications shall reflect the appropriate education, training, experience and demonstrated skills needed, and to be appropriate to the tasks performed. The personnel making judgments with reference to examinations shall have the applicable theoretical and practical background and experience.” This means that each country shall specify its own guidelines for framing qualifications as long as they receive appropriate education, training, experience and skill. This is where both NABL and CEA have erred.

Further, the clause 5.1.6 of ISO 15189 states that all laboratory personnel including signatories must undergo periodic competency assessment. Both NABL-112 and CEA-026 conveniently ignore this guideline. Perhaps the professionals recommended by these two bodies are assumed to be competent for life, who need no assessment.

6. Existing education system in India and qualified workforce
The policy makers in India must identify the prevalent education system in India that provides the requisite knowledge and skill. There are only two courses that enable persons to function as signatories in the department of Biochemistry and Microbiology- the MD degree (doctors) and medical M.Sc degree (non-doctors). DNB after MBBS too are qualified but their numbers in India are scarce. Diploma in Clinical Pathology (DCP) is basically a diploma in pathology with superficial exposure to Biochemistry or Microbiology. Therefore, only MD and medical M.Sc are the two major postgraudate courses in India that provide the education to understand the disease process and to employ suitable diagnostic tests. While the former is a celebrated course, the latter is largely an obscured and an unknown entity. Not only medical M.Sc courses in India are misunderstood but are also viciously maligned thereby discrediting all the doctors who teach, medical colleges that conduct these courses and the universities that award these degrees. Those who feel threatened that their jobs in laboratories are being taken away by the 'less-qualified' persons, level a variety of allegations including 'lack of clinical experience' to justify their tirade

7. Guidelines of NABL for medical laboratories
In order to accreditate clinical diagnostic laboratories, NABL has specified its own guidelines keeping in mind the local education system and the available workforce. Rightfully, persons with medical M.Sc (as well as non-medical M.Sc) were prescribed as an acceptable qualification for the role of signatories in clinical diagnostic laboratories as early as 2007. Incidentally, Dr. A.S Kanagasabapathy, the chairman of the first technical committee which formulated the guidelines for medical laboratories was not a medical doctor. Another premier government body, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had approved the NABL guidelines for qualifications in its 2008 document on ‘Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP)’. Even in its most recent document, No. 112, the NABL (2016) has considered medical M.Sc (with or without Ph.D) as qualified signatories. Despite the existing norms, the policy makers of the Clinical Establishment Act decided not to consider medical M.Sc qualified to be signatories. The CEA document 026 states, “The person signing and interpreting the report shall be registered with Medical Council of India / State Medical Council”, thereby closing the doors on qualified medical M.Sc persons for this role. This stubborn decision appears to stem from personal bias and prejudice. No guideline should ever be based on presumptions or misconceptions.

8. Controversy with NABL guidelines
Although NABL has specified M.Sc as a signatory in its recent document No. 112, its intentions are not honest. It too plans for complete denial of any role to medical M.Sc persons unless they possess Ph.D and five year post-Ph.D experience.  Several representations of protests were made against the proposal. A group of 16 private diagnostic laboratories and hospitals met on 5th January 2014 at Hyderabad to discuss the proposed changes in NABL-112 guidelines. This group recommended continuation of M.Sc persons as signatories. NABL, ignored these suggestions and proposed qualifications bereft of M.Sc degree.

NABL has sought consent on its new proposal from Medical Council of India (MCI), which is a statutory body for establishing uniform and high standards of medical education in India. It also grants recognition of medical qualifications, gives accreditation to medical institutions, grants registration to medical practitioners, and monitors medical practice in India. It does not have any mandate to prescribe qualifications for persons working in clinical diagnostic laboratories. MCI has admitted that Medical M.Sc course is beyond its purview, atlhough medical M.Sc course is still included in the First Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. By quietly "discontinuing" the practice of recognition and registration of medical M.Sc degrees, MCI has ensured that the holders of this degree are not registered in MCI or state medical councils. By making it compulsory that only those registered with the medical councils can be signatories of laboratory reports, the CEA guidelines has tactfully ensured that all non-doctors are kept out of the system. If this is not degree-based-discrimination, what else is it?

The Executive committee of the MCI had sought clarification from its own Ethics Committee if persons with medical M.Sc could sign biochemistry reports. In reply, the following has been stated in the minutes of the meeting of the Ethics Committee of MCI held on 3rd& 4th January, 2005:
M.Sc. (Medical Biochemistry) with or without Ph.D is entitled to independently or solely sign a medical Biochemistry report in a clinical laboratory.”
In the subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee Meeting of the MCI held on 31st January 2005, the recommendation of the Ethics Committee was approved. Paradoxically, when some individuals questioned the MCI via the RTI Act, MCI replied otherwise thus contradicting its own approval. This demonstrates MCI’s prejudiced attitude towards M.Sc degree.

The standing committee of the parliament on health and family welfare’s report (No. 92) presented on 8th March 2016 in both the houses of parliament has stated that MCI has failed to address the needs of the health system in the country.  Often, it has been felt that MCI, which is entirely composed of doctors, has always been hostile in its outlook to medical M.Sc persons. The government has decided to scrap MCI and replace it with the Medical Education Commission. If MCI provides assent to the NABL’s proposal, which denies roles for medical M.Sc persons, it must be nullified. It is natural to suspect if both NABL and MCI are colluding to stonewall opportunities to medical M.Sc persons in order to protect the employment interests of own profession. Collusion among health service providers in India is an open-secret. 

9. Role of Ph.D qualification in routine tests
In its proposal to MCI [Annexure II (b) page 103], NABL seeks Ph.D and five year post-Ph.D experience to be authorized signatory. One must appreciate the ground reality in this aspect. In several western countries Ph.D programs are routine among all institutions, as they receive generous grants for research. In India, research is only a namesake and undertaking Ph.D is a herculean task. There are few health universities, which offer Ph.D programmes and there are even fewer qualified guides. The number of Ph.D seats is totally disproportionate to the number of medical M.Sc postgraduates. 

Most of the Ph.D courses are now being offered by private deemed-to-be universities, who don’t provide any financial assistance or scholarship to Ph.D scholars. Therefore, numbers of Ph.D holders are very less. Further, many medical M.Sc persons who are working in private medical colleges don’t get deputed for Ph.D with leave and salary by the employer. Hence, the only option available is to undertake Ph.D in apart-time mode. Ultimately, Ph.D is awarded by the University only after being satisfied with the quality of the research done and the ability of the scholar to defend the thesis in a public defense. Those undertaking Ph.D on a part-time mode spend two additional years on research. The research is supervised by the guide and the co-guide and the candidate has to submit progress report every 6 months to the university. Part-time Ph.D should not be confused with ‘distance’ or ‘correspondence’ education. It really doesn’t matter if the Ph.D is done full-time or part-time; part-time only means that the Ph.D scholar is externally registered. It is only the narrow-minded policy makers who come out with frivolous criteria with the sole intention of making it harder for medical M.Sc persons to work in diagnostic laboratories. Further insistence of five-year post-Ph.D experience is another ploy to prevent non-doctors from getting into the system.

The purpose of Ph.D is to advance knowledge, not merely apply existing knowledge. One must also appreciate the fact that Ph.D is an extensive research conducted on a narrow area of science. It neither confers knowledge nor skill in interpreting routine diagnostic tests. Therefore, the insistence of Ph.D is another ploy to keep medical M.Sc persons out of diagnostics. The policy makers who frame rules are either oblivious to the existing education scenario in India or deliberately being partisan to promote own professional ilk. Mere copying guidelines of the developed western countries for our country is inappropriate. What is suitable for the West may not be applicable to our country.

10. Medical M.Sc persons are not laboratory technicians
Several institutes conduct para-medical courses in Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT). These courses are offered as diploma, bachelor or master’s degree. These courses enable persons to ‘process clinical specimens’ and to ‘operate equipment’. These support staff are considered as laboratory technicians in the laboratories. In the Clinical Establishment Act, the policy makers have erroneously placed medical M.Sc persons as technicians in Annexure 4, column II. Since plenty of efforts were made in 2014 to inform the policy makers about the existence and relevance of medical M.Sc courses, it is improbable to dismiss it as an act of oversight. In the 6th meeting of the National Council for Clinical Establishments, the following was stated:

It was informed that as recommended by National Council during earlier meetings, the attempts by allied health professionals like medical technologists, MSc in medical microbiology, MSc. in medical biochemistry etc. to work as independent practitioners were not agreed to”.  

Thorough searches of first to fifth minutes of the meeting documents fails to reveal any such information. Thus, one may suspect that denying the rights to medical M.Sc persons as signatories was purely intentional. 

11. Are medical M.Sc persons really inefficient as alleged?
Medical M.Sc course is open to those who have Bachelor's degree (B.Sc) in life sciences. In most universities, the admission to these courses follows a competitive entrance examination. Therefore, the candidates must have a good academic record in both B.Sc and competitive examination. Medical M.Sc courses in the subjects Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Microbiology are more popular. Generally, M.Sc courses are of two-years; the listless UGC too mentions medical M.Sc as a two-year course. However, barring few exceptions, most universities offer medical M.Sc as a three-year course. This is because, irrespective of the chosen discipline, all medical M.Sc students undergo compulsory one year of education in human Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry just as the MBBS students in the first year do. This is to make the students learn the structure and function of the human body; it is this year that makes medical M.Sc course truly 'medical'. After the students successfully pass the first year, they pursue their respective disciplines such as Biochemistry or Microbiology. In these two years, they undergo training just as their peer undergo MD degree. In the same department, medical M.Sc and MD courses are conducted parallelly along similar syllabus and curriculum by the same teaching faculty using the same laboratory and hospital facilities. Like MD students, these students also participate in journal and seminar presentations and write dissertations. The examination is conducted just as it is conducted for MD students. Although the underlying graduate degrees in either case are different, the postgraduate degrees are similar in many ways. Doctors with MD degrees have the rights to hold high esteem of their degrees but have no right to belittle and malign medical M.Sc degrees. There are capable and incapable people with either degree and mere possession of a degree doesn't ensure competency. What really matters is the dedication and hard work of the individual to excel in the field of study.

12. Qualifications in other countries
Even other countries such as Nepal (Nepal Health Professional Council Act), Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka AccreditationBoard for Conformity Assessment) or USA (College of American Pathologists) include persons with M.Sc degree as signatories or consultants in clinical diagnostic laboratories. As per the Guideline of Professional Classification and Registration for Health Practitioners of Saudi Arabia, persons with M.Sc degree can be appointed as specialists and senior specialists. Therefore, the same can be considered here as well. Some countries insist on additional Ph.D qualifications for non-doctors, but their system of education and research is qualitatively different from ours, hence not applicable to India and must not be enforced here.

13. Is medical M.Sc now an unwanted degree?
There are hundreds of trained and qualified persons with medical M.Sc in India, who are already working in clinical diagnostic laboratories; some of them for several years. India must utilize such large pool of human resource. Why else is government permitting medical M.Sc courses if they are deemed unemployable? This issue appeared in the daily The Hindu on 4th July. Those following this news inside and outside the country will perceive India's medical academia as an intolerant society that wishes to establish a monopoly by booting out non-doctors in the guise of guidelines. Does India want to send this message? Why did the policy makers overlook the existing NABL guidelines or the international systems? Was demoting persons with medical M.Sc based on rational findings or was it to promote one particular profession? When the policy making is left to one profession, there is always a risk of promoting and safeguarding own profession. Government policies must be bipartisan and inclusive, but it is not so in this case. 

When the products of own education system are considered unwanted and discriminated, it only adds to the existing curse of brain drain. Why should youngsters spend 2-31/2 years and lakhs of rupees only to be told later that they are unworthy of practising what they learnt in their own course? In medical colleges, the medical M.Sc course fee may be as high as two-to-three lakh rupees. Should they be investing so much of their parent’s money and own efforts only to be told later that they are only worthy of being laboratory technicians? No other degree has been maligned and demeaned as much as medical M.Sc in both medical education and clinical diagnostics and the government has done nothing to uphold its value. When MDs in these departments were in short supply, medical M.Sc's were used for teaching in medical colleges and signing reports in medical laboratories. Now that MDs are in good supply, rules are being altered to portray M.Sc’s as ineligible and fit to be excluded from the system. This is not just injustice, it is exploitation. India appears to be a difficult place for scientists as the policies, guidelines and working culture are big impediments.

14. Response of Anil Kumar, Additional Deputy Director-General, DGHS
In the news item that appeared in the daily The Hindu on 4th July, Anil Kumar representing the Directorate General of Health Services opined, "...they are not exposed to patients. They have only theoretical knowledge and no practical experience in clinical practise". It is rather appalling that policy makers seated at Delhi are totally disconnected and unaware of the the curriculum and syllabus of medical M.Sc course. Clinical investigation is the core component of this degree and a crucial part of the university practical examination. Either there is a genuine lack of awareness among policy makers or deliberate attempts are being made to project it falsely. In the news report, he further adds, "...they have been doing it illegally, as there were no regulations in the past". This statement is baseless for two reasons. Firstly, the Clinical Establishment Act is not mandatory for all states to follow. As on 21st March 2016, it is applicable only in ten states and 6 union territories (except Delhi). Therefore, the guidelines of this act are legal in only those states and union territories. The news report states that among these states and UTs, they are being implemented only in Rajasthan and Jharkhand. Secondly, to say that there were no regulations in the past is also false as 13 states have their own acts.

15. Council for registration of degrees
All doctors are registered with the state unit of Indian Medical Council. Medical M.Sc persons, who work as teachers in medical colleges and also offer professional services in clinical diagnostic laboratories are not registered by any council or professional body. In the absence of any registration, there is absolutely no data on the number of medical M.Sc persons in India. Since private deemed-universities do not come under the ambit of RTI Act, they don’t divulge data on medical M.Sc courses. This anomaly too must be corrected. Medical M.Sc course is unique that it does not fit either with para-medical council or allied health professional council. Hence, a separate council may be made for registration of medical M.Sc persons or authorize some national association of M.Sc degree holders to register them. 

16. Importance should be on competence, not degree
In majority of countries, the stress is always on training and competence. Unfortunately, in India the degree is above competence. Once a specified professional degree is acquired by the candidate, competence is automatically assumed and taken for granted. This explains why no periodic competency assessment of signatories is specified in NABL or CEA guidelines. This fallacy must be corrected. Like other countries, India too must rely on our existing education system and workforce and give more importance to training than the nomenclature of the degree. Irrespective of their degrees, all persons, whether MD or medical M.Sc must undergo prescribed training programme before becoming authorized signatories. All signatories must undergo periodic competency assessments.

17. Actions required
The government must address this issue without ignoring the genuine concerns of the aggrieved. After all, laws are believed to bring in equality and justice. It is, therefore, imperative that the guideline needs to be corrected and the mistake must be amended. The attitudes of 'holier than thou' and 'my degree is superior to yours' has no place in modern India. Monopoly and academic-inbreeding promote mediocrity and stagnation. Like any branch of science, medical science too should be open to contributions from diverse backgrounds. If needed, a commission may be formed to examine the utility and importance of medical M.Sc in medical education, healthcare and research. Persons with medical M.Sc degree are already discriminated in a variety of ways in medical colleges and if this anomaly is not corrected the discrimination will only worsen. If an aberration can be recognized and solved by the government, the aggrieved will not have to take the painful process of seeking legal remedy. The roles of medical scientists with medical M.Sc degree must be recognized, appreciated and upheld by the government giving the dignity it rightfully deserves. The lawmakers must strive to eliminate the degree-based discrimination (academic apartheid), end monopoly of one profession and ensure the dignity of labour and equal working opportunities.

Update (13-08-2017, 08-03-2017):

1. Honorable MP (Rajya Sabha) Shri. C.P Naryanan had raised a few questions "UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 1771" on the issue of denial of recognition to medical M.Sc degree. The ministry in its reply to the questions raised by the honorable member on 2nd August, 2016 stated the following, “NCEA/Laboratory 026 Standard has not been approved by the National Council for Clinical Establishments and it was used as an input for finalizing standards of laboratories by the National council.” In the unnamed document on diagnostic laboratory available at CEA website, there is no mention of medical M.Sc degree in any role under the section IV Human resource.

2. Several individuals had filed the grievance with Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System that since M.Sc and Ph.D qualification holders are designated as authorized signatories for clinical lab reports by NABL, CEA guidelines should do the same. Instead of taking up the issue sympathetically and on merit, the MoHFW (vide a letter from Mr. Amit Biswas, Under-Secretary, MoHFW, dated 26/12/2016) has 'almost questioned' NABL on doing so and sought its reply. In that letter MoHFW stated, "Attention is invited to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 15 of IMC Act, 1956 which interalia provides no person other than a doctor having qualification recognized by Medical Council of India and registered with Medical Council of India/State Medical Council(s) is allowed to practice modern system of medicine or surgery or sign a clinical laboratory report." However, the said clause & sub-section of the said section 15 of IMC Act mentions the following, "shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law t be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner". There is no mention of diagnostic report in the clause; is the ministry deliberately misinterpreting and misguiding the clause to extend the interpretation to diagnostic laboratory report? In the same letter, the Mr. Amit Biswas mentioned  'practice of medicine' citing the aforementioned rule. One can only wonder how the officer took the liberty of interpreting 'laboratory practice' as a 'practice of medicine'.

Further, attention is drawn to the following sentences in this legal document: "Laboratory testing has never been, and is not now, the practice of medicine. Clinical laboratories provide relevant information as a tool for the physician to use, but laboratory tests themselves are not the practice of medicine. It is the act of the physician in diagnosing and treating the patient by using all available information and tools at his disposal that is the practice of medicine."

In its reply to MoHFW, NABL has clarified that the eligibility guidelines for laboratory signatory is pending approval by MCI and that its guidelines would be suitably modified as per MCI's reply. The executive committee of MCI, in a meeting held on 31-01-2005 and attended by the members of the Adhoc Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the following, "M.Sc. (Medical Biochemistry) with or without Ph.D is entitled to independently or solely sign a medical Biochemistry report in a clinical laboratory". Since MCI has already approved this in 2005, will it backtrack on it now? Will that not be a contempt of the SC appointed Adhoc committee's approval?

3. National Medical M.Sc Teachers' Association (NMMTA) has filed a writ petition in the honourable Karnataka High Court on 26/07/2016 against the guidelines of the CEA.

Update 20-03-2017
The National M.Sc Medical Teachers' Association (NMMTA) held a protest event at Jantar Mantar, Delhi on 20th March, 2017 against the discriminatory attitude and policies of the MoHFW. The dharna and procession were followed up with the submission of a memorandum to the health minister and a press conference. The details of the event and media coverage is available here: https://medicalmsc.org/activities/delhichalo/

Update: 12-05-2017
On 5th May, 2017 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare published a draft of rules with respect to diagnostic laboratories under the Clinical Establishment Act and sought public suggestions or objections within 45 days. The draft is available here: http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/175803.pdf

Despite all the opposition since it first asked for a similar feedback in 2014, medical M.Sc degree has still been left out for the roles of Technical Head of Laboratory or  Specialist or Signatories for all the three categories of laboratories. This clearly indicates that the government has NO intention of doing justice to biomedical scientists and that the notice is just a mandatory procedure.

By publishing in the gazette, the government wants to legitimize the discriminatory rules, all this when the case against it on this issue is ongoing in the court.

10 comments:

sahil said...

You wrote my heart here.
1_ when there were no doctors to do the lab work they utilized mscs and now many doctors are talking those courses they forgot their need.
2-_ all the policy makers take us as threats. So they sideline mscs.
3- let it be competency not qualification
3- why would a md seat n plate a culture or centrifuge a sample when there's crowd dying without doctor. Leave labs to these pro scientists and let doctors save patients.

Unknown said...

A fresh MD Microbiology/Biochemistry is not competent to run the department independently, they also learn with experience. There are people with MSc Microbiology/Biochemistry qualification successfully running the depts from 15-20 years, some of them even trains the MD doctors, now would all these becomes jobless n incompetent?

Unknown said...


MD in a clinical/surgical course where the doctor has to examine the patient physically and prescribed medicines for treatment or perform a surgery would be a better option and will be of complete justification to their 5 years of MBBS degree.

Unknown said...

Not only M.sc from Medical colleges are competent ..A M.Sc from non medical university like M.sc in clinical microbiology/medical microbiology/microbiology are also equally competent because the curriculum if these universities are also as same as health universities.. These kind of courses require a compulsory internship from Medical hospital also..

Unknown said...

Sir we should fix an appointment with PM and discuss matter with him

Amar Nag said...

Now is there any chance for us to stop this from implementation.
If so what we have to do..
Please include that discussion as well.

Unknown said...

It is unfortunate. As msc also learnt the same thing as MD s. But .....A open letter to pm with the signature sheet may work

arth said...

Indian MBBS/MD live in pre-historic era, simply trying hard to keep their own little kingdom. Indian medical system invented MD Biochemistry so that their worthless doctors could get jobs. Its a course where a blind leads another blind. In the absence of any research culture, MD Biochemistry are no better than technicians. They study from an Indian author Vasudevan(LOL) and their best is Harper. This is their world of biochemistry. Their super heroes publish in Indian journals on lead and cadmium. Scientists would have never even heard of these journals. Their poverty in Biochemistry is making everyone pay now. Genetics, immunology, developmental biology, all is supposed to be taught by biochemistry faculty. However these depts. are populated by morons called MD Biochemistry. Hence you can safely say goodbye to progress in Indian medical science. Oncologists flounder when it comes to targeted therapy as they were taught the basics of DNA by MD biochemists aka morons.

Unknown said...

Cent percent correct and fact...the unconstitutional bias towards mscs is nothing but a commercial decision and really holds no value in front of apex bodies like ILAC and CAP....
Its just disrespect of science and ability...
By this means they also prove that a person trained and learned and certified qualified as msc medical from the same department same institute is not eligible then how come an MD qualified from same department becomes eligible to sign report...??? That means they are also not eligible to sign report...they also are not trained properly....like msc...

Unknown said...

First of all everyone should know that MSc medical courses are held in medical colleges...the same university provides the degree to MSc Phd as well as to mbbs or MD. And these courses have been started in medical colleges only... Then why this didn't come in mind that time that the Msc person will not be eligible for registration in mci or will not be authority for signing the lab reports...it is simple that msc phd persons are been used as and when required... Why and how the courses start in the university and college.. Even govt medical college when they know they will not be able to provide even recognition of the most important council... Why the hell they have been playing with the future of students and the medical MSc phd persons suffer from so much mental harrasement every time...