It's all about securing jobs and filling empty PG seats under the guise of prescribing quality

The current landscape of medical education in India has been marked by a series of challenges and controversies, particularly concerning the roles and actions of the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Union Government, and the petitioner association, the National M.Sc Medical Teachers’ Association (NMMTA). These issues have raised concerns about the fairness, transparency, and inclusivity of the system, as well as the balance between medical and non-medical professionals.

Roles of the NMC:

The NMC, as the regulator of medical education, holds significant responsibilities. It is empowered to set standards and guidelines, making it essential for them to engage in discussions and gather feedback from stakeholders while framing these standards. Additionally, the NMC is expected to follow prescribed quorum procedures when framing guidelines or adopting resolutions. Moreover, it should operate under the guidance and policies set by the Union Government and adhere to the norms established by international bodies such as the World Federation of Medical Education. The NMC should ideally maintain a bipartisan, fair, transparent, and inclusive approach in its practices and not let policies be dictated by personal or collective pride or prejudices.

Roles of the Union Government:

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) plays a pivotal role in setting the overarching policies for medical education and directs the NMC to follow these policies. The Union Government holds the authority to ask the NMC to amend or withdraw issued guidelines as needed.

Roles of the Petitioner Association (NMMTA):

The NMMTA serves as a vital entity in safeguarding the interests of its members, who are dedicated educators and professionals with non-medical backgrounds. They hold medical M.Sc postgraduate degrees in specialized fields such as Anatomy, Biochemistry, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Microbiology, often accompanied by Ph.D. qualifications. The association can file feedback on guidelines or appeals with the NMC or the MoHFW and seek legal remedies.

Current Issues:

One of the key issues that have emerged is the association of non-clinical medicos lobbying with the Medical Council of India (MCI) and later with the NMC to exclude non-medical teachers from the medical education system. Initially, the MCI proposed to amend the guidelines, reducing the permissible percentage for non-medical teachers to 15%. The Ministry of Health intervened, leading to the proposal's abandonment. However, the association continued to lobby with the NMC, which resulted in alterations to the guidelines.

The NMMTA appealed to the NMC, but their appeal was rejected. Subsequently, they filed a second appeal, leading to the Union Ministry directing the NMC to revert to the previous norms. However, the NMC submitted an affidavit agreeing to comply and later defied the ministry's directives.

The reasons behind the NMC's actions are a combination of explicit and implicit factors. Explicitly, the introduction of Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) with horizontal and vertical integrations, coupled with the perceived availability of sufficient medical teachers, served as reasons for the changes. Implicitly, these actions are seen as an attempt to create job opportunities for medical professionals at the expense of non-medical candidates and to fill the vacant MD seats in non-clinical subjects, which have historically been undersubscribed.

Several thousand non-clinical MD seats in non-clinical subjects remain vacant each year, leading to significant revenue loss for medical colleges. One hypothesis suggests that medical colleges tend to retain pricey clinical seats and offer non-clinical seats to government quotas to fulfill their obligations. However, non-clinical subjects remain unpopular among MBBS graduates, who overwhelmingly prefer clinical practice. Non-clinical subjects are often pursued out of desperation after failing to secure clinical seats, and competition from non-medical candidates adds to the complexity.

Despite the persistent vacancies in PG seats in non-clinical subjects, hundreds of candidates continue to enroll in these courses. As they cannot practice in any clinical specialty, they rely on teaching positions for employment. Consequently, the NMC has taken it upon itself to disqualify non-medical candidates and provide jobs to medical graduates.

The association of non-clinical medicos and the subsequent framing of guidelines by the NMC appear to be primarily motivated by facilitating jobs and filling vacant MD seats, all under the guise of a new curriculum and syllabus. Global norms set by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME) advocate for a balance between medical and non-medical faculties, yet the NMC seems to be disregarding these norms to favor its own members. The NMC is increasingly resembling an association of doctors, akin to the Indian Medical Association. The original draft of the NMC Act proposed that only 60% of its members would be doctors, but this ratio was changed to grant doctors full control. In contrast, the regulatory body of the United Kingdom includes 50% laypersons, a practice that helps keep a check on doctors' self-interests. It is no secret that doctors may sometimes prioritize their self-interests and attempt to disregard any unethical practice (as discussed in detail in this Times of India article: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/staying-alive/how-docs-have-fought-to-keep-pharma-funding-going/).

The NMC may assert that its decisions align with general feedback received from the public. However, it is essential to note that the medical community, encompassing both clinical and non-clinical professionals, has collectively advocated for the exclusion of non-medical individuals. Given the substantial majority held by medical professionals in this feedback, it is evident that it may be inherently biased. In situations of conflict of interest, doctors tend to prioritize their own interests, indicative of an abuse of the dominant position. 

While the NMC seems to operate as 'of the doctors, by the doctors, and for the doctors,' the Union Government has a broader responsibility to accommodate all stakeholders and protect everyone's interests. Therefore, it is justifiable for the Union Government to direct the NMC to revert to the old guidelines, ensuring a fair and balanced representation of medical and non-medical professionals. It is essential to note that when there is a conflict of interest, doctors often tend to favor themselves. This apparent abuse of dominant position involves changing yardsticks, shifting goalposts, and amending rules to portray one group as eligible and another as ineligible, all to promote self-interests.

In conclusion, the current challenges and controversies surrounding Indian medical education call for a balanced and fair approach that upholds the principles of inclusivity and transparency. The struggle for balance between medical and non-medical professionals is a critical issue that requires careful consideration and a commitment to providing quality education and opportunities for all stakeholders.