A recent article published in Times of India,
entitled, "Docs Market Themselves with Fancy Degrees that Authorities say
are Invalid," quite rightly condemns a certain form of quackery but does
not address a far more dangerous form of quackery which masquerades as
legitimate medicine.
I heartily agree with the author that quackery
should not be tolerated.
However, the term quack is highly clichéd and
has lost its actual meaning through abuse. I feel we should desist from incorrect
usage.
Having worked for 15 years in various streams
of healthcare practices across the globe, I believe that labeling ALL doctors
whose degrees are not recognized in India as quacks is unfair! There are
several doctors with valid degrees obtained abroad, who practice legitimate
branches of medicine not currently available in India. Just because the Indian
medical system does not recognize these degrees does not make them quacks.
There is a strong movement in the West
(especially in the UK) to discredit Homoeopathy as quackery. Would India then
discredit all Indian Homoeopathists as quacks, even those with certified
degrees?
Would it be fair to address a qualified
Ayurvedic doctor a quack in a western country, just because his degree is not
recognized there?
The article mocks a doctor who "practices Siddha medicine which he
learned not from a reputed institute, but from his uncle".
While the above tongue-in-cheek statement
sounds justified, it is in fact erroneous.
It is only recently that we have copied the
western system of medical education and artificially created degree programs
for our native medicines. Ask any traditional Indian doctor and he will tell
you that it takes years to become a skilled practitioner of Siddha, Ayurveda,
etc...and this intricate system cannot be crammed into 4 or 5 years in a
classroom.
All our indigenous forms of medicine such as
Ayurveda and Siddha have been passed on for thousands of years from guru to
shishya. So learning from one's uncle or grandfather (provided they are skilled
practitioners) is actually the CORRECT way to learn the tradition of Siddha and
should not be ridiculed. In fact, what we need to examine in these branches of
medicine is NOT the certificate, but the KNOWLEDGE and SKILL of the doctor.
This seems to be a forgotten priority in the Indian medical education system!
Let us not ape the West by following their
system of medical education which may be suitable for allopathic education but
not necessarily for our traditional systems. By moving to western-style degree
programs we have clearly traded quality for quantity.
Why not let both approaches be recognized by
the government (Degree Programs and Guru/Sishya).
And lastly, we need to look at another,
(possibly uglier form of quackery), which does not seem to draw much attention.
There is a large group of quacks who go
unchallenged in India. I call this group "Certified Quacks".
I am of course referring to those MBBS
doctors who score low marks at the high school level, buy their way into
medical colleges and though they have no aptitude for medicine, are allowed to practice
legally because they have "Valid Degrees".
These doctors I believe pose a far greater
threat to the public than the alleged "quacks" cited in the article.
Here's why...
While the alleged "quacks" practice
non-invasive therapies, the "Certified Quacks"
·
Practice invasive treatments
(even surgery) causing far more harm (horror stories abound)
·
Prescribe potent drugs even
though they are incompetent
·
Give the patient a
false-sense of security because they have "Valid Degrees"
If TOI's investigation did chip deeper into the iceberg, they would also find, a long list of “real” doctors
in corporate hospitals, who generously prescribe unwarranted tests and surgical procedures, to propitiate the management. Quackery and corruption exist in all branches of Indian medicine, not only at the practitioner level, but also at the university and medical board levels.
Punishing a few individuals who comprise a
very small part of the problem while giving the majority wrongdoers a free ride
is either a hypocritical double standard or willful negligence.
In conclusion, we need to address two
important issues:
1.
Move government and public
opinion to get our health authorities to revise our archaic laws such as Indian
Medical Degrees Act 1916, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, Indian Medical
Council Act 1954 in order to recognize doctors with overseas degrees in
branches of medicine which are not covered by our current laws.
By stubbornly holding onto
old laws, we are depriving the public of effective branches of medicine such as
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Energy
Medicine, and many, many more.
2. Create public awareness on how to discriminate between "Real" doctors and Certified Quacks"!